Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 8

< January 7	January 9 >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adherin

From speedy: "csd-g3, this page was created by an account with nothing but vandalism edits in his history. The original text of the page was changed into something completely different by him after the first 15 minutes of its existence. See talk page for a longer explanation by User:BorisTM about the subject." (I have no idea what is going on) r3m0t ^talk 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete - Not even a stub, few hits on google, delete until people actually write an article for it --Joewithajay 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, I tagged it with that. I find it very unlikely that someone started an article about random nonsense, then got a change of heart and learned molecular biology in 15 minutes. Someone who should know something about the subject left a lengthy note on the article's talk page (Talk:Adherin) detailing how this is, indeed, nonsense and I don't think it's very purposeful to waste more of everyone's time on any unreferenced claims by a random vandal. - Bobet 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I've restored your speedy tag that was missing during the course of the revert. Just in case, am voting here. --BACbKA 00:36, 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 NSL E _(T+C) 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of The Worlds Most Evil

POV list. Punkmorten 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For my Delete vote I obviously belong on this POV list :-) FredOrAlive
Delete as per nom, also unencyclopaedic. --BACbKA 00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Rework - If "Discovery Civilisation" can be explained / linked and the page moved to List of Discovery Civilisation's Most Evil Documentaries then it becomes NPOV, so Keep, otherwise Delete. -- SGBailey 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless this documentary series is extremely notable or well known. - Haukur 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per bacbka. Also, I'm pretty sure there should be more from 1500-2000 on there considering the boy band era in the 90s.... DrIdiot 00:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article is referring to a Discovery Channel documentary series on what that network considered to be civilization's most evil people. The series itself is not notable and its episode list is the singular POV of the Discovery Channel. Not encyclopaedic. -- Shinmawa 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Shinmawa. --Aaron 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. — Seven Days » talk 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. per nom. --Edcolins 08:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unencyclopaedic, arbitrary, POV, listcruft and (worst of all) includes a grocer's apostrophe, which should be a capital offence in an encyclopaedia. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Shinmawa, or else expand to include boy bands as per DrIdiot. -- Dragonfiend 18:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete.POV, listcruft and unencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ ε 21:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Cyberevil 15:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, singular POV. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not useful and POV as written. I also thought a word was missing: World's Most Evil What? (people in this case). Turnstep 20:01, 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 merge into Capitalism Magazine. - ulayiti (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marc Da Cunha

600+ Google But notice almost every page is a Wikipedia mirror. Unverifiable, maybe vanity. delete

Delete Nothing beyond the mention on the magazine wiki article, maybe vanity. --BACbKA 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Lotsofissues 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Since the 23rd of September, 2004, Da Cunha has been listed as upkeeping Capitalism magazine. His name does not appear on the website [www.capmag.com], but one and a quarter years is a long time between two supposed pieces of vanity. I think that Cunha is the editor, although there is no evidence to prove that he is or that he is not. My inkling is that it was written by someone filling in the url gap on the capmag article. However, this article, in its current state, does not show much evidence of notability, despite the magazine's being notable. I would say delete, unless someone can pull something out of the hat showing that da Cunha is more than some editor, or at least, facts about the guy's life and thought. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]]
~~Slow delete~~. We don't want to fall victim to systemic bias but until something verifiable shows up we have little choice but to delete. Let it linger for a while before closing just in case. - Haukur 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Merge&Redirect sounds like a plan. - Haukur 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge what little there is into Capitalism Magazine. --zenohockey 06:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 10:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge/redirect Capitalism Magazine CDC (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete not notable. --Revolución (talk) 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not notable. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 20:37, 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. NSL E _(T+C) 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrogen party

370 Google, most have nothing to do with this band. delete

Lotsofissues 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Could arguably be speedied since it only very vaguely asserts notability. - Haukur 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete- YANNB Reyk 00:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn band DrIdiot 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Insufficient notability, looks like it could be a speedy delete. --Dakota ~ ε 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Agree on the speedy. --Aaron 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Band does not meet criteria on WP:MUSIC. 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I wasn't invited :( Sceptr e ^(Talk) 14:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete even though they use a Theremin, one of my favourite instruments. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete no assertion of and no apparent notability. --kingboyk 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete as per WP:MUSIC. Dustimagic 19:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
A7 Speedy. Band vanity. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Vanity. Blnguyen 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn-band, vanity. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:37, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three cards and a top hat

I couldn't decide whether to categorize this or nominate it for deletion, so I've done both. I guess it's, what... original research? Melchoir 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete- this is a riddle, not an encyclopedia entry. Seems to be the Monty Hall problem in disguise. Reyk 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It would probably be classed under original research, but 'unoriginal riddle' would be more fitting. Delete. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]]
Comment. I've heard this before, it may be reasonably well known. I found one site which had a description of the puzzle and added the link to the article. But obviously it is no great tragedy if this is deleted since the article is quite short and doesn't establish context, source or notability. - Haukur 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Now that Heraclesprogeny has made a great article out of this we're of course keeping it somewhere :) Maybe somewhere on Wikibooks would ultimately be the best place? But if no-one can find the perfect home for it elsewhere then let's just keep it here. - Haukur 15:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Guess I was a bit too hasty. Having now actually read through it I have to say that I'm not convinced that it's quite correct :) The point of the example is that the scam artist can always offer you the same bet regardless of the colour of the card he flips up. But he'll offer you a win in the cases where the two-coloured card is the one selected. Since the odds are 2/3 that the card is actually single-coloured you only have a 1/3 chance of winning. I think :) - Haukur 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Reyk DrIdiot 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see an obvious isomorphism to Monty Hall, although judging from the discussion Haukur found, the logical traps are similar. I considered a redirect, but it just seemed dishonest. Melchoir 01:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
MergeThis is a fairly standard example used in probability theory to demonstrate some fundamental concepts, like a riddle because of its relatively unintuitive results, but not quite a riddle. I have spend a couple of hours revising it and think it would make a great example in the section on probability axioms or probability theory.Heraclesprogeny 15:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, this changes everything. Heraclesprogeny, I've only skimmed the new article, but it looks like great writing! Not encyclopedic style, but that might be fixable. Did you draw on any references for the article? Melchoir 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Great improvement. Well done Heraclesprogeny! Though the prose may be original, neither the question, nor the logic meet the meaning of original research. Obina 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

~~Weak delete~~. It's a nice example, but I'm afraid it's not encyclopaedic enough. I'm all in favour of short examples to explain key concepts, but this is a bit too long and more text book material. By the way, I didn't read and think it over carefully but it seems to me the conclusion is wrong. I think that if a card is chosen at random, and then either side is also chosen at random, and this side turns out to be green, then the probability of the chosen card to be the doubly-green one is 2/3, but the article says it's 1/2. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Changed vote from weak delete to delete because it has no references, making it original research, as pointed out by Melchoir. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstain. Changing again as the article is still being edited and some clues to references have been found (see talk page). I still think that it is not encyclopaedic enough, but it's approaching the gray area so I don't feel comfortable deleting it while it is being worked on. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 10:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Delete~~ as original research (not to mention wrong). Sorry, Heraclesprogeny, but I've read it through and I can't imagine that you found a reference that would make the claim "Thus, there are only two possible cards, double green-faced or purple/green-faced, and each has an equally likely probability of being the one you chose". The whole point of the example is that this argument doesn't work. Melchoir 19:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Hmm Haukur suggests the artle (newly written) is now incorrect. Perhaps he is right. But this seems a discussion for the talk page, and helpful to get right. This seems a basis to improve and fix the article, and not a basis to delete. And meanwhile, I shall not bet my salary! Don't know who is right. ~~But I remain in the 'keep' camp.~~Obina 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with fixing the article, except that we are not in the business of doing our own mathematics around here. Ideally someone would come up with a reference, but pending that, it's all just original research. I feel justified in beating this dead horse not just because it's policy, but because the current article is a cautionary example of what can happen when even well-meaning, intelligent, and thoughtful contributors ignore that policy. Melchoir 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You all make valid points. When writing, I was afraid it was lengthy and a bit too "text book", and I didn't include any refs. because, at the time of writing, I wasn't using any. This is all learnt material and not original in any way, but I couldn't produce any references pertaining to the exact question. Any first-year text would do as reference for the rest. I thought this to be a good example because it illustrates so many fundamental and often overlooked points. Incidentally, I have attached a short paragraph at the bottom of the article for those who still have questions about the answer. I will try to dig up some references soon, but understand if it must be deleted. Thank you for your patience as this is my first effort at contributing to this valuable resource. Heraclesprogeny 12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was still quite the entrance! Happy editing! Melchoir 19:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm sorry to change my vote. WP:NOR makes the right thing to do clear, whatever we all think of the new version.Obina 12:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It's been stated the article is wrong, but it's better to say it's ambiguous. No mention is made of whether the person will offer the same bet if another color shows. If the same bet is made irregardless of color (then modulo other possible ambiguities), then obviously the bet is not 50/50 as stated, since 2/3 of the time you will get a card with both sides the same color. This is similar to the "What are the odds that the other child is also a boy" question (or whatever that is called). That one is much more famous by the way, having been popularized by Martin Gardner, Marilyn Vos Savant, etc, with plenty of literature and references. --C S (Talk) 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What the host would have done if the other color had shown is an interesting thought experiment, but it doesn't affect the answer to the question, which is quite unambiguous. Melchoir 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. If the host offers the bet only when one color shows, then it's 50/50, but if the host offers the bet always, then you should bet the other side is the same color. The situation is ambiguous precisely because we are not told the host's intentions. And the intentions do make a big difference. If for some reason, you don't believe me, you can try repeated trials yourself and see: draw a card out and then guess the opposite color shown. Do this, say, 25 times. Now try this again (same number of times) but always guess the same color as shown. Now finally, start over again but every time you draw a card and see purple, put it back in the hat, shake it up, and try it again until you see green. Then guess your color (it doesn't matter, since now it is even odds). --C S (Talk) 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you weren't a mathematician I would just give up right now, but perhaps there is hope. Forget about the host. We draw from the hat a large number of times. True or false: of the draws when we see red, 2/3 of the time, the other side is red. Melchoir 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you mean green or purple, right? Your true false question shows that you're not getting the point of my comments - that it's important to state the host's intentions. This is quite standard fare. --C S (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am intentionally asking a different question. Melchoir 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. In my previous response, I somehow assumed that when drawing a green/purple card, you would draaw it showing green. So your point is that when the host only offers the bet when green is shown, 2/3 of the time the other side is green. Well, ok. I withdraw my previous responses. --C S (Talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Um... something like that, yes. Sure! Melchoir 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep (possibly including Rename and Improve.) It's similar to the Monty Hall problem, but not identical, and is in the probabilitic literature. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have a reference, by all means go nuts! I would love to see an article here. However, I suspect you'll have to start from scratch, no offense to anyone. Melchoir 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm again moving into keep now that the article has been vastly improved. The external links help too. - Haukur 00:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And who would have thought that this near-speediable little text dump would prove so fertile? :) - Haukur 00:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep per Arthur Rubin's pledge to continue improving. It's got a long way to go all around, but this is the right direction. Melchoir 07:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Yes I'm changing my vote again, too. Shows the process works. The version as of now, with input form several editors, has clear references, and we don't need to debate 1/2 versus 2/3 as editors. The references quoted are clear that the answer is 2/3. We are quoting their answer, not our opinions, per WP:NOR.Any editor with a different view will need to provide references to justify including this view. And yes there is an active talk on the discussion page - let's take "improving it" discussions there.Obina 11:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, as a vastly improved article. Similarly to the Monty Hall problem, 2/3 is correct. It seems illogical at first, but is true. Ral315 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep an excellent article and an asset to Wikipedia ➥the Epopt 15:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thanks for the corrections. Must say I'm a little embarrassed that I made such an obvious mistake. When I saw the question and saw it was up for deletion I felt it would be a shame to lose such a nice example, at least I was right on that! By the way, I changed the colours from the original "white and red faces" because some people read much more into these things than they should. Cheers. Heraclesprogeny 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep based upon the upcoming improvements. Themusicking 01:54, 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 NSL E _(T+C) 01:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuntonovich

neologism which even the profanaty-mad web only has eight times accrding to google. and seven of them are on the same webforum. BL kiss the lizard 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per non, also vanity (he mentions his name) DrIdiot 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for dictionary definitions of neologisms used by almost no-one :) - Haukur 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Uggh. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Second the "Uggh" Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism.Obina 13:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nonsense protologism. And any article on a derogatory term which cannot even spell derogatory correctly is clearly off to a bad start... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. BTW, who is Hirich Himler :) Cactus.man ✍ 15:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
DeleteNeologism, vanity (inserted own name) pov concerning historical figures (Hitler and possibly Heinrich Himmler mispelled as Hirich Himler) .--Dakota ~ ε 19:40, 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

[edit] Deals on Wheels

not what you think it is. no, this is a used car lot. does that make it notable, hmm? BL kiss the lizard 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete- ad. Reyk 00:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn dealership DrIdiot 00:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Article makes no attempt to establish notability. - Haukur 00:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. If you'll keep this, then every world company will deserve an article! --Angelo 00:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unless a case can be made for why this car dealership is notable. Crunch 01:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - I thought we needed atleast one legitimate article on wheels. ;) --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 01:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Meals on Wheels? --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Move to Deals to undo Willy's vandalism. Then delete. But first do the move; we want it in the move log. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 02:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - By what it is, I would gather that the name of the company is actually "Deals on Wheels," and this is not a Willy-vandalized article. Doesn't make it not worthy of being Deleted, however. - Cuivienen 03:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Yes, and their (empty) website is at http://www.lous-dealsonwheels.com/ . --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete profoundly anonymous used-car lot created by User:Phroziac, who should know better. There is a possibly notable website by this name, but this is not it. This has not been Willied although "Deals on Wheels ON WHEELS!!! would be amusing :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Darn Guy, you beat me to the joke. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. wow. Dustimagic 19:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete , just advertising a normal business. Blnguyen 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Joann e B 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podfomercial

Spammy neologism. Look it up and you'll know what I mean. -- Perfecto 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nooby god 01:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, christ, someone make all the 'pod' portmanteaus speedyable, already! Obli (Talk) 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Dharmabum420 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aaron 03:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as podcruft and ibollocks Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Neologismcruft Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. It's a disgrace to the English language, to boot. --zenohockey 06:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete (mild) as per nomination --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete yet another podcruft neologism Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per non. Batmanand 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:57, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever

Delete - Possible hoax. No pages link to it, and a Google search for "Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever" yields three results, all related to this Wikipedia article. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete. "Winona Ryder as Tails", "Freddie Prinze Jr. as Heathcliff", and "Jean Claude Van Damme as Captain Planet"? Obvious hoax. Wisco 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Obvious hoax Smerk 05:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. No IMDb entry, likely hoax. Hoaxes are not eligable for speedy deletion. Movementarian 08:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete apparent hoax Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as apparent joke. Blnguyen 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Club it in the head like a baby seal, then delete. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:00, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natch

This is just a dictionary definition, and the word "natch" already has a Wiktionary entry. The article previously came up on Articles for deletion and was speedily deleted, although apparently not with the same content. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Nick Douglas 07:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, as it's already in Wiktionary, natch. — JIP | Talk 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete it is in Wiktionary Volvolus 22:38, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] REMAGINE

In my opinion this Company Article does NOT meet the standards of the WP:CORP and therefore should be deleted. Onthost 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil, be nice to newcomers, and, please, no personal attacks --Perfecto

I think that this page originally did not, follow the terms, but has since fixed the errors. I don't think this page should be removed. It no longer looks like an add. Stargate007 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- First off this AfD does not care if it reads like and AD or not. Secondly user Stargate007 is a possibly sockpuppet of user:Remagine. Note how they misspell "AD" as "ADD": From REMAGINE's Talk Page: "Note This article was updated to avoid conflict with it looking to much like an add. It should now correspond with wikipedias rules and regulations. Remagine 00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)" and the above comment of Stargate007: "It no longer looks like an add.".Onthost 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a developer at Remagine, certaintly not a sock puppet of user Remagine, although he is my good friend Ian. We would like to list our company history and clients here. I believe there is some informational value and we will make sure it conforms to wikipedia guidlines for corporate listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew.d.stone (talk • contribs)
- Please first read the WP:CORP then explain to us how your company meets this requirement. Also sign your posts with with ~s. Onthost 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Can you provide a link to WP:CORP please? I cannot find it, sorry. matthew.d.stone
    - WP:CORP is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CORP Onthost 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      - I would like to also note that Stargate007, matthew.d.stone and Remagine are either one of the same person or work together for this Remagine comapny and therefore contain a large bias in the comments. Onthost 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        Thank you, that was very helpful. I see your concerns, but I believe that Remagine meets the requirements of WP:CORP specifically because articles have been written about Remagine authored by entities other then Remagine itself. For example, the westner new england college wrote an article about the enterpreneurialship of the founders, and can be viewed here: [1]. I can also assure you that I am a completely different person then user Remagine, as you can tell by my other wikipedia entries. I'm not sure who Stargate007 is. Thank you, matthew.d.stone
        
        One University Newspaper article does not fullfill the nobility requirements, sorry! You need to show more proof, as in actual articles not just naming news papers and magazines. Onthost 02:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        There was also an article in the Springfield Republican which is not available online, unfortunately. I believe the above is a subjective call on Onthost's part. Can anyone explain exactly how WP:CORP is not satisfied by multiple articles written about Remagine?
        
        This was not taking from a university paper. It came from the Springfield Republican, the hard copy resides at that link. As I stated in the discussion page, the site has under gone a face lift as of Friday, it will take the next 3 days to complete at the same time I figured to make a wiki entry. If you want figures, I will post all of the data. Please read the discussion page, this has been going on all day.Remagine 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        First off you have shown no proof of these articles existing, and the only article you posted was from a university and was 3 pictures. You need to show that your company"has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." and as of yet you've not shown this. Onthost 03:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Without any mention of revenue figures, number of employees or customers, it's difficult to assert notability. The fact that most of the links on their website don't work leads me to believe it's a rather small operation. Owen× ☎ 02:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Update on issue The problem with the links was corrected, thanks for the feedback info. Looks like some of the site updates didn't process. Kenpo0110 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, getting a university award for existing makes this company less notable in my mind. More importantly, without any independent coverage, all the details in the article are utterly unverifiable. Delete. Melchoir 03:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Save: Did I mention that the company has a trademark with the US trade mark office ( Number 78690611)? Remagine 03:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Irrelvent since anyone can apply for a trademark. Onthost 03:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - To be fair, it's not completely irrelevant; I looked the trademark up and it consists of the word "REMAGINE". So there's at least one verifiable detail in the article: its title. Not enough, but still. Melchoir 03:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Well yes that is true that any one can have a trademark, anyone can have alot of things. It's a live trademark. Can I ask you something, why are you so angry onthost? So I have provided trademark proof, an article used in publication and a list of operations personal. What else is needed? Remagine 03:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Sources are needed. Where, for example, did the list of personnel come from? Melchoir 03:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRingess 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The Bio list has been updated, I have done everything asked. Remagine 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Except provide references, that is. Melchoir 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
SaveWow, this article has really changed. Stargate007 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Oops forgot to sign rodii 05:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Nothing about this article indicates anything notable or tangible. They can't even spell Massachusetts correctly. If they need Wikipedia so desperately to promote their company, that alone might be proof of the lack of a legitimate entity. Their "web presence," if you haven't checked it out, consists of all non-functioning links, a stock photo of the Springfield, Massachusetts City Hall, and contact information that consists of two phone numbers and a PO Box. Googling the companies in the client lists seems to indicate that most of these are Web sites they have designed for themselve or their friends. Some of them I can't find at all. Crunch 05:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Our offices do have a physical location at: 428 Belmont Ave Springfield, MA 01108.We prefer the P.O Box as a main mailing address. As for the google result, certain personal have been known to assist friends or family members with a web site, this is no surprise to me. I can assure you that our client listing is not made up of personal friends.Client Showcase Kenpo0110 03:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would like you to stop making edits to Wikipedia until you have nominated for deletion every article about a company or organization with a misspelled word, since that is obviously one of your criteria for notability. "Their web presence"...I don't know where to begin. Let's start with reading the previous discussion about it. Then show me where in WP:CORP it says that a web site is required for notability. Do not tell me that I am being incivil as I have called into question only your statements, not you. Unlike you, I made no ad hominem attacks against another, see your second sentence. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and per Crunch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It looks like User:Remagine has created Neohorizon which I've since listed for deleted and redirected here, since this is simply the prior company (an IRC chat network). I don't consider Neohorizon a particularly notable IRC network as well, so I'd vote to delete that as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable company. A check of their website (www.remagine.net) reveals a shell with no content. To paraphrase the website intro: "Lao-Tzu, a wise man, once said... 'A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.'" If they ever take more than a single step they may approach notability. Atrian 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, the company seems totally non-notable to me. Incidentally, i think Remagine (the album) should also be deleted. -Lanoitarus _^(talk) .:. 06:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per norm, also delete neohorizon.Onthost 06:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
1. We aren't voting on neohorizon here.
2. You were the one who normed this for deletion in the first place. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment The person behind the user name Remagine is a college student. As a fellow college student I can understand how he might not have a ton of time to juggle his business, his studies, his website, and the fact that the entire Wikipedia community has been biting him from the first minute he came here. The nomination by Onthost is, IMO, highly incivil. The fact that the nominator felt it necessary to back up the nomination with personal attacks on the article's creator for a typo makes me think that it was in bad faith, however much I agree that the article doesn't currently meet the requirements. The continued attacks regarding the state of their website disgust me. It has been explained in multiple places on site and to various concerned editors through email. What part of "working on it" don't you understand. It has no bearing on their notability. The fact that you all continue to harangue it shows me that you feel that the other arguments aren't strong enough. Argue the nomination on its own merits, not on totally unrelated facts. I currently agree with the words of the nomination if not the spirit. This article doesn't currently meet the requirements. However, I'm abstaining currently to give the article's creator time to add that which is missing. The conduct of some parties led the article's creator to email me, saying, "Everyone is ganging up on me." Remagine felt attacked and I believe that he was. I would like to remind everyone to be CIVIL. To paraphrase a Wikipedia policy: "Wikipede, a wise Wikipedia mascot, once said...'WP:DICK'WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: Exactly what personal attacks did I leave for him? All Ive ever said is his article is still an advertisement and quoted the sections I felt were advertisement material, said it was still not NPOV since a company insider is the one writing the article, and said that the company does not meet the nobility requirements stated in WP:CORP. Onthost 18:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Sorry, I misread your comment regarding add. I found the capitalization choices in your nomination to be questionable. I will also note that not being NPOV is not a criterion for deletion. Nor do I feel that it is impossible for someone to write an article which is NPOV on a subject they are deeply familiar with. You also seem to be on a personal crusade against this article given your high level of involvement. Not that I find anything wrong with sticking to your beliefs and continued watching of articles you have nominated for AFD, but fully 25% of your edits, at the time of my writing, are about the article in question, starting with it's nomination, or to related articles. You also placed a sock tag on User:Stargate007. I removed this as you provided no evidence. Please replace it using the EVIDENCE link (emphasis not mine) to link to your evidence. You have just over 100 edits, so I expect that this was an honest mistake. I will take OwenX's advice, as you have done, and chill out. This discussion no longer seems as vitriolic as it once did. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete for obvious reasons stated above Ashibaka tock 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, OwenX - everyone here, including WAvegetarian, needs to chill out. WP:CORP has been cited, and the company doesn't measure up. End of discussion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, with no malice. I have some empathy for the guy who created the page, and he's done a reasonably good job of cleaning it up, I just don't think it conforms to WP:CORP. I hope he does well and earns a place, but until then... - Dharmabum420 11:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Does not meet criteria in WP:CORP. That said perhaps a transwiki to Yellowikis is in order. Movementarian 12:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete can't find any evidence of public listing, no evidence of media coverage outside of Springfield, Mass., no evidence of meeting WP:CORP. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I've fixed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neohorizon to have its own AfD, rather than a redirect to here. Anyone who voted here on Neohorizon, please re-enter your vote there. Owen× ☎ 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, WP is not the Yellow Pages. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment My comments about the content and quality of the company's web site are important, I think, because the web site is presented as evidence for the significance of the company. If there is no substance on the site, it's difficult to judge whether the company is notable. Regarding the poor quality of the article, I think that's also relevant, because if it is indeed a notable company based in Massachusetts, I would expect they would be able to spell the name of the state corrrectly. Particularly since they claim to be in the communications field. Crunch 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per KillerChihuahua. --kingboyk 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Aaron 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per the recent addition of citations to the article. Please view them. From WP:CORP "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles..." The article includes multiple citations from mulitple newspapers. "Non-trivial published work" refers to the article, not the newspaper, as noted by the sentence quoted above. That means that this company meets the minimum criterion established in WP:CORP. Any delete nominations that do not address this, or simply reference the nom, must be called into question as they do not take into account that information meeting the criteria of WP:CORP has been added. There are only two ways around this: claim that WP:CORP is merelly proposed and therefore not worthy of citation (in which case the nomination is invalid), or that WP:CORP should be changed to keep what are non-notable companies (I feel that this is one) from getting in. Whether you like it or not, these four newspaper articles establish notability per WP:CORP. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as full citations weren't given before the creator was chased away thereby eliminating any hope of getting the full citations. Yes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't think it would have met notability guidelines. Of course, we'll never know now, will we?

Where are these multiple non-trivial published works? All I see are non-verifiable references to possible stories in the Springfield Republican which seem to be stories related to student-run businesses. The Grinspoon award was/is an award given to high school and undergrad college students across Western Massachusetts participating in business classes and/or undertaking entrepreneurial ventures. Wikipedia is not a place where we show off about our college extra-curriculur accomplishments, even if they do make a profit, and Remagine has yet to show financials, another way to meet the criteria of WP:CORP. Crunch 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Please, to all, give me a break with the whole spelling of Massachusetts. Are you telling me you never overlooked typos when typing an article really quickly? I also had to spend all my time defending myself in the discussion which caused me overlook items in the article. As you can see, Mass is in more than one location on the page. As for the website, I explained its situation numerous times in other posts, can you drop it?! If you want to see the web site prior to Friday’s new upgrade use a cache system or web archive site. Thanks Remagine 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment That misspelling was just one indication of the lack of viability of the article. Yes, everyone makes typos, of course (the article was, and still is, full of them). The point was that the combination of a poorly-written article, lack of evidence of anything particularly notable and nothing to meet the demands of WP:CORP were clear indications for my Delete vote. The point of this discussion is to determine whether to keep or delete the Remagine article and it's the article that's in question. I did not intend to make it personal. I was commenting solely on my viewing of the article, its substance and the claims it makes and trying to compare those to WP policy. Crunch 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep I found one of the articles the user was referring too; it’s the 8th item down on this link. News Page It looks like you can’t read the whole article unless you pay for it. TwilightCat 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/TwilightCat - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. As I pointed out above, they received an award along with a bunch of other students for entrepreneurship. It went in the newspaper. Many things are printed in newspapers. I don't believe this fits the definition of non-trivial. It's an award given to college students for work done in a college class or activity. Again, see WP:CORP. This is the last I'm going to say here on this. I'll put other comments, if any, on the article's Talk page. Crunch 20:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: "Many things are printed in newspapers." Indeed. Newspapers print lots of ads. --Aaron 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment : That article emphasized on the name REMAGINE and who it was made up of. At the time, we were the only established business that was making a profit to win this award. The CEO of monster.com was at the event to discus the award. You can see another reference to the News Letter here. News Letter. Take care. Remagine 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete No more notable than any of a number of non-notable companies. Paul 21:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment If this article is to be removed, then so should remagine. An AFD should be applied to that as well. Remagine 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If you feel that it should be deleted then start a AfD for it. If you require help doing it ask me on my talk page and i'll guide you through it, or go here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion. Onthost 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Comment: I don't understand the connection. Remagine, you're hurting your own cause here. Take a deep breath. If you want to be an entrepreneur, you have to have a thicker skin than this. rodii 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment I don't understand the connection either, however if he feels there is a reason to I will be more than happy to help him start the process, he is entilted to his opinion afterall. Onthost 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Comment I am not saying it in anger, no worries, I am just stating it. I own the trademark to the name REMAGINE and I feel that the other name in the listing shouldn’t be there anyways. My mark falls under the category in which there’s is listed. Remagine 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. Ifnord 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG; Movementarian's transwiki suggestion has merit. VT hawkeye_{talk to me} 08:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
www.Yellowikis.org welcomes REMAGINE.--Yellowikis Admin 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish them all the best in their new home :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Question How does this AfD get decided and when does it get decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onthost (talk • contribs) 00:35, January 10, 2006
- Answer After it has been up for debate for no less than 5 days an admin may come along, determine consensus and act out that consensus. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Onthost, please read the policy (Wikipedia:Deletion policy) and the procedures (Wikipedia:Guide to deletion) thoroughly before nominating further articles to AfD. If you do, I'm sure a lot of people here will appreciate it. -- Perfecto 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Agreed, doesn’t seem very fair too me. Kenpo0110 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Just cleaned up the article some more. Remagine 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  
  Given the number of delete votes, I would be surprised if this article were still here in a few days. If you really need to write about your company, you would be better advised to do it here or here. Otherwise you are honestly wasting your effort. Melchoir 04:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Remagine and User:Kenpo0110 have just left the project. One more newbie chased away. Kenpo was even a CVU member. Nice job. While it is possible that no one here violated policy or guidelines in their dealings with this issue, the combined effect was one that created a "hostile environment" so strong as to make him leave. He was excited about how Wikipedia worked. He had wanted to understand more about the project but got pulled into this ugly business about his adverticle. (Huh, I kinda like that neologism.) Back on point, it is instances like this where we need to step back and think about the public perception that we are giving. I was told a number of times to chill out, that no abuse or biting was occurring, and that I was overreacting. I guess I shouldn't have backed down so easily. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 10:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is a constant problem. A lot of people start by creating articles on themselves or their companies; AfDing them is the correct thing to do in terms of policy, but still looks like biting the newbies. This is sad. I have recently started to userfy such things and leave a nice note ont he user page, but even this is taken amiss by some. You can't win. In the end, my delete vote stands, and I support the statements of others even if they could have been more tactfully put. Lesson to learn: explain in detail on the Userpage of a new user who creates an article on themselevs, their firm, their club, whatever, why this is a bad idea. All of which takes time. Does anyone know of a nice tactful template? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

RfA! 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

A template would be extremely helpful IMO, I will voulanteer to start one if there isn't one already. Mike 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Responding at User Talk:Onthost - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

RfA! 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Template Proposal. Melchoir 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I just want to add here that I agree with JzG. I just get really pissed off when people leave the project over disputes and hostility, be it Essjay or a newbie. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Kenpo0110 may have put a CVU template on his user page, but his user contributions page shows no evidence of him ever reverting a single instance of vandalism. Indeed, it shows no evidence of him ever showing any concern about any article whatsoever except for REMAGINE. --Aaron 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I wasn't going to say it, but it's true! Melchoir 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I wasen't going to mention it either, plus Kenpo and Remagine were the same person. Mike 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note "One more newbie..." Also note that said person was busy trying to defend himself and this article and didn't really have a bunch of time to work on other things. The inlcusion of that on his userpage shows an interest in the project. I feel that the particulars of this case are not really the issue here anyway. I think that we should stop discussing this article or its contributors as it is going to be deleted and the user has left. What's more important is looking more broadly at what first impressions we give to new users. There is a very relevant story on the talk page of WP:BITE. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 23:14, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micropatrology

I believe this is a neologism based on the lack of Google hits it gets. The society which is mentioned in the article gets even fewer Google hits, many of which are from Wikipedia mirrors. While this is probably because the society became dormant in the 1980s, I don't think this is that notable. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep seems to be a good article to keep. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neologism with no evidence of widespread currency (~700 Google hits [2]). The major source for this term (other than add-it-yourself sites and Wiki mirrors) appears to be the "Worldwide Micropatrological Institute", which apparently exists mainly as a series of user pages on free hosting providers. Unless there are citations from reliable sources (and by that I do not mean redlinked academics) I'd say this was one man's crusade, and almost a protologism in that there is plenty of evidence of attempts to coin the term but precious little to show it actually being taken up. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and JzG's comments. What would really make me change my vote would be to see a university or college with a department or even a course with this topic. Sadly, I can find none. Ifnord 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom & Guy. -- JLaTondre 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
STRONG KEEP Micropatrology IS a reality! Stop the witch-hunt! Claudre 23:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malos Cantores

Its hard for me to determine the notability of this group because I don't speak italian, but it looks like they don't meet WP:MUSIC. They have only one release, and only get 900 google hits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep. WP:MUSIC is not set in stone, and 900+ Google hits seems ok for a non-English band. Would like to see them have more than one release, though - that'd make mine a strong keep. Since we'll have to wait at least a year, though, this is a weak keep for now. Johnleemk | Talk 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 03:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. They've been on BBC Radio 3, which is good enough for me. I've heard of Sa Razza. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:04, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dominguez

Delete. Non-notable. Searching for subject in Google didn't bring up a hit in the first 50 entries at least. His iMDB entry is also largely self-created, and does not list any of the movies or television appearances mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The movies listed on iMDB are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The two entries on iMDB list are suspect, as it lists him as a writer at age 2 (of a small film) and a director at age 10 (of a film with no votes). In addition, birth year is different on iMDB. - Dharmabum420 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete clear vanity. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Aaron 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not that famous. --Eeee 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't Delete Richard Dominguez is the greatest and should be left on wikipedia. Fizz Jason 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. BTW he editor who started the article goes by the same name per the edit history. Not notable enough yet. Vanity.--Dakota ~ ε 23:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Proof! We want proof, the people cried! -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:07, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of North Korean websites

Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Perfecto 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I think the author misunderstood the RecentChanges feature. Perfecto 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, no web directory. ~~An article about Internet access inside North Korea might be interesting.~~ Gazpacho 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- We already have Communications in North Korea. Gazpacho 02:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - they are not even links. -- RHaworth 07:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- under what criteria, RH? -- Perfecto 07:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - CSD A3 obviously - an article which consists just of external links. -- RHaworth 19:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. I don't see a reason for speedy deletion either. Movementarian 08:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Exactly right! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
If there really are so few N Korean websites then an interesting article is waiting to be written, but this isn't it. Delete because this one is just a web directory. --kingboyk 16:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 19:59, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North Korean websites banned in South Korea

Wikipedia is not a web directory. The list of URLs is a direct copy from another site. -- Perfecto 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge, minus the list, to National Security Law. Gazpacho 03:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, websites notable enough to be banned. Can't be that many North Korean websites in the first place. Kappa 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete worth a mention in in National Security Law as per Gazpacho. Atrian 06:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with the same conditions as Gazpacho. Movementarian 08:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, the page was created (by me) according to wikipedia templates as in Category:Dynamic lists of banned things, such as Wikipedia:List of banned elements for Wikipedia usernames, but with the intention of informing the reader of which websites are banned, and NOT to have a directory of web links. The fact that the information the list lists happen to be URL's is perhaps a coincidence which could be interpreted as a web directory is actually not the case. Would it be a candidate for deletion still, had it only vaguely described the title of the website instead of a full URL? --Bjornar 13:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or merge but with the list, unless there is some actual reason for removing it. As Bjornar notes, this cannot be considered a web directory in any meaningful sense, thus does not violate WP:NOT. -- Visviva 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Gazpacho. Good call. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or Merge. Not a web directory, and a genuinely interesting article which IMHO is not out of place on Wikipedia. --kingboyk 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to National Security Law. Gazpacho 21:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This is one of few worthwhile lists. NickelShoe 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: since the nomination, National Security Law itself has been merged to the preexisting article National Security Act (South Korea). Gazpacho 06:58, 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, because merging requires keeping and the consensus is to merge this someplace. Merging isn't the job of AFD, though, so any interested party can feel free. —Cleared as filed. 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baroque metal

This article repeats both Power Metal and Symphonic Metal. It is well worded as such, but essentially is still a stub repeating a full length article. It also focuses on only certain bands of the form, coming across highly as somoene advertising their favourite bands. This article as such doesnt warrent an article, and a redirect should be left to the Power Metal article. Leyasu 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. When the article gets a distinction in which the difference is explained between baroque metal on one hand, and power metal and symphonic metal on the other, I'll change my vote. But for now, I don't think that it's possible since the styles seem pretty much the same thing.Soothing R 00:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In the same way that classical music and baroque music are "pretty much the same thing"??? :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.164 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: No, Baroque metal doesn't repeat classical music.Soothing R 10:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge into Symphonic metal. As much as it is fashionable to cull back on metal articles currently in the Wikipedia, the article is still well-written (bar the final paragraph in my opinion) and should not be totally overlooked either way. Hauser 07:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment How on Earth does this warrent being merged into Symphonic Metal when, A) Symphonic Metal is nothing alike this, and B)The article nominated for deletion repeats Power Metal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)

Merge. I'm with Hauser on this one. Rhapsody (baroque) is the same as Stratovarius (symphonic) to my ears. It's just proving a point. Perhaps, merge, then redirect, change the first paragraph of Symphonic Metal to acknoledge Baroque Metal? - CorbinSimpson 10:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Read both the Symphonic Metal and Power Metal articles. Also note that Stratovarius and Rhapsody are both commonly known as Symphonic Power Metal which is mentioned on the Symphonic Metal article. When suggesting to merge, it is normally a good idea to merge pages that have relevance to each other, and are not mostly void of each other. Leyasu 16:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: As a grammar nazi, I have to note that Stratovarius is probably what Leyasu was meaning to link to... - CorbinSimpson 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) All fixed now!!! - CorbinSimpson 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge per Hauser, and somebody take the entire metal fan community out and shake them until they can come up with a set of agreed objective genres instead of the endless stream of "Reformed flower power thrash death symphonic badly played metal" nonsense genres with one band each. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I still expect a reason as to why merge into Symphonic Metal and not Power Metal, when the article being merged repeats power metal and is completely unrelated to Symphonic Metal's article. Leyasu 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a derivative of Symphonic Metal, IIRC. Merge WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Take from the Baroque Metal article:

Power metal totally differs from 1970s metal styles, since it adds important elements of depth, classical arrangements, complex scores and intrincated melodies. Whereas most genres of metal focus largely on personal experience, historical incidents, social commentary, or other aspects of "real life", baroque metal always treats fantasy, aristocratic, castles, battles and kings themes.

It actually calls itself Power Metal, which shows it is not a form of Symphonic Metal, it is a repeat of the Power Metal article. At best, part of it could be conisdered to reference Symphonic Power Metal. Leyasu 23:13, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwise

Was tagged for speedy as "non-notable company" (and actually deleted, then listed at WP:DRV), but it's not a candidate. No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't meet criteria for notability. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom & tom (hey! it rhymes) Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Does not meet criteria. Kcordina 13:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Tom Harrison. Ifnord 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. Company is hardly non-notable, their product is a strong competitor with Microsoft NetMeeting. -- MisterHand 17:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Tom Harrison. Xoloz 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I've seen this company's training and conferencing products being used in a major corporate environment. I think the previous voters should try another Google search because I found many valid references. -- Netoholic @ 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: Seems notable: [3] [4][5] -- jaredwf 05:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

keep, jaredwf has established notability, no need to relist. Kappa 04:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per Tom --Eeee 06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Reads like an advert. Atrian 06:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Apparently notable—tone needs work, but it's definitely salvagable. --zenohockey 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. 130 employees, it's not Microsoft but it's no tiddler, and the Chairman of its board is Jim Manzi, former Chairman, President and CEO of Lotus Development Corporation, who steered the corporation from the debacle after losing the spreadsheet market to Microsoft towards its groupware (Lotus Notes) strategy. I see no good reason to delete this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep the Jim Manzi connection does it for me. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand - notability established by jaredwf Cactus.man ✍ 16:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above. MAZO 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Being the one who listed it for WP:DRV while on deletion patrol - I will say that while technically short of the corp standards here it may be notable in and of itself as a project of the notable people connected to it. Another idea is just to merge the article with Jim Manzi. Anyway, I'll let the community decide. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:07, 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 MERGE to Bliss Blood. Ichiro's relisting is not quite right, since we don't relist until consensus or we'd never get anywhere. -Splash^talk 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Delta Dreambox

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 55 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete NN Bands can be speedied under CSD A7 if no claim to notability is given Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or redirect per WP:NMG: [[A band is notable if it] Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Note the word extremely. That would surely mean a Bono, a John Lydon or a Paul McCartney. --kingboyk 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge content with Bliss Blood and leave a redirect. She survived VfD, but that does not men ever project she belongs to gets it's own article. WP:MUSIC states "note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." If they ever merit inclusion on thier own then remove the redirect and recreate the article. I have merged Bliss Blood's other projects into her article and will do so with this article if it survives AfD. Movementarian 14:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Movementarian. -- jaredwf 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nn or merge since Bliss Blood survived an AFd. --kingboyk 16:29, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanandaria

Delete - Article deals with a non-notable series of Daria fanfiction. Grimm 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Bjelleklang - talk 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Aaron 03:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I very much oppose the deletion of the Tanandaria wikipedia entry, as in its community Tanandaria is a very popular topic and the entry is still under construction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinella (talk • contribs)
- For some reason this comment was put in the article namespace... I am moving it here --W.marsh 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC):
I oppose deletion. With added information, this could be a valid article.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete, due to more deletes than keeps, and I'm not going to count them all Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Tendler

A woman who "marries" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO. Rob 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

keep, notable bizarre transpecies marriage/publicity stunt. 35,700 google hits and all kinds of press coverage. Kappa 04:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per Kappa Grimm 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Are there any stories of this person, before the "marriage". I'm somewhat concerned, that while there are ample news stories, the info on this person doesn't seem that reliable. She's repeatedly referred to as a millionaire, and as a rock concert promoter in various stories. But, I haven't found any pre-dolphin verification of this. It seems what we know about this, is only what she told tabloid reporters, who then got picked up by other reporters, but there may not be truly reliable facts on this person. I'm happy to be proven wrong on this. But, I just don't think reporters covering dolphin marriages worry to much about fact checking. I think, any decent bio seems to require one know reliablely what the occupation of the subject is, or was. --Rob 04:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Based on logic from Rob. This is not an expandable stub, and has no biographical information. So although the stunt may have been notable for 15 minutes, the person is not notable. This is not an archieve of weird news stories.Obina 04:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- So there's no reason that someone interested in unusual marriages or human-dolphin relations should be able to read about this? Kappa 06:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Kappa, the catch here is that it's not real. Saying you're marrying a dolphin, is like saying you're married to your job. Neither are legal marriages. The dolphin relationship has even less legal signficance. She loves the dolphin, how nice. Good for her. There are *huge* numbers of people who make expressions of love for animals (usually, but not only their pets), that, tooken out of context, sound rather bizarre, and amazing. I know somebody who calls her cats her "fury babies". Now, if the Weekly World News runs the story "Woman from Canada has cats as babies!", shall we make an article for her? --Rob 06:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    - This story has been reported more far more widely than a single tabloid, enough to make it signficant in fields of interspecies relationships or unusual marriage. Anyone writing an essay or thesis on either of these topics would be likely to mention this event. Kappa 19:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      - It's *printed* widely, but there's actually little reporting that's been done. It seems a local paper covered a human interest story, the tabloids caught wind, and a single AP story got picked up (one AP story counts as scores or hundreds in Google News). But almost nothing is reliable known about Tendler, beyond unverified statements she made after the ceremony. I find claims of her being a rock concert promoter, clothing maker, and millionaire, rather dubious (but a bio article is void without such details). Also, how could this be used for researching "interspecies relationships". This woman lives in London, and visits Israel 2 or 3 times a year. She doesn't live with the Dolphin, and won't live with the Dolphin. Despite some puriant speculation, there's no likely "marital relations" (at least not in the "biblical" sense). She concedes there's no legal signficance to this. A basic problem here is that the same news agencies (like AP) that would srutinize bio facts for an election candidate, don't much care for fact-checking on a Dolphin story. The fact people think any knowledge of "interspecies" relationships can be gained, shows the potential harm of this article. Gossip always has many sources, but few good ones. --Rob 19:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        I don't see how anyone could be harmed by an article which explains everything you have done. Her biography is irrevelant to the event, if she isn't notable for anything else the information should be merged somewhere else. Kappa 20:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Obina -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - A woman marrying a dolphin is pretty notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I would agree with you if she had a legal marriage. As that would be the first in world in history (that I know of). But, this is as "real" as two five year olds playing marriage. Also, as a bio article (not an event article) we need verifiable biographical information on this person. I suggest, despite the huge number of stories, we don't reliably know if she's a milliionaire, rock promoter, or what she is. We really only know what she told a couple tabloids (who's stories were repeated world wide). --Rob 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Rob and Obina. There is no encyclopaedic value of an article based on what is at best a skewed publicity stunt. Movementarian 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I'm SURE this has been up for AfD recently....dont have time to look into it at the moment, but if someone does that'd be great. If not I'll do it later today. Jcuk 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe you're thinking of the groom, who is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin. --Rob 09:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as not encyclopedic. Send to Wikinews, maybe merge into Wacky publicity stunts involving beastiality or something, but doesn't need its own article. (Here I go to copy-paste this into another AfD, which is not a good sign.) - brenneman^(t)^(c) 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm hoping Wikinews has enough standards to skip this. It seems many other news outlets don't seem to care if they have their facts straight on what actually happened. This is an interesting case, which shows that sometimes the the factual information about a subject can oddly be inversly proportional to the number of Google hits. --Rob 10:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as tabloid ephemera. The marriage has no legal status. (See also Cindy the Dolphin's AfD). Sliggy 13:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. I cannot imagine why we would want to delete the neutral, verifiable information in this article. If a billionnaire "marrying" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO, we should instead delete WP:BIO because it's completely useless. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In two weeks no-one will be interested in who she was. The information might be relevant for a page about stupid publicity stunts or one about Inter-species marriage if that gets written. And if I see that link go blue when I click on save page, I will have to go for a short walk. David | Talk 17:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. People should realize that something mentioned on a slow news day does not necessarily mean (and probably never means) that it is encyclopedic. Remember when Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia? Anyone? No? Adam Bishop 18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --Aaron 18:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Grue 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I have redirected Cindy the Dolphin to Sharon Tendler. The two articles are esentially duplicates (I was unaware of the duplication at the time of the nomination). The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cindy the Dolphin was "no consensus". --Rob 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Notable, returns over 35k hits on google. Also, a sign of the times as it shows that the defintion of marriage is changing and goes alongside events such as gay marriage. Englishrose 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- In the other AFD you argued:
  
  It’s irrelevant whether the dolphin agreed to the marriage because the marriage is legal in Israel. It is the first marriage to be legal between a human and a dolphin anywhere in the world, that itself makes it notable enough for wikipedia regardless of the morals of it and the human’s stupidity.
- Well, it's now verifiably proven that the marriage is not legal. The so-called "bride" herself conceded that point. She doesn't live with Dolphin, and simply visits as a tourist 2-3 times a year, and that won't change. There's no official marriage. There's a source confirming the legal issue in the article (and *many* more available). So, the whole basis for retention is now gone. --Rob 20:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm basing it on what my original argument was, which was it gained loads of media attention blah blah which makes it notable. Regardless of whether it is legal, it is still a sign of the times and a notable event which makes it an article that should be included in wikipedia. On top of that, the story is quite famous. Still keep. Englishrose 20:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn person. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Kappa and others are conflating news content with encyclopedic content. Write it up at wikinews if anything, but this is not relevant to an encyclopedic project, which must aspire to more than a web-chronicle of events that end up in the papers. News mention helps measure, but does not in and of itself confer, notability. Eusebeus 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I thought this encyclopedia aspired to be a reference for people interested in notable events in the fields of animal-human relations and bizarre marriages. Kappa 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree with the persuasive arguments here - we can't just write an encyclopedia article about every event that happens in the tabliods. One could always write a short writeup in the dolphin article if someone so desires as I bet the people there would be far more interested... WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- So people typing "Sharon Tendler" into the search box should be invited to start a new article about her? Kappa 23:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I've noticed that you'v easked this question in a few AfDs recently. I can only reply {{deletedpage}}. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 23:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    - That would at least be honest enough to inform users that we did have the information that they were looking for, but we destroyed it. Kappa 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Hi Kappa - in terms of your question I'll say that it goes in the same vain as other stuff here - for example we don't insert the insane speculation about the hollywood divorces in the pop star articles here every time it happens or every boyfriend they ever had. Some of those events might be verifiable but they are crufty in that they don't really have any real impact on anything. This is the same thing - yet another person who "married" an animal... it would have an actual claim to notability here if the marriage had actually taken place - but it didn't and it's variafiable that it did NOT take place and/or was not legal so the only other claim to notability is the reach of the event rather then the event itself, which as other people mentioned didn't even last for long at all since it was disproven early so it hardly had a lasting effect on society and isn't really historical in any concievable way. The reason "Sharon Tendler" doesn't need an article is precisely because there's really nothing to write about other then this minor dolphin blurb. If there was a list like "People who have claimed to marry animals" it might go there, for example. If and when she has something else to write about to write a real article THEN someone should start an article about her, but not at the moment. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Tabloid speculation about divorces is all the same. Show me another incident of someone performing a marriage ceremony with a dolphin - or indeed any other species of marine mammal. Kappa 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment The result of Cindy the Dolphin was "no consensus", which automatically reverts to a "Keep". Cindy the Dolphin has now been altered to a redirect to Sharon Tendler. If this article gets deleted, then Cindy is going to redirect to nowhere. I'd suggest restoring it and putting this article in as a "See Also", then if this article survives AfD, merging the two. If this article does not survive, Cindy should not be deleted by the back door. Jcuk 23:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - People seeking the Dolphin should see this article, so they know there is an AFD, and can participate. If this is deleted, the dolphin article (unfortunately) would survive, but would be subject to yet another AFD if somebody wishes (due to lack of prior consensus and new information coming to light). But, I do agree, no backdoor deletion should occur. Without a dolphin-specific AFD consensus delete, the dolphin lives, even if his bride perishes here. Anyway, it's all moot if this article is kept. Also note, there's really no more merging left to do. The dolphin article has no verifiable facts that this one doesn't. --Rob 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Sham marriage, dolphin recently proved not of legal age. Monicasdude 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I voted "keep pending verification" on Cindy the Dolphin, but as Rob points out, this is not a legal marriage at all. Thus, it's equivalent to a farmer "marrying" his cow. Funny story, but of no real significance. If this results in a deletion, I'll renominate Cindy the Dolphin too. howch e ng {chat} 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- I'm compelled to say: Please always explain your reasoning per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 06:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Because I don't neccesarily see the deletion of articles such as this when they have a lot of hits and AP coverage. It's a rather week keep and I won't fight for it.-Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. This isn't a biography of a notable person. Hell, it's not even a biography: it's the record of a publicity stunt. Ha ha, you had your 15 minutes of fame, now go away. --Calton | Talk 06:48, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TechPhile

non-notable podcast self promotion; Alexa traffic ranking of 1,788,717; 15.7k Google hits (none in Google news) Hosterweis 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'd also like to point out that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and TechPhile doesn't meet any of the criteria on WP:WEB. -Hosterweis 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Having a tertiary connection to Leo Laporte is not enough to make this podcast notable. --Aaron 03:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above comments. Certainly not notable. --Timecop 04:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above, not high enough alexa, non-notable Sethie 04:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete useless and selfish self promoting entry Blackmanheartiez 01:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - useless advertising - Femmina 04:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Per above --Depakote 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. useless.Dustimagic 20:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I like how it claims to have "interviews with leading figures in the tech world". Hahaha. Tapir 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - self-promoting spam, nn, unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 08:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Proto t c 10:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Incognito 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. This passed a previous Afd only last October. Once again, nearly all of the above votes are party-line bloc voting as part of Timecop's war on blogs. A number of these bloc voters including Timecop himself are self-proclaimed GNAA members, so this smells like mischief. Closing admin please take note. 15K google hits is actually quite a lot, and since the whole phenomenon of podcasting is fairly new (the term only came into widespread use last year), it is hardly surprising that Alexa numbers don't yet match those for text blogs or other genres that have been around longer. An apples-to-apples comparison would involve comparing its traffic with other podcasts. -- Curps 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Curps, I think that axe you have to grid is getting in the way of your better judgement here. The first afd was basically uncited opinion - here we have variafiable information that it is not notable. Your arguments seems to be is that it gets a fair amount of google hits, which is open to manipulation and does not meet WP:WEB. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 21:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I don't have an axe to grind. I'm just very suspicious of GNAA members with an openly advertised agenda, systematically voting as a bloc on every single article listed in a "war on blogs" hitlist. Some of their nominated targets do seem to be suitably obscure; I just wonder if they're not trying to sneak some more notable targets past the rest of us, mixed in along with the junk. For instance, until as recently as five days ago they had The Volokh Conspiracy in their "war on blogs" hitlist queue, until some anon IP removed it [6]. That raised a huge red flag because The Volokh Conspiracy is an A-list legal blog (blawg), blogrolled from Instapundit and many other A-list blogs, and the idea of merging it into Eugene Volokh makes about as much sense as merging Seinfeld into Jerry Seinfeld. Nominating it for AfD would be prima facie bad faith. They've cleaned up their "war on blogs" page somewhat... they've removed the "terminated" list of successful kills, and they've switched from using external links (which don't show under "what links here") to regular internal links. But still I think we're entitled to ask whether improving Wikipedia is actually their objective. Historically very few websites have been left in an improved state after a GNAA campaign that targeted them. -- Curps 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Kindly shut up and stop polluting the afd thanks, save the rant for your blog. Wikipedia is not about your opinions and this fails WP:WEB and therefore should be deleted due to the policy. If it isn't a clear case of the GNAA enforcing the policy I don't know what is. Incognito 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      - I don't have a blog. See also Wikipedia:Civility. -- Curps 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Wikipedia (AfD debates and similar in particular) is about everybody's opinions. And considering that there's a very clear delete majority at the moment, I see especially little reason for you to feel the need to suppress your opposition. Also do see Wikipedia:Civility. EldKatt (Talk) 17:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        Sorry, I was under the impression that encyclopedias were about facts. Won't happen again. Incognito 23:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        I assumed your comment referred to Curps's "rant", so I evidently misread you. Apologies. EldKatt (Talk) 09:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Maybe mr Curps is looking for something to fill his blog. Please find it somewhere else and not here, this is strictly related with TechPhile. Thanks to the GNAA !!! Blackyheartiez 20:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      - Naturally, the above is your first contribution to Wikipedia, ever. -- Curps 23:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        Naturally, You fail. Can someone tell Curps to stop using his privilege as admin to threaten people here? I dont feel confortable writting and supporting this page while he's here ready to pull the trigger Blackyheartiez 20:32, 10 January 2006
        
        That's interesting, I don't see him even mentioning he's an admin here, or threatening anyone. I just see you being quite rude to him. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
        
        I see him writing nonsense and alleging that the GNAA isn't working in the interests of wikipedia. -- Femmina 17:29, 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 DeleteSceptr e ^(Talk) 20:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punn

Hoax/nn slang term. Probably someone who invented a word, and tries to establish it. Search on google for punn greekfest returns one unrelated result with a typo. Bjelleklang - talk 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aaron 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete with extreme prejudice Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 08:35, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] crude humor cartoon

Neologism, only 100 google quote search hits TxRx 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Neologism, and doesn't even seem to be accurate either. (For example, Futurama's animation is very high quality owing to its use of computer animation.) —Psychonaut 05:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. A)Does not following article naming conventions. B)Confusing, is crude modifying humor or cartoon? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Psychonaut -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Psychonaut and Xaosflux. Movementarian 08:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Rename or merge. Neologism is not a very good reason for considering this article for deletion. Perhaps it could use another title, or it could fit in an existing article about cartoons. - MB (Talk) 11:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per above reasons. Dustimagic 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Not for Neologism, but because it fails to make sense logically (with regard to the children issue) Theheadhunter 10:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I have moved the page to crude humor cartoon per naming conventions. The AFD link has been correct accordingly. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fairtunes

Nn website. No alexa data. 439 "link:" results. Apart from PCWorld "review", fails WP:WEB. No incoming wikilinks as of yesterday. neglected article since July 2005. -- Perfecto 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom TheRingess 03:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom Onthost 06:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I'm not voting keep on the website, but Fairtunes is also the name of a program that defeats the copyright protection on iTunes, which I think IS notable. Delete the info on the website, but find some way to keep the information on the anti-DRM program. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Semi-Delete - remove parts that refer to website, keep copy-protection removal tool --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I think Cyde's point is a good one, but it may be better simply to redirect to iTunes (and mention it there), thus preventing the spam website stuff from being recreated. Eusebeus 03:43, 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 Sceptr e ^(Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elc(chat)

Non-notable unreleased software program

Delete. Gazpacho 03:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advertisement for a non-notable program. — JIP | Talk 15:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, ad Dustimagic 20:02, 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 DELETE - this was painfully obvious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Warnock

non-notable Kingturtle 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No vote. Kappa 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Only 192 exact matches on Google, none notable. Artical contains no information beyond a date of birth. Grimm 04:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually it told us all kinds of things but none of them looked very verifiable. Kappa 04:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. No claim of notability.Obina 04:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Please fill me in on speedy deletion and articles such as this. i was under the impression that speedy deletion was for nonsense and vandalism, but not vanity articles. correct me if i am wrong. Kingturtle 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Under the new CSD A7 rule, biographical articles that do not assert notability can be speedied. N Shar 05:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy as biographical article not asserting notability of subject, either before or after changes by Kingturtle.
- Sorry, forgot to sign. N Shar 05:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --Aaron 05:44, 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. Ichiro 05:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jam Creative Productions

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but companies aren't speediable. Bringing it to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for deletion. No vote. howch e ng {chat} 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete even if not speedily. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak keep The article lists several claims to notability. However, I'd like to see some references the back them up. ~MDD 46 96 22:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep but cleanup Sjc 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete looks like advertising. Atrian 06:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong Keep but cleanup. This stub desperately needs some TLC, but the basic article is correct: Jam is one of the two biggest jingle creators in the world, and is a household name to anyone in the radio industry. I'm surprised it never had an article before now. I could try to bring it up to standards, if it survives the AfD. --Aaron 05:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, cleanup. Notable company, needs some sourcing and a good list of radio stations. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Keep. This company is a part of American pop culture. Probably every person in the Western world has heard their radio jingles at some time. I orginally posted this article and I was really surprised that no one had written about JAM prior to this. They are an icon in the radio industry. I would request that this be taken off the Deletion list. I am interest as to why it was put on it in the first place.Bkirby 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Once an article has been nominated for deletion, I don't think there's any procedure to just de-nominate it. If there's an overwhelming consensus in one way or the other, the discussion can be declared over, but we don't have a clear consensus here, if for no other reason than not that many people have voted at all. Hopefully once the latest five-day voting period is up, an admin will declare the vote as "keep but cleanup" and I and others can work on rewriting it. I'd start rewriting it now, but I'm not going to waste my time as long as there's even a 1% chance that it's going to get deleted. --Aaron 00:56, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shoulder Thrust

Non-notable topic, a single move in a video game. —ERcheck @ 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. —ERcheck @ 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:03, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tommy Gunn

Seems to be a fictional character, but no context is given. Probaly some obscure fancruft. jmd 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If what is currently in the article is true, then redirect to Rocky V. If not, delete. Do not keep. Gamaliel 04:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Rocky V. Tommy Gunn was Rocky's protege turned foe which was the entire premise of the film. Movementarian 08:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect per above. PJM 15:47, 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 NONSENSE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diogradroalisis

Hoax. "...THIS HAS BEEN TESTED MULTIPLE TIMES other than this site and my laptop computer are the only things that hold this data and a few other things that the military would have a feild day with..." Prashanthns 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete I added the nonsense template, but in case it doesn't get speedied, I'm voting to delete. TheRingess 04:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per TheRingess -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete- patent nonsense. Reyk 05:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete per Reyk. --Aaron 05:54, 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 redirect to unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. -- RHaworth 07:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Surplus at a URIE

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There was a very obvious place to redirect . -- RHaworth 07:28, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subscriber Savings Account

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Saving_(economics) a previous good redirect that original author reverted Dlyons493 Talk 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect as per Dlyons493. Stifle 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. -- RHaworth 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Board of Directors at a URIE

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:35, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chickenatarian

Neologism - a dozen hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as bollocks Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 05:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, neologismtarian that I am. - Haukur 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm an everything-that-tastes-good-atarian. --Bachrach44 21:16, 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. Ichiro 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trailer park trash

Delete Why do we have an article on a slangword that is commonly known and used? This is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DotShell (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that a term is "commonly known and used" is no argument for deletion; otherwise we might as well delete cat, dog, and food as well. This article gives background explaining what the term means (useful to non-native English speakers) and why it is considered disparaging (useful to English speakers who do not come from an area with trailer parks). —Psychonaut 05:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, Rename to "trailer trash" as more commonly used (Google: 1,150,000 hits, 826 unique as opposed to 80,300/785 for "trailer park trash; yes, I'm kinda embarrassed to be talking about this). This is a poorly written article, lacking sources or any kind of comprehensive take on the subject, but it's a worthy subject. rodii 05:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep per Rodii - it's not a dicdef, though it needs lots of editing. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep but rename to Trailer trash which is more common (need to delete the redirect which is currently there) Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Trailer trash per rodii and Segv11. --Aaron 06:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Trailer park. Trailer trash is way to POV when there's such an obvious alternative. Gazpacho 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - This is definitely an article which deserves to be kept; I don't care whether this is at trailer trash or trailer park trash. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 09:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Trailer Trash Sceptr e ^(Talk) 14:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and rename to Trailer trash. Obviously a valid article, even if this needs some work. Eusebeus 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with Eusebeus AnonMoos 01:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and maybe rename to just trailer trash. Skeeter08865 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki. We have articles about dog and cat because many things can be said about these species of animal. This fails to go beyond a dictdef. Durova 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Bryce 19:24, 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. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acknowledgment_(social)

I'm skeptical that this article can be expanded beyond the rather dicdeffy stub that currently exists. Opinions? Psychonaut 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete dicdef. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per nom. Obina 21:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, WP:NOT a dictionary, already exists at wiktionary. - Bobet 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. In addition to reasons stated above, it reads like it was just copy-pasted from somewhere.--Atlantima 00:48, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dewarneb

Delete. This is a neologism that gets no Google hits outside of Wikipedia articles and copies thereof. N Shar 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per above. Dustimagic 20:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Neologism, or perhaps even hoax (it is a weak anagram of 'be warned' or it could be a person called Ben Rawed. And there are other unusual acronyms in the article. Whatever. Obina 22:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable neologism. Looks like a WP:NFT. Stifle 03:19, 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 category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Moving it to Actinomorphous flower. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Actinomorphous

This is nothing more than an attempt to define the word Actinomorphous. It is not a candidate to be included at Wiktionary, however, because the definition is, in fact, incorrect.

Keep or transwiki to wikitionary, as it has a number of backlinks. I've updated the article in an effort to have a more correct definition. --Interiot 22:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki Renata3
Delete, approaches biologycruft. Stifle 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mind matrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki if the definition is correct otherwise delete. Movementarian 08:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Already at wiktionary actinomorphous with proper definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so delete. Movementarian 19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwikification is not an option. As per our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (adjectives) and Special:Whatlinkshere/Actinomorphous flower, rename to Actinomorphous flower. Uncle G 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SmartServ Solutions

WP:NOT the Yellow Pages, not a business directory. As usual, I highly doubt the notability of any company that does this. Daniel Case 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Aaron 06:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 307 google hits. --Nick123 ^(t/c) 15:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:04, 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 redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Symposium Plato

The complete text. It is a public domain version, so I went ahead and (clumsily) transwiki'd it to Wikisource--I hope they're not mad at me over there. But it shouldn't be here. Chick Bowen 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, there is already a Symposium (Plato dialogue). This one also has a long introduction by Benjamin Jowett, the translator, so it isn't just the text, BTW. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
So redirect to Symposium (Plato dialogue). (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. I have of course no objection to a redirect, but "Symposium Plato" seems like an unlikely search term, so I don't think it really matters either way. Chick Bowen 00:10, 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 speedied. – ugen64 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Willomy

Delete - created months ago by anonymous editor; links to nothing and from nothing and possibly may violate copyright. ddlamb 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - nonsensical. Actually seems to be patent nonsense and is very close to a speedy candidate. N Shar 05:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete eject into the cold vacuum of space Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. I could tell you what I think of this patent nonsense ... but you wouldn't like it. --Aaron 06:10, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long Vo

I may be getting some info from VO himself for this article, i vote Slow Delete --Xexos 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)xexos
Delete. Short and unnecesary. Mercury1 05:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I vote delete just so I can get a chance to call Long short. — JIP | Talk 15:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. --kingboyk 16:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Slow Delete if no more information comes delete it. MAZO 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:05, 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 merged into Strapping Young Lad. jnothman ^talk 07:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tenet (band)

Delete Non-notable Canadian music group. Hasn't released any music. No record of having played as a group. Atrian 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --Aaron 06:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete - tagged as {{nn-band}} Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Strapping Young Lad. --zenohockey 06:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Done. Can now be speedied. --zenohockey 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Was changed into redirect (pending future fame?), as per WP:MUSIC "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable...". jnothman ^talk 07:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Strobe

Only one EP album and not really notable Eeee 06:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arnaud Rebotini

Non-notable music artist, does not need own page. Eeee 06:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Stifle 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black Mesa: Source

Yet another non-notable, non-released, Half-Life 2 mod. Could be vaporware. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Fanmods for games need to show some pretty fancy evidence of widespread notablilty to survive a deletion discussion. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I'm not a fan of posting stats about games that don't have any form of playable game even in beta nor any backing by any major commercial entity. Should definitely be added later if they release even a private beta (which would put it light years ahead of a ton of other Mods) --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - I'm okay with mods having articles. Unreleased mods, however, are not very article-worthy (but may be footnote-worthy in some other article). Welcome back when there's an actual playable release and people went a-playing screamingly! Too many mods die in an eternal development limbo. (Just noted today that Ultima VIII: Exile has died. I'm cranky. Sorry. Doesn't make my point less valid, just stronger, I hope.) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete mainly because the link to the site doesn't work correctly. But I should point out that there are other mods (a Apocolypse Mod for BattleField 2 for example) that are on Wiki, but not slated for deletion. If there was evidence that this mod was further along, perhaps in some sort of beta release, I would be against deletion. However, there is really no available evidence that it is anywhere. Headrattle 23:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

the site is currently down but the mod is moving along quite nicly....they wont be releasing a beta because it would be crappy and unfinished so....there you 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 merge into United States Marine Corps. - ulayiti (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Marine

Unencyclopedic; transferred here after another editor marked it as a CSD. – ugen64 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as dicdef -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into main United States Marine Corps article (the distinction noted between "former Marine" and "ex-Marine" is something I didn't know. Daniel Case 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge as stated above. Tony the Marine 17:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge as stated above. --NaconKantari 17:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect - Distinction within USMC and between services is notable. More than a dicdef. —ERcheck @ 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge - as stated above--Looper5920 08:41, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vifican

Vanity, made-up word methinks. Previously listed as a CSD. – ugen64 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, this seems to support that. Delete unless other evidence provided. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- As I'm so fond of saying, please explain your recomendation per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete 28 google hits none of which back it up. David | Talk 14:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable neologism. Stifle 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of fads

Anglocentric and pointless, but of course that's not a reason to delete. "Fad" being POV (see talk page where "grunge" is considered a fad) so any element indluded here will involve a value judgment is a reason to delete. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unmaintainable POV listcruft Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
delete as per AB and Segv11. Adding articles like this to Wikpedia is only a passing trend. Grutness...wha? 06:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Interesting insight into the culture of the times Fg2 10:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep It is a useful list to anybody researching fads of different decades or fads in general. Logophile 13:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced, almost completely American-centric, highly POV, ad nauseam. ^Blank ^Verse 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Per WP:NOT, an indiscriminate list of info. 70.122.87.59 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup It's an interesitng article, shame it has POV , I think somebody should make more encyclopedic.--MasK of ThE CARNIVAL 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It seems that quite a lot of thought has gone into this list. I think there should be more of an introduction to explain the relevence of the list. Dave 22:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Disputes over POV can be resolved by editting and talk paging. Potentially NPOV-able, and well-maintained. Batmanand 22:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Encyclopedic, useful, and well-collected. Owen× ☎ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Question is it just me, or are lists incredibly hard to delete, regardless of their content? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Contains lots of useful information. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Excellent use of the list format to steer people to our coverage of historic fads. -- JJay 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Useless list and because Aaron is completely right, both about this being unencyclopedic (can be adequately covered by a category) and inherently POV as well as the seemingly incredible resistance to the elimination of any list. ever. Eusebeus 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This list is not POV. It might have systemic bias; if so, please encourage readers with knowledge of other cultures to add information about fads in those cultures. But systemic bias is different from POV. Systemic bias is not reason to delete one article; it's reason to add to it or to create balancing articles. Fg2 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Unencyclopedic and POV. KramarDanIkabu 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
KEEP: Technically all fads are POVs, but the list is very resourceful, where else could you find a list of fads from the 1960s to today. The problem is that people see things they don't like in this article, then they believe that it is inaccurate, which is intirelly false (All fads are POVs). I personally didn't like the Furby or Snap Bracelet fad, but I cannot deny that it was a fad. The list for me also makes me feel nostalgic and brings back personal memories too. I would bet the person that posted the deletion saw the 2000s fads only and said "Oh My God! This must be deleted!!!" he or she probrably also didn't like the fads because they are to loyal to their own, so the deletion for this article is also a POV miss conseption. (Tigerghost 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
Delete. Unsupported POV, no sources, no references. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
The Statement Jossi said is Not True: I posted my references in the discussion section, they include VH1: I Love The... Series as well as several other sites including Crazy Fads.com, www.angelfire.com/fl/JackCraig/FADS.html, inthe90s.com, as well as others. (Tigerghost 05:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC))
Comment This edit was removed when an editor removed their own comments. My "question" above was poorly worded, and when this was brought to my attention I offered the following revision:

Aye, that could have been phrased better, so how about this: We require that items in this encyclopedia meet certain requirements, chief among them being WP:NPOV which has its foundation in WP:V and WP:CITE. The very nature of lists means that it is frightfully easy to add items, the sheer number of which makes it difficult to ensure that they are all correct. Additionally, systemic bias means that, for a given population, we'll have a number of entries proportional to that population, making a list violate NPOV. Thus, if we moved this list to List of fads in the United States and were scrupulous about our definition of "fad" and removing things that could not be verifired as fad per Wikipedia:Reliable sources than there would be no problem. But let us make some small concession to pragmatism, that is not going to happen. Thus I re-iterate: why is it much more difficult to delete an NPOV, uncited list than it would be a prose article with the same problem? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per BlankVerse. Garbage bin content with no encyclopedical quality. Pavel Vozenilek 01:10, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glideway

Totally unreadable. MIT Press apparently published a book about the concept/system/whatever the hell it is in 1996, but it was authored by "MIT Students," so who knows. It might be article-worthy, I don't know, but it can't be kept like this. --zenohockey 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Article reads like a student essay/original research. 70.122.87.59 16:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research. - Bobet 22:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, original research. Johnleemk | Talk 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as original research and probably unverified. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Stifle 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research

Uninformative, speculative and full of loose talk. Does not even specify where this 'office' which conducts "..research on physics, zoology.." and whole lot of other subjects is situated. Finally ties it to Men in Black. Delete as fictitious and hoasx Prashanthns 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as bollocks... with too many boilerplate templates to boot Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 06:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per segv11 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. OSIR is the agency characters in the TV show Psi Factor: Chronicles of the Paranormal work for. From what I can tell, most of the information is correct, the article just fails to mention it's a freakin' TV show. Wisco 07:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. Movementarian 08:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup and merge. The article contains too much information to merge it with this article. Or rewrite it so it is clear that OSIR is only a fictitious organization. - MB (Talk) 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. --Aaron 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above. I don't think it merits a separate article. Crunch 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above -- not really notable enough to warrant a separate article. Dan Aykroyd claims it's real, but Dan Aykroyd is pretty fringy in his own right. Haikupoet 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I just submitted an apparently identical article Office of Scientific Investigation and Research as a copyvio from http://www.illuminati-news.com/o.s.i.r.htm. NickelShoe 16:47, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Akiyama International

Blatant advertising. Questionable notability Prashanthns 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Advertising. Non-notable. Prashanthns 07:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- WB 12:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete 472 google hits. --Nick123 ^(t/c) 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 03:17, 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 merge to 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. - ulayiti (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus juice

Jesus Juice was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-13. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Juice.

Note - The contents of Jesus juice are not the same as the deleted one, which consisted of patent nonsense, so this is not a G4 speedy.

Michael Jackson trial-cruft - apparently there is such a thing. This is a non-notable neologism with no encyclopedic value, IMO. This could possibly be mentioned in 2005 trial of Michael Jackson, but if not, no loss. Delete. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom Dbchip 09:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Merge as second option, per below. -- Saberwyn.
Delete to get Jesus Juice, the holy refreshment! Sceptr e ^(Talk) 14:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. 134,000 results for "Jesus juice" on google. [7] I think that warrents keeping it. Trilemma 16:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Jesus juice is a term Michael Jackson is alledged to call white wine (sic) - Who cares? Not encyclopedic (sp.?). --kingboyk 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. I've heard the neologism used often enough that it appears to be here to stay, but I can't see it sustaining an article of its own. --Aaron 18:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. I agree with Aaron's reasoning. -- Mikeblas 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge as per above Dustimagic 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above suggestions into something related to Michael Jackson. This term is very notable. Cyde Weys _vote^talk 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or failing that, I will agree to Merge to form consensus. This shouldn't deserve its own article, though. Eusebeus 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Waste to space and time! --161.74.11.24 19:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (see above). CorbinSimpson could have done this himself. -- RHaworth 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (OSIR)

This appears to be original research or possibly fancruft. OSIR is completely fictional according to List of fictional institutions, which certainly looks accurate. There is a UN OSIR, but the article's context appears to be implying OSIR is a US Government office or NGO, of which I cannot find any evidence. On top of that, there is absolutely no NPOV. Delete, unless someone has a better idea. - CorbinSimpson 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Content is identical to The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research nominated above. My merge vote still stands, I suppose this should redirect. Wisco 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete since I doubt anyone searching for OSIR will want to know about the TV show, or at least Redirect to the UN agency, as it's more notable -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Information already covered in a similar article (also nominatred for deletion) and does not conform to naming standards. Movementarian 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. The series' article could use this information in a separate topic. - MB (Talk) 11:46, 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 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-Maori Civilisations

This article is nonsense. All archaeological evidence is against any European settlement of New Zealand prior to Polynesian settlement 1000-800 years ago. See any peer-reviewed literature. My source is K. R. Howe, The Quest for Origins, and I've attended a meeting of NZ Society of Archaeology discussing this question. There are people who put forward this theory, but it is completely discredited. Delete. -gadfium 08:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This is blatant censorship. My source is M. Doutré, Ancient Celtic New Zealand. People who put foward this question are completely discredited and then attacked personally (as you can see below) because this does not align up with the already agreed history and people are worried they will have to rewrite the history books because it is all wrong. What is the difference between your source, and mine? --Nzhamstar 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Archeologists don't take your source seriously. What makes something serious is that it's published in peer-reviewed journals. In answer to your suggestion below that the government is suppressing these theories, such journals are not controlled by the New Zealand government.-gadfium 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Incredible claims require credible references. Similarly poor grammar in article and the balls-to-the-wall-insane website it links to suggests same individual behind both. Sources also demonstrate ignorance of archaeological method on the part of the author(s). adamsan 10:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

comment: There have long been speculations and rumours that there may have been a pre-Maori colonisation of New Zealand, but the evidence ranks close to the Von Däniken levels for believability. An article on these theories should probably exist, as long as it is made clear that it is a theory viewed with extreme scepticism by the scientific community. I don't believe this article, as it currently stands, could easily be turned into an article that would fulfl that requirement. As it currently stands, it is heavily POV, and deals with just one of the people who has raised this theory (and not one of the main ones). I'd suggest deleting this one, and hopefully someone more in the know could write something better at a later date. Grutness...wha? 12:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm… there’s already a paragraph at Moriori#The_debunked_myth_of_Moriori_in_New_Zealand Barefootguru 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's about the Moriori, surely - not about early Indo-European explorers. The theories mentioned on this page are unconnected with the Moriori (or the Waitaha, for that matter). Grutness...wha? 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete I considered nominating this for speedy deletion on the grounds of patent nonsense, looking into this further I don't think it's quite that bad, but it does look like extremely dubious pseudoarchaeology. He baldly uses terms like Indo-European and Celtic to describe the alleged pre-Maori inhabitants, as these are linguistic terms we could not jump to this conclusion even if there was significant archaelogical evidence of pre-Maori inhabitants in New Zealand. PatGallacher 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete or possibly heavily edit to remove POV. This theory has been debunked though still persists as an urban legend (along the lines of ‘What are Maori complaining about, they wiped out the Moriori’.) Barefootguru 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless someone can find a credible reference and completely rewrite the article to remove the anti-Maori POV. Rhion 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep, Edit This article is not anti-Maori, it is simply trying to inform people of the previous history of New Zealand before the Maori arrived. It is unfair to suppress NZ's Pre-Maori history, labeling it racism. The New Zealand government has banned carbon dating on any artefacts found, and I thought that wikipedia would be a safe haven away from any cover ups or embargo's for all to find the truth. Although I am not the author of the site, I have contacted the author for help editing the wiki - though have had no reply. I agree that my grammar and wording is not so good - I should have planned it better, and will re-write asap, although I am not sure which parts are POV. Is there any external archaeologists that could comment on this? IE, scientists that have not studied the history of NZ? Because half the problem is that the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision and simple cannot accept any different theories. The other half is probly that all the Maori activism in NZ's history may become void or hypocritical. --Nzhamstar 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have now edited it and believe it is now NPOV. Please check it to see if I am right. Also does anyone have a suggestion for the name, I don't think Pre-Maori Civilisations is quite right. --Nzhamstar 21:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Even with the improved rewrite, this is non verified speculation and original research. Obina 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Non Verfied? I have references at the bottom of the page with photographic proof.. ??? --Nzhamstar 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't vote twice. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This article consists of original research. It is still NPOV, although less so than before. The article itself notes that it is NPOV and contains unverified information. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean POV… Barefootguru 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Encyclopedia articles should represent some kind of scholarly consensus, which is not the same thing as "tunnel vision." The claims here are deeply implausible on their face, and would need extraordinarily strong support to be encyclopedic. rodii 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Nonsensical woo woo-ism at its finest. Don't you just love Nzhamstar's claim that "the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision"! Note that I have combined Nzhamstar's comments above to delete his second vote. Moriori 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as random POV, and implausible. Stifle 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete , Claims on the page are not backed by any evidence apart from a couple of websites. Also problems with the actual name of the page (should have a Macro in Maori etc). I don't think it can really be saved - SimonLyall 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How come, after I left an incorrect piece of information on an automotive article for a while, no one complained at all. Suddenly when article that could imply racism everyone is all over it. I don't think this is very fair. Other articles have websites as their proof, why can't this one? There is hard evidence of pre-maori civilisation why are you trying to hide this from society? What is realy going on here? I believe the reason this article is being kept down because if it gets into mainstream, it will make the Maori activists, and stereotypically the race look hypocritical. However this is not fair, and should not even be a factor in keeping this down if we get to know more about the history of New Zealand. --Nzhamstar 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Nzhamstar, I visited the celticnz website and couldn't find any convincing evidence for its claims. Martin Doutré has found some stones and thinks that they represented pre-Maori activity but he didn't have any finds or scientific dates from excavations to tell us about. How does he know these sites aren't from the post-Maori era? Some of them look natural rather than manmade, has he carried out excavation work to demonstrate his ideas? The saga of the embargoed documents from the Waipoua Forest which don't seem to actually contain any useful information and are freely-available for inspection anyway don't help his case nor do quotations from speculative nineteenth century antiquarians who had a lot of ideas about mass population movements that are now discounted. Mr Doutré appears to looking for evidence that supports his theory and ignoring other explanations- this technique is the hallmark of pseudoarchaeology and it is why the article being criticised. adamsan 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I see. But what of the carvings that surely do not look Maori or European? And why has the government banned carbon dating on the artefacts?--Nzhamstar 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - It is not fair to suppress this information. The only reason it hasn't been proved true is because reknowned scientists and archaeologists ignore the evidence because they are too busy believing in the fact that there is no Pre-Maori history, and/or are too scared (or complacent) for being labeled culturally insensitive or racist for studying such things. It hasn't been proved wrong. Why is the government banning open archaeological investigation and carbon dating on these artefacts? --Nzhamstar 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - And what of this: "and supporting the Maori tradition that this island was inhabited before their arrival here" from here[8]??? --Nzhamstar 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

There is certainly some evidence that there was human contact with New Zealand before the permanent settlement by Maori. The kiore (rat) appears to have been here longer than permanant settlement, and could only have arrived with humans. This indicates that Polynesians arrived at New Zealand earlier than the accepted dates for Maori settlement, but did not stay (or did not survive). This is a very different hypothesis from suggesting Celtic peoples settled New Zealand.

By the way, you fail to quote any evidence of said "Maori tradition". You need to quote peer reviewed journals, not wild speculation. You say that scientists suppress the evidence, but scientists have no motive to suppress such items, and every motive to publish any evidence that would show such a radically different version of prehistory. If you could provide proof, you'd win the archeological equivalent of the Nobel Prize. In practice, archeologists don't pursue such theories for the same reasons as physicists don't pursue perpetual motion machines.-gadfium 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

- - Governments suppress the findings - not scientists! Scientists and archaeologists want these restricted sites out in the open, rather than censored because of Maori superstition. The only way this can happen is to inform the public of what they are missing out on. And the way to do that is Wikipedia which is supposed to be a "big open encyclopedia" for everyone to access and add stuff to and now I'm being kicked to the curb for offering proof and evidence of an alternative, censored history of New Zealand. This is absolute BS, you people are the bullies of wikipedia! --Nzhamstar 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, original research. Lukas 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The scientific establishment tends to reject, suppress or ignore evidence that conflicts with accepted theories, while denigrating or persecuting the messenger.[9] --Nzhamstar 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think you've made your point and everyone here knows where you stand. Simply reiterating it over and over again does not make you any more persuasive. rodii 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete to quote... "Although stories were published in a few periodicals, this article does not have a source of them." This rediculous article would be more at home on a conspiracy theory website then an encyclopedia. As far as I can tell the "evidence" consists of a stump, which may or may not exist, which doesn't confirm anything as it isn't carbon dated; and some bones, in a cave... Conspiracy Cruft, delete. Dragoonmac 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources from other Authors.

Journeys Into the Mystery by Gary Cook. ISBN 095820408X [10]
The Secret Land - 1, The People Before by Gary Cook. ISBN 0-9582040-0-4 [11]
The Tattooed Land by Barry Brailsford. ISBN 0-9583502-3-X [12]
Who was Here Before Us by Greenstone Pictures[13]

What do you closed minded people say to that?

I see that Gary Cook has an honorary doctorate from Open International University of Complementary Medicine. I understand the going price for such a doctorate is US$850.-gadfium 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

What was I saying about personal attacks?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thayir sadam

Made me hungry, yes, but not encyclopedic per WP:NOT. Send to wikibooks. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I checked the links to this article, and there are one or two relevant ones. It's one food that is used as a temple offering, it's linked from rasam, and it's on the list of delicacies. The recipe might be moved to a suitable part of wikibooks, but this would still be a useful (albeit brief) article on an important item of South Indian cuisine not generally known outside the country. Let it continue to grow. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand per Tony Sidaway. The nom has not explained why this differs from the other 131 articles in Category:Indian cuisine. Furthermore, we need to make greater efforts to counter the bias against other cultures and cuisines. This article is a step in that direction and the editors who contributed this info should be thanked, not censured. -- JJay 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki and delete. Stifle 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep: it is a food item, which is prepared in millions of households of South India every day - would someone recommend deleting an item like Bread? --Bhadani 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment I've removed the "preparation" section per WP:NOT a cookbook, and the "serving suggestions" as uncited at best and pure POV at worst. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do the same for French fries, Fried chicken and the 100s of other articles that have preparation sections, which seems to be standard practice for American food articles. -- JJay 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - please expand as it's difficult to tell what this food is, exactly. Badagnani 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - Ganeshk^T/_C\^@ 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep to expand. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:14, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Penney

Very misleading assertion of notability in the article (based on list of credits). As IMDb indicates, most of the "credits" were actually as trainees and interns, and most were uncredited on screen. The assertions of upcoming films unconfirmed. Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Atrian 06:12, 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 SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Film by Julian Thome

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Thome for background - he wants to make movies, I gather, or at least be credited in Wikipedia with having made movies. Delete. GTBacchus^(talk) 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - user has been adding extreme nonsense to wikipedia lately. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete - user is just adding a lot of nonsense to Wikipedia. I've reverted several vanity edits to various movie pages over the last few minutes. Has an obsession with Fred Ward, but certainly (according to Google and iMDB) is not making any movies with him. - Dharmabum420 10:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've just blocked him for 24 hours. I'm speedying this as nonsense. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:56, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.a. hatfield

Does not appear to qualify per WP:BIO. Very low Google, no news. Although the article is not about his blog, I note that it is Unalexa-able. Unless evidence of notability is provided, I recomend deletion. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, already tagged. Melchoir 08:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- But he's made a claim of notability? - brenneman^(t)^(c) 08:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Technically, yes, but check out the radio network mentioned; apparently it's a shell for The Grey Point: "The show is on the Free Constitution Network, which will host other shows as well, and it slowly growing into something great". Anyway, I didn't tag it. Melchoir 09:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- The Anome 12:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. --Aaron 18:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As much as I love people, for consistancy I must point out that Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Discussion says that you should always explain your recomendation, and that closing admins have been known to disregard pure "votes" that do not do so. - brenneman^(t)^(c) 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I'm fully aware that this article's creator has removed the afd notice, redirected the afd link to tubgirl, and removed notes regarding that from his user page. I just don't want us to get in the habit of reducing discussions to votes. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 22:05, 8 January 2006
Delete non-notable bio, ref Geogre's Law. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio, or delete per JzG if you really insist that it's claimed notability. Stifle 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Zoe as nn-bio (A7). Stifle 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jean-Louis Bolomey

almost no information here, and why is the creator of a blog notable if we do not even have an article about the blog itself? Austrian 08:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete (Speedy if possible) per nom. --kingboyk 16:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Could be speedy, as the claim of notability is doubtful. N Shar 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:21, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic_selection

Completely pointless; borderline incoherent Hbk314 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Borderline? This sort of thing would be covered in genetics, agriculture, etc. anyway. Wisco 09:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and replace with Redirect to Selection. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Wisco. SorryGuy 18:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as crap - what the article attempts to be about is Artificial selection, and fails miserably at that. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:44, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist Skins and Punks

Does not appear to be notable. Low Google, no News. Delete unless evidence of notability provided per WP:V and WP:CITE. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to anarcho-skinheads. There has been an anarchist skinhead movement around since before the days of Crass. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak delete. Perhaps it is known under a different name. It seems like a sort of militia, but I am only hazarding a guess. I have some sort of hunch that this might be notable, but then it could be just 10 people who bear arms and call themselves a "troop". Voting weak delete until some sort of reference (or means of verifiability) is cited. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete ASAP. I could find no sources better than this, which does not even come close to WP:V. —the preceding unsigned comment is by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. This is also almost a direct copy of the FASH article by the same person. MSJapan 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federacion Anarco-Skinhead. —Quarl ^(talk)2006-01-10 03:23Z
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-10 03:23Z

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sav-way

Speedy deleted, reposted, retagged by me as repost, but really does deserve a wider audience as we shouldn't speedy companies. Abstain for this moment. brenneman ^(t)^(c) 09:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - I couldn't find one Google hit for the store. Looks like a vanity page to me. If it is kept, needs to be flagged for NPOV and needs a considerable re-write. - Dharmabum420 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - yeah, I speedied this, it popped up for the nth time and I was about to AfD it unitl Aaron beat me to it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Doesn't seem to be verifiable, current copy seems to be a diatribe about the relative merits of the final owners and their predecessors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable small business. Obina 14:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete attack page Dlyons493 Talk 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
yeah - just kill it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Randomzen (talk • contribs) .
- I've offered to move this into Randomzen's user space if they want so that they can see if there is a home for any information from this article. I'll resist the urge to make an example red link of possible places it could go, per WP:BEANS.
  brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robin Lefler

Delete It's an article about a minor fictional character. It would be suited for Memory Alpha or a list of minor Star Trek characters Centaurus 10:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Reasonably notable Star Treck character. Englishrose 10:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete or move it to a list of minor Trek characters, Lefler only appeared in two episodes of hundreds of Star Trek episodes, so her character cannot be that notable. 84.175.233.20 10:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- But isn't she featured more heavily in the Star Trek: New Frontier books? Englishrose 12:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete or move to the list. Although Google is not a good reason, merely 976 hits. -- WB 13:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep or move to a list of minor Star Trek characters. Lefler had a notable role in her two appearances, and is a major character in the New Frontier books. — JIP | Talk 14:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, notable guest character for the episodes she featured in. Evil Eye 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete For information like that Memory Alpha was created. BTW even MA has no long article about Lefler. 84.175.254.129 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There are articles on Trek characters far less notable than this. The character also has added notability for having been played by a pre-stardom Ashley Judd, and becoming a lead character in the first literary Star Trek spin-off. 23skidoo 20:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep, although a merge into a List of Star Trek characters, or a transwiki to Memory Alpha would also be acceptable. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as fancruft - send it to Memory Alpha -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as trekcruft. We are not infected with enough of it as it is. Eusebeus 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep: Robin Lefler is a main character in the New Frontier novel series and a main character in the TNG episode "The Game."

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mochasuperman

Non-notable webcomic - less than a dozen unigue google hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nom.Obina 14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable. No Guru 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete -- Non notable. Sphnx 19:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable. - MidnightWolf 02:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 06:19, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kangeiko

Googling this pulls a ton of hits, as this seems to be a rather well known form of martial art. But the article is about Yoga practiced at a university, so it seems unrelated and not notable. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete content Keep page. Per nom, this page is about a non notable course at a particular college. But the term seems to be real - I think it is the Japanese word for Cold weather training. This could be turned into a stub, and easily expanded by someone who knows more (i.e. not me)Obina 14:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete we cannot delete content and keep page, that would result in a blank page. If someone rewrites the article while it is up for Afd, I will change my position - otherwise, delete and hopefully someone more knowledgable than myself or Obina will create an article on the MA form in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom and WP:NFT. Stifle 02:26, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teheranization

NN neologism - google pulls 16 unique hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this is not a dictionary. Madman 20:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per nom. Stifle 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - This is a bigoted attempt to equate the fundamentalist Shiite revolution in Iran with the fascism of Milosevic. One could just as easily say that "Americanization" means the same thing, i.e. a country where the extreme religious right has come to power.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. You don't have to start an AFD if you just want to merge an article into another one. - ulayiti (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marion Braidfute

She is an unhistorical character, there is not enough to say about her to justify her own article rather than mentioning her in either William Wallace or Blind Harry PatGallacher 10:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge per nominator. Logophile 13:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge as above. Maccoinnich 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - well known (quasi-)historical figure. --MacRusgail 20:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Logophile. Stifle 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. How many of those pestilential Pokemon creatures will anybody remember in 700 years? Monicasdude 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Being un-historical, quasi-historical, mythical or fictional is not the same thing as being non-notable. There are tons of Wikipedia articles about legendary figures: Braidfute is more likely to be based on a real woman than many others. Wikipedia is not paper.--Mais oui! 20:33, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hymn of creation

This article contains the literal translation of a hymn. ~~Transwiki to Wikisource~~ Delete per below comment by UncleG.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki per Shreshth91. Logophile 13:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Delete. Logophile 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki as stated. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC) I should have checked Wikisource. Delete as this already exists on Wikisource and is inappropriate here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource has had the entire Rig Veda, including The Rig Veda, Hymn 10.129 and The Rig Veda, Hymn 10.130, since September 2005. Transwikification is not an option. All editors choosing it must therefore choose another option. Uncle G 21:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have informed those users who had voted for transwikification. They should soon be changing their votes to reflect this. Thanks for bringing it up!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, cause it's already at 'Source. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, Transwiki is not an option now. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete if already at 'Source. Prashanthns 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per already being on Wikisource. Greater integration of projects would avoid some of this... -- nae'blis _(talk) 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Necrololimechacon

This article contains some sort of text which I was not able to understand. Can somebody please enlighten me? Seems to be nonsense. Definitely out of context. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think I listed enough links for people to know what the hell is going on.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Urusai (talk • contribs)

Delete. Apprently a biography of some kind, but the subject fails to meet criteria in WP:BIO. Movementarian 12:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. You guys do not think that wanting to have sex with dead, underage, robot girls count as newsworthy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urusai (talk • contribs)

I speedied this once as nonsense already - it is quite clear I was justified in doing so, and am doing so again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nganga

This one's a little odd - I was notified about it by User:Kahuroa, who (as his username suggests) knows a few details about Māori culture. There seems to be no such god as Nganga, and no Māori god of sleet... googling on nganga + Māori leads to about 350 hits. take out Bible translations (in which it means "hailstorm"), and you're left with about 175. Only about 1/3 of these refer to Maori mythology, so we're down to only about 60 hits. Several - all identical to a stub on Encyclopedia Mythica - refer to Nganga being the Māori god of sleet. The rest all talk about Ua, the Māori god of rain, who is known by variants of that name depending on what type of rain is involved: Ua-Roa for long rain, Uanui for heavy rain, and Ua-Nganga for rainstorms. It looks like somewhere along the line some lines of communication have got crossed, and a new, fictional god may have been created... Grutness...wha? 12:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nom, nice bit of research. I wonder, now that you have learned some, if you should add the Maori gods you have identified as a list, perhaps to the Polynesian mythology page? A list seems better than a bunch of non expandedable stubs.Obina 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ua is just the word for rain. These 'gods' (seems to me) reflect the kind of expansions on a theme that you get in chants or songs in oral cultures - such repetitions are part of the structure of almost any oral traditional composition. Rhythm helps recall and transmission, and so a word in a chant, like ua, rain, might be followed by expanded variants, ua, ua roa, ua nui, ua nganga (rain, long rain, heavy rain, storming rain) etc. - it's a bit like deciding that la la la is the European god of rhythm and song. Please no list unless evidence of actual worship/ritual exists, not just a line in a song somewhere that has been misinterpreted. Kahuroa 19:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've since noticed that the Ua variants are listed on the article for Ua. I've modified the text of that article a little to reflect the comments above. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete or listify. Stifle 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
me again...Delete On further thought there seem to be several related articles that are of dubious origin. Nganga and Ua are not genuine Maori gods - same prob goes for Polynesian. Ua and therefore also Nganga and Hau Marangi (Wind from the Sky) seem to be someone's attempt to combine the Biblical Flood story with Maori/Polynesian mythology. This combining could have happened in the 19th century - like the Great Fleet idea started by 19th century Europeans with a romantic view of us Polynesians. There must be some obscure source for Nganga and co, since I haven't come across them before. Maybe someone's found some old mouldy 19th century tome and is quoting from it to make these articles. The article Papa (mythology) is genuine - the earth mother was Papatuanuku, but the article has a detail about a flood that seems strange to me and may also be Biblical Flood-derived (It kinda conflicts with the Ruaumoko part of the story anyway). Anyhoo, if it is decided to list, they should not be described as gods without some pretty heavy qualification. Kahuroa 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless some kind of verification can be found (although I doubt it). Nice researching, people! Ziggurat 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless verified. -Sean Curtin 01:38, 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: Speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Mermelstein

non-notable — J3ff 12:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. -- WB 12:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete No claim of notability. Obina 13:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Delete. Tagged fo speedy deletion per CSD A7. Movementarian 13:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello My Future Girlfriend

Non-notable. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/싱하형 get's about 75,000 hits in Korea (about half-of what this gets in Google without Wikipedia (137,000)), and is voted delete for being non-notable, this should be as well. The only incoming link is from Internet phenomenon. By the way, past nomination is here. WB 12:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. This article made my day. --HoH 00:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is a part of the internet which needs to be informed to everyone! He needs a grilfriend to tell him that he needs help. KEEP IT! It's funny but sad. Written by Laggy 19:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. There was a clear concensus to keep during the previous VfD. I've never heard of it, but nothing has changed regarding its place in internet history. Movementarian 13:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable vanity website. Atrian 15:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Atrian. Past success at avoiding deletion in a previous Afd is not germane; only the arguments given are. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, non-notable website. — JIP | Talk 15:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. PJM 15:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete article isn't badly written, but it discusses a rather nn website.--MONGO 16:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Movementarian. SorryGuy 18:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Reyk 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. MAZO 19:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Tawker 21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete although it's not a "non-notable website" but I don't think it's a significant meme, as claimed. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as neither notable nor encyclopedic, and this is exactly why I've consistently voted to delete "Internet memes" like O RLY when they've come up for AfD. On humor forums like Something Awful, "Future Girlfriend" was unavoidable a few years ago, and yet above are nearly a dozen Wikipedians who, in 2006, barely recall what it even was. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

True: I also read Something Awful (and b3ta and others) and I readily agree that nione-tenths of the things which obsess Geekdom for a week or a month are totally forgotten within a short space of time. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] RfA! 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

keep I'm conflicted. It gets 138,000 hits in google, which does imply some sort of notability, but the alexa rank for the page is 1.5 million, implying that it may have been forgotten. Ultimately I decided that imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery, but also the sincerest measure of popularity, so I let the google hits make this a keep vote. However, this makes me see keepsleeping's point, and I think that we may have to start rethinking our overall stance on internet (and other pop culture related) phenomena. --Bachrach44 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
keep Very notable
Keep, but both Keepsleeping and Bachrach44 make good points that should be followed up. For now, I think Keepsleeping point that "On humor forums like Something Awful, 'Future Girlfriend' was unavoidable a few years ago" is an argument for notability... but where will it end? rodii 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- JJay 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I agree with Keepsleeping; a meme like All Your Base makes it in, but most fade as quickly as they arose and are not deserving of encyclopedic treatment since they are non-notable. Eusebeus 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, another notable internet meme that should be kept. --badlydrawnjeff 15:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: OK. Systemic bias then. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/싱하형 is more popular in Korea than HMFG is anywhere. Yet, that page needs to be gone, and this one doesn't? -- WB 07:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

~~If your issue is really about an entirely different article, see WP:POINT~~. rodii 13:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I was off-base there. But I don't understand what the connection is between these two articles. rodii 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that person is far more popular (known by actual people in the streets, t-shirts, etc.) in Korea than this website, but that is voted for deletion, while this one is far less notable; nonetheless voted kept by many. -- WB 01:02, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attorney in fact for a URIE

Too narrow a scope regarding a specific occupation working at a specific organisation. I mean, we don't write something like programmers for Microsoft. And it seems to have neutrality problems and was created purely to attack the people in question. Delete. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 13:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete must be written by a lawyer because it is completely incomprehensible. Atrian 15:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete with flamethrower.--MONGO 16:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange as per above decision for "Board of directors at a URIE". All worthwhile information has already been merged.
- Sorry, forgot to sign N Shar 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Movementarian (Talk) 08:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. CJewell 19:13, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing List of Accidents

Per WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of what constitutes an accident is so elastic as to encompass certainly millions and quite likely billions of events every single day. Notable accidents will already have articles; this is a job for CategoryMan! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete alarmingly all-encompassing listcruft. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too? Atrian 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong Delete It is just copying off of List of Disasters just with a few more accidents included. MAZO 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete we are not an almanac either.--MONGO 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete ... per nomination. WP:NOT. —ERcheck @ 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Scoo 19:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep no wait, Stronger Keep (my vote counts more right?) thanks for the idea MAZO. Using your reasoning, List of disasters needs deletion as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.177.97 (talk • contribs)
- No, using his reasoning means that we have two almost identical lists on the same topic, and one should be deleted. Not meaning to have a go at your contributions, but this list is also impossible to lock down to a definition that would give it a seperate presece to the aforementioned list of disasters, without spiralling our of control. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete this list with undefined content. An unexpected event that "results in damage" could include grazing my knee when playing tennis. Sliggy 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete serious listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Stifle 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete I wholeheartedly support the deletion of this, it isn't properly defined. However, you should look up the definition of indiscriminate, because even though it needs a more narrow scope, this list is well orginized and thought out. Perhaps a little research is in order? Regardless this is an un-necessary listKWinYO 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Sorry this was one of my friends lame attempt to create a link page that made sense, there may be a few different people that used my IP, delete with my blessing.KWinYO 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Ridiculous list, would easily be terabytes long if it was complete. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment, the aforementioned List of disasters, has been nominated for deletion. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment While I agree that this list should be deleted, the term cruft as in listcruft is mis-interpreted. This article is NOT trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc. A more appropriate argument is needed, such as the fact the scope of this list is too broad and by its very definition, all encompassing.KWinYO 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

You are confusing fancruft with listcruft. For my personal view on listcruft see User:JzG/AfD - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

RfA! 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the events regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disasters deletion debates are seriously looking to be intertwined. I will be depositing this serious chunk of text in both deletion debates.

I have struck all my previous comments and opinions from both debates, and have attempted to reconsider the two nominations (List of disasters - referred to as Disasters, and Ongoing List of Accidents - referred to as Accidents) and my reasons for deletion, in as unbiased a way as possible. Having attempted to do so, I have come to the following conclusions:

Ongoing List of Accidents is an almost complete duplicate of List of disasters, and as such, warrants either a merger or deletion per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
- However, while the two articles have very similar content, the definitions for inclusion are different. The Disasters article gives its definition (and inclusion criteria) as "a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment." Therfore, in my personal opinion, you need a lot of bang to get your disaster-rated buck.
- The Accidents article gives it's definition (and inclusion criteria) as "is a mishap that happens unexpectedly, that results in damage or injury, up to and including death." I believe the point made by User:Atrian in the Accidents debate applies here - "I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too?". While defining an event as a disaster is 'structured' by the scope necessary to be considered by the media and public opinion as a disaster, any "undesirable or unfortunate happening" (the definition of accident I pulled from my hardcopy dictionary) could technically be included on this list; billions of entries per calender day.

However, looking at detail at the two lists, I would like to offer the following recommendations.

The list of aviation disasters/accidents doesn't belong in either article. These should be split off into a List of aviation accidents, where the criteria for inclusion is set at a certain amount of fatalities, per the introduction for the sublist in the Disasters
- As a subset of this suggestion , the lists of "accidents/disasters involving foo-vehicle" should also be split out into "Lists of foo-vehicle accidents", again, with a set fatality criteria, or at least some kind of inclusion criteria.
Mining accidents/disasters, now thats a section in serious need of overhaul. Mining is a dangerous industry, and while every fatality may not be a 'disaster', there would be too many events to comprehensively list in an 'accidents' list/article. A criteria for remaining within the Disasters article would have to be developed and enforced - my personal suggestion would be to set a casualty limit, but also include those that caused significant rethinks in the mining industry.
Fire accidents/disasters appears to be better served by the already-existing List of historic fires. Some merging to this article from these two articles would be appropriate.

Everything else in the List of disasters article is suitable (in my personal opinion), and as such should be kept.

However, if my suggested changes go ahead or don't, it appears to me that the Accidents article is always going to be the poor little brother to the Disasters article. Points to the creator for his/her effort, and if there is consensus towards my suggestions, I believe the user could best assist Wikipedia by helping to implement those. Unfortunately, the Accidents article should still be deleted, as there is no way (in my personal opinion) to produce a meaningful list/article under the current article name and definition of inclusion, without it spiralling out of control.

Here's hoping this makes sense, and that people read the whole thing. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

discussion resumes here

Responding at Disasters, since I think that is the place with the contentthat needs adressing. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

RfA! 13:06, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jamie Foster

Vanity. Staecker 14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete the "Self Publicist" - need we say more? KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete If only drinking and partying were a notable activity... non-notable vanity website. Atrian 15:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-bio. Only reference is the guy's own website. Stifle 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neohorizon

This page was previously set up as a redirect to another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REMAGINE. Listing properly now. Owen× ☎ 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment Just for the record, this network was notable, it was even included in some major IRC client software (including mIRC) as default networks to select from. Not to mention being credited in older builds on UnrealIRCD in the credit section. Axenet is still listed there on both. Kenpo0110 01:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete a now defunct name of an IRC network which never was notable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Same reasons that apply to Remagine also apply here. Atrian 15:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Atrian. rodii 15:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per KillerChihuahua Crunch 16:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete is is defunct and wasn't a big enough deal then either.--MONGO 16:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as no evidence of importance or impact. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the norm. Onthost 18:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. - Dharmabum420 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Aaron 22:08, 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 Commodore DOS, has already been merged. - ulayiti (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LOAD "*",8,1

This article is about a specific BASIC language command on the Commodore 64. While the article contents are correct, I think the subject is far too narrowly defined to warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 14:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete There is already a page on the BASIC programming language. Listing every single command is non-encyclopedic. Atrian 15:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nominator. Doubtful a search query with the article title would ever happen.--MONGO 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Commodore 64, or one of its sub-articles. -- Mikeblas 16:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Mikeblas. It's a meaningful historical tidbit for members of a particular generation, but I can't see anyone coming to Wikipedia and typing LOAD "*",8,1 into the search field. --Aaron 19:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Unless they were disoriented and unsure what computer they were on... Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Commodore 64 or Commodore 1541, though it's tough to pin down (this same command would be used on the Commodore VIC-20, for instance). I cleaned it up a bit. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge. Ah, the nostalgia... To tell you the truth, I probably would have typed this in the search box just for the heck of it if you gave me long enough. --Pagrashtak 20:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete not merge. WP:ISNOT a howto or manual. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment True, but I think that LOAD"*",8,1 is, for lack of a better word, "iconic" enough that it deserves at least a mention. After all, Rm (Unix) has a paragraph discussing rm -rf *, and there was a redirect from rm -rf / (I created a second redirect from rm -rf * just now). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - See 20 GOTO 10 (AfD discussion) for where we've had this discussion before. Uncle G 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, not useful as a redirect. Gazpacho 22:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge elsewhere. --King of All the Franks 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Commodore DOS. I have already merged the content there (well, not really merged, rewrote the whole thing. See Commodore DOS#File access. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to Commodore DOS after wwwwolf's rewrite. It is conceivable that someone of the right "vintage" will search on this string. Sliggy 13:37, 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 merge into Local churches. - ulayiti (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Local Church controversy

Important disclaimer: This AfD isn't intended to imply, that no criticism of Lord's recovery should be in Wikipedia.

This is obviously a POV-fork. This seems to be the lamentable stale-mate found in many of articles about so called sects: The main articles Lord's recovery, Witness Lee, Recovery Version of the Bible are in gloomy colors, not even mentioning the critical POV. The POV-fork is only critcism, and needs better sourcing. NPOV policy strongly discourages separate pro and con articles.

Pjacobi 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete cannot be verified MAZO 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment appears to be just a POV fork but support a merge with Local churches--MONGO 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as apparent POV fork. Merge the content if appropriate, I guess, but I am hesitant to do anythign but kill forks. I should WP:AGF I know... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverifiable POV fork. Stifle 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into article local churches, article contains quite some information which can be verified (and some is referenced already). Alternatively keep and add a summary in the Local churches article, per Wikipedia:POV fork#Articles and subarticles There is also the point that this article contains quite some edit history since April 2004, which should not be deleted. Of course, the content should be cleaned up thoroughly regarding NPOV and sourcing, but that's IMO no reason for deletion.

WHY IS THIS PAGE NOT DELETED YET? Why is a page in such dispute allowed to exist. The idea of linking an offensive page with opinions masquerading as facts ... this list of controversial opinions (unproven, unsubstantiated, not referenced, and not verifiable), it would seem that some have a sheer glee in paralysis through analysis, they want this debate to drag on as long as they can hang their dirty laundry out each day to dry! Well I for one think integrity is not up for debate and think that this so-called debate is a strategy to let cheap shots masquerade as fact. It seems this page violates the basic tenant of posting in wikopedia, in that most of the controversy are opinions and not verifiable or certainly not unobjective view point. (RS)

I think that the controversy article is worth keeping as a subset of the main article, the Lord's Recovery, as there is information included in it that is not found in the main article. It might get pretty cumbersome to try to integrate it into the main article so keeping it separate is useful. However, there may be a few places where a NPOV approach is needed to clean it up, although I thought most sections did aim for a NPOV.

  (colinlavergne)

For my two cents, please note that the Local_Church article has had a long history of being blanked, vandalized, and contested in attempts to - in the words of sysop DJ Clayworth - canonize the movement. The forked article, Local Church controversy, was originally created by ongoing efforts to present the article on the Local_Church in the most positive possible light while only grudgingly admitting that concerns existed by people outside the movement - the same sorts of concerns that have arisen with articles on Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses for instance.

Personally, I feel that this fork was created under false pretenses and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and didn't want to put too much effort into editing a page that I had hoped would simply be deleted. If this article is to be deleted, I wouldn't mind taking the effort to clean up the mess in the controversy article so that it can be folded into another article that meets the standards desired by the Wikipedia community.

I propose that the existing article be significantly revised and folded back into the article on the Local_Church as a section of the article. I also propose that this discussion be posted in the Talk:Local_Church article, with a notice that this section was intentionally folded back into the original article and should remain there rather than being forked again into a new article. TheLocalChurch 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As asked by Pjakobi, here some critical sources on the local church which I consider as reliable (though, of course, not neutral) - not complete, I'm in vacation away from my library. --Irmgard 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Johannes Aagaard, Neil Duddy and The Peculiar Teachings of The Local Church Aagaard is Professor for NRMs in Aarhus.

Local Church Fights for Evangelical ID Card Not neutral, but tells clearly who says what

ApologeticsIndex: The Local Church While Hein sure is not neutral, he presents lots of sources, usually on both sides.

Bautz on Watchman Nee German, neutral, reliable

merge Let us try it. I know that articles dealing with cults and controversial sects and new religious movements are problematic on Wikipedia, because they tend to degenerate into ugly and unencyclopedic battles between well-informed critics (mainly former members) and well-informed adherents, see e.g. Prem Rawat and Sathya Sai Baba. I do not know what to do about it. (I am myself an active critic in these two articles.) Andries 23:20, 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 and redirect to bubblegum pop. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheesy music

DELETE not an actual genre of music; it is just your opinion. WillC 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It may or may not be an actual genre, but many people will instantly know what is meant by 'cheesy music' and indeed many nightclubs, pubs and bars market themselves using the phrase to describe their music policy. Also, many articles refer to cheesy music, and so an article to explain what it is is entirely appropriate. eg Klute (Nightclub), Top Banana, Un Pingüino en mi Ascensor, 1449AM URB

Also, before being deleted, at least give someone the chance to expand the article - hence the stub tag.DMB 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete unless it can be made into an encyclopedic article...very doubtful--MONGO 16:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - The adjective "cheesy" can be used to modify many nouns. Any such article would only be original research. One person's cheesy may be other's classic. —ERcheck @ 16:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: it has three inlinks. (Your opinion of whether that is only three). RJFJR 18:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, or maybe Redirect to Bubblegum pop. -- Dragonfiend 18:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. There could be an interesting article written under the title "Cheesy music", but this isn't it. --Aaron 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, cheesiness. Dustimagic 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep but seriously cleanup. The subject of "cheese" otherwise known as "manufactured pop" is notable enough, and IMHO can be made into an article of encyclopedic quality, but this article as it stands is a POV mess. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to bubblegum pop as per Dragonfiend. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs

14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to bubblegum pop which seems to be pretty similar. Jono 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Folica

DELETEif not fleshed out, just a shill page. WillC 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete ad, and weblink...we are not the Yellow Pages.--MONGO 16:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - advertising. —ERcheck @ 16:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per MONGO. Crunch 16:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete yep get rid of it. Batmanand 18:36, 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 merge into Blind Melon. Deleting and merging is not a valid procedure in most cases, especially in that order. - ulayiti (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jena Kraus

I vote that this page be deleted and merged with the band page- maybe under a trivia section

Delete and MergeSethie 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Blind Melon.--MONGO 16:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Izehar 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge -- JJay 07:40, 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 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peace Frogs

DELETE....shilling a business, not notable. WillC 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, advert. PJM 15:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete just adware spam--MONGO 16:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete advert. Stifle 02:13, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political cleavage

DELETE prove its use/notability. WillC 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete this is a speedy.--MONGO 16:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Izehar 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki to Wikidictionary. The term is used in political science arenas, but not very often, and I can't confirm just how accurate the definition is. --Aaron 19:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Delete. Changing my vote per my comment below. --Aaron 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki if verifiable per Aaron. --Bachrach44 21:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Transwiki per above. I thought this was going to be about Alessandra Mussolini for a minute there :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - Having done some digging, I'm not at all confident that the definition given here is accurate. Most use the term in the sense that you would suspect: A sort of wedge (ideological, socioeconomic, whatever) that keeps apart two political parties, interest groups, etc. I can't find any use of the term that matches up with the definition given in this article. As such, I've changed my vote above to "delete". --Aaron 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I don't think it's verifiable, or transwikiable, or in fact belongs anywhere other than possibly BJAODN. Stifle 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Nerf, since someone has already been bold and merged the important content into that article. —Cleared as filed. 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stefan Darts

Delete. The topic is entirely non-notable, to the point of seeming more akin to a vanity page for the creator than an encyclopedic entry. Google found less than ten relevant hit. It already has it's own listing in the main nerf page, which seems indulgent enough. Noah Smith 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Nerf.--MONGO 15:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity, non-notable. —ERcheck @ 16:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete vanity (<10 Google hits). Madman 20:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per ERcheck. Stifle 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge into Nerf.Subject is not vanity. Actual knowledge on the subject would do those who feel so some good. 15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Cape May Gazette

Delete:There is no links to this page, and I think we don't need info on local newspapers. Crew29 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Deletenn free local newspapers are rarely fact checked and usually filled with advertisments anyway.--MONGO 15:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The article admits that it's mostly advertising. Crunch 16:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as advert and unverified. Stifle 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I'm all for keeping local newspapers, but generally not free ones (unless distributed by a larger organisation). -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Hon. Justice Carmen Vassallo

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was This article is a fiction - there is no such Judge. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - Appears to be a hoax. The Queensland court website that lists current and former judges on their Supreme Court of Appeal [14] does NOT have any judge by this name listed. —ERcheck @ 15:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- See linked page Getamungstit - this is a student publication from an Australian university. Note that the subject, Carmen Vassallo is listed as a columnist renown for writing controversial comedy. ?student hoax? Delete this article and its associated redirect. —ERcheck @ 15:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nothing googles and neither link worked for me...led to dead pages.--MONGO 15:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - further to ERcheck's comment, whois shows the poster's IP address 132.234.251.211 to be Griffith University. Tearlach 16:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as apparent hoax. -- Dragonfiend 18:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete hoax. Stifle 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment - redirect page, Vassallo, should be deleted as well. —ERcheck @ 12:29, 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 karmafist 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Localdataplace

Not an encyclopedia article, but appears to be a Freecycle-like project attempting to use wikipedia to create a homepage for themselves quercus robur 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete it is just trying to advertise on wikipedia MAZO 15:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete adware.--MONGO 15:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Its not even advertising as there's no external link- they are actually trying to create a homepage for this project within the wikipedia as far as I can see quercus robur 16:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete .. per nomination. —ERcheck @ 16:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --kingboyk 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete It certainly isn't notable and it looks like they are trying to advertise for it as well. -- MicahMN | μ 17:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Izehar 18:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons to Keep This Page

Addressing the comments above, one at a time:

Per the wikipedia defintion, an encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. This page is an attempt to give people knowledge, including the existance of the site, how it fits in with Freecycle (during its conflicts), etc. In this case, it is the same as linking to other commercial sources that serve the local areas, such as the television stations, radio stations and newspapers; they have the same local purpose.
"... a Freecycle-like project...". As we wrote, Freecycle is a collection of Yahoo Groups. We have many important differentiators, which are listed on our own site. We specifically didn't list them on the wiki page so that it wouldn't look like an ad.
"use wikipedia to create a homepage". We already have a homepage. We're attempting to tell people about a resource that other people in their communities are using.
"just trying to advertise". Look at the links on the page for Charlotte, North Carolina. I see links to companies, which certainly help to reinforce their brand. I see links to other community services, like churches, newspapers, television and radio stations. Please explain why it's ok for someone interested in Charlotte to know about only one of the town's newspapers, but not to know about another place where they can interact with other locals?
"...there's no external link..." The introduction gives the URL, which has now been made into a link.
"...certainly isn't notable..." To try and keep the page from looking like an advertisement, we didn't list all the things that make the site different from other sites; these are listed on our home page(s). The vanity page lists several reasons why this page could exist, including: 'An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.' Please explain how we can show the importance without coming across as an advertisement in your minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalDataPlace (talk • contribs)

- - I wouldn't have a problem with the page if it was converted into a proper, nuetral, reasonably written encyclopedic article on the subject, even just a stub. At the moment its not, and needs a total overhaul. If you require a wiki for discussion and development of your project these can be downloaded or obtained free of charge very easily nowadays, its just that wikipedia isn't the appropriate place quercus robur 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - LDP, T think Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not is good reading for you. You wrote, "we didn't list all the things that make the site different from other sites;". Well, yes please, it is imperative you list them, citing reliable sources as you do. As you said, this is an encyclopedia: you will not see an article on my dog here without at least a verifiable word on its importance. -- Perfecto 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Completely unencyclopedic tone. Contains self-references ("Note to Wikipedia editors"). (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, per ESkog. The meta-reference was the clincher for me -- Shinmawa 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Alexa ranking just barely cracks the four million mark, very few Google hits, many of them apparently adverts anyway. This is vanispamcruftisement. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per WP:WEB guideline (Just zis Guy's research). An interesting project, but lacks the widespread notability at this time required for a Wikipedia page. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete this ad, per Guy. rodii 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. WP:VSCA applies nicely. I wish you well with your project, but Wikipedia is not a place to advertize. Also Wikipedia:Avoid self references. Stifle 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong delete Adspam. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:42, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad

This is another attempt (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Johnubiprasad) to sing the praises of this scientist/doctor. Please see Talk:Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad where I've attempted to discover the facts and uncovered a tale of fraud and wild exaggeration. The user 202.138.112.252 (Contributions, talk) has made many related contributions that are probably similarly suspect (no citations). If I have a doubt over deleting it is that the article could be rewritten to contain the information currently on the talk page (in an encyclopedic form). That would serve two purposes:

If this guy's name reappears alongside some boast, then it can be corrected with reference to the page.
The presense of accurate information on the web about this person's history may be beneficial – see Saskatchewan Party Caucus News Release May 19, 2005.

If the page is deleted, then the various links should be deleted/ammended too. Colin 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Comment If this is the same page about the same person with a differnt page name, when it was 8 Delete comments to nil Keep comments, it does not seem you need to follow same process. But I'm not clear - are you proposing delete or keep? It seems you have investigated deeply. From what you say, and with this history, my thought is to keep with carefully checked factual information only, including the info you have on the Discussion page.Obina 17:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment and time taken to consider. I'm really looking for advice from more experienced folk than me. Without the scandal, he's not notable enough IMO. If we delete then I think it is quite likely that the (mis)information will reappear, given Prasad's history. If we keep but with all the facts exposed then perhaps we will just end up with an edit war? --Colin 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete vanity, apparently from a known vanitarian. Madman 20:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Madman.
Delete: I would have abstained – but creating pages with different names and almost similar contents are not a good idea to establish notability. NN. --Bhadani 11:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a different person.There are several people with this name.I think we should clarify.I looked up the scholar google and fouund him having conducted the research.(A.J.Prasad).There are several people with this name.The one you hav in mind is a psychiatrist from Ranchi.who is different from A.J.Prasad.Kedar Agarawal.(Psychiatrist,Delhi)

Indeed it is a different person.The one in Ranchi is Ashoka Prasad practicing in Bariatu Colony.This man A.J.Prasad has been in UP for over 15 years..Kedar Agarwal

I have been able to look up.The book is there in the NIMHANS,Bangalore Libraray(Boloical Basis of Neuroses0.I think it is a case of mistaken identity. Kedar Agarwal I deed AJ Prasad is am member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences. it appears. Kedar Agarwal

Comment Thank you for trying to clarify things but I'm pretty certain that the two are the same. However, I can't read the deleted Johnubiprasad article so don't know what it says. The AfD page contains a plea from a John Connolly that links Johnubi Prasad with Sodium Valproate, Biological Basis and TOP 1000 SCIENTISTS. The same link to all these was made by user 202.138.112.252 with Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad. Please see Talk:Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad for more details, where I've been careful not to assume all the AJ Prasads are the same person (though I suspect they are). What we do know is that 202.138.112.252 stated that Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad is the great granson of Rajendra Prasad (1st president of India). The ABC radio program mentioned on the AJP talk page also says AJP is the great grandson of India's first president.

Reading the ABC program transcript and the BMJ news report, you get a picture of someone who likes to have others think he is more important than he really is (Anna Monika Medal, Nobel Prize) and this fits with the exaggerated importance given to him re: sodium valproate and the biological basis of neuroses. Correcting this misinformation is one reason why I think it might be useful to keep this article but totally rewritten with the (unpleasant) facts.

If you still think we've got two people confused, can you cite some sources and full names saying exactly who is who. --Colin 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment I think it may be worthwhile contacting Dr.V.Radharishnan of the Indian Psychiatric Association(Deputy Secretary).He seems to believe that there are two psychiatrists with this name.One is in Ranchi who has just returned from abroad and the other in Maharajganj.The Indian Medical Association also states that there are 8 people with this name on their membership rolls.I am trying to ascertain from them the wherabouts.Dr Rajendra Prasad was from Bihar which is where Ranchi used to be until rcently(now capital of Jharkhand).By the way on googling I came across. another doctor with this name in Farmington Michigan but I do not think he is a psychiatrist.I am the charman of psychiatry at Sfdarjung Delhi, the largest hospital here and I seem to remember a lecture by Dr.Jahnavi-Prasad( not Jonnubirprasad) as you mention on valproate a few years ago at teh Delhi Medical Association a few years ago but I do get the feeling that he was well settled in Maharajganj and remains there.Kedar Mal Agarwal.11th Jan.

I shall try and contact Dr.Radhakrishnan (his emial by the way is venkatradhakrishanan2000@yahoo.com)and write back.Kedar Mal Agarwal. -- 59.94.115.5 (talk · contribs) 11th Jan.2006

Comment I have some information.The Indian Medical Association provided it.Ashoka Prasad is a graduate from Kanpur,1977.He trained in England.Ashok Jahnavi Kumar Prasad is a 1975 graduate from Patna.He spent some time in England then under Arvid Carlsson in Gothenberg and then some time at the NIH in Bethesda,MD USA before returning to India.There are therefore two psychiatrists with the same name.

My colleaugu looked at your comments and was interested to note the term Johnubiprasad.He pointed out that anyone ith any understanding of the Indian names would recognise this name to be phony.Jahnavi is a Sanskrit term meaning the Holy Ganges.It amy be spelt Janhavi but is never spelt Johnubi.On using the scholar google,I noticed a few articles by Ashoka Jahanavi Prasad but none by Johnubiprasad.The book(Biological Basis) is incidentally also in the All India Institute oif Medical Sciences Library just across the road and it is by Ashok Jahanavi Prasad and is dated 1988,much before the article on the ABC..The American Academy of Arts and Sciences also has a Foreign Honorary Member Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad.The article on the valproate appeared in Pharmatherepeutica as scholar google suggests and was by A.J.Prasad.I would tend to agree that it is an advance.All of us clinical psychiatrists had nothinmg but lithium for manic depression before that and it is toxic.We all use valproate now as a first choice.It may be worthwhile ascertaining from the Medical Council of England whteher there are two doctors with this name with these qualifications as they both worked in England.Also I have serious doubts about the charlaton's links with Dr.Rajendra.He in India is known as a thorough gentleman universally respected and next to Mahtma's family his is the family which has never to my knowledge abused their position,rare in India.It may be that someone is misusing the name. -- KMA -- 59.94.112.34 (talk · contribs) 12th January 2006.

Comment I just came across the developments.Firstly,let me clarify that I use an Institutional internet connection and have written only the following articles(in addition to this one):

Robert Evan Kendell:whose book Companion to Psychiatric Studies helped me enormously during my training
Ian Brockington: whose book Motherhood and Mental illness I had consulted
Ian Oswald:whose book Sleep I had again consulted during my training years.
Sula Wolff: again whose book I had consulted(Children under stress)
Solomon Halbert Snyder:whose work on endorp[hins formed the basis of mmy doctoral thesis.

Also your records would probably show that I had requested articles on Max Hamilton(whose scales are known to every psychiatric researcher),Sir Aubrey Lewis(doyen of British Psychiatry),Martin Roth and Felix Post(both eminent psychogeriatricians),Michael Rutter(father of child psychiatry) and Eliott Slater(father of psychiatric genetics)I believe that introduction of sodium valproate is a major advance as lithium was the only drug available for over twenty years.

I am certainly unaware oF Jounubbiprasad or whoever he is and apart from major chages in the Kendell artcle am unaware of any major corrections that have been instituted by your team.

Being a clinician of five years duration,I had included the entries of only those whose work I had relied upon in my research.I that makes me a "vanitarian",I am afraid my concept of vanity is slightly different.It may be prudent to suspend the right of people to write articles.But what I find hurtful is the sneering remark. -- Anil Kumar 202.138.112.252 (talk · contribs) 13th January,2006

I have just signed in. -- Anilkumar2006 (talk · contribs) 13th January,2006

I've made my mind up and my vote is now: Delete. There may be a name confusion here. However an anonymous user who signs as John Connolly linked these names: "Ashoka Prasad (also known as Ashoka JOHNUBIPRASAD)". Perhaps Johnubiprasad is some kind of pet-name. Regardless, I think all the A J Prasads in this world would appear to be not notable enough for Wikipedia. Whilst sodium valproate may well be "a major advance", the role of A.J. Prasad in this advance (with the evidence available) would appear to be extremely minor. I repeat from the (soon to be deleted?) talk page:

According to the The History of Valproate in Clinical Neuroscience, PA Lambert is the first to use valproate to treat mania and had done so for a decade before publishing a paper in 1975. The papers PMID 5128637, PMID 1132367, PMID 6778456, PMID 6779508 all predate the one by A.J. Prasad:

Prasad AJ (1984). "The role of sodium valproate as an anti-manic agent". Pharmatherapeutica 4 (1): 6-8. PMID 6438650.

Prasad's article discusses just seven patients who were treated with sodium valproate and notes that five got better. This is not some large scale study, double-blind trial or even highly-cited paper. It is merely one of many small studies perfomed in the early 1980s (see "Psychiatry Update: Annual Review" by the American Psychiatric Association (ISBN 0880482427) page 138. This lists five other studies including another by Lambert in 1984 of 108 patients) Similarly, the comments regarding biological basis of neuroses are unsubstantiated. --Colin 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed you are right.This was not the first study.But let me take you back to lithium.JohnCade is credited with the discovery and it is known that he got himself unsuccessfully nominated for a knighthood(once by himself!).He did the study on the flimsiest of evidence and the inferences he drew were not supported by his results(frogs not dying on consuming urine of manics having taken lithium!).The adulation showered on him obscures the important fact-that it was Mogens Schou who conducted the first real trial using tested psychometric scales.Schou was a very unassuming man (he does not even have an article in the Wikipedia-I could not find enough details on the google as I did for all others including this)who was not given his due- and he never complained.I would advise you to look at the Emrich and lambert studies and note the psychometric tests employed.While Ashok Sir(he was with our medical college until his retirement in June 2005) has fully acknowledged in his paper that lambert and Emrich should be credited with the discovery(in the paper itself),all of this medical school believed he underplayed his role given that his was the first supported and sponsored clinical trial(by Sanofi).As far as the book goes,one has to read the preface by Professor Merton ,the then President of British Association of Psychopharmacology-"This is the first known effort to weave all the existing evidence of biological origins of neuroses and draw a meningful conclusion."As I have written the article,my vote would naturally be to retain it.RetainAnilkumar

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Monet Bandits

Not notable band. Few web references, no critical reviews, not at AllMusic, one album that is not in print. Mikeblas 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Possibly vanity, defintely nn. Batmanand 16:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Per Batmanand. -- MicahMN | μ 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy per nn-band SorryGuy 18:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-band. Stifle 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agrexophilia

Dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Nick Boalch 17:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. SorryGuy 18:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. Movementarian 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Nothing to add. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:57, 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 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autagonistophilia

Dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Nick Boalch 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. Movementarian 18:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and amazing that Wiktionary wanted it, there is no practical limit to the number of "philias" that can be named. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gabacho

Dict def that has already been transwiki-ed (also, CV concerns, heavily exceprted from etymology dict.) RJFJR 17:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delte. If I decide why, I'll add it here, but for the moment I know I want it gone :) Stifle 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] De-Evolution

Original research. Suspect Steven Dubis is also the person who uploaded this information. Francs 2000 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. SorryGuy 18:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Yes, User:Sdubis probably is the S Dubis listed in the article. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. As original research. While some of the ideas presented in the article have been presented by other individuals (definitely not original to "Steven Dubis"), this is not a useful starting point for an article on those issues. ManoaChild 22:29, 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; nothing to be merged that would be relevant. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Hewish

Non-notable vanity. 31 Google hits, only one that seems to be him is first one - which is his own website. Ifnord 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination. SorryGuy 18:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
keep: have removed offending website link - i'm new to this!
keep: by my reckoning 9 of the 31 google hits belong to this Andrew Hewish. This entry was provided as background to the work of the Centre; if it is contrary to a Wikipedia fashion then of course it should be removed. C4RD hopes to provide a larger registry of those artists and 'creatives' whose core practice is drawing. It has a regular 'Time-Out' listing and a solid relationship with the drawing community not just in London but in Britain generally. I refer anyone with doubts to Phil Sawdon of the drawing journal 'Tracey'. [[Controller 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]]
Merge Nanospace, Andrew Hewish and Centre for Recent Drawing into one article. Either Nanospace or Centre for Recent Drawing should be the article title. The rest can redirect there. Mrsteviec 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All of these were created today by the same person. I don't think any of them is notable, even together. Ifnord 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge under Centre for Recent Drawing as that is the entry that is of informational and public value. Controller 23:46, 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, but merge/redirect to Free Republic. —Cleared as filed. 12:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ping list

Minor technical term used on one forum only; can never be a perfect article; delete. The Land 18:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge. It's culture of that forum, so it should be in the Free Republic article. -- Mikeblas 19:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Article has no AfD tag, and history looks as if it's been merged and redirected before. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yep, I left the AfD tag on the talk page by mistake. Slapped wrist. :p The Land 08:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as cruft of some sort. Stifle 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge with FR article.--WinOne4TheGipper 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy merge. The contents are in the main article already so all it needs is a redirect. Dr Debug 23:19, 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 speedily deleted as recreation of article deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker blog -- Francs 2000 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poker Blog

"A poker blog is a blog about poker" - content-free dicdef. I don't see any evidence that this is a truly distinct genre that in itself merits an separate article. CDC (talk) 18:41, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Men From Maine

not-notable comedy song from local radio morning show. Mikeblas 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge to article on radio station, if not available, delete. This is in no way a keep vote. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Saberwyn. Stifle 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to WROR. Very notable in the Boston area, all but unknown outside. Haikupoet 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per above -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Article can stand alone because of it also referring to the album in addition to the radio segment. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- The CD of rehashed songs for the show can easily be referred to in the Men From Maine section of the associated radio station's article, in it's own little subsection... unless you plan to do some pretty serious expansion of the information on the cd.Ð

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom's Townie Tunes

Non-notable skit on local radio show. Mikeblas 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge to article on radio station, if not available, delete. This is in no way a keep vote. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge per Saberwyn. Stifle 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to WROR. Very notable in Boston area, unknown outside of it. Haikupoet 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to WROR. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Zoe. Stifle 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil kelly

Delete. I placed a speedy tag on this article but a claim of notability was later added. Google did not help me in my attempt to verify notability of this 14 year old novelist and champion speller ! No Guru 18:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy {{nn-bio}} delete. Scoo 19:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any listing of novels by this young man. If he's an author, let's have some ISBN numbers. -- Mikeblas 19:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete 'A local spelling champ' is not a reasonable claim of notability. Obina 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

"whilst on potrol in the town on the 7th of december 1998 he was brutally set upon by a gang of antelopes." ?!?!?!? They dont have Antelopes in Bedford (unless theres been an escape from the local zoo) Complete Bollocks by the sound of it! Delete Jcuk 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Kim Possible video games

Crufty list that won't likely grow. Already exists in Kim Possible article, so no need to merge. Mikeblas 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nomination MAZO 19:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 20:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as redlink nest. Stifle 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Listcruft. Youngamerican 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no delete votes, nomination withdrawn by User:JzG. -- Francs 2000 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wembley F.C.

Stub article on non-league football team. No known connection with Wembley Stadium. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I was about to say "rubbish that's June Whitfield's club", but that's Wimbledon F.C.... ~~Weak Delete as it seems non-notable but I don't know that much about football~~ -- Change vote to keep following small expansion. -- Francs 2000 21:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Such a club exists in London. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siva1979 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep. A minor club, admittedly, but many other articles about English football clubs at the same level exist. My own personal threshold of notability would be a club senior enough to take part in the FA Cup, which Wembley passes. Qwghlm 21:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. It is a notable club. Carioca 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Strong keep. We have articles on most non-league clubs above level 10 or so, and the fact that it's a stub is irrelevant as there's plenty more that can be written about them. See F.C. United of Manchester or AFC Wimbledon for examples of good articles on English non-league clubs. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

For values of "good" which may include footiecruft :-) But OK, I am happy to put my hands up to a bad call. If any passing admin wants to close this early I'd not argue. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:14, 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Butt

Relisting; not enough discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Butt. Mt personal view is delete. The Land 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You are not relisting it, but in effect nominating it again after having closed the old discussion. I suggest re-opening the old discussion and relisting that (as is usually done). u p p l a n d 20:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. World champion coach. -- JJay 22:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above Jcuk 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep & label as stub for expansion. Not my area but he list of achievements clearly shows he's notable Kcordina 13:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep leader of his sport -Drdisque 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discoverity

Protologism with 13 google hits, some of which appear to be typos for 'discovery.' [15] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's speedyable - sorry for the waste of time if it is. Vary | Talk 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nomination and I think more people would look this up in a dictionary than Wikipedia. MAZO 19:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Protologism dictdef = delete. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete neologism. --Bachrach44 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Deltee per above. Stifle 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Produced DC and Lord of the Rings MiniMates List of Produced Street Fighter and Battlestar Gallactica MiniMates

A list of commercial products (which WP:ISNOT); invites one to see the main MiniMates article which is where these also should not be as that should not be a directory of commercial products either. I think we can leave it to the manufacturers to do the online catalog. They will probably spell the franchise correctly, for a start. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - we are not a catalogue. Madman 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom/above. Dustimagic 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Comment don't know what happened there - I don't want it gone that badly. Dlyons493 Talk 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Marvel_Legends has a similar checklist of products, why cant Minimates? FYI the manufacturers do not provide an online catalog. Adycarter 14:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Maybe we could put them into one page? And why these two pages and not the Marvel MiniMates one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.248.253 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Produced DC and Lord of the Rings MiniMates List of Produced Street Fighter and Battlestar Gallactica MiniMates

A list of commercial products (which WP:ISNOT); invites one to see the main MiniMates article which is where these also should not be as that should not be a directory of commercial products either. I think we can leave it to the manufacturers to do the online catalog. They will probably spell the franchise correctly, for a start. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - we are not a catalogue. Madman 20:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom/above. Dustimagic 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Comment don't know what happened there - I don't want it gone that badly. Dlyons493 Talk 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. Stifle 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep Marvel_Legends has a similar checklist of products, why cant Minimates? FYI the manufacturers do not provide an online catalog. Adycarter 14:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per above. Maybe we could put them into one page? And why these two pages and not the Marvel MiniMates one? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.248.253 (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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prefactor

This started as original research ("A prefactor is a process that involves reworking or rewriting, oftentimes code for a computer program, where the solution ends up being the original, and oftentimes more elegant solution"), but Vegalabs replaced it with the meaning in mathematics. Now it is just a dictionary definition and I do not see any scope for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep, it's reasonable. I'm going to watchlist this and try to expand it later this week. Stifle 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Dictionary entries should be in a glossary or the like, not have their own articles. I may change vote if Stifle expands satisfactorily. --C S (Talk) 16:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. -- Fropuff 02:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, this is a dictionary entry. Deville 05:46, 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, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LX/LuelinX

Relisting for AfD, too few votes last time at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX. No vote. The Land 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - provides useful links and is informative about the project. Keep - it is not affiliated with "LUElinks" at all. -Matt 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete NOt affiliated with LUElinks, but not notable either. Few Google hits, Wikipedia is top site on Google. Looks very minor indeed. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per the above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. Stifle 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep It's notable. The project is rather active, and does have its merits. Additionally, the above delete (JunkieVegeta is a faggot), was a personal bias, and shouldn't count as a vote. --NSA 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable, vanity
Keep I see no reason to remove it. Sartak 15:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This entire discussion is pointless. The entire point of this AfD discussion is for people from LUElinks to come and troll (i.e. whine). Should be invalidated as biased. -Matt 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, to add on to the "not notable" argument: it is consistently at above the 97 percentile mark in SF.net activity, and a couple months ago reached the top 200 projects. -Matt 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Hill

Non-notable subject in article with barely any (so to speak) information Madman 20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete only 2 credits, and they're porn credits too. -- Bachrach44 21:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. See this interesting afd for relevant entertainment... JHMM13 (T | C) 21:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and expand. This just as interesting as the 200 other actresses in Category:American_porn_stars. -- JJay 22:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think that we would keep an article about an non-porn actress who had only 2 bit parts to her resume. Madman 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Not sure what you mean. Ms. Hill has been featured in a number of movies as well as on the video box covers. Her work is widely admired and discussed on the internet. Any actress who can rise to those heights deserves our full attention. -- JJay 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Completely pointless and useless. Choalbaton 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep as per JJay Jcuk 23:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Backrach44. Stifle 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable porn actress. Single link is to a cached google site. Throat gagging... Atrian 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Link is cached because wikipedia, despite non-censorship, blocks links to certain sites. Otherwise the link is live. -- JJay 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep I realize it's porn, and the girl has been in only a few movies, but the Throat Gagger's scene did cause quite a stir in the porn community. In RAME (rec.arts.movies.erotica), there have been a few dozen posts about just this one scene. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.253.172.209 (talk • contribs) .
Delete as not encyclopedic. I'll be ~~laughing~~ crying all night at the thought of bursting a blood vessel in my eye during oral pseudo-rape as "rising to heights". - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 07:16, 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 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MyLovingMemory.com

Vanispamcruftisement of the first water. Starts with the site name intercapped as a web link (sets the old spam radar off straight away!) and finishes by asserting copyright incompatible with GFDL. What is between the link and the copyrigth statement is advertorial. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete As per most obvious reasons ever. Obli (Talk) 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete spam --Bachrach44 21:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP! Noob Xanthor 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC) Xanthor

I am the author of that article and I don't know what the problem is. You don't like that I've introduced the site and what its trying to do? Would you like 3 paragaphs of garbage explanation? I am only quoting my source of those slogans by providing the link to the page I got them from.

As for the copyright of the slogans I was with the understanding that by sharing that I was allowed to share them here provided I credited the author?

If you dont like the article I would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it. But I do wonder if I'll actually get any.

EDIT: I have looked at a few other articles and I think I see what you guys want it to be more like. I will rewrite it this evening. BUT DONT YOU DARE DELETE IT! Xanthor 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

- You wouldn't happen to be the author of the website, now would you? ;) Obli (Talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Who else would endure this? ;) Xanthor 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor
Delete as per nom. Please don't threaten other users. Dustimagic 22:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non notable website. Obina 22:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:WEB guidline of notability standards: Alexa rating of 1.2 million. Google says no incoming weblinks, and the webpage is only mentioned by directory lists. In addition, appears to be a variant copycat of the Million Dollar Homepage, by selling blocks of pixels to upload photos onto. Good idea, but not to the standard of Wikipedia inclusion. Delete. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, nn website, the claims of copyright are problematic as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --NaconKantari 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

A special thank you to --Bachrach44 for sharing with me the guidelines found at [WP:WEB]

Given these guidelines it would seem that any webpage that has not already achieved fame would not meet the criteria for inclusion.

My only problem with this, and I understand its about keeping the Wiki up to quality standards, is that in fact the mylovingmemory.com website is the first to allow the general public to upload photos to create a digital collage. Although it does share a similarity to the milliondollarhomepage in the way it offers pixels for photos - the two sites are nothing alike. The milliondollarhomepage does not offer any content, only links. The Mylovingmemory website is the first to approach digital art collages in this manner and in fact their efforts are a historic moment and should be recognized.

Addditionally, the guidelines do not speak to uniqueness of content or public interactivity. Most "collage art" is done by a single artist on a static canvas. This site is creating digital collages by allowing public interaction on a changing canvas.

In short, I did not come here to post about "yet another nuke site" and attempt to include something as common as that. This website is unique. It is the only one I know of that does it and it is doing it as a project in philanthrophy. Exceptions should be made. Xanthor 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

Delete per nom. rodii 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not the first place where website references should appear. I wish you well with your endeavour. Stifle 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. vanity advertising. Atrian 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. To be fair to the page creator I checked out the promise to rewrite. Not even the copyright tag has been removed. The article states that the site was created last month. I wish this project well and suggest joining webrings. Regards, Durova 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
PAGE REVISED. Thanks Durova, but it is still my "night" :-) It still needs a bit more work but it has been revised. Xanthor 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

Comment. I have reviewed the new page. The basis for my delete is unchanged. The issue is not the text. The Web site is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for promoting new things. I, too, wish this web site success so it may be here in several years time.Obina 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment As per Obina the page is still largely advertising. Delete Atrian 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

KEEP it is not advertising. I sell advertising for a living - thats not it. Obina said its not the text .. so to point to advertising and then refer to what Obina said makes no sense. You are all very discouraging and I will spend no more time about this except to send an email to this websites founder.

The internets version of a time capsule wants accepted by the internets version of an encylopeida. Its that simple. Xanthor 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

It's not "The internets version of a time capsule". It's your version of a time capsule. It would have to be pretty noteworthy indeed to be the internet's version of anything. May sites over the years have offered people a place to put images, reflections, confessions...all kinds of things. I think you overestimate the uniqueness and the novelty of your project, but even if you are right, it has to make some kind of impact before it is notable enough to be treated here. Your site hasn't even launched yet. There are thousands and thousands of projects out there that are just getting started and looking for recognition. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your project. People have tried to explain this to you and point you toward Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of websites, but for some reason you don't want to listen. This isn't personal--several people have gone out of their way to wish you and your project well--but the fact is, you're trying to use this place as something it's not. There are all kinds of ways to promote a new site; Wikipedia is something else. Best of luck with your project; may it prosper and evolve into something worthy of inclusion. rodii 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Rodii for taking the time to do more than vote. I do understand what people are saying and I freely admit that I dont like it :-) On that note I do want to say that _I HAVE_ noticed all the well wishes that I have recieved and I thank you all very much for them. I don't want to appear ungrateful. They were noticed.. and even encouraging! :-)

I do want to say that I have scoured the net to purposly try and find someone who is taking photos from real lives and making collages and neo-impressionistic art out of them ... and they're just arent any sites that I have found. Yes there are memorial sites and yes there are many many photo galleries... but they arent "creating" any new works from the photos that are shared. This is the uniqueness that I think I have with the site. I would love for anyone to show me a site that is already doing something similar... but only because I have spent a good amount of time trying to find one myself. It's a true internet first... and .... as time progresses it is getting harder and harder to be able to make that claim.

Thanks again to all my well wishers. Truth be told I realized yesterday after reading the guidelines that I probably wouldent change your policy and I accepted it then... but I had to try. I too wish everyone well even though I did not get the reception I had hoped for. Xanthor 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor

Graciously said. rodii

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

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

The result of the debate was delete; article not rewritten. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional development

Original research. Or something. Either that or I want some of what this guy's been smoking... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite Belsky and Rovine seems to be a well-known study so an article would be possible. Delete as OR if not rewritten Dlyons493 Talk 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garment industry

Dictdef. Or simply so blindingly obvious that there is nothing much to add. We have articles on textiles and the like, after all. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy under CSD A3: content-free dicdef. N Shar 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy Redirect to Textile manufacturing Batmanand 22:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect at any velocity, per Batmanand. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 22:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:21, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MPLS Myths

This isn't an article but an essay, a polemic arguing a particular POV about a data protocol. It's way out on neutrality and tone, and skates on the edge of original research ("'Because of the marketing push there are many popular untruths about MPLS, this paper is here to show some of them"). Despite tagging since December 8th 2005, no-one has seemed inclined to mend it, so maybe deletion is more appropriate Tearlach 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete is more appropriate. Madman 20:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge carefully There is some info on that page which looks like it might be worth merging into MPLS, but I think an expert should do it. The rest should just be deleted as a POV fork. --Bachrach44 21:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 21:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as POV fork and pretty poor at that. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:20, 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. Mo0[talk] 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry.net

NN website. alexa rank is over 2 million Bachrach44 20:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom and with reference to WP:WEB Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I like angry.net. Leave the article in place!

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rendezvous with Death

Even two whole days after the first broadcast of this film it is still not possible for me to verify its importance from reliabel sources. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Strong keep. London Times and Miami Herald don't count as "reliable sources"? Au contraire. Babajobu 22:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep as per Babajobu. Batmanand 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep found info on a BBC webpage Sethie
Keep per important news sources on film. -- JJay 22:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep notable enough. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:14, 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 content already at the band's article, so just redirect, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phlogiston Verdigris

Extreme case of anoraksia nervosa. I had to read it twice before I could make any sense of it at all! I'd say delete it as a non-notable meme from a barely-notable band, but maybe merge with the band or somehting I guess. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Anything that I have to read multiple times before I can make anything whatsoever out of it is a delete in my book. Stifle 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I found it useful. But, yes, it may do better merged with the band's page. MCS 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Redirect to Type O Negative. Don't need a new page for a fictional person known only to this band. Atrian 05:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge and Redirect. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 03:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge to Type O Negative. Same reasons as Atrian. --TheDoober 08:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Merged the important data back to Type O Negative. I third the deletion. --Perplexed 22:28, 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. —Cryptic (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noobing

isn't nonsense, but never heard of Sceptr e ^(Talk) 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete neologism. Gazpacho 21:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as complete bollocks. Invented early 2006 = things invented in school today or close enough anyway. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Obina 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per JzG. Stifle 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per Just zis Guy. Checking out this article wasted like 10 seconds of my life I am never getting back. Youngamerican 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate Audit

NN blog run by NN person; approx. 300 google hits, many of which are unrelated Paul 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Alexa rank well below 100,000 which probably means the creator of the website has Alexa on his computer. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable blog. Nothing obvious to commend it. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 21:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Keep. 20,000 google hits for climateaudit (one word), and the author's scientific work has recieved substantial press. The blog itself has been mentioned by the Wall Street Journal [16] and the United Press International [17]. Dragons flight 22:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per above. -- JJay 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment "Climateaudit" (one word) gets 207 unique Google hits; [18] not sure if a mention in the WSJ etc. warrants keeping (unless the deletion policy explicitly says otherwise) If the author is respected/notable, make an article about him and mention his blog. WP:NOT a place for promoting blogs. Paul 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is a technical error, and a very common one. Google only ever returns the top 1000 results, from those 1000 it removes some group of redundant results (which are apparently 80% in this case). That says nothing at all about the other 19000 reported results. For comparison, Microsoft which manages 745 million pages only produces 369 unique results [19]. Dragons flight 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Not sure about the specifics of Google and its search results, but even if there are however many thousand results, if the writer of the blog is notable then there should be a page on him with mention of climateaudit (not a page on climateaudit with a mention of him). Thanks for the explanation Paul 19:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    - Actually, as it turns out he's had a biography stub for the last 16 months at Stephen McIntyre, but his name was misspelled here as "Steven". Dragons flight 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: CA is a blog; as such most of its posts and comments link to itself; with "keep dups" turned on, googles first 1000 hits seem to be 99% CA pointing to itself [20]. I suggest google isn't telling us anything useful (one way or the other). William M. Connolley 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC).
  - Hmmmm, well google has the answer to that too, one can search with "-site:climateaudit.org" to exclude self references. Doing so puts the results under 1000 [21] (can CA really have 19000 references to itself? Bizarre.) Anyway, given this, I wouldn't be overly upset if it were merged into McIntyre's article. I think over all I'd still prefer having the seperate article though. Dragons flight 19:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as nn blog. Stifle 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete because it's too small a subject to deserve a separate article, but the info should stay of course, in some other article(s). DirkvdM 07:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep because Wikipedia is not paper, Brendanfox 10:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, though. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Xenophase

This page seems to be written almost entirely as an advertisement. Alexa tells us the website itself isn't notable enough, but Google tells a slightly different story. However, since I'm guessing a lot of those Google hits are forum-related to try to ask for the server address (or something..), I'm voting to delete this page. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Weak Keep It might just be me but it is informitive enough and has been mentioned one or two times on G4techtv to be notable but not signifigantly. MAZO 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Netcraft also seems to have a better outlook for this site, as well.
Kepp appears to be notable enough, per Alexa rank. Stifle 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how writing a description in an informative way can equate to an advertisement. Seeing as how the site is "referrals only" I don't think advertising will be of any help. Besides...It is notable enough to be mentioned by G4techtv, so I don't see any reason for deletion. Why not keep the page? - CriminalNerd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CriminalNerd (talk • contribs) .
Keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.25.109 (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 Speedily deleted for nn-club/group. enochlau (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] D-Day (group)

This page is not encyclopedic, just a bunch of people from a group trying to make a name for themselves. I frequent 4chan and even participated in "The Raid", yet I didn't even know this group existed until I saw this page. richjkl 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment This page is in fact encyclopedic, as they are involved in YTMND and eBaum's World's histories, mostly for the recent pages.--ChrisDark 21:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

YTMND is noteworthy, this D-Day group, however, is not. richjkl 22:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete troll vanity. Gazpacho 22:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
SaveThis group is in fact noteworthy, and is currently on the YTMND and 4chan boards. Rich not only lied about him now knowing before he saw the page (he was in the mIRC chat hours before it was made, and was told about it even beforehand by a friend who was in it, which he deleted in the above post of mine in a rather uncerimoniously way). This has been proven, both of them, to be true, and this completely makes him rather untrustworthy. And if you want to talk about trolls, Gaz, may I remind you that there's still the Gay Niggers Association of America.--ChrisDark 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

If you would like to see my logs for both AIM and mIRC I can show you that I was unaware of this group until just over an hour ago. richjkl 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for not touching my post. And sure, give them to me. And it's been over an hour since you first learned of this, according to you. I even have the exact time you were BANNED form the mIRC chat. IM me, ChrisDark008, on AIM.--ChrisDark 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This group is non-notable and this page serves only one purpose: vanity. N Shar 22:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Also includes original research. N Shar 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per Gazpacho. Onthost 22:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nn-club. Stifle 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The AfD notice has been removed three times, twice by 67.34.30.124 and once by Dan-kun, see page history. Stifle 01:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete even though I took part in this. Rampart 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete nn, nn, nn, nn. Eusebeus 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Loungevania

Article about a non-existent repubic. Not qualifed as Micronation - with 16 unique google hits. Only posting is from some web forums. Hurricane111 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Obina 22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as a random country from a random webgame. Stifle 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom, absolutely nonsense. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn straight its nonsense! But it's entirely 100% fact about 100% fiction. The country is from a book, if you need to just add that in to the beginning. David Fuchs

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Llama brew

An alcoholic beverage that is most likely hoax - as it is manufactured from a non-existent country (see Loungevania). Hurricane111 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy delete, haven't people heard of uncyclopedia? This isn't even funny. Paul Carpenter 21:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom.Obina 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom & its 100% fictional, read this " * The winner from 2005 had to chug more than 50 litres of the drink." That means that someone had to drink ~50kg of beer?? Impossible. Onthost 22:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. And BJAODN it too. Stifle 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, move to Unencyclopedia if you want to. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Save per nom, just kidding delete it if you want, it's 100% truth about a fictional beer. In that way, it's completely encyclopaedic. P.S. Fixed a slight spelling error on this page. David 23:49, 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future Rap Albums

listcruft/crystal balling Sceptr e ^(Talk) 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

dont delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crotman (talk • contribs) .

Delete. WP:NOT. -- Mikeblas 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Really needs no explanation, but per above. rodii 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And I hate lists. Stifle 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete crystal ball Dlyons493 Talk 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as noted. --Bookandcoffee 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chettinad cuisine

The contents of this article have been moved to Wikibooks. This article is now redundant. Tim Pierce 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as already transwikied. Stifle 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep - I have updated the article. I hail from Tamil Nadu. This cuisine is very notable in our state. It is the spiciest and most delicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganeshk (talk • contribs)
Keep as being a part of a series. --ΜιĿːtalk 17:18, 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 deleted as non-notable, even for fancruft.DS 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compound 18

Delete Not a real compound. (Try googling and excluding any of the following: Jagged Alliance 2 Arulco, and forcing inclusion of 'armor') Also, non notable as a fictional compound. Fangz 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: Nominator's research seems to be good. N Shar 22:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
keep I would instead suggest making it clear that the compound is a fictional substance invented by the Jaged Allience 2 game programers. ambidextros 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is a good solution. The item in the game itself is completely unimportant to the plot, and included simply as an item to duplicate a sort of 'enchant armour' effect. It is completely unmentioned by outside media, and indeed barely mentioned within the fan network.--Fangz 20:06, 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 - Izehar 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Hankwitz

Vanity article for a CA congressional candidate. Google=129. Also appears to be autobiographical by proxy (probably PR firm or agent) as the author has created only three other articles, also orphans with no links to them, and also borderline (or less) notable. Delete AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stifle 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 15:38, 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 speedily deleted by Brendanconway. Stifle 01:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] St Petersburg2

I do not think this suite of pornoimages is particulary notable, it is an OR and if it is true, the article would promote child pornography. Delete abakharev 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. -- Mikeblas 23:07, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Craig Saavedra

Vanity - at best borderline notable, with no inbound links, but also appears to be autobiographical by proxy as it was created by a user who only a handful of other similar articles (probably agent or PR firm). Delete AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless verified. Stifle 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep. Imdb entry, directed a TV movie starring Penelope Ann Miller that was reviewed in Variety. Of the same order of notability as Kadee Strickland, and she has a featured article. Monicasdude 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joaquin Sedillo

Vanity article, also appears to be autobiography by proxy as original author has created only a handful of other, also vanity/orphan, articles. Delete AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless verified. Stifle 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak Keep. Extensive IMDB entry (but not as a performer), credited as cinematographer on notable TV show. More notable than the porn performers who seem to regularly survive deletion efforts. Monicasdude 03:50, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Saavedra

Vanity page, no inbound links. Autobiographical by proxy - one of a handful created by what seems obviously a publicist. Delete AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep and expand. Notable cartoonist. But this is the only one of these Saavedra pages worth keeping. rodii 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as unverified. Stifle 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per rodii; artist notable enough, worked for Disney and Marvel. Monicasdude 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep per Rodii. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:05, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neil Saavedra

Vanity page, no inbound links. Autobiographical by proxy - one of a handful created by what seems obviously a publicist. Delete AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite massively. Film does exist on IMDB [22] but article is vanity Dlyons493 Talk 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Local radio/TV personalities not necessarily notable. Monicasdude 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete, unless more sources given. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:04, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rodney Chang

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ingrid Kamerbeek.
See also: Archive of deleted article Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Webism (Artists Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya)/USA, Ingrid Kamerbeek/Germany)

Looks like a Vanity page. Non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please give details?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.96.247 (talk • contribs)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs to provide some evidence, but I'd say having your art displayed internationally was pretty notable. Abstain for now but might change to keep if evidence is provided. Jcuk 23:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked the refs? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is 100% evidence. Pygoya is a web historian who documents his life efforts online. Visit [23] for each and every detail. Also to be found in article. There are not many artists with so manyfold life achievements. Artingrid 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment But is there any third-party evidence, that is to say evidence that is not from himself or persons or websites directly connected with him? Stifle 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

- Third-party evidence is one of the main issues at Pygoya's website. All sources are carefully documented and easily to access. Artingrid 10:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - I do appreciate that you and Rodney are artists, but to be featured in Wikipedia you need to pass the test of notability. Please read Wikipedia:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  - The reference you cited is Dr. Chang's own website, and that is not third-party. Stifle 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    - The reference I cite is for sure not Dr. Chang's website, Dr. Chang's website is only the source where you can find the link to proven third party evidence. Dr. Chang is known as a web historian. It is one of his foremost goals to give evidence. Look up the weblinks too for third party evidence. One more thing: if you refer e. g. to a press article you have to scan this article, right? And for sure you show this scanned article on your website. How else should it work? Of course this article then is shown on your website but nevertheless is proven third-party evdidence. Artingrid 14:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as unverified outside of his own article, website, and friend. Stifle 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is simply false. There are dozens of links clearly providing third-party evidence. Of course they are often to be found on Dr. Chang's website! Where else and why not! He provides every visitor with evidence by giving the link to the documented third-party facts. If one scans a document she or he gets from a third party and links to this document on his website within his website it is nevertheless a third party document. I just want to make it clear that a third party document is a third party document not matter where it is shown. Artingrid 16:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete unless reliable independent references found Dlyons493 Talk 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep he really was on Real People. I am working on getting more external links on him. Gmosaki 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep many more links added to give even more evidence. Thank you Gmosaki for also editing more links. Artingrid 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Is Artingrid a friend of Rodney Chang? .Also, regarding your own article at [[Ingrid Kamerbeek also in WP:AfD, I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is considered inappropriate to write your own article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a bit borderline whether User:Artingrid should be considered a sockpuppet. I think probably not, but this vote should not be fully counted either. The entire edit history of this user is the creation of the articles Ingrid Kamerbeek and Rodney Chang (who are profesessionally or personally acquainted/colleagues IRL), and voting on the subseqent AfD's. The former article is apparently the same person as the WP user. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Artingrid is a friend of every notable artist who evidently has proven third party confirmed achievements which definitely meet the Wikipedia requirements. Artingrid 11:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that you are either friends or associates. See [24]. That is wonderful, but please note that wikipedia is not free web hosting or a place to promote your art or your business. Third party confirmations is just a small portion of what is needed. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability so that you can be informed about Wikipedia content policies. I have also placed a Welcome message in your talk page with further pointers about Wikipedia and how it all works. Hope you find these helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the helpful Welcome message, Jossi! You are welcome.

Pygoya and myself founded the Webism Group of Worldwide Artists after our 1st real life European art tour in 2003. Of course we work together. We work together for global culture, peace and understanding. We have reached quite notable results as you surely found out. We are more than 50 worldwide artists, some of them at Wikipedia already. I put the article "Pygoya" to Wikipedia because he simply should be in with his 10 degrees, including 2 doctorates, honorary professor, NBC Real People Show, inclusion in Ripley's, Who's Who, his art on show around the globe in museums and galleries, etc. etc. He's also a digital art pioneer, ask Laurence Gartel who's in Wikipedia. Everybody could have put him in with his acknowledged merits. So why not me. I just point to the facts. What about a broader audience for this entry so I do not need to give further explanations. To me it would be in no way understandable if you wouldn't let him in. And this not because we work together but because the facts speak its own language.Artingrid 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Please note that this is not about "letting him in". Please read the guidelines provided. The article as it stands will either be deleted, or it will need to be cleaned up as per Wikipedia guidelines. The article of Laurence Gartel id a good example of a simple and straight-forward biography, although it lacks references for some of the assertions made. Nevertheless, you can compare it with the article in question Rodney Chang. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

ok. You know I am a newbie here. So please be of help with the clean-up to make "Rodney Chang" fitting to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Artingrid 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

If the article survives the Votes for deletion, I will lend you a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Again added more links to valid sources outside Pygoya's website Artingrid 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. ~~Suspicious keep~~ This definitely seems to have started out as a vanity puff piece; and it still needs substantial cleanup to reach encyclopedic tone. It's pretty clear that Artingrid is closely associated IRL. And the number of anonymous votes here sure suggest sockpuppetry (poorly executed, since anon votes should/will not be counted here). However, there appears to be at least a claim of genuine notability in having displayed at a number of museums of worldwide reputation. Seems to get some mention in indexes of artists online, e.g. [25], [26], both of which appear to be independent sources rather than ones controlled by Chang or direct friends. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Followup: Unless or until someone else provides verifiable links to the museum exhibitions claimed, I'll trust Jossi's below judgement about the non-verifiability of theses shows. The scam awards push it to delete.

Thanks. Please note that anyone can sell their art online at artmajeur.com (your 1st source) [27] and hundreds of other on-line art communities and websites. Also note that any artist (notable or not) can post their bios at americanartists.org (your second source) [28]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Like I say, it's a pretty weak keep. But the several stated showings at known brick-and-morter museums and galleries seem to give Chang the nudge. Not to slam-dunk notability (a group show isn't that hard to get), but to the minimual standards I have in mind. But if his works really did appear at "Bronx Museum of Arts in New York (1987), Shanghai Art Museum (1988), Holter Museum of Art (1990), Tartu Art Museum in Estonia (1990), the Las Vegas Art Museum (1990), and the Vienna Museum Complex (2003)." that seems notable to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am really trying hard, to see if indeed Mr. rtChang passes the notability test.... but the more I research these exibitions the ony thing I encounter are self-published accounts of these. I have yet to find a mention of this artist in any of the museums listed. All I find is self-published stuff at, his personal site, free art sites, friends and associates sites, or link farms. Just search on Google, for example: "Holter Museum of Art" "Rodney Chang"[29] or "Shanghai Art Museum" "Rodney Chang"[30] or "Tartu Art Museum" "Rodney Chang"[31] Very, very strange stuff, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

- This above announcement will not be counted as it states - where is the user name?

Thank you, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for now giving your identity after you have been asked. Artingrid 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I did so initially too, but you separated the portion of my comment with the signature from the initial part. However, I'm sure that was an innocent editing error. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Also: Read Wikipedia welcomes unsigned comments too if in good faith.

To make it totally clear who Artingrid is:

Ingrid Kamerbeek, Bahnhofstr. 7, D-87527 Sonthofen/Bavaria/Germany, artist.

Want to know more? Ok, look up my website.

Just search for Ingrid Kamerbeek in Google.

Pygoya lives on the other side of the world: Honolulu, Hawaii.

Working together on a worldwide scale with and for artists has nothing to do with the fact that Pygoya with his acknowledged merits belongs to Wikipedia.

Neutrality of the admin is a main question here. Jossi is a digital artist himself.

I thought of Wikipedia as a good idea. Thank you for giving me a better insight. Artingrid 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anon "votes"

Wrong: Below comments are not anon but with full name. Artingrid 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Anon refers to contributors that do not have a Wikipedia user name. Jossi 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but if they let us know their names by writing it down after their comments they are nevertheless not anonymous. Artingrid 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever they might state their names to be in the outside world, if they do not have WP usernames, they do not have an established WP reputation. Specifically, such anon IPs are often used by "meatpuppets"... people recruited by interested parties solely for the purpose of a particular vote; and as such are not counted as votes among the Wikipedia community. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep - If 10 degrees including 2 doctorates besides many other worthy proven achievements are regarded as not notable what else is notable! For sure Pygoya is a computer art pioneer and distributor on the internet. His art is logically developed from the classical board image.

Enormously risen prices for participation in art fairs and exhibitions is doubtlessly one aspect of Pygoya's efforts to establish art soleyly created by changing pixels to art. This way global culture and exchange is made possible for any artist around the globe at low cost. Press reports give evidence of high interest in digital art. Pygoya on his website presents a great resource of third-party confirmation of his achievements and activities. Digital art is a medium which without the internet wouldn't have come true. And it might be destiny that this is a fact also with Wikipedia. arno signarowski 13.01.2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.170.158 (talk • contribs)

Keep - Rodney Chang "Pygoya" has been displaying his artwork on absolutearts.com since 2002. Pygoya has been a regular contributor to the absolutearts.com blog forum since 2004. His efforts as an artist are matched also by his commitment to unify artists around the work for better promotion and creation of exhibitions regardless of an artist's physical location. absolutearts.com can verify that Rodney Chang "Pygoya" is a computer art pioneer. Jodi Melfi, Vice-President, absolutearts.com166.102.8.185 16:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect to the above anons, obviously friends and/or associates of Mr. Chang, and non-withstanding the fact that Mr. Chang is an artist, please note that the criteria for notability of a person for their inclusion in Wikipedia is quite specific. Please read Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Concerning absoluteart.com, that in itself is not a mark of notability, as there are hundreds of artists in this and many other art websites. There are hundreds of thousands of digital artists that may consider themselves pioneers, but that is not sufficient, I am afraid. Jossi 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

So - if one of the largest, oldest online portals for fine art is not a creditable source to vouch for a computer artists notibility, who is? "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". Rodney Chang "Pygoya" falls in this catagory, in my opinion. ALSO - I think you may find that he also could be considered as one who has "A large fan base, fan listing or 'cult' following". Jodi Melfi166.102.8.185 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jodi for your comment. Our opinions are our opinions, but Wikipedia articles are not based on Wikipedia editors' opinions but in reporting the opinions and points of view of reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. Read: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Jossi 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Jossi: All you state above is before your very eyes: Opinions and points of view of reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines.

Sorry, Ingrid. I have yet to come across one such reputable source. All what I have seen so far is seems very much like self-promotion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

For example, this self-published book Jossi 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is the ISBN No. of this a. m. book:(ISBN 1-4196-2168-8). It is not to be seen at booksurge website right now due to changes Dr. Chang did. It will be online again asap.

According to Wikipedia guidelines the admin who votes for deletion of an entry should not be the same who decides. And especially not in your case because you do not look at this article from a neutral point of view. Artingrid 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Fear no more ... as the nominator of the AfD, I will not close it. Another admin will. And BTW, I am as neutral as it can be... I never heard of Mr. Chang until a few days ago when came across this article while doing RC patrol (recent changes patrol against vandalism of Wikipedia). Jossi 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just for clarification of the above said: it gives a false impression. Of course unintentionally, right? Artingrid 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The admin who closes this AfD will be someone uninvolved with the voting. That's how these things are done. Some neutral admin will look through AfD votes that are a week or so old, count up the votes (including discounting anons or brand new accounts), and decide what action is appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both, Jossi and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for your explanations. I am totally sure that nobody who does research work on the internet as you surely do and moreover somebody who calls himself a digital artist who comes across digital artists and art sites all the time can "avoid" to know Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) because he is everywhere on the web. There are also links to his website from the articles Jossi initiated at Wikipedia and carefully watches. Just some thoughts... I have many more...Artingrid 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of something? That is indeed preposterous. I have never heard of Mr Chang, Webism or Artingrid until a few days ago when someone added a long piece of material to this article and it lit up on my RC patrol console as possible giberish addition by an anon IP. Now, you can believe that or, not. That is your prerrogative, of course. In Wikipedia we ask contributors to assume good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, during my attempt to verify some of the achievements awards listed d on Mr. Chang's website http://www.lastplace.com/page36.htm I found these:

"Man of the Year - 2005, American Biographical Institute, Raleigh, N.C."

... but then found scam reports about this "award": [32], [33], [34]

"America's Registry of Outstanding Professionals, 2003-2004"

.. but then read similar scam reports about this "registry": [35]

"The Contemporary Who's Who of Professionals"

... but could not find any such thing anywhere, besides mentions alongside of one of the scams above.

I stopped checking after these three. Jossi 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was if we follow the merge proposal by Mrsteviec, this article should be kept and the others merged into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centre for Recent Drawing

Non-notable organization (club?) with a total of two Google hits. First being the auther's website. Author's bio (Andrew Hewish) is also up for deletion as non-notable. Ifnord 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Dustimagic 22:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge Nanospace, Andrew Hewish and Centre for Recent Drawing into one article. Either Nanospace or Centre for Recent Drawing should be the article title. The rest can redirect there. Mrsteviec 22:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

All of these were created today by the same person. I don't think any of them is notable, even together. Ifnord 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge I agree with Mrsteviec. Entries should be merged under Centre for Recent Drawing as it is an established small museum space of service educationally, with the local community and will list the kind of information Wiki was made for (see []Canadian Artists]] for example. The other entries are as a result of lack of user experience within Wikiworld. Doubts about it's bonafides should be directed to Phil Sawdon, Editor of 'Tracey' drawing journal, Deanna Petheridge at the Arnolfini or Mark Lewis at the London Metropolitan University - m.lewis@londonmet.ac.uk 82.35.49.241 23:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As a new user, you may be unfamiliar with sockpuppets. I would advise reading it and pointing out that sockpuppet votes are discounted. Ifnord 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
the clumsiness of a new user! please see above for independent referees.

Every one is welcome and everyone was a new user once. Ifnord 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Stifle 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Merge or delete. --Terence Ong ^Talk 11:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I wrote the original article. All vanity reference has been edited out and the offending articles edited out and merged. The entry has now been expanded and will expand, on what is an important informational source and developing discussion in drawing in current art practice. Hopefully the article now is a valuable contribution to the Wiki ethos and respects the five plliars.Controller 00:06, 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 - Izehar 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arachnophobia (web design)

not-notable web design technique. I can't find any references to it (that aren't about a web design company with the same name; or in Wiki mirror sites.) The reference identifies a site that exemplifies this design type, but that site is down. Mikeblas 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete, never heard of it and unverifiable. Stifle 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Essexmutant 10:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:59, 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 - Izehar 00:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baish

I can find no reference to Baish as a dip on Google [36]. The remainder of the article is an unverifiable slang dictionary definition; appears to be a neologism coined by the editor. Muchness 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as nom. --Muchness
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:13, 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 - Izehar 23:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blair wilson

As a candidate for a parliamentary seat, this is not enough of a reason to be included in Wikipedia. In addition, the article reads like an advert. File Éireann 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete--File Éireann 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Stifle 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.voteblair.ca/bio.htm --Rob 05:46, 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 Speedily deleted by Zoe as copyvio (CSD: A8). Stifle 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Steady State Galaxy Theory

Original Research. Mostly copied/slightly adapted from this website Batmanand 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as hoax, copyvio. Tagged as such. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:26, 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gentlesir

nn, probably vanity, Google Test hits 327, most are mis-spellings of "gentle sir". Certainly neologism - even acknowledged in article itself Batmanand 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. This is a hoax. <K F> 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing about this article that is false. All of its factual statements can be backed up by the personal testimonies of the founders who are sourced in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt Reville (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2006.
- Comment: Thanks for your comment (please sign comments by typing MetsBot 04:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC) after them). However, personal testimonies of the founders are not sufficient to fulfill Wikipedia's policies of notability and verifiability. Can you tell us of coverage of this subject in notable, third-party references? Stifle 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as WP:Complete Bollocks for being a neologism "created in mid 2005 by Matthew Reville and Michael Ryan in Montgomery High School in Skillman, New Jersey". Eddie.willers 23:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete possibly a hoax, definitely a non-notable neologism with limited currency. WP:NFT. Stifle 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete This should have been speedied so I have. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:44, 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 - Izehar 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perpendicular Universe

This smacks of WP:OR to me. The relationship to Everett is weak and a search turns up 1600 results. None of the early results lend support. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete — joke/personal essay. The expression does get used to humorous effect on the internet, but at best it should get a dictdef. — RJH 23:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirect to parallel universe --Bachrach44 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete original research, unverifiable, etc. Stifle 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete and definitely don't redirect. A parallel universe is decades-old concept in theoretical physics. This is OR and probably a joke. Durova 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete --Terence Ong ^Talk 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Brendanconway as nn-bio. Stifle 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalkerhub

a creative idea, but still a nn website. Bachrach44 23:49, 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. BD2412 T 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: following deletion, I took the liberty of recreating this link as a redirect to New Trier High School. BD2412 T 14:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lagniappe/ Potpourri

nn high school production. I know that several famous actors went to New Trier High School, if the article should indicate that some of them participated in this event, I would retract my nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete currently no notability demonstrated. Stifle 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
it says at http://www.ann-margret.com/music.htm (on her website) that she can be heard singing on two recordings, from her freshman and senior year of Lagniappe. This can be found on the left side of the page toward the bottom under the heading of "LP's". I'm still working on finding others.
my mother went to New trier and in her yearbook it says that edward zwick was in Potpourri in 1970. I can scan and show it to you if you really want
Delete. No evidence of notability presented. Contributor could consider adding a short mention to the New Trier High School article if it's important in the history of that school; the editors of that article will be in a position to judge. Personally, I possess an LP of an original musical, entitled, Agh! Wilderness! [sic], produced by the Scarsdale High School class of 1962 and featuring Nina Totenberg singing. A clip from that LP recently aired on NPR's news quiz, Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!. Absolutely true. Really. Email me if you want a link to an .mp3. But I would not dream of submitting a Wikipedia article about this production. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- God I hope not! That just sounds cruel ;) Oh, Delete this. Eusebeus 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] January 8

[edit] Adherin

[edit] List of The Worlds Most Evil

[edit] Marc Da Cunha

[edit] Hydrogen party

[edit] Three cards and a top hat

[edit] Cuntonovich

[edit] Deals on Wheels

[edit] Podfomercial

[edit] Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever

[edit] Natch

[edit] REMAGINE

[edit] Micropatrology

[edit] Malos Cantores

[edit] Richard Dominguez

[edit] List of North Korean websites

[edit] North Korean websites banned in South Korea

[edit] Baroque metal

[edit] Interwise

[edit] Delta Dreambox

[edit] Tanandaria

[edit] Sharon Tendler

[edit] TechPhile

[edit] Punn

[edit] crude humor cartoon

[edit] Fairtunes

[edit] Elc(chat)

[edit] Aaron Warnock

[edit] Jam Creative Productions

[edit] Shoulder Thrust

[edit] Tommy Gunn

[edit] Diogradroalisis

[edit] Surplus at a URIE

[edit] Subscriber Savings Account

[edit] Board of Directors at a URIE

[edit] Chickenatarian

[edit] Trailer park trash

[edit] Acknowledgment_(social)

[edit] Dewarneb

[edit] Actinomorphous

[edit] SmartServ Solutions

[edit] Symposium Plato

[edit] Willomy

[edit] Long Vo

[edit] Tenet (band)

[edit] Black Strobe

[edit] Arnaud Rebotini

[edit] Black Mesa: Source

[edit] Former Marine

[edit] Vifican

[edit] List of fads

[edit] Glideway

[edit] The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research

[edit] Akiyama International

[edit] Jesus juice

[edit] (OSIR)

[edit] Pre-Maori Civilisations

[edit] Thayir sadam

[edit] Mark Penney

[edit] A Film by Julian Thome

[edit] J.a. hatfield

[edit] Jean-Louis Bolomey

[edit] Genetic_selection

[edit] Anarchist Skins and Punks

[edit] Sav-way

[edit] Robin Lefler

[edit] Mochasuperman

[edit] Kangeiko

[edit] Teheranization

[edit] Marion Braidfute

[edit] Hymn of creation

[edit] Necrololimechacon

[edit] Nganga

[edit] Brandon Mermelstein

[edit] Hello My Future Girlfriend

[edit] Attorney in fact for a URIE

[edit] Ongoing List of Accidents