Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 17 December 19 >

Purge server cache

December 18

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Saw Such Things in My Sleep and Trains to Brazil

[edit]

Albums by Guillemots (band) (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 00:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


State of the Art PC

[edit]

Inescapably (admitted) POV article about the "Wikipedia interpretation" of the best possible computer. (ESkog)(Talk) 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Nikolay Volkov

[edit]
  • The article remains untranslated after too weeks of it's entry on Pages needing translation; multiple editors are in consensus that the content is of little or no value. Should be deleted. - Introvert talk 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    A few excerpts from the discussion WP:PNT#Nikolay Volkov:
    Russian, and deletable. Has nothing to do with any Nikolay nor Volkov. Content is "after the law about the Jewish autonome district was cancelled in 1993 [that's a real district in Russia], which originally passed in 1981, the district was in a strange situation. No new law had been passed, and of the five autonome districts that existed in the Russian USR, only the Jewish one remained (four had been granted the status of republics within the Russian Federation). All five previous autonomies were a part of bigger federation subjects". Jewish Autonomous Oblast has the relevant and verifiable information. Solver 12:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    [...] It appears that Nikolay Volkov is in fact, the governor of the said Jewish autonomy (since 1991!). It probably won't be too hard to find the governor's bio, but this piece now surely looks like an anti-governor rant... and perhaps should still be deleted. There's no article about him in the Russian wikipedia too, if that's going to help to make a decision. ? - Introvert talk 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Introvert on not being telling if it's upside down or sideways, but from the transliteration Rich provided I'm pretty sure it's just the name of the said autonomous oblast: Yidisher="Jewish", "avitanama"="autonomous", "gegnt"="oblast". A rough google search confirms this, too. All in all, nothing of value there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    This is two weeks old... Since there's still an active discussion here, I figure I'll ask first: Any objections to moving this to WP:AFD? It looks like we have a consensus that this is not worth translating... Jamie (talk/contribs)
  • Comment. I'm removing Nikolay Volkov from WP:PNT, per usual practice. If you want to see the original discussion on, you can read it in this revision. Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poliqarp

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 4th, with little attention. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie (talk/contribs) 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

possibly Russian --Melaen 23:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Polish. About a piece of software. Solver 23:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Superior Wealth Creation

[edit]

Advertising MNewnham 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Whatmough's planet types

[edit]

John Whatmough's classification system is not entirely scientific, it is an extension for artistic purposes of the Sudarsky classification system. In addition some of the material on the page is dubious - there are no known Vulcanoids, Mercury Venus and Earth are not jovian type planets. The place descriptions are also vague and possibly untrue for a given planetary system, e.g. if the closest planet is in the water zone. Chaos syndrome 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; Whatmough seems possibly borderline notable; an article on him or his work might be welcome, if he does meet the standards for notability. Or maybe a mention on another relevant page. Anyway, this is too specialized. Tom Harrison (talk) 03:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. It appears that Whatmough died in September. I haven't found any information about his qualifications or work besides his website. -- Kjkolb 05:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability isn't the issue. The article cites no independent sources, and I cannot find any evidence that anyone has ever acknowledged this system of classification. (Sudarsky, in contrast, not only had at least two co-authors on his paper, but had the paper published in the Astrophysical Journal.) I was going to write "anyone apart from Whatmough", but upon reading this page (which makes no mention of classifying Venus, Mars, and Earth in this way and does not even contain the phrase "sulfur jovian") it appears that not even Whatmough acknowledged the system outlined in this article. As far as I can tell, Whatmough used the Sudarsky system. This is simply not a part of the corpus of human knowledge. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 06:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Sorry, I should have been more specific. By notability, I meant that it hasn't been accepted. Even if it was obscure, yet accepted, I would have voted to keep. -- Kjkolb 08:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom and comments. --Thephotoman 06:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete r3m0t talk 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term is not only neologism invented by the creator of the article, but the article is also wrong (as if the original classification system wasn't already very speculative). Although I'm a great fan of Mr. Whatmough's website, there is no option but to delete this article.--Jyril 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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! - <*> 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greenie & Shades

[edit]

nn webcomic. It was created by a new user "Greenie". A search on google returns almost nothing except the author's own "visit my site please" postings[1]. Unless I'm missing something, this is a delete. mmmbeerT / C / ? 00:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Al-Hajj Samer Mohamad Bazzi

[edit]

Non-notable. Only 102 Google hits. The page is also a collection of linkspam. --Khoikhoi 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read carefully: "If an article is repeatedly re-created by unassociated editors after being deleted, this may be evidence of a need for an article. Conversely, if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted. In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))
Some of the people involved here with Wikipedia are most certainly "elitists," rude, bitter, hostile, and inauthentic, especially those who choose to label others or break the very policies of Wikipedia. According to the Wikipedia policy: "New contributors are prospective "members" and are therefore our most valuable resource. We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience — nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility or elitism. While many newcomers hit the ground running, some lack knowledge about the way we do things." (unsigned -- from user Sambazzi (subject of article))
Ok, but now you know that you can't write articles about yourself unless you're notable enough. --Khoikhoi 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chess blogs

[edit]

Unencyclopedic; we can not have pages describing all the possible topics that can be found on blogs. Article is orphan. All relevant links in the article have been added to the main chess article. Delete Schutz 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She Died In June

[edit]

Claims release of a single, a google search pulls 2 hits. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should check http://www.Shediedinjune.com and http://www.myspace.com/shediedinjune for obvious release of said single.

"The guidlines lay out pretty stringent rules for inclusion."??? A guideline is by definition not a rule, therefor there are no rules per say for inclusion. Even if you accept WP:NMG, it itself states that just because a band or whatever does not pass its test, that is not automatically cause for deletion.Jcuk 20:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Moulton

[edit]

Author and bike builder of rather questionable notability. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Built pro racing bikes- has published a novel. -- JJay 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per nom. Only one booke whose Amazon rank 1,378,054 is low. Keep Vastly improved rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 02:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems a vanity page. --Thephotoman 07:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per re-write. --Thephotoman 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only low Amazon rank, I got 1,864,385 Keep not the most notable person ever, but probably worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Article is much better after rewrite and no longer looks like vanity.--Bkwillwm 07:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Eusebeus 11:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite to avoid NPOV problems that seem to exist with the page at the moment. Notability irrelevant, not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep (Changed due to Crypticfirefly's rewrite) (although I'd suggest moving the page to the name of his company, if any, as that's the notable thing, not him personally) Notability doesn't have to be policy - it's a shorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopedia - that's not a subject for policy. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, the name of his "company" was his own name-- he apparently operated the buisness as a sole-proprietorship-- there is no "company" name. "Fuso," etc. were just trademarks that he used. I did put a reference to him on the "Fuso" disambig page, which may help. I should add also, that he did most if not all the work personally on the custom frames that he was most famous for. Crypticfirefly 08:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • commentshorthand for - not what should be in an encyclopeadia. Pretty much leaves me open to suggest every article I dont like gets nixed simply because I dont like it. There has to be a better criterion, personally I think verifiability is it. Jcuk 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dave Moulton has definite credibility with certain bicycle enthusiasts. A 'Google' search confirms this. (Pick out entries related to bicycles.) Richard D 13:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Found an interesting article about the guy in the May 8, 1989 issue of San Diego Business Journal, may add more info myself. Crypticfirefly 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I've rewritten the article. Though I had never heard of the guy before, I can make the following arguments for "notability": (1) in the mid-70's was well-known in professional bike racing. Many photos of British pros of the time can be found with their bikes prominently marked with Moulton's name. If nothing else, people might want to look him up for that association. (2) He was well known enough that people were ordering his bikes from other countries-- namely, the U.S. (3) News articles refer to him as a well-nown "guru" of frame-making or as a master frame-maker. Recent articles about other bike makers mention Moulton's association with their business. (For example, Masi apparently is still commenting on the fact that he worked for them.) Hope this helps. Crypticfirefly 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley the Republican

[edit]

"...the first popular conservative woman podcaster." Weasel words aside, so what? Podcasts are a dime a dozen. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I meant that the nom has not shown that this is not notable or unverified. I don't have time to google every nom and also don't feel that I can fully trust the nom's judgement. Since we have tons of podcasts/podcasters on the site, how am I supposed to decide which ones stay or go. Therefore, I have to default to keep pending some verification that Ms. Shelley Republican is not notable. I was hoping that editors with some expertise in this area would help guide that choice. -- JJay 03:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I share your same concerns, only because some of the other nomations made by Mr. Gustafson earlier today looked a bit hurried. I am assuming good faith, but I hope that he reconsiders and voluntarily withdraws some of his other noms, such as the AFD for Khalil Beschir. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I agree. I can't run the risk of throwing away potentially valuable information. In this specific case, how can one judge the notability or popularity of a podcaster? Are there ratings or awards? Wikipedia policy or guidelines? Maybe google hits are not the answer. -- JJay 03:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, are you saying that lacking verification, your vote above is one for a Delete? You're right, Google is rarely a good source when it comes to Websites, [http:/www.alexa.com Alexa] is far superior, but can't be used in this case since the Alexa rank will be for [http:www.blogspot.com Blogspot], Shelly's bloghost. Maybe we should ask Shelly why she's any different than the hundreds, if not thousands of political pundit bloggers out there. karmafist 07:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this woman was supposed to be a popular conservative woman podcaster. Is podcasting the same as blogging? Does Alexa rank podcasts? I do find Ms. Shelley nominated for Texan of the year along with a bunch of other famous people [2], or mentioned in a Guardian book review [3], but am still quite unable to judge her notability. Also, my vote right now is Keep. It might change to delete, at which point it will be two letters longer with a different pronunication starting with the letter "D". -- JJay 21:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 University of Minnesota. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Superblock (University of Minnesota)

[edit]

School dorm block. NN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I probably would have no consensus-ed it, but the lack of references at the time I closed this makes B.Wind's comment count as a delete, bringing it over the threshold. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Best Syndrome

[edit]

31 hits. Neologism. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Prolly shouldn'ta AfD'd in the first place... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech resistance under Nazi occupation

[edit]

Essay-ish entry with material covered in other articles. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of organizations with names based on word/phrase puns

[edit]

Useless list, not really accurate, likely POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin (Emulator)

[edit]

NN emulator. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil Beschir

[edit]

NN racecar driver. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tarih ve Demokrasi

[edit]

NN web forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Verify This needs some validation. DeathThoreau 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please at least try to justify your nominations. CalJW 02:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Does this website meet any of the following criteria set by WP:WEB?
    1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention
    2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community
    3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.
    The site is in a foreign language which I do not understand, I would like to hear from the creator of this article, User:Csunsay, before making any kind of final decision. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no claim to notability like listed above, only 123 unique Google results.
  • Delete, well: I'm Turkish, and this is the first time I heard of this site. Its not a forum, obviously some people (probably owners of the site) keep posting articles that will make Turkish right-wing angry (no npov intended, this is what it is). Not to mention description also says "we are totally npov", obviously takes side. Not a famous site (its not hosted on its own server, first of all), not a fair discussion over the Turkish democracy (not a discussion as well, more like some sides gathered together to promote their ideas), doesn't have 5000 users, not a subject to media attention, technically cannot be rated on Alexa. I'd sum up that it does not qualify as a Wikipedia entry, furthermore the article is exaggrating and misleading. It is a nice site, but has no place here, yet.hudd 07:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC) (edit: never got that left/right thing.. sorry)[reply]
  • Delete as per Hudd. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 11:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN web forum Agnte 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Blaser

[edit]

NN profesor. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Developers Digest

[edit]

NN website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this needs to be written in twenty foot letters: SIXTY-EIGHT ARTICLES. What the fuck, actually. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it happens to run MediaWiki is irrelevant - what the hell, the category is called MediaWiki websites. The category description is Website that runs MediaWiki software - I believe my website falls into that category, no? --RossOliver


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danville, Illinois, Ward 7 Alderman Election, 2005

[edit]

Local election results. NN, delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Urindish

[edit]

Neologism. There's nothing on google[8] about this. The author has removed the unreferenced template and left it with no sourcing. Seems highly unlikely that urndish is the 3rd most spoken language when its mentioned nowhere. mmmbeerT / C / ? 01:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree, per nom. Tufflaw 01:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. I mean, if there's an English Wikipedia, a Hindi wikipedia and an Urdu Wikipedia, then one woudl think that the "third most understood language" would have its own. DeathThoreau 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Speedy if possible. Nonsense.Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst the controversy related to the religious connotations of Hindi and Urdu is a very real one (that has indeed caused a long-running edit war to exist on those two articles, and that gives the U.S. English/Commonwealth English controversy a good run for its money), there is no evidence whatsoever that people have adopted this idea in order to distance themselves from it. Indeed, there's no evidence whatsoever that this idea even exists outside of Wikipedia. This appears to be the author's original invention. Delete. Uncle G 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non verifiable -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Just because you are not familiar with the term "Urindish" does not mean it does not exist. The usage of the term Urindish to refer to Hindi-Urdu language is slowly taking off and it is only a matter of time before it gains popularity. Author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amjadfarooq (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 No consensus Ral315 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodson Lateral Road

[edit]

It's just a road. Nominating this for precedence more so than its non-notability, but either works. Stifle 15:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 01:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn road --Jaranda wat's sup 07:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it is heavily marked for tons of cleanup I'd like to see it have a chance to be improved and refrenced, if not it can always be relisted. xaosflux Talk/CVU 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I wanted to find something notable, and I tried. I like any article with the word, "wierdness" in it. But, in this case, I don't see anything to save nor hope it'll improve even with every cleanup tag we have. Ifnord 18:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The M1 is just a road but it has an entry. Woodson Lateral Road is verifiable, non notability is irrelevant as its not official Wiki rules, just guidelines by which some but by no means all Wikipedians choose to operate. Jcuk 21:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (feel free to Merge, as per Mgm). Notable means verifiable and well-known, and important, and liely to be looked up - what's irrlevant about that? "Some but by no means all Wikipedians" vandalize articles, but that doesn't make vandalizing either relevant or irrelvant to the usefulness of information in Wikipedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - the deletion of this would not set a precedent, unless you're looking to form a precedent on urban legends. --SPUI (talk) 20:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MGcomics

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable vanity web-site, according to Google only 13 other sites link to it. Tufflaw 01:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

Founder of Harbison Canyon

[edit]

inappropriate entry--Schmiteye 01:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userify While it's great when people want to learn about their family history, wikipedia isn't the place to do it. There are a lot of websites, although I'm not really familiar with any of them, however this isn't one of them. DeathThoreau 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as an attempt at communication. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kaffaria

[edit]

From WP:PNT. Only been there a few hours, but consensus there is to delete as a hoax. Here's the discussion from WP:PNT... Jamie (talk/contribs) 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

German. "Kaffaria is a modification of the write art of the Kaffkas. In this kind of the letter one needs four pins, between each finger one. Then one must learn with each pin another letter to write, if one created that can one whole stories much shorter time write. Already Homerie Hugold(1312 1363) had at that time a similar schreibart, but only with three pins. The Kaffaria completed the write art then." (Babel Fish Translation) I can't make much of this other than it does not appear to be nonsense, vanity, nor an advertisement. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a more exact translation: Kaffaria is a modification of Kaffka's [sic] art in writing. In this kind of writing, four pens are needed, one between each finger [sic]. Then one must learn to write another letter with each pen. When one has done this, one is able to write entire stories in much shorter [less] time. Even Homerie Hugold(1312-1363) already used to have such a way of writing, though only with three pens. [The] Kaffaria subsequently perfected the writing art.
Surely this is a spoof? Kaffaria is a geographical designation in South-Africa, but there is no connexion with the author Kafka (single f). Homerie, as far as I am aware, does not occur, but has overtones of Homer. Writing with a number of pens at the same time, surely, is a game only practised by children? The associations with Kafka and Homer must be relegated to the field of creative nonsense, as must the entire entry. Bessel Dekker 00:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It surely does look like someone's gotten into merry spirits already, so I was just being one step extra careful :) - Introvert talk 01:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, too. Well, they've had their fun, which is a nice thought for the season :-) Bessel Dekker 01:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, no consensus as to where the redirect should point. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Laser

[edit]

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. (The only Super Star Destroyer not in Imperial possession? Try Lusankya (eventually).) 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what looks here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose redirecting to the middle of the huge Super Star Destroyer article as suggested below. If there's to be a redirect, I'd support Laser only. ×Meegs 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trandoshan Rifle

[edit]

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it's inaccurate. It doesn't fit with Boba Fett's history, and the reference to Ben Skywalker doesn't make sense. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Z-98 Walker/Fighter

[edit]

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel New Bestine Infantry Transport

[edit]

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki). New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tribi Works Inc.

[edit]

This doesn't seem to exist (after looking on Google and the Star Wars wiki), and if it does, it doesn't give much information. New Bestine has a Star Wars wiki entry (I couldn't find it anywhere else) that is considered noncanonical. 82.27.25.214's other contributions seem similarly likely to be false. If deleting, look at "what links here" too. Delete. TimBentley 01:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirations Management

[edit]
Self-promotion. Lincher 18:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Zoe Jamie (talk/contribs) 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Pardee

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, reads like a resume. Tufflaw 01:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable within field, if asked, should be rewritten. JAD77 9:19, 18 December 2005

S[eedied, nn-bio. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


PESwiki

[edit]

Incomplete AfD, completing nomination. This is actually an article that has been deleted before. Current form, it's a non-notable website, and the article barely exceeds db-empty criteria. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SourceryForge

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. "NN" tells us nothing more than "I think this article should be deleted". Try explaining why you think something is non-notable, what steps you have taken to establish this, and so on. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TerrorWiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm quite surprised by your reaction. My comment was equal in length to your nom. As the nom, I fail to see why you withhold pertinent information regarding pages you nominate. Do you enjoy trying to make fools out of your voters? -- JJay 09:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Quest Omnipedia

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the nominator has not investigated any of these wikis, judging by later nominations, and I have not had time to do so. I agree with JJay that there may be more merit than an Alexa rating may provide. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Like what? WP:WEB is the ONLY thing that should apply. That and the main page has less than 5000 hits and there are less than 1000 articles. This is a joke. If we have a standard and then ignore it for no discernable reason, what is the point? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Space Quest Omnipedia is currently one of the links on the Space Quest page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin Kimbrell (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good work and thanks. I guess if the nom had merged and redirected it would have eliminated the need for this vote. -- JJay 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 16:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UniLang

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WikiFAQ

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: You should have stated that with your nom. Given your track record (numerous speedy keeps) and complete failure to present a case for deletion, you left me no other choice but to seek to prevent the possible harmful loss of valuable information that might result from a reckless or foolhardy AfD nomination. -- JJay 09:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't mention your faith did I? I mentioned that you have repeatedly nominated and then speedily kept numerous articles that should never have come close to AfD. I won't list them here. I also won't discuss your habit of speedy deleting articles that do not fall within speedy guidelines. However, given that past history, I naturally tend to view you noms with some skepticism, particularly as you feel it is below you to justify them. -- JJay 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A half dozen questioned deletes out of more than 1600 is not a "habit," and the accusation is unfounded and bordering on PA. Three reversals, coincidentally on the same day, out of 13 months of nominating articles is not a track record. You are judging a book based on the first few paragraphs, where you shouldn't be judging at all. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm judging based on what I saw in the last few days. I thought, based on your noms, that you were a new user. I stand corrected. -- JJay 01:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So you not only judged me unfairly, you didn't even bother to check out my user page or past contributions or logs (where you would have seen that not only am I not new, I am an admin)?--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going by all those noms of the last day or two. I now know that I was being quite unfair. I take back and humbly apologize for my remark about your track record. That was wrong, and might be misconstrued as a personal attack. However, given that you are an admin, can you please end what is starting to look like a mockery of a farce at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno. Also, thanks for reversing (speedily keeping) your other recent noms. I respect your character. -- JJay 02:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The former I have speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the speedy keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Czech resistance to Nazi occupation. You are a true gentleman and scholar. Furthermore, it is probably best to remain cautious on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leticia Moreno as the voting could still go either way and it may yet prove to be another in the unending series of classical music vanity scams I keep hearing about. -- JJay 08:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured, the sarcasm of all your resposes here are frankly appaling. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasm? I won't accuse you of making personal attacks, but can't you have the good grace to accept a compliment or an apology? -- JJay 10:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey, ah, but can we verify you exist by the guidelines set out in Wikipedia for doing so?! *G* Jcuk 17:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WikiHealth

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


MWUsers

[edit]

NN wiki forum. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SailWiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S23 Wiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SeattleWiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skwik

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Titoxd(?!? - help us) 08:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infosecpedia

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Accepted standards. It's funny you mention that. Where are the accepted standards for nominating race car drivers, award-winning violinists, and internationally-renowned infectious disease specialists to name a few of your recent choices? I would also be curious to know what standards you applied to your 256 deletions. I would hate to think that we might be excising vital submissions from new editors. Although, I'm sure that your speedies are only rarely overturned. -- JJay 09:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. AfD is looking far too much like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey today. --Agamemnon2 18:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its seems as if you're just voting keep to spite the nominator. Say what you will about other noms - this article doesnt meet WP:WEB, it doesnt even come close, so it should be deleted. Agnte 20:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ErrantryWiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has fallen between the cracks, so I'm closing it myself. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Wiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this myself as this seems to have slipped between the cracks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OrthodoxWiki

[edit]

NN wiki. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was FRIED. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fried human fucking

[edit]

Delete. Patent nonsense. I originally attempted to speedy delete, but I respect Haukurth's changing to AFD. Tufflaw 02:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete FCYTravis 09:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oceanborn UK

[edit]

Non Notable forum (Alexa ranking 1,135,959). -- ReyBrujo 02:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was O Keep after votes by annons and new users were discounted. Jaranda wat's sup 06:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY?

[edit]
Listed for deletion? YA RLY.

Another so-called internet meme which will be irrelevant in ten years, if not already. Denni ☯ 02:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Keep That Is As Strong As Possible This is so important..people should learn about the internet, and its fads. This user's eleventh edit in eight months.
  • Keep this belongs on its own page apparently...  ALKIVAR™ 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was just wondering about the history of the o rly owls and was happy to stumble upon this page. Without its wikipedia entry, I wouldn't have known what it was. I think most popular memes belong on here. This user's second edit.
  • Keep This is a lot more popular than most internet meme's, and i see it everyday. so what if its not relevant in 10 years, isnt that what HISTORY is for? Logging such things?. Jragar 01:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Jragar's only edit, even though his contribs page turns up no hits at all.[reply]
  • Keep Come on, its bloody brilliant. Which sycophant motioned for deletion? tut tut QrimmerQrimmer's 29th edit.
Comment: 29 edits, spread uniformly over a month? Works for me... -Colin Kimbrell 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant? You =do= lead a sheltered life. Denni ☯ 03:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apptix

[edit]

no claim of notability per WP:CORP WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 21:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and add links to article WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 08:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep and move to Le Bec-Fin. howcheng {chat} 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Le Bec Fin

[edit]

No claim for notability for this restuarant. Was previously speedied, but doesn't qualify under CSD. Delete Owen× ☎ 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as rewritten by Capitalistroadster too.Jgritz 06:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are more than 3 restuarants with three star rankings, the link provided above shows something like 26 in France alone. However, this notability claim is false as Michelin does not rate restaurants in North America.
  • That guide is not released until 2006 (I realise that it is fast approaching, but until it is released my previous statement is correct) and only covers NYC. This restauraunt is in Philly. Movementarian 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move I lived in Philadelphia during my college years, and can attest that Le Bec-Fin is extemely well-known there, and is something of a household word, given as an example of something expensive or high-class. There are not a whole lot of encyclopedically-notable individual restaurants out there, but this is one of them. Should be moved to Le Bec-Fin, its real name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is not official Wikipedia policy, merely a guideline by which some but by no means all Wikipedians operate. It exists and is verifiable. Jcuk 22:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Uchi

[edit]

No Google hits at all. Hoax? Perhaps a typo, if someone could find a real name that corresponds to the contents of this article. -- Curps 02:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Singularity 06:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waddle

[edit]

Page was made again on here, but used as a different thing. This song was never a single. It is a song that was released, but it hasn't been on an album or isn't a single. Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Bob

[edit]

Looks unverifiable and smells of vanity. Blue Man Group doesn't mention any such instrument, and anyway, the only claim here is that it's "similar" to what they use. CDC (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 02:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vigosegest

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, vanity, ZERO hits on Google. Tufflaw 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 New College of Florida. — JIP | Talk 16:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New College of Florida Police Department

[edit]

The entity in question is non-notable...are we going to include every university police department? Nsb3000 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Narcotics trafficking in the USA

[edit]

Unsourced rant. I'd like to see some proof that Mexicans are the most responsbile for narcotics trafficking, because I don't believe it. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter's Cap-Page Board

[edit]

Seems to be just advertising for this website (WP:NOT) KC. 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Musopen

[edit]

NN website promoting free music. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and don't believe everything an article says. To me, the whole mention of national media coverage looks like something cut and pasted from a wikipedia guideline (after it was afd'd) so that it could claim notability. 4 google hits for "musopen.com" isn't national news coverage, and the claim isn't even sourced. - Bobet 02:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 16:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Findlay Village Mall

[edit]

Non-notable mall Hirudo 03:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Cassava Enterprises. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Casino on net

[edit]

Totally non notable ± the adlike nature of it. Has ZERO pages linking to it. ((Comment later added to the AfC page): Alexa ranking in the 25 000s) 68.39.174.238 03:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Cassava Enterprises. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

888.com

[edit]

Same as Casino on net, seemingly non notable ad. Also, has three things linking to it: A userpage of articels about websites, and Casino on net and Pacific Poker, both directly related to these people and ad-like. Casino on net is up for deletion (by me) as an ad, the other one was kept as somewhat notable. I don't exactly if these people are notable by relation. AfDing it to see. 68.39.174.238

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crispin Wallace-Ingersoll

[edit]

Delete This page fails WP:V: it is not verifiable. While Rainer Maria Gerhardt was a poet, he died in 1954 [21] and is not indicated anywhere on Google as having a work called Metabolisme. If Metabolisme was published posthumously in 1956, how can it have been Gerhardt's first citation of the alleged nom de plume Crispin Wallace-Ingersoll? The article may well be a hoax; even if not, it has been flagged unreferenced since August 2005 and no one has provided references. See the talk page for further argument indicating unverifiability and possible hoax. -- JimR 03:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nusearch

[edit]

Doubtful meet WP:WEB. No sources. pfctdayelise 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commision Junction moved to Commission Junction

[edit]

Substub, adlike, of the two links at the bottom (Which comprise close to ½ the article) one is the subject itself, the other is a forum about them with ZERO posts. No Wikipedia pages link to it (The page). Should also mention they misspelled "Commission" ((Note: This was added to the AfC section after this page was created): Alexa rank in the 400s, but I'm still not sure of its notability.). 68.39.174.238

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Harro5 Jamie (talk/contribs) 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Hoffmeister

[edit]

Vanity. pfctdayelise 04:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bitscape

[edit]

Seems totally non notable. Articel is a stub, gets no links but from some usrtalk pages. Also, Alexa ranking in the 1 000 000s. 68.39.174.238

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goals Soccer Centers moved to Goals Soccer Centres

[edit]

Article on one not particularly notable 5-a-side football (soccer) organisation in the UK; reads like a website for the organisation Daveb 04:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Siplian Gender-Changing Ritual

[edit]

No sources, the "PhD" line makes me suspect it's possible original research, which would of course contravene WP:NOR. pfctdayelise 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dinosaur Dance

[edit]

A dance that was done at a highschool and has not gained widespread recognition. Delete. —Brim 04:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance

[edit]

nn web forum with 5 members. Revealing review by someone on alexa.com:

This site is just a series of essays offering the personal view of a Canadian retired engineer - and one who admits to having no standing in the academic or religious communities. His essays are poorly written, and his conclusions often say the complete opposite from all his sources. The writer has a good name for his website, which no doubt helps him get lots of web traffic, but the content is no better than a poor essay from an untrained 16 year old

User:Zoe|(talk) 04:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've used them as a source in the past when writing short stories that touch topics like Wicca and New Age Religions briefly. In light of the aforementioned, I shall not make the same mistake again. I just wish there WAS an unbiased source online, though I clearly see the impossibility thereof. You cannot fight stupidity with knowledge, stupidity will always win. --Agamemnon2 19:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Religioustolerance.org. Right now, the name of the website isn't even in the article, which seems odd. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Ejaculation (grammar). howcheng {chat} 17:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religious ejaculations

[edit]

dicdef, if that; should not be in plural, and not really any different from Ejaculation (grammar) Flapdragon 04:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Ejaculation (grammar). Jcuk 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The shadow of a society

[edit]

Stub for planned movie still looking for funding. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. ERcheck 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Marotta

[edit]

Unable to verify. A Google search turned up besides the usual wikimirrors two Joey Marottas: a background musician who did some work on one of Peter Gabriel albums and the user name of someone banned from an online gaming group for cheating. While the former is probably marginally notable enough for an article., this article doesn't appear to be about the musician but some supposed sketch comedy actor/writer/producer. Delete and possibly write a new stub about the musician to plug the gap. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This vote had a little of everything, and I'm not comfortable with merging anything per the few "rewrite" votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of the Verse of Rajm

[edit]

This article has no text except for quotes from other people. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

keep Can you let me work on it? i created it some minutes ago, man... --Striver 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Slow down - only 19 minutes between initial post and AfD? This is way too early for a nomination, especially since there have been at least six edits since the AfD. B.Wind 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's now substantial content. Rewrite Dlyons493 Talk 12:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is still nothing there but quotes. Your chararacterization does not address my reason for listing this. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seemed very early to nominate an article with content (even if that consisted of quotes). However, it seems to have stopped there and the odds of the author expanding it are now lower. It clearly needs a context to make it intelligble to non-Muslims. Dlyons493 Talk
  • Keep and lay off the nominating articles that have existed for less than a day!!!!! Jcuk 22:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename and completely revise. Merge with Rajm. I'm changing my vote. The article should be merged into Rajm (a much better title) and rewritten. Zora 21:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rationale: Striver is unlikely to improve this article, since he has an imperfect command of English. He writes stubs, not complete articles, and has said that it is up to others to fix his work. He also creates incomplete lists, or copies and pastes from online sources. This article was clearly created by cutting and pasting from online hadith collections. It completely lacks any narration that would clarify the issue for confused readers. Yet it IS a notable issue in Islamic history and even in current events, since it concerns the Quranic justification -- or lack thereof -- for the stoning of those convicted of adultery. If it were retitled to something like Islam and stoning (I'm not set on this title, there are probably better ones) and given another 30 KB of exposition, it could be a useful article. As it is, it is both unfindable and useless in its present form. Zora 00:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it is fair enough to have an article on a text in its own right. Maybe there should be a close relation with a more detailed article on punishment in Islam. jnothman talk 00:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A text? This is not A TEXT, this is several hadith, or collected oral traditions, from collections with thousands of them. More than 17,000 in Bukhari and Muslim alone. Striver pulled out hadith relating to one particular issue. It's the issue that's in play here, not the hadith. Tafsir (commentary) and sira (history) are relevant too, not just hadith. This is a job for ... Islamic-studies-scholar-man! I wish he would jump out of the phonebooth right now. Zora 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite Should be explanatory rather than merely quoting the Hadith. Texts belong in Wikisource and the article currently does not explain (whether in good or bad english, I don't mind) the relevance and significance of this hadith. jnothman talk 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: seems like it can be improved based on comments from Zora. I'm willing to give Striver much more time to clarify the concept. -- JJay 03:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
ill work some more on this soon, i couldent do that for two days. --Striver 12:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge info into Rajm. Given the societal context that Rajm is one of the least understood topics within Islam, how about writing a complete article on stoning in islam, aka rajm, and including these hadith as links into that article. It could include the Sunni view, Shi'a view, and also historical facts involving the punishment of rajm. It could be linked from the stoning article under the Islam section. [Previously left unsigned accidently] Pepsidrinka 22:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge into Rajm. Keeping bias that will not be improved makes wikipedia biased. After 10,000 edit my inclusionist idealism died. I'd rather have the article neutral in five years than something out of context, etc. now. Not that Rajm is an exemplary article or anything. gren グレン 20:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - give the article a bit time, its only been created a few days ago, and i'm sure Striver will improve/develop it. --Khalid! 18:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This article reads like a rant in some places, hasn't been touched for six months and if someone else can find a proper place where it can be redirected, please be my guest. Otherwise, "Delete". Hamster Sandwich 04:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

White Collar Child Abuse

[edit]

Aside from the fact that the current article is entirely POV, "white collar child abuse" is not a notable expression. It's an attempt by the fathers' rights movement to capitalize on the visibility of "white collar crime" with their own neologism. Rhobite 04:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this already covered in Child Abuse?
Should this be included in Child Abuse?
Can it be WP:NPOV to refer to it as "White Collar"?
Is the research as listed there useful?
Is it a common enough split from Child Abuse to be worth its own sub category? i.e. are we going to have Blue Collar Child Abuse, Redneck Child Abuse, Yuppie Child Abuse etc?
I really don't know, so I will leave my vote until I've seen what others have worked out. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and replaced with protected {{deletedpage}} by User:Harro5. Jamie (talk/contribs) 09:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meredith Belbin

[edit]

delete: blatant copyvio, advert — Shadowhillway 05:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 20:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Crisis (rock band)

[edit]

A band found two days ago is not notable. I mean, I could write things on Wikipedia about what I did on Friday : ). I know the author was well-meaning, nonetheless, delete εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Residence hall director

[edit]

Poorly written article with little substantiation and few (no) references. More importantly, the very term is ambigious and resistant to definition as different institutions use it to refer to graduate students with limited responsibility or professionals with Masters degrees and signficant responsibility. I think this is (or should be) covered adequately in the Residence Life entry. ElKevbo 05:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. However, I believe the newly-edited and expanded Residence Life is both acceptable (no votes to delete at the moment) and adequately covers the topic of Residence hall director. I could be mistaken, however, and welcome further discussion. --ElKevbo 21:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm going to try to spruce up the article a bit, but it is an important topic that needs to have an article here and not just be absorbed into the residence life article. We'll need to get rid of the Resident Assistant article too if ElKevbo's argument is valid . Being poorly written is not justification enough for deletion. I don't see at all how the term is at all ambigious, and all that is needed is a bit of rewording (which I think I'll go work on). --ScottyBoy900Q 02:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe it deserves its own article. If, after voting for this is done, there is a consensus that a move should be made nominate it for a move. I think it deserves its own article. --Nick Catalano (Talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Kids"

[edit]

Article has very little content or purpose; text is incoherent; little (if no) potential to be revised by other editors. This article looks more like an email than an 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. - Mailer Diablo 16:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of common sorting algorithms

[edit]

This is original research... article is in pretty bad shape but it's not a speedy. Apparently not a cut and paste copyvio, though it does look like one at first glance. W.marsh 06:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

John tynan

[edit]

Not notable. Delete karmafist 06:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of John Tynan. "Delete". Note: John Tynan was a noteable character in American Music and should probably remain. Jackbunny2006


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Baghdaddios

[edit]

The article reads like a review of a non-notable band. The author cited no sources. No one has done any editing except to add wikify, cleanup and pov templates.DeleteTheRingess 06:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ral315 (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katelyn Faber

[edit]

I know I'm going to get a lot of flack for this one, but so be it. This article, while about a person who achieved a certain notoriety through the media, still does not belong on Wikipedia, if for no other reason than Wikipedia Is Not A Propaganda Machine. This article reads like a press release from the defense team. It's horribly POV, from the text to the accompanying pictures, and while POV is not a reason to delete an article, I think from a policy standpoint this is not something that should be a part of Wikipedia. Most reputable news outlets do NOT release the names of alleged rape victims, and that self-imposed ban would extend to most if not all print encyclopedias as well. To acheive an air of legitimacy, Wikipedia should follow suit, and not simply say that because one or two unethical media outlets release information about a rape victim that it's just "OK" for Wikipedia to have an article about it. Delete. Tufflaw 06:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Notable accuser of celebrity who filed a court case under her own name against Kobe Bryant. She involuntarily became a public figure, but after voluntarily filing a lawsuit, what little claim she can make to "privacy" goes out the window. She chose to sue a basketball star for rape, that makes her notable. If there's POV, clean it up. I will note that many "reputable news outlets" released her name - including the Associated Press, after she filed a public-record civil complaint against Bryant. You cease to have a claim to anonymity when you sue someone. FCYTravis 07:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how the fact her name became public after she filed a civil claim makes her life story encyclopedic, including information such as her various jobs or places of residence. Tufflaw 07:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This person had intimate contact with a basketball star, accused him of rape, didn't testify in the case so the charges were dropped, sued that star and then settled out of court. It is ludicrous to argue that somehow that isn't notable. "Kobe Bryant" rape gets 980,000 Googles. "Katelyn Faber," in the neighborhood of 10,000. I see a lot of sourcing in the article to mainstream media coverage of this person. I think it's actually a quite good article which encyclopedically discusses the very issue you bring up - the ethics of reporting her name. Fact is, her name is now out there, it's widely-reported public record and it's certainly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 08:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should also be noted that Googling her name actually brings up only 311 unique hits, and a bunch of those have nothing to do with her. Tufflaw 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not saying it's not notable, just not encyclopedic. Notability is not an automatic inclusion factor, to my knowledge. There is also a degree of journalistic ethics that should be considered as well. At the very most, if her name should be mentioned at all, it should be in the article about the incident itself, or the main Kobe Bryant article. To create a separate article just for her and to describe the incident in such graphic detail comes across as an attack on her, and reads like propaganda. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's moralistic to claim that a person who claimed she was raped by a basketball star is entitled to any special treatment. Her acts were clearly encyclopedic - this isn't some woman who claimed to be raped by Joe Blow, she said she was raped by one of the biggest sports figures of the era. If you feel the article is biased, fix it so it's not biased. I am a journalist, and there's clearly *no* issue of journalistic ethics here. She voluntarily became a public figure. FCYTravis 21:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you seriously claiming that anyone who is raped by a celebrity is voluntarily becoming a public figure by reporting that to the police? Tufflaw 22:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • She voluntarily filed a civil lawsuit, a fact that was widely reported in mainstream media. You're also showing your bias by saying that she was "raped by a celebrity" when that celebrity was never found guilty of any crime. She was *allegedly* raped. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't call her a rape victim, I asked you whether *anyone* who is raped (or even allegedly raped) by a celebrity automatically surrenders their privacy merely by the notoriety of the person who raped (or allegedly raped) them? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Irrelevant. Faber voluntarily surrendered her privacy by filing a civil lawsuit. And yes, there ARE involuntary public figures. It's too bad we don't have an article on the legal concept of a public figure, but if someone is involuntarily thrust into the public eye, courts have ruled they may be a public figure whether they like it or not. [User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 23:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
                    • Without commenting on the Hobson's Choice you're saying that a rape victim must face if they try to decide whether to file a civil suit aganist a celebrity, the mere fact of her filing a civil suit doesn't mean that this article is or should be encyclopedic. Tufflaw 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Very notable subject. Everything you're listing above is reasons to edit, not delete. I don't believe that her name should still be protected, since legally she is no longer considered a rape victim; however even at that the article should be moved to "Kobe Bryant Accuser" or something, not deleted outright. And all the alleged POV problems (I havn't read through the entire article) can likewise be fixed. Flyboy Will 07:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because the charges were eventually dropped doesn't mean a person is not a rape victim. There was no claim that the charges were dropped because of any sort of hoax or perjury by the accuser, but because she didn't want to go on with the intense media scrutiny of her personal life. There's no legitimate need for the kind of information in this article to be available, which effectively victimizes her again. Tufflaw 18:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sort of twisted logic is that? I understand you have a POV on this, being an ADA, but we can't call her a rape victim because it was never factually established in a court of law that she was raped. FCYTravis 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wouldn't call it twisted logic at all, and while I'm an ADA, I work very hard to keep my personal POV out of Wikipedia. If someone is raped, they are a victim of rape, whether their accuser is ever caught, or if caught is punished. If someone is murdered, for example, would you say they aren't a murder victim if their killer is never caught or convicted? Now, I don't know if this woman was raped or not, because I wasn't there. However, she shouldn't be punished or exposed to public scrutiny because she was allegedly raped by a celebrity instead of a non-celebrity. To say that by accusing a public figure of attacking her means that she is "voluntarily" becoming a public figure - well, THAT is twistic logic. Tufflaw 22:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • A murder victim is not necessarily a murder victim until a coroner's jury makes a finding, or someone is convicted of the murder. It would be appropriate to say they were a victim of homicide. In this case, nobody was convicted of the alleged rape so we must call her an "alleged rape victim." Saying she was a "rape victim" is implying someone was guilty of a crime, when in this case we have no such finding of guilt. She voluntarily filed a lawsuit, which makes her a public figure by any standards. FCYTravis 23:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's semantics. If I rob a bank and am never caught, am I not a bank robber? I may not be convicted of robbery but that doesn't change the fact that intrinsically I am still a robber. Same thing, if I rape someone, does the fact of my never being caught mean that I'm not a rapist? Are you saying that any woman claiming to have been raped is not a "rape victim" until their attacker is actually caught and convicted?? Tufflaw 23:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not semantics, it's a neutral point of view. We cannot call Ms. Faber a rape victim because the person she accused of raping her was not convicted of any crime. Hence, alleged rape victim. Wikipedia cannot make judgements that have not been made by a court of law. FCYTravis 23:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Leaving aside the semantics, are you saying that if a person is "allegedly" raped by a celebrity, that it's OK to create an encyclopedia article about them unless/until their accuser is convicted? Tufflaw 23:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd ask an attorney about the appropriate terminology. This did result in a civil court settlement. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd never heard of her, of Bryant or of the incident, but it is clearly notable in the U.S. Calsicol 11:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Flyboy Will's comment about reasons to edit, not delete. --Squiddy 11:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notible. Agnte 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect with Kobe Bryant. To the extent that this covers a notable court case it amounts to a POV fork of the celebrity article. The rest is borderline slander. The number of times this otherwise non-notable woman colored her hair is of no encyclopedic interest. Durova 22:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Kobe Bryant] Jcuk 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not withstanding this 'no smoke without fire' fishwivery, clearly a notable person (even if we wish she wasn't). --Last Malthusian 10:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This wasn't just some celebrity rape case that was kept under wraps by the accused, but dominated national news for the entire basketball season. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your comment - how could this be "kept under wraps" by anyone? Bryant was arrested and that was big news, I agree. The incident is certainly encyclopedic. How does it make this particular graphically in-depth biography of the accuser encyclopedic? Tufflaw 20:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --King of All the Franks 08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Weil

[edit]

The page is spam.DeleteTheRingess 06:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

419baiter.com

[edit]

Vanity page: serves no real purpose other than to detail the function of a minor website. This article does not seem to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia as an article. It just profiles a website of no significance. --Thephotoman 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alexa ranking is 883,228, 193 Google hits, no reference in media outside blogosphere. --Thephotoman 07:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. I was going to keep it, but the external link no longer works. Looks like the site is gone. howcheng {chat} 18:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Binary Report

[edit]

Non-notable "news" site with no Alexa ranking, few relevant Google hits - and it's hosted on Freewebs. FCYTravis 07:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen_Goodfellow

[edit]

vanity article Jabo 07:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hampshire County Historical Highway Markers

[edit]

I just don't see how this is useful in anyway nor evidence that any of the highway markers are historical. Cruft Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 07:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antill

[edit]

Stub article on obscure vaporware game from the 80s Mecanismo | Talk 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Previous listing only recieved 1 vote other than the nominator's. Mo0[talk] 08:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropology in the tabloids

[edit]

Article looks like original research and smells a lot like copyvio Mecanismo | Talk 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Previous listing recived no votes other than nominator. Mo0[talk] 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:59, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Potente

[edit]

Hoax. No Google hits for Jesse Potente or Jesse W. Potente. Unfortunately the article asserts notability, and there is no Speedy criterion for hoaxes. Herostratus 08:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about speedy. I guess in about 1% of cases like this you get suprised: "Oh sure, everyone in Jersey knows about him, some kind of genius I guess, some college gave him a doctorate, it was in the papers". Patent nonense would be like "Jesse Potente is the Emperor of the World" or whatever, in my opinion. Herostratus 20:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taleia Lockett

[edit]

Non-notable Nv8200p talk 08:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danger dog

[edit]

Hoax. Can't find any refernces in Google Nv8200p talk 22:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - try this search [27]. Hrm. Other than a couple of blogs [28] and [29], and one hell of a lot of self-referencing Wikipedia mirrors (or else places that got their research from Wikipedia), it was hard to find it. One thing though: It would likely be "danga dog" rather than "Danger". What I mean is that it wouldn't be pronounced Danger. It'd be pronounced "danga" as in banger, which is the British/Australian slang term for sausage. This is likely the problem. Logically, it makes sense that "danga" would be a slang term for hot dog, as it would be based on "banger" for sausage. Hot dogs are basically a type of sausage, so it all adds up nicely. "Danger dog" as in "dangerous", though, is hard to believe. I was doing other searches but I got tired. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Messianic Disciple

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, obscure terminology. No context given in article. I searched Google for a while to figure out what this is supposed to be about, but it still seems to be incomprehensible sect-speak. —Preost talk contribs 22:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is only one link in the article, and that is to Messianic Jew, which does not explain what a "Messianic Disciple" is. When it's not giving endlessly hedging definitions, this article seems to be attempting to adopt the definition of Messianic Jew, but without the "Jew" part. It seems much more like someone's pet theological phrase than a notable and distinct theological concept. In any event, it only gets 33 unique Google hits[30], and most of them seem to be part of some webring. So, even if it is "pretty important," hardly anyone's talking about it. —Preost talk contribs 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. Mo0[talk] 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Arnesen

[edit]

Unnotable photographer. Possibly self-biographical. Most google hits on his name are not about him. Haakon 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeBob SquarePants: BC Bowling

[edit]

Another worthless Spngecruft article. --Apostrophe 22:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Mucciolo

[edit]

No assertion of notability. He's got about 500 google hits, and he really seems to be an educator in NY schools, but this article has no content beyond that, and he doesn't seem to be talked about outside of the schools where he works. Fails WP:BIO, so delete. GTBacchus(talk) 21:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fopish Dandies

[edit]

NN band. "Fopish Dandies" yielded 7 google hits. I thought it might be a typo, but "Foppish Dandies" got arount 550 google hits, most of them unrelated to any band. Delete. Fang Aili 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotype records

[edit]

Delete non-notable, no artists, no records Drdisque 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

updated info. Proof of relevance : http://www.stereotyperecords.com [email protected] 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrasoft CRM

[edit]

Non-notable company according to WP:CORP. Google finds it only in directories, etc. S.K. 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden drummers and chips

[edit]

dic def Bachrach44 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note added stub. Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty alice

[edit]

Band vanity. Google for '"Dirty Alice" band', '"Dirty Alice" "Chris Bristow"' and '"Dirty Alice" Rainbow'" (one of the band members, and their EP, respectively) returns basically nothing except a dead link to their promo page. FreplySpang (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Fair enough was a bit of a knob-head, but FreplySpang's comment is not true as this band have a website and not just a dead "promo page" and I don't care what the guidelines say, if you release music "by the droves" on the internet then a band does count and IS important. Let the fans of this band have a page about them on wikipedia! —the preceding unsigned comment is by 80.1.224.12 (talk • contribs) 10:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since the band do have a website and people actually enjoy their music and want them to have a page on Wikipedia it seems harsh to try and get it deleted. Unless a complete knowledge of all music and other peoples ideas and feelings can be claimed, (which i doubt it can!!!) then it would not be fair to remove this bands page. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.67.211.233 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having met the band personally, I can say that they are a nice bunch of lads who take their music seriously and produce some quality material.I was directed to Dirty Alice two years ago by a friend when I was looking to produce and release an album of my own - a compilation of christian rock songs - and they were so accommodating that we actually decided to pool our finances, ideas and musical talent to produce the album together. The album even managed to sell 14,700 copies in its first year of release! Its production was the best four months of my life. I've never learnt so much from a band before and we have been in regular contact since. Thanks again guys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.224.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I think that the whole 'self-releasing music on the Internet by the droves doesn't count' argument is quite frankly pathetic. Having seen the meteoric rise of the Artic Monkeys by creating a fanbase utilising the internet and music downloads, it seems stupid to dismiss the releasing of music via the internet. These Dirty Alice guys seem to have a pretty professional website so I reckon they may well be going places and this seems to be backed up by the fact that they played New York in 2004. Though it doesn't say where they played, for a band based in England to go all the way to New York to play a gig suggests that they are already getting recognition in the music world. The very fact that these guys seem to have dedicated a large amount of their time to produce a significant number of albums means they must have an already large and enthusiastic fanbase, so I'd just wait and see where this band is headed before you hastily delete the definition. Plus I think of Wikipedia as keeping me informed about popular culture - and this is most definitely popular culture. P.S The guy who says he can't use the internet without google is a moron. If he can't spell definitely then nobody should have to listen to his inane, ill-considered opinion!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.72 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment, self-releasing music doesn't cost a band anything, and doesn't require anyone else to have heard or liked the music. I could record a song on a mic in 2 minutes, put it on the internet and claim i'm a recording artist. That would not make me notable. If the band gets some mainstream media attention (like Arctic Monkeys which you mentioned), you can try again with the article. See WP:MUSIC for what's generally considered notable enough. - Bobet 12:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Once Beautiful Tragedy

[edit]

Non-notable band. Not on allmusic, not on Amazon, tagged per WP:NMG since 25 Nov and no response, no evidence of being signed and written in POV terms. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind productions

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mastermind Media

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was see Hunter/Gwin (Hunter/Gwin (AfD discussion)). Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verifiability and notability. Eddie.willers 13:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DanaSah

[edit]

This software is by User:Pedro Castro. Is it notable? This is the only thing this account ever did at Wikipedia. Fplay 03:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DistroTalk

[edit]

This thing is run, in part, by user:deltalima. Notable? Fplay 05:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ECTOR

[edit]

This software was written by François Parmentier . Notable? Fplay 06:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was yeah, that's a delete all right. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chek-Point Studios

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable from my research. gren グレン 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tydamonic Alliance

[edit]

Uncited; I suspect it's a hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Now some anonymous user has come in and added two "references" (unlinked, naturally) that have nothing to do with "Tydamonic Alliances". Someone is trying to hoax Wikipedia. Maybe they heard about the Seigenthaler thing and thought they could do it too. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thy pitiless unmanning is most meet / Thinks Ercole, the zany Paraclete." Billbrock 10:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Herrut

[edit]

Patent Nonsense / Hoax? I found this page from a request to create an article for Meh (goddess). Neither Meh nor Herrut appear anywhere in my extensive library on ancient Egypt, most notably in [31]. Google search brings up a few Christinanity-related pages, all listing "Herrut" as the basis for claiming Jesus was based on Osiris, and Herrut being the biblycal Herod. In conjunction with obsolete and incorrect names of Egyptian deities linked to it, this leads me to believe that Herrut is part of some hoax from the 70s or before. Flyboy Will 08:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just to add, those Herrut-Herod web sources claim Herrut is derived from "heru" which is supposedly egyptian for "to terrify". That is complete nonsense - "heru" is either the God Horus, or kheru which is 'voice', or possibly heroo which is 'day'. 'To terrify' would be something like "sebeha". I.e. more proof the entire thing is based on some nonsence. Flyboy Will 08:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting link here in line with Flyboy Will's comment. The "patent nonsense" argument sounds plausible to me, but I don't know enough to make an informed decision. Billbrock 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references to Herrut seem to derive from The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ by Gerald Massey, originally published c. 1900. Considering that the Christian references to Herrut seem widespread (though there is no evidence that Herrut was an Egyptian god), I vote to keep the article, on the condition that it be rewritten and recategorized to discuss the contemporary Herod-Herrut connection rather than claiming Herrut was an Egyptian god. Adunar 05:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That essay by Massey is described by himself as original research. If it hasn't gained academic acceptance by now, we can hardly use it to support the article, or any other works that reference it. If the article is kept, perhaps it should document the "Herrut Hoax" d how it has been used. Wesley 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I haven't found references to Herrut by a reputable third party publisher, so it would be hard to support an article on the Herrut-Herod connection. I'll change my vote to delete. Adunar 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 utterly and absurdly unencyclopedic. Period. FCYTravis 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

V6P4P8

[edit]

Doesn't even begin to be notable. A look at the author (J7)'s talk page indicates that he's been screwing around with editors in an odd way all day; I'm tempted to speedy this for vandalism but for now I'm just recommending delete. Dvyost 08:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ska wars

[edit]

NN band, vanity. Google takes us to a myspace page; fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. Melchoir 09:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons mentioned above. My earlier problem with the SD was that you did not mention your reasons for deletion, which you satisfactorily mention here, in the place in the template where reasons for deletion are meant to be declared. Sorry about that. -- Daverocks 09:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • google actually takes us to a website but some bastards cant see that.-- xskapunkkidx
    • Okay, pardon me, a myspace page and a tripod page. It still fails WP:MUSIC. Melchoir 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • doesnt it seem a bit elitist to say that basically if someone hasnt done something on a major/ majorindie label they arent important xskapunkkidx
        • Yeah, well, it's true. Server space isn't free, you know. (Note that xskapunkkidx created this article). -Lifthrasir 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • P.S. Having done something on a major label isn't good enough, either. -Lifthrasir 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The WP:MUSIC page is simply guidelines, and you should read it more carefully. A band doesn't have to meet every criteria on the page. Your band just happens to meet none of them. xSOUPx
        • Those criterion happen to be hard to meet for an ultra indie band like mine-- xskapunkkidx
          • Alright. Then update the page with every verifiable significant thing that you've done, and we'll see how it stands up. Have you ever toured, released an album, or anything? How is your band noteworthy? xSOUPx
            • I have updated a few things we have done. need more xskapunkkidx
              • This is cruel. Look, xskapunkkidx, you may as well give up here and focus on the music. Your article is going to be deleted. Melchoir 10:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • Indeed. Maybe once you've accomplished a bit more, someone will put up an article about your band. Good luck with that. xSOUPx
                  • we've accomplished more but its top secret maybe if wikipedia is nice we'll post what it is -- xskapunkkidx
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe nevin

[edit]

Vanity page, little significance, short on accuracy and detail Lloyd Wood 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Buena Vista Studios

[edit]

Gives virtually no information, reads like an advertisement, and the company may not be important enough for an entry to begin with. The Jade Knight 09:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 delate, hoax. Homey 16:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



Terry Parkinson

[edit]

I believe this page is a hoax. I can't find any proof of the existence of this person --YUL89YYZ 09:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Shinewald

[edit]

Non-notable Canadian lawyer YUL89YYZ 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. I realize it's 3-1 for deletion, but given 23skidoo's rewrite, it's clear that the article is worth keeping. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe cartoons

[edit]

no context, no assertion of importance, not notable website (Alexa >900,000) - main function is advertisement. Suggest deletion. QEDquid 10:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 19:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bubb Rubb

[edit]

He's notable, erm, because Internet forums talk about him saying "Whistles go WOOO!". This isn't encyclopedic. Delete. The Land 10:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The church's opinion on alcohol

[edit]

Article has little substance, the content is surely covered better somewhere. No redirect vote because of ambiguous title: what church? Punkmorten 10:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wronskian on the 49

[edit]

I think that this information is hardly enough for its own article. Wikipedia could do without these two lines of non-notable facts, and could at highest be incorporated into Wronskian or HP-49 series -- SoothingR(pour) 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-bio. Enochlau 14:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Watt

[edit]

Wikipedia articles are not memorials YUL89YYZ 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Stagnaro

[edit]

Page is an advertisment for books and ebooks written by contributor. Mr Twain 12:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porkalicious

[edit]

Dictdef of a protologism. It's already been transwikied to Wiktionary, where it was promptly deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 13:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MCUIC

[edit]

Delete as hoax: Google (even with spelling variants such as "Cohen") finds no evidence of its existence, nor does Wauwatosa "ice rink". Tearlach 13:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It won't come up on any search. It exists as a private rink in a local Wauwatosa pond. There are quite a few dedicated visitors but it does exist.

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

Mailer diablo is a douche bag, this is a real place. Just because something doesn't exist on Google doesn't mean it is not a real place. Quit living in the science fiction world prick. You can't bring down the MCUIC, much like you can't get any poonany.

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. howcheng {chat} 18:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prostration

[edit]

belongs on Wiktionary Njál 13:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.keeping.required. - Mailer Diablo 17:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No.Explanation.Required

[edit]

Non-notable website Nv8200p talk 13:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - was a rewrite-after-copyvio which has now become the lvie version. -- RHaworth 07:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old National Bank/Temp

[edit]

Seems to be a test page with same info as Old National Bank

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pádraig

[edit]
Please put more effort into your nominations. Instead of simply saying "non-notable", explain why it's not notable (e.g. fails WP:MUSIC). Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason this article couldn't be replaced with a redirect to Patrick? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make redirect to Patrick - David Gerard 16:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of Time charted on the official British charts at 187 in 2004. - Pádraig
  • Delete; Suspect article was created as a form of self advertising. the individual concerned is not sufficiently known / accomplished to require an article to himself. This could lead to every individual who has recorded a tune wanting an article. Also link End of Time, which has been edited from a redirect, claims it is a British debut single by Evince, which is a link to a page about a document viewer, so this is probably a hoax entry86.2.136.146 20:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article and the links End of Time and Evince do not seem to support the article and a link to a newly created page Debut Days also seems to have been edited to state Pádraig arranged Eric Clapton song Wonderful Tonight, which reached 30th in the British Charts in 1991 (Source:- British Hit Singles edition 16 by Guiness World Records), also (www.britishhitsingles.com), when Pádraig was only 6 years of age. The link in the info box of Debut Days which goes to Deepening_Days is promoting a alleged album for release in 2006 (advertising on Wikipedia. It also has further links to other pages which back up the hoax theory EG:- Paul_Hawkins. I also suspect this and the links from the page and subsequent article pages could be a hoax setup. Richard Harvey 21:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • End of Time is a direct link from the page because it's the lyrics to the song that was released. Pádraig does not claim to have arranged Eric Clapton's song but REARRANGED it for the album for which he obtain the rights to cover. Paul Hawkins is the name of one of the session vocalists from the album nothing to do with a formula one driver!
  • Comment: If this article is deleted, should also all the articles about the Evince albums be deleted? Note that Evince is about a PDF viewer, not a British pop trio. — JIP | Talk 12:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article and links together, this article and the linked pages were created by the person who it is about, simply as a form of self promotion. Pádraig is not sufficiently know or worthy to be listed, The article has been created for no other reason than to give some publicity to himself. The Evince pdf viewer article should be kept as it is only referred to in error by bad editing. 86.2.136.146 14:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yah-key

[edit]

Not notable: nothing I can see on allmusic.com and Google gives nearly nothing too. NicM 14:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, thanks for biting the newcomer! Don't bite the newcomers!

I would have appreciated being notified of this event, since it is an acronym commonly used in skeptic circles, and not synonymous with the usual meaning of the word "scam". It was the result of long discussions and deliberations, and was carefully formulated to avoid falsely accusing people involved in unscientific practices, who weren't deliberately involved in real, illegal scams.

It isn't a typical definition of a word, but an explanation of an acronym. Right now Wikipedia has a hole in its knowledge base, because this bit of knowledge has been censored.

Mailer Diablo (below) mentions a "debate", but I haven't really seen one, rather I saw the old timers making a decision, but without explaining to me what is appropriate and inappropriate here.

I'd still like to understand this matter, so as not to repeat it in the future.

Fortunately the acronym is listed at SkepticWiki, where it is explained more thoroughly: sCAM -- signed!! Fyslee 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SCAM

[edit]

This topic is not important enough to have its own article. Perhaps it would be better sent to Wiktionary File Éireann 14:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete both. I'll leave you guys to decide which to redirect though. Seriously I've heard of neither. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up the duff, Up the spazza

[edit]

Slang terms for being pregnant. Classic unexpandable dicdefs. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Streetman

[edit]

Not notable, either as music or otherwise. NicM 14:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big Barry's

[edit]

non notable local resteraunt. Only had 3 locations and it's not even opened anymore. This would be a Pandora's box if it's allowed in. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 14:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Feel free to merge or rename as you see fit. howcheng {chat} 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Inquisition Myth

[edit]

Article title is inherently POV. Article is strongly POV and reads like a research paper, thus running in contravention to WP:NOR. The editor has also removed the NPOV banner that someone else put on the article, which doesn't bode well. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge then delete the redirect. The title is inherently POV, but there may be some usable material here that could be merged into Inquisition or one of its subpages. Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The title is not POV, this is what the Inquisition historical revisionists are generallly calling this line of research (see the biblio section of the article for supporting evidence). BTW this is a legitimate line of research recognized by mainstream historians, it is not the same as, say, the historical deniers. --Stbalbach 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or Merge if possible. We don't need an article entitled 'The Inquisition Myth'. For NPOV purposes, the author, Gth0824 needs to add these points and data to the Inquisition articles, where they could be useful but balanced. Madman 15:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sources cannot be deleted. If its current title is unpalatable, then move it to a better one (or perhaps a subpage of the Inquisition talkpage). By deleting the source article we're hiding the information on who contributed what from non-admins, which is Quite Probably a violation of the GFDL. So, if we delete, we delete, and if we merge, we keep (tho' a move or whatever is possible). "Merge and delete" bad. Bad! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, just to clarify for the record, and to avoid confusion, it is possible to merge page histories together so that the source article can be deleted while retaining the history from the source article in the target article. It is a process fraught with peril, however, and not for the faint of heart. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point about the article history. How about move it to a better name (and delete the no-history redirect, to remove the POV name), then NPOV the content, then possibly merge from the clean content leaving the redirect in place to hold the article history.... Jamie (talk/contribs) 15:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Flyboy Will 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is considerable recent scholarship about the controversies and debate surrounding what actually happened in the inquisition, more than enough to justify a Wikipedia historiography article about it. It would also help solve a lot of POV battles if we can simply "main article" all that cruft out to a single place because its becoming a real problem lately, almost all the edits lately have been edit-wars over this topic, it really needs to be expanded upon in its own article. --Stbalbach 19:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is arguing with the content - the title itself is what people have a problem with. "Inquisition Myth" is extreme POV. Controversy, Theory, something like that could be fine if a separate article absolutely must be created - however Inquisition itself is short, and I see no reason why this can't just be moved there. If there is opposition, try to reach consensus via the usual channels. Flyboy Will 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • A VfD for rename an article interesting.. the problem with putting it in Inquisition is it gives undo balance to controversial subjects. Also, there is more than one Inquisition article, there are as many articles as there were inqusitions. It would be better if each article could simply "main article" to a central place that covers all the controversies, rather than repeating it over and over in each article. --Stbalbach 20:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article title simply needs to be changed. There is obviously a POV issue with the title now.User:Gth0824 (signed on behalf of user to validate vote, see history log to verify.)
  • Merge. This is a fork of the Inquisition article. Legitimate content should be presented there. Durova 00:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. per Durova, et al. -Willmcw 00:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if we were talking about holocaust denial nobody would be saying 'lets merge with the main article'. The term 'Inquisition myth' is inherenty POV, the sources appear to be heavily biased towards the Catholic church which conducted the attrocities. --Gorgonzilla 13:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article does not attempt to deny the existance of the Inquisitions in the slightest. In fact, it presents an outline of all three waves of Inquisitions and identifies their victims. It is never suggested anywhere in the text that inquisitions did not take place.
      • Au contraire. The article presents every claim that minimizes the crimes as fact. Innocent III is absolved of all responsibility - as if he thought equating heresy with treason as anything less than a death sentence. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition the editor continues to remove all attempts to reduce the POV nature of the article. --Gorgonzilla 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have not looked at it in detail, but with the ones I saw, I agree with the reversion of your edits. Including the vandalism you made blanking nearly the entire article! Now your calling someone a sock-puppet in the article talk page. --Stbalbach 15:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the 'editor' will not allow any POV other than their own on the article then removal of the offensive parts is the best approach. The editor refueses to engage in any discussion and it is entirely a personal POV piece that only seems to be supported by yourself and the editor. And yes I do suspect that you are the sock puppeter. --Gorgonzilla 18:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • The title of the article needs to be changed, but otherwise the content is supported and cited according to the rules of Wikipedia. As for sock puppets, Gth0824 is not me. You can easily verify this by asking an admin to check it out, why dont you do that? Instead of making baseless claims that do nothing but damage your own credibility. --Stbalbach 18:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Delete. The title of this topic is POV. Agnte 10:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would have been renamed allready, everyone agrees the name is bad and needs to be renamed, but we can't do anything while the VfD is underway. Would you reconsider to change your vote to "rename"? --Stbalbach 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is plenty of research that goes along to criticize the "mainstream" ideas about the Inquisition. Yes, the title needs to be changed, but there can be healthy criticism on the issue on the Inquisition, to what extent it happened, and where it happened. One historical study I have read places the numbers executed based on the Inquisition in the hundreds and that the standard of treatment, while not up to modern standards, was far better than in the "civil" system. -- Jbamb 16:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by r3m0t (CSD A8 -- copyvio). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ITI limited

[edit]

Seemingly inconsequential company. Appears to be a badly disguised advertisement (WP:NOT) KC. 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 20:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prashanti

[edit]

Looks like nonsense. Can't find any hint what this is about. NicM 14:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I think it's actually a girlfriend page. Not sure enough to speedy as {{nn-bio}} or {{nonsense}}, unfortunately. Jamie (talk/contribs) 15:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedied by me. One of those creepy I-worship-my-girlfriend pages, no notability presented, unless you count crying at King Kong (classic line: "Then there are more human moments when you see her cry for the KING KONG...") or not using the crossword puzzle dictionary. Due to confused writing style, could probably qualify as nonsense too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:15, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lingo Java project

[edit]

Not notable. NicM 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. The content looked like it could be merged into Contemporary culture of South Korea but it was just a copy-paste from a how-to guide. howcheng {chat} 18:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Business and Cultural Communication Styles in South Korea

[edit]

Appears to be original research. Stifle 00:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 19/12/05, which in your star-time is still the 18/12/05. Something to do with the speed of light, I understand. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per Proto. Ral315 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Johnston

[edit]

nnbio with very little information Reid A. 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Critical problems facing humanity

[edit]

This just looks like someone's school essay rather than an encylopedic discussion of a genuine subject. NicM 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holiday Inn Markham

[edit]

Unnotable. One of 19 existing high-rises, the tallest being 18 stories. Markham is a suburb of Toronto. Simesa 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was uincorn delete. Wheeeeeeee! :D - Mailer Diablo 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unicorn solutions

[edit]

non notability Melaen 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VPWW Office Detroit/Wyandotte

[edit]

advertising Melaen 15:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete A7. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Fonseca Rendeiro

[edit]

Vanity page. NicM 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyson Kedgley

[edit]

non notability, vanity Melaen 15:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger of Doom

[edit]

non notability Melaen 15:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicyclemark's Communique

[edit]

Not notable, looks like a blogger vanity page. NicM 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Innards

[edit]

Dicdef and inaccurate to boot. NicM 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Martello

[edit]

Hoax or NN. Google with various permutations of Martello, soccer, football, australia(n) doesn't turn up anything. NicM 15:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, recreate as a redirect to Scalable Vector Graphics. Ral315 (talk) 10:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

S.V.G.

[edit]

non notable "story" by some teenager Melaen 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Long Hill Baptist Church

[edit]

nn churchHirudo 15:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rponline.mihopa.com

[edit]

unencyclopedic; it's a no longer existing website Melaen 15:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Save on Telecom

[edit]

company non notability. Does every Telus dealer deserve an article? Melaen 15:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Volunteers Online Volunteering

[edit]

Advert. NicM 16:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doomed

[edit]

rant about the DOOM movie Melaen 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mage Village

[edit]

forum posts Melaen 16:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonian mechanics applied to the human frame

[edit]

Original research/Howto. Not encyclopedic. NicM 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Complicability

[edit]

Recently coined neologism/dicdef, probably not something wanted by Wiktionary either. Coined in 2005 per article, used 5 times on forums [36], not defined anywhere but WP, not used in any press. --W.marsh 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Doty

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (CSD G4 -- reposted content). howcheng {chat} 18:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evan_Greer

[edit]
  • NN Already been deleted once
  • Anarchists, by nature, do not follow the rules, and this page having already been deleted once after full discussion has now been created again. Speedy Delete because such discourtesy does not deserve a second extended discussion. --StanZegel (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever - Not a completely NPOV decision, as I am the creator of the article and I know Evan personally. I am aware that the article has already been nominated for deletion. However, refer to my comment on the discussion page for this article. He's toured all over the United States and he passes the "google test" with 11,500 mentions. Daykart 19:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable enough. His webpage lists appearances in coffee shops and bakeries. That's not touring. If more notability can be established, will gladly change my vote. Flyboy Will 17:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't rate a hit in the allmusic.com database. Jgritz 11:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evan Greer has performed at ABC No Rio, he has some clout in the anarchist folk scene. His collective Riot Folk is present on Wikipedia with no issue. (166.109.0.71)
  • Delete I was the one who proposed this page for deletion for three reasons. 1) It has already been deleted once. 2) This incarnation of the article is even less informative and relevent than the previous and merits deletion on its own. 3) Not sure if this matters but I put this up for deletion after talking with Evan who vehemntly does not want a page on him. --FluteyFlakes88 08:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. jni 14:08, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evan Greer

[edit]

Advertising or self promotion; lacks biographical data; not of general renown.--StanZegel 04:59, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Restoring as deletion candidate after User:Brockert unilaterally removed it from consideration.--StanZegel 04:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, artist promo, possible vanity. Megan1967 07:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as capitalist self-promotion. Wyss 18:46, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The tone of it is just self-promotion. Zzyzx11 23:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, If I wanted to know about this artist, the information on this page would be of some help. It isn't blantant self-promotion.
  • Delete, egotistical promotion vanity etc. -- Riffsyphon1024 21:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable self-promotion. Carrp | Talk 16:39, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Looks like vanity to me. Robin Johnson 13:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Ronald Reagan#Assassination_Attempt. howcheng {chat} 18:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Giordano

[edit]

Is this article REALLY needed? If anything, redirect it to..somewhere... --Mrdie 07:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure, he has many press releases, and his quote is well known to people who know about Ronald Reagan, but still. He is, pretty much, not all that different then any other surgeon who had to work on any other President besides the fact that he made a nice comment to "I hope you're all Republicans" and helped save a Presidents life. (Something I am sure the surgeons for all other Presidents did too) --Mrdie 23:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If we had an article on the Reagan assassination attempt, I could see merging this into that article, but as far as I can tell we don't. Weak keep unless merged into an article about the assassination, whether existing or newly created, Caerwine Caerwhine 05:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ral315 (talk) 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable Muslim reports

[edit]

It is likely that this will be moved to 'List of Hadith' if kept. Please take this into account when voting.

The title of this article is problematic, its scope is potentially enormous, and there is no NPOV criterion for choosing which "reports", or Hadith, are notable.

The title is problematic because "Muslim reports" is a very poor translation of "hadith". Hadith, or formally collected oral tradition, is an accepted, widely used term in Islamic studies. The user who created this article seems to prefer NOT to use Arabic terms of art in discussing Islam-related articles. Anyone searching for articles about hadith would not find this one.

But there are bigger problems than the title. There are many thousands of hadith. Bukhari and Muslim, the first two books of the Sunni canon, contain over 17,000 hadiths. There are four other Sunni books, as well as Shi'a collections. Is this article going to contain them all? The creator of the article says that only "notable" hadiths should be included, but he offers no criterion for notability. All the hadiths he has selected so far have to do with the long tradition of Sunni-Shi'a polemics, and prominently feature hadith used by the Shi'a in attempts to prove that the Shi'a are right and the Sunni are wrong. (The editor is a Shi'a.) However, hadith cover hundreds of other topics as well. If we included the most cited hadith for each of these topics (such as salat, zakat, hijab, inheritance, etc.) we would have an article as long as a book.

I asked the creator to consider picking another title and narrowing the scope of the article. An article on Hadith from the Sunni canon frequently cited by the Shi'a would be manageable and perhaps even useful, since the Shi'a editors keep listing the same hadiths, over and over, in various Islam-related articles. However, the creator -- with whom I have not been getting along -- refuses.

If someone else could persuade him to change the title and narrow the scope of the article, we could drop this whole AfD. Can anyone do so? Zora 05:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep

Yeah, whadever:

And that is a random and small sample from A in Wikipedia:List_of_lists/uncategorized. I wont bother with B-Z Try to make a list of list, there you have a big one...

Here is another thing for you: List of article created by User:Striver and nominated for deleting by User:Zora that did not get deleted:

Zora said that i have only included narrations that are relevant to Shi'a Sunni discutions. Well, that makes them notable, doesnt it? Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia, we dont delet lists only since they could be big. In fact, just the fact that it could become big makes it notable. IF it gets to big, will create breakout articles. Regarding notablility and NPOV, its the usual WP rules.

I did not choose "Hadith", since it would exluded non-"hadith" material, for example "Sira", letters and sermons. --Striver 05:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment i just renamed it to List of notable hadith, even though it narrows the list.--Striver 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Striver, you broke the AfD link on the page. If kept it likely should be moved. However, don't move during the AfD and break the link to the AfD. gren グレン 03:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did include a correct link to it, but if you insist...--Striver 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice the link at first but it be part of the box. It's just bad to move an article while up for AfD. If you want to put on the top of this page that it will likely be moved to list of notable hadith so that no one deletes this because of its name then feel free to. gren グレン 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete most of the individual hadith entries. This is completely unmanageable. There is no systematic way to choose what should be on this list given. There is no systematic naming or scholarly precedent that is being followed for this. I understand the inclusionist impulse. I really do. However, it cannot be used for this article. Renaming to "List of notable hadith" is not enough. How do we set notability in an academic matter? Are Shia hadith inherently less notable because there are fewer Shia? How is the naming of the individual hadith done? At last resort I'd deport the various hadith to wikisource if their translations are in the public domain. An article like this removes any academic credibility from wikipedia. It exemplifies our bias problems and violates no original research in so many ways. gren グレン 03:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gren, you know that many of this hadith are very prominently used in many articel around in Wikipedia. In this articles we can elaborate on their credibility, how they are sourced, whar different scholars have said about it and so on... We can drop "notable" and move it to List of Hadith. I mean, we have a List of schools, and given that i do not understand how we can not have List of Hadith. Notability is judged on a case-by case scenario, its like sayin "its hard to decide if a school is notable, so lets delet list of schools". that does not make sense. --Striver 04:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there exist no standard to what can and cannot be included in this list. Furthermore, it can be argued that every hadith is notable. Choosing selective hadith and adding them to this list will only create a biased point of view. Pepsidrinka 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's start thinking about overcoming systemic bias here. If the "notable" in the proposed title irritates, move it to List of hadith then. This is a commendable attempt to create a directory of articles and links to important Muslim texts, categorizing them by the authority cited and by which branches of Islam accept them. The info actually here is verifiable and NPOV, and doesn't present particular problems as to what to include. I doubt we will ever have to face this issue, but if (God willing) we end up with articles on each reported hadith, so be it. Smerdis of Tlön 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Smerdis, there's no systemic bias in removing a junk article. I'm one of the editors working on Islam-related articles (which I suppose is overcoming systemic bias) and we have a lot of work to do ASIDE from dealing with thousands of hadith. Hadith aren't "texts", BTW -- they're often quite short -- sentences or paragraphs. Do you really believe that we should include 17,000+ hadiths in Wikipedia? That's a reductio ad absurdam. If someone wants to put all of Bukhari or Muslim into Wikisource (if they're not already there), fine. Do dip into some hadith collections ([42], [43]) before you insist that it would be just fine, really, to have articles for every single one of them. Zora 11:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some time ago, there was a series of AfDs about individual Bible verses; no consensus was reached that these should be deleted. I am not sure that this is significantly different. Smerdis of Tlön 12:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i see that people have a problem with the title "List of notable Muslim reports". Note that the "notable" part is droped, if its only the name you dont like, vote for a "move". --Striver 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to remind people:

If we have this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew 1:verses, then there is no reason to not have a list of hadith. Nobody is going to bother to include random non-notable hadith. If you belive a hadith is biased or non-notable, vote down the hadith, not the list. This vote is not about weather WP shoudl have articles on hadith, only about linking to the existing hadith from a list. Nothing more. You dont like the hadith in the list? Add some of your own. You dont like a specific hadith? Improve that hadith, or afd it, not this list --Striver 13:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't feel the need to vote, but I will say that the hadith are so voluminous and so important that I would think they deserve their own wiki, and they can't really be done justice within WP. I would suggest to the authors that they consider developing a hadithwiki and then linking it where appropriate in WP. As with Bible verses, I think only the most important and best-known really deserve their own articles on the main WP. Bikeable 17:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Striver 03:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, bro nobody is going to bother to copy random hadith here, it takes effort. Remeber that every single entry needs to be encyplopedi notable, otherwise it will be deleted. That ensures the notability of the entire list. The only reason Zora and gren are voting delet is that the list contains many Shi'a haidth at the moment, and they cant stand it.--Striver 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It takes effort? So does compiling a million-page online encyclopedia, but there are plenty of people interested in doing it, and I still think a hadithwiki would be an important project. Regardless, I'm now voting keep, above. Bikeable 18:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey van Tol

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was appears to be vanity page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pocket Solitaire

[edit]

Delete - per nomination. This is a non-notable piece of software, and I wasn't sure that this should get the db treatment. The page is primarily an advert for the program, as both links point to buying the sucker. D.valued 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promised Messiah

[edit]
Well, excuuuuuuuuuuse me! Just trying to keep the peace. Her Pegship 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ronan Seamus Farrow

[edit]
  • Strong Keep Saw him on Hardball w/ Chris Matthews earlier this year. He's an extremely intelligent and fairly high profile advocate on the Sudan issue and he seems to be doing some really interesting work with his group, the Genocide Intervention Fund. I see from the article that he also has a growing list of op ed publications. And if it is true about him going to college at 11 and Yale Law School at 16 (!) then that is noteworthy. Becca k. 18:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 when discounting IP votes. Ral315 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Institution

[edit]

This is a non-notable student organization. All the links from other articles to it were added by User:Kstinch in an apparent attempt to make this seem more important and notable than it actually is. Roosevelt Institution was also previously deleted on September 13, 2005. The Terminator 07:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I mean, I'm not sure how you would define notable. Since March of last year, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Times, the Nation Magazine, Mother Jones, Current Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, and many other press outlets have found it worth enough to note. The Roosevelt Review is the country's only student-published public policy journal of a national scope, and the organization is active at over 120 college campuses in the United States, and a handful in Europe. Can you elaborate on your reasons, beyond Kstinch's links, for declaring the organization non-notable? Andrew 05:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable vanity ad for a student organization. Google hits are only their official web sites, student newspapers, and wikiforks. Google News only shows student newspapers. OCNative 07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by 68.252.195.60:

  • Kstinch here -- the reason I'm the main person listed in the history is because there were two articles, "Roosevelt Institution" and "Roosevelt institution" -- different capitalization. The one with incorrect capitalization had most of the editing history. If someone objects to the links, I don't mind people taking them down, my understanding of how this works is that a newbie does something they think will be useful with the understanding that someone else might decide it's not useful -- but I don't see the links as a basis for deleting the article...
  • Another comment -- the fact that four different users at different times have created the article suggests that there's a need for it. If someone wants to edit the article, sure...
  • Disclaimer: I do play a major role in the organization. I thought it was useful for me to correct some inaccuracies in the previously-existing article (among which, I was listed as the founder), to improve Wikipedia. And then while I was at it I listed it on the Think Tanks page, etc. Once it was listed for deletion I read over the policies and I it seems like there's a lot of debate about an organization's members to edit the page -- the consensus seemed to be that if it's an encyclopedic subject and written fairly it's OK, but if you're writing about yourself it does cast suspicion that it's a vanity article. Anyhow, if it's the consensus policy that I shouldn't have improved the original article because of a conflict of interest or something I'd be glad for someone to let me know and I'll refrain from editing the page in the future.

End of comment by 68.252.195.60

  • Keep Going to their website, I found press links to the outlets they claimed. Those links are now part of the wiki entry under the official website section.
  • Keep This is not mentioned in the article, but according to the organization's website they appear to have the backing of several heavyweights who are not known for throwing around their endorsements lightly. Their Board of Advisors includes President Clinton's former Secretaries of Defense and Labor (Bill Perry and Robert Reich, respectively), Clinton's former Press Secretary Dee Dee Meyers, Clinton's former Chief of Staff John Podesta, Jim Dean, Hoover Senior Fellow Larry Diamond, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, the long time Editor in Chief of The Nation.
  • Keep The Roosevelt Institution has also been accepted within the think tank community; following a link form their website, it appears that the Center for American Progress, one of the major liberal think tanks in the country, has co-published at least one report with the organization:[46]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (nomination withdrawn) - --Haham hanuka 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Roxy Jezel

[edit]

So, I don't know for sure, but I don't think Roxy Jezel is real, or if she is, is really a porn star. In any case, there is a lot of bad information on this page, and I don't think anything on this page is worth salvaging, if it's true. Thoughts? ParkerHiggins 21:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

She is a real person and the information here is accurate according to a number of sources.

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

The result of the debate was delete. It's an orphan page with no activity. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Research Group

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the article has been one sentece for four months. There is already an extensive article on the Srebrenica massacre that mentions three reports published by the Srebrenica commission, the Nederlands Instituut voor Oorlogsdocumentatie, and the Serbian government. I think this article is about the report by the first group mentioned in this section. In any case, the article in question adds no info to the larger article, and only serves the purpose of vaguely casting doubt on the independence & objectivity of the group. It was previously tagged NPOV, but the tag was removed by the author. ×Meegs 17:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiidan Heavy Cruiser

[edit]

We don't need a separate article on some specific class of fictional warship for a specific fictional race in a fictional gaming world (Homeworld) Madman 15:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Buckingham Browne & Nichols. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Vanguard

[edit]

This article is about BBN, a private high school in Cambridge, MA, and its MONTHLY newspaper; this cannot possibly be worthy of an article. After all, it is a high school paper that is published eight times per year. The seems much more like student vanity than actual information for the public good.

Pbhayani


The Vanguard has been an institution since 1974 and the recipient of numerous honors from the Columbia Scholastic Association. Certainly this page is not of mass appeal, but that is the case for most encyclopedia entries. This page is very useful for a segment of users to get background on an honored and historic newspaper.

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tonight, He Comes

[edit]

This page is attempting to be a crystal ball (movie has not yet been released) Anabanana459 04:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk (Justice League Unlimited)

[edit]

This article is very poorly written, flaunts the NPOV standard, and carries an overall tone of promotional material. That, combined with the fact that it is about such a minor character make it a prime candidate for deletion. Thoughts?

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

The result of the debate was delete. The outside campaign itself admits that the article doesn't "deserve recognition on the information superhighway." howcheng {chat} 17:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will Bardwell

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status shifting

[edit]

Reads like nonsense, and I can't find much evidence this is a real term. NicM 16:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gabby

[edit]

nn vanity page Hirudo 16:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 People's Mujahedin of Iran. howcheng {chat} 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.M.O.I

[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted- This page has no relevant information, only a link pointing to a website. The page should be expanded or deleted. I placed it here because I see no hope that this page will ever be expanded, or ever be of importance.Trjumpet 16:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Movies that feature people bleeding from their eyes

[edit]

List of examples of an arbitrarily-selected entertainment medium featuring people with an arbitrary consequence of injury to an arbitrary body part. Some of which are deliberate, while others just happen to be to that body part. WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 17:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic compensation

[edit]

This is an advertisment for a product by hcms. if you google the first line you can tell that this was taken direct from an advertisment pdf. note as well there are no links to this page J E Bailey 17:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. His being signed to Metalheadz would qualify him under WP:MUSIC. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vector Burn

[edit]

Not notable. Few significant google results or allmusic.com info. NicM 17:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. IMHO this looks like a cleanup candidate, not a deletion candidate. howcheng {chat} 17:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Design methods

[edit]

"...holistic solutions to improve the lives of people...", reads like a promotion for a fringe cult. Only contributor is User:Design methods; this was originally a user page, but it doesn't fit there either. Delete Owen× ☎ 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep certainly suffers from POV and some inappropriate content, such as the contact me part, but the concept that there is an art/science to design and hence methods is certainly appropriate. Since this primarily focuses on the work of John Christopher Jones it may be more appropriate to move it an article of that name and reorg it to be more consistent with standards J E Bailey 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This document is about design methods and starts with John Christopher Jones. It should not be deleted as it is an important topic of discussion. It is not "cult" or "partisan", but is a valid area to articulate. As for the e-mail, I have taken it down as it seems as if it is culturally not in keeping with Wikipedia User:design_methods Thank you for the commentary. If you go to design methods, it has been expanded to discuss the development of design research and design studies as a response to the work of the original group from design methods. I disagree that the content should be broken up, and give this a chance. This page is not promoting any specific group, but trying to demonstrate the development of design methods. Owen and HappyCamper, if you would let me know what to improve to bring it in line with what your vision of Wikipedia is, I would appreciate it. User:design_methods
    • This is your second vote here. Please limit yourself to one vote per AfD. If you wish to edit your previous comment, feel free to do so, but stuffing the ballot won't get you anywhere. Owen× ☎ 03:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC) (retracted after user fixed double vote. Owen× ☎ 04:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Owen. I am all ears on how to improve Wikipedia. Do you have any constructive suggestions? Design methods
      • Firstly, the article is missing a definition. What is "Design methods"? An organization? An idea? A methodology? Check out other articles here to see examples of how a defining paragraph should look like, or read WP:MOS. Secondly, and more importantly, I find it amazing that a 3,000-word article about something that existed for 40 years wouldn't have a single bit of criticism. This is exactly what differentiates an encyclopedic entry from a sales pitch. (Design Methods 17:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • Thank you Owen for the comments. I will clarify the definition of design methods and make sure it is known as a definition. I am all open for criticism, but also believe that the criticism should be followed by fixes, either by others (which I have invited others to do so) or by generalists who improve syntax. I think we all want to avoid terms like "fringe cult". Our collective goal should be to create a dynamic resource and assume contributors are trying to do the right thing and be specific on how to improve the content. Owen× ☎
          • You're still avoiding the issue. I wasn't talking about criticism of your article; I was talking about criticism of John Christopher Jones and his movement/cult/whatever it is (you still haven't defined it). If you tell us that in 40 years he and his ideas haven't received any criticism, then you've proven my claims. Owen× ☎ 13:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am sorry if you think I am avoiding the issue. Please read the revised introduction. John Christopher Jones is not the issue as design methods is much larger than one person. He was an important founder of the idea of design methods and he did receive a share of criticism. If you read down the article, I have tried to discuss how design methods expanded and changed. Design methods
  • Keep. Editor is very new to Wikipedia; article needs some work but is not deletion material. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 23:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Design methods is a unique addition to Wikipedia. Not only does it establish a visible place for this important and evolving topic, it also contributes to the growing thought and demonstration of design as a critical discipline in developing meaningful products and services. Business concepts such as "innovation fulcrum" and "product life-cycle management" directly connect to the use of Design methods by current companies for both competitive advantage and human capital. And this practice is becoming more pervasive as the forces of economy and empathy converge. Design methods is completely relevant to the present-day realities of our consumer-driven environment. User:Design_Methods_Advocate, 18 December 2005
  • Delete - this article is very misleading - it is at best an essay on a particular interpretation of design methods in the Western world. I might even suggest that we merge relevant portions of the article into others, but I lack the time to do so. Although generally well written, it is subtlely promoting a particular group formed in 1962. If the content is kept, it should be renamed to something appropriate which specifically highlights this. --HappyCamper 01:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does Design Methods prove itself to be taken off the "delete" list? (Design Methods 15:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    I'll answer this question on your talk page. --HappyCamper 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete--Shanel 03:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PKF

[edit]

A NN gaming clan MNewnham 18:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blackadder episodes

[edit]

Recreating information already covered in Blackadder must make the long winter evenings fly by MNewnham 19:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN and delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme dressing

[edit]

The page cites no sources, and I can find no references to it on the web. The article hasn't been wikified. The user who created keeps removing deletion notices and/or wikification requests from the page JRawle 19:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I forsee this article being forever immortalized on the revolutionary encyclopedic genre known as Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --D-Day 19:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hammered Dr. Destructo

[edit]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Chisholm High School

[edit]

nn high school Hirudo 19:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. "nn", which I assume here is intended as a stand-in for "non-notable", tells us nothing more than that you think the article should be deleted (we already know that, 'cos you nominated it!). Consider explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable, or pointing to passages in the deletion policy that support your view. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, hello, it's you again. Thanks for affording me the opportunity to expand on my comments above. My dream is to see every English speaking kid in the entire world given the chance to add pertinent facts and pithy insights to a wikipedia article dedicated to their school. All contributions from these young scholars meet my definition of valuable, or even precious, for who better to contribute to school articles than the current inmates of those hallowed halls of learning? Wikipedia's higher calling is to encourage this participation, to stoke the intellectual fires of youth across the oceans. Yet, some of those articles, of necessity, will begin as stubs, or even sub-stubs. You must not view this as a cause of disappointment, but rather as an unavoidable consequence of Wikipedia's noble burden. My faith remains unshaken, though, that said stubs, with the passage of time, will form pearls that fully encapsulate the encyclopedic quality to warm the cockles of true blue wikipedians such as yourself. -- JJay 08:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

  • Speedy keep. There is no consensus to delete schools, and everybody knows it. Continually nominating schools fosters bad feeling and prevents any worthwhile discussion from occurring while those participants who can still be bothered prepare to duke it out yet again. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per JJay. Cnwb 06:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or speedy keep if the nominator agrees to voluntarily remove this hurried nomination for deletion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCH, as it has sufficient information from independent reliable sources to meet content requirements for its own article (and there's sufficent info available to expand further). --Rob 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • k, n. (That's keep.) - David Gerard 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent and WP:SCH.Gateman1997 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I improved this article yesterday adding independently verifiable material as per WP:SCH. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article presents two pieces of information which set this school apart from the mass of non-notable schools. That is two more than most articles do. Denni ☯ 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please we should not have to be doing this anymore Yuckfoo 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, close nomination as obvious consensus to keep. I'm sticking with the WP:SCH consensus on high schools, despite my own personal feelings. Proto t c 15:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yuckfoo is right, this nomination is a violation of the long standing precedent to keep articles about high schools. Silensor 19:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the nominator, or anyone else for that matter, wish to review a complete and comprehensive archive of schools listed for deletion on the English Wikipedia from April 2005 to present, please visit User:GRider/Schoolwatch/Archive. Approximately 350 schools are listed in total between then and now, ranging from the elementary to university level. Of those listed, not one single verifiable high school article has been deleted. No need to pile on here with another keep, this article is doing well. Bahn Mi 00:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And you are one of the editors who insist on adding substub after substub on schools for which absolutely nothing of note can be said. How about taking the time to write a few articles which say a great deal instead of a lot of articles which say nothing. Denni ☯ 01:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pretty generalized statement to make, not to mention a borderline personal attack. Keep it civil. Silensor 01:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Bananas" Foster

[edit]

Has been listed as "no sources" since 11/11. Can't verify on Google. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ewan bailey

[edit]

This appears to be just a copied-and-pasted resume of the actor in question. I question the notability, first off, and also, the creator of the page has the username Ewanthomson, which is the real name of the actor, so he's either a very big fan or, more likely, the actor himself.

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

The result of the debate was redirected to AFF. - Mailer Diablo 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aff

[edit]

Listed as "move to Wiktionary" for a month, but should probably just be deleted as a neologism. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aislinn Mara

[edit]

7 google hits, can't verify any of the info listed in article. Very nearly nn-bio. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. I didn't send it to BJAODN, though someone else may have done so already. Mindmatrix 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole Clothes

[edit]

Not sourced, can't confirm with Google, seems like a neologism (ESkog)(Talk) 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Mascarenhas

[edit]

Upper-level management in a company, was killed on 9/11. Sad, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solarmon

[edit]

do we really need a page for each of these?Hirudo 20:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Occultists United

[edit]

I'm not sure if this qualifies as a speedy, but the text on the template (so far the only real text on the page) suggests this might be an attempt at creating a home page within Wikipedia. It's marked as "under construction" so I decided to give benefit of the doubt and AFD instead of speedy. If the vote is to delete, note there is a template connected to this article which will also need to be deleted. 23skidoo 20:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Time, Yonge and Cummer

[edit]

orphaned page, no context, extremely nn to the point of being unverifiable (ESkog)(Talk) 20:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom mobile device vibratione

[edit]

Utter garbage, incomprehensible, not serving a purpose, poorly formatted, not seemingly about anything. Me677 20:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was duh, delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same sex marriage essay

[edit]

You guessed it; essay. Punkmorten 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dracomancy

[edit]

Nonsence / original research, unsourced save for a single unrelated link. Flyboy Will 21:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Hedley (CSD G4 -- recreation of previously deleted content). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 16:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magiran.com: Iranian Magazines Reference

[edit]

no claim of notability(specifically, none of those listed in WP:WEB). If this is deleted, also delete Image:magiran.jpg, as it's a screenshot from this website, and if the website article is deleted, so should it's associated picture. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metalstudio.co.uk

[edit]

Non-notable. Poorly written. Promotional ComputerJoe 21:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's a badly written advert. Possibly a candidate for speedy. Tim Fellows 21:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (4 delete, 2 merge votes). This passed my threshold for delete on the basis that two votes were to merge, not keep. Mindmatrix 00:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycle Croquet

[edit]

Nonsense article on very obscure sport variation which seems to have originated and is restricted to a single club. Google test lists 397 results. Mecanismo | Talk 21:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. There were three users, all of whom voted keep, that have only edited this AfD; another that edited this AfD and the article itself, who also voted keep; and a fifth user (Cptjeff)who edited this AfD and an unrelated article, who also voted keep. Only the latter was included in the tally, and marginally at that. Note that I didn't discount the comments these users made, but they weren't sufficient to sway the result. Mindmatrix 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Section 47

[edit]

NN fan website. Part or all of text seems to be copied from the siteKalsermar 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was created by a member of the site, not the site owner. Also, currently parts of the text are copied from the site, but that is because it needs something to begin with whilst it is expanded. I personally was looking at expanding on what a Somma class is and I know others are looking at putting up things relevant to the site but which are not on the site. Part of the trouble is that the site has been running long enough that it has become encyclopaedic of itself, however that cannot be considered here because this is a seperate central encyclopaedia, not an individual site. I would expect the article to be given the decency of opportunity to be finished before being nominated for deletion. After all, it would be in the spirit of freedom of speech, and as we all know, the desire for freedom resides in every human heart.

user:Sir Brutus

  • Exactly. It outlines storys in the Star Trek world, albeit non offical ones. I belive that if Bravo Fleet, which has had their article up for quite some time, is allowed, then Section 47 should be permitted as well. Precident has been established that this is permitted. Let it stay. Cptjeff 04:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not really a fan website, it is a sim. There is a wikipedia entry for Bravo Fleet which is a sim site similar to Section 47. If Bravo Fleet is to be allowed a Wikipedia page, then I believe that Section 47 should be allowed one too. Part of the article is copied from the site, however it is relevant and as this article is a work in progress, I don't believe that this will remain true for the whole article. Hero1701 00:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please put your comments below the nomination to keep things clear. As nominator I of course vote to delete as per nomination below.--Kalsermar 15:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo Fleet is written as an encyclopedia article should be, and establishes notability for having thousands of players. This one is written as if it were real and gives no indication that it's notable in any way. DreamGuy 16:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NN fan website. Part or all of text seems to be copied from the siteKalsermar 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete page as currently stands as copyvio to remove the violating text from history, especially since this is a nonnotable roleplaying game collaborative fiction thing per Wikipedia is not a place to store your fantasy life entertainment needs (what, that's not a real page? well, you know it's a real rule even if the page isn't named that). After it's gone, if the Section 47 is the name of the Starfleet Black Ops group on the Deep Space 9 TV show, then it might deserve a real article or a redirect to a mention. Not sure if that was the right number though. But as copyvio this has to go. DreamGuy 15:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have blanked the existing page and replaced it with a copyvio notice. Above and beyond that, this site just isn't notable. Nandesuka 17:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both the site founder and current owner have been alerted to the accusation of copyright infringement so they can verify that this is not copyright infringement. If and when they deny the accusations, the delete votes based on copyright violation will not be valid. As for being a sim, then it is a notable simulation in being one of the few trivia sims around and with a concise history and current structure. People looking up Simming Organization probably want to see what sorts of site are around and how they are run. Section 47 already appears there alongside Bravo Fleet and so is just as valid for inclusion within Wikipedia and arguably more so because of the unique nature of promotion within the sim based on trivia.user:Sir Brutus
  • Keep Abstain I agree that the article needs to be rewritten, but it should not be deleted. Section 47 is a notable Star Trek sim site, even if it doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria. It was the second site to combine trivia and simming in one, and with the first site to do that having closed down some time ago, it is now the longest running site with this concept. Many sites have been created since featuring the same concept. (So maybe Section 47 does meet the WP:WEB criteria after all.) Furthermore, Section 47 is not just a website, it is an organization, with an extended management system. I think there are many articles on Wikipedia about much smaller and less organized organizations. Finally, as the original creator (founder) of Section 47, I have no problem with parts of the text from the Section 47 website being used on Wikipedia. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 20:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it notable? Cite any claim to notability with references please.--Kalsermar 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think we have different ideas of what 'notable' constitutes in this case. I cannot cite any references to claim Section 47 meets the WP:WEB criteria, because it probably doesn't meet them. However, I believe Section 47 is a notable organization within the Star Trek RPG community, for reasons mentioned in my original "Keep" post. I also believe that's sufficient to warrant a (properly written) Wikipedia article; to me, the WP:WEB criteria are too strict. Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. Why would there be no place for organizations like Section 47? ··· rWd · Talk ··· 09:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure that sites of this type should be here at all -- maybe Bravo Fleet should be deleted as well.--SarekOfVulcan 21:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sarek, could you tell us why you don't think sites/organizations like Section 47 and Bravo Fleet should be listed on Wikipedia? I respect your opinion... just curious what it is based on! Thanks. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 23:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, instinct. I didn't have time to do proper research on WP policies on this sort of site. However, if all that can be said at this point is material that's already been listed on the original site, it's not encyclopedic. I'll be watching this debate, and I may clarify my position one way or another, with cites, when I have more time.--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have the approval of material use by the site's founder, so there is no copyright issue. Also, in a court system Precedent is given priority. As the Bravo Fleet Site Exists and has existed without complaints, it stands to reason that a similar site should be allowed to be listed. --Cptjeff 23:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Bear in mind that relying too heavily on this argument might get you both deleted. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes the original poster would do well to remember that for many residents of Wikipedia's AfD, "winning" debates by any means necessary is more important than keeping decent enough content in the encyclopedia :(. Pcb21 Pete 11:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with WarekofVulcan that perhaps both should be deleted but this one is up for debate right now and no-one has given any proof of notability. Apart from that, all sites of this nature are themselves violating Paramount's Star Trek Copyright. This site does not meet WP:WEB criteria and is not listed on Alexia as far as I could tell at all. Heavy commenting by the site's members make it seem like Vanity, advertising or both to me.--Kalsermar 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Simming Organization <--Someone felt we were notable enough for inclusion there. Also, S47 is based on a Paramount game, it wasn't just made up out of nothing. Heavy commenting is because we feel that it deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. What else are we meant to do? Let anyone who wants bandy their opinions around without us defending our own? Only we have something to lose here. If the article remains then Wikipedia will not have lost anything. Drizzt Do'Urden is hardly a notable literary character outside the D&D Forgotten Realms community and by your definition violates the copyright of both Wizards of the Coast and Salvatore. Yet because it is present on an information sharing site and not being used for profit then copyright is technically kept. The writer of that article, like the writers of the Star Trek ones, are merely relaying information, not trying to market an idea. Thoosa is a non-notable character from Greek mythology, but nonetheless she has an article, albeit a stub, about her. Would you say the stories made up thousands of years ago are more relevant today than those made up today?user:Sir Brutus
  • Comment Most of the people opposed to this article, cite the fact that the Section 47 website doesn't meet the WP:WEB criteria as an important reason. However, Section 47 is not primarily a Star Trek-related website (and certainly not a fansite, Agnte), it is an international organization that brings people together to share their love for writing fiction in the Star Trek universe. Yes, it does use a website to reach that goal, but the website is only a means, not the goal itself. If Section 47 conducted all its business without a website, would the article be allowed? I think that's the question that should be answered. Don't judge Section 47 against the WP:WEB criteria, because they don't apply. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, well I would say as a star trek role playing group it isnt notable either. Theres nothing in the article that claims notibilty. Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Agnte's statement of lack of notability, there's only 280+ odd members but loking through the site less than half of them active, maybe a few dozen regular people active at most. To rWd, No, it wouldn't just like I don't think any other likewise group is notable enough. There's hundreds of such sites, do we include them all? What about bookclubs and such?--Kalsermar 19:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are quite a few book clubs listed on wikipedia. several hundred. perhaps you should delete all of those as well? I don't think so. as for the notability criteria, well, those don't mention simming organizations. At all. message boards, yes. Fan fic? no. In fact, there are quite a few fan fic pages... take a look at all of the links from this page... Fan Fiction are you going to get rid of all of them? If efverything had to follow those guidlines, there would be nothing left. on the main page, I see articles displayed that I wouldn't classify as notable. who needs to know what the world record is for balancing cups on ones head? or when they did it?
  • There is something known as being reasonable. the only critera right now is wether or not it's notable. Well, It is for the people that read the article, isn't that what counts? Notable is entirely subjective.--Cptjeff 04:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course notability is very subjective. However, I agree with Kalsermar and Agnte that Section 47 probably isn't notable enough by any criteria used on Wikipedia. Just have a look at the pages in Category:Wikipedia notability criteria. We may not all agree with those criteria, but many Wikipedians do, so it's a bit unfair to suggest Kalsermar and Agnte are being unreasonable. Does that mean the Section 47 article should be deleted? No, I still don't think so. Wikipedia:Notability contains arguments for and against deleting non-notable articles. I think the arguments against are more important. Unfortunately for us, it looks like most Wikipedia admins think the arguments for are. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel sad about this because I always used to think of Wikipedia as a place to put information. I didn't realise the arguments for removing information were regarded by the admin as being stronger than those for keeping it. Maybe if the admin had a love for Star Trek then we would be kept along with all the book clubs which were probably checked by admins who have a love of reading. As it is, we appear to be less notable than entirely fictional obscure literary characters simply because we're not in paperback. user:Sir Brutus
  • To Kalsermar: we do not feel this page should have beennominated for deletion. Defending that veiw is part of the process. the tone is confidence as we belive in what we're talking about. it is not defiance nor is it contempt. We are simply aruguing our point of veiw: that as wikipedia is supposed to be a repository of unlimited knowlege, then we should be able to add some knowlege, hoever small, to the mix. --Cptjeff 19:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The thing is, the majority of the Wikipedia community does not believe Wikipedia is an unlimited repository, and there are some good arguments for that view. The nomination for deletion was perfectly acceptable by almost any Wikipedia policy, if not all. Some have said the people in favour of deletion don't know Section 47 well enough to make a good judgment. In turn, I think most people in favour of keeping don't know Wikipedia well enough to make judgment, and that probably includes myself. I've only been active here for a few weeks, and I'm still learning the rules. I've changed my vote above to abstain; I'm still in favour of keeping, but I'm too biased and I don't think I've been on Wikipedia long enough for my vote to count. By the way, Kalsermar was right about some comments being dismissive and defiant, and I'm sorry to see that coming from the community that I set up. ··· rWd · Talk ··· 07:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Kalsermar: I'd like to just point out that your member count is inaccurate. The ranks list does not display all members since the site opened in the year 2000. Only recent trivia only members are kept on the inactive ranks page. {Section 47 Member}
  • KEEP

As a member of the site, I don't believe that it is a fansite, but more of an ongoing story. We don't just talk about how much we love the show, we create NON-CANNON stories, and missions, that are enjoyable to read, and enjoyable to participate in. We are one of the largest sites of this form of Star Trek Sim, so that I think that having give or take 200 members is fairly significant. I am not under the impression that it is in any way a copyright violation, but I am not a lawyer. Keep this article. BlAsTeR89 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Rye[reply]

  • Keep

I agree with the commenter above "BlAsTeR89" The member count is inaccurate. There are actually 167 active members, so more then a few dozen, in actuality. (Research done by looking through Section 47 proboards. Linkszwo 5:08, 25 December 2005

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanjung Gemuk

[edit]

Tanjung Gemuk is a small coastal village in Malaysia. Although this article is seemingly done in good faith, and seems to provide an interesting update (it looks like there are now turtles hatching there after the tsunami), it is not good enough for an encyclopedia without significant time, effort, and knowledge. Madman 21:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Croft clinic

[edit]

This may be a legitimate medical establishment, but this is pure advertising MNewnham 22:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slew

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Scott5114 22:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MRBUTTONZ;this should be left as it is because the following is a correct and widely used term amongst all londoners

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bhinderanwala Tiger Force

[edit]

Poorly written article filled with nonsense Mecanismo | Talk 22:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:..There is a typo in the title. It should be Bhindranwale rather than Bhinderanwala, so the redirect should be titled Bhinderanwala Tiger Force & this should be deleted. --Pamri • Talk 13:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voya Nui Resistance Team

[edit]

NN Bio of a series of Lego Characters MNewnham 22:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-County Collaborative

[edit]

Article reads like the official site of this very obscure organization. Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine nor a webspace provider. Google test lists 218 results. Mecanismo | Talk 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leon armstrong

[edit]

This page looks suspicious to me. It had been previously speedied, then subsequently recreated a few hours later. While the article makes claims to notability, there are no references and I was unable to verify any of the claims (For the sake of full disclosure, I never left my house in my attempt to verify). D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 22:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Hero Without a Grave

[edit]

Direct copy from http://www.raoulwallenberg.net/?en/wallenberg/610.htm although I think User:IRWF may be ok with that. The article itself doesn't seem particularly notable. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to chubby bunny. howcheng {chat} 17:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzy wuzzy bunnies

[edit]

Non-notable game. 17,500 unrelated google hits for it. Fails WP:V Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 22:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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! - <*> 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe/Ration

[edit]

meet zero of the criteria for WP:MUSIC MNewnham 22:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well I disagree. Vibe/Ration is a great upcoming American Band, deleting this could affect their growing process. This is called the free Encyclopedia, not the delete whatever the heck you want encyclopedia. Many people have requested that i put this page out there, so dont delete it without discussing your problems with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chase Eversol (talk • contribs)
    • Wikipedia is not a place to advertise. Ideally, a Wiki article should not have any affect on a band's growing process, as they should be grown enough to get by without the attention that Wikipedia would bring. Until that time, this band does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for the inclusion of a band. Come back and recreate the page after they meet the standards. (See also your user talk page, where I shall make a comment.) Delete as per nom. --Thephotoman 03:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied this for good reason on Dec. 13th. I am re-speedying this now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Achievement in British Education

[edit]

This article has a rather nebulous title that is poorly defined in the article, is poorly written, is one-sided and is absolutely full of POV assertions with no sources. Unless someone with enough knowledge of the subject steps up to do a balanced rewrite, I think it should be deleted. NicM 22:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

I am studying this right now in my Sociology classes. It is quite clear somebody has simply taken the textbook! All our sources seem to be highly critical of IQ and claim that it is "not a sociological explanation" (wtf?). Somebody apparently decided to totally reverse the bias of the article, too [58]. I will add some sources but the article may be beyond repair. r3m0t talk 00:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (provided more sources added) I would say the article was a fair summary of what British "experts" say on the subject. I imagine its based on the intro of some longer tome which goes on to discuss each point in detail with sources/studies identified. Whether or not one agrees with it you can't really put it down as one contributor's POV - its just summarising the mainstream view of sociologists. Jameswilson 04:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't put it down as one contributor's point of view. Much of it may well be true, but it is still poorly defined and POV. NicM 08:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
  • The article is definitely not a fair summary of what British experts say. If it were, British expert opinion claims that UK education is a sociological disaster! At best, this article is what one sociologist says, without attribution, and so fails to be NPOV. It also fails to be worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia except perhaps as 'Conclusions of the X Report into British Education' (where X is whoever's POV this article represents). In all, content is thoroughly misleading and of dubious merit. Delete 84.67.190.181 21:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
There was a serious amount of research behind many of the points in the article, and the whole thing in fact forms a major part of an AS Unit for Sociology. Dammit, if the people writing the qualifications admit the system is seriously screwed up, surely this is not just one person's POV? :P r3m0t talk 22:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exaactly so. But User:84.67.190.181 is misinformed. The consensus of British expert opinion does claim exactly that - that UK education is a disaster for working-class children! Their published work and textbooks reflect that and every new government initiative starts from that assumption. I will concede that the article should be retitled "Disparities in Educational Achievement" or some such to make it clearer what the point at issue is. Jameswilson 23:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anytime you are putting in an encyclopedia a "point at issue" you are not doing the correct thing. Writing an article which has as its sole purpose the advocacy of a particular view, even when phrased neutrally, is not what this project is about. I recommend it be deleteed. --DSYoungEsq 22:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to what exactly? r3m0t talk 23:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Simply placing "Factors affecting" before the rest of title begins to clarify what the article is about; but, depending on what sources, references et al can be provided, a prefix such as "Studies of" may be more accurate. Providing sources, references et al and rephrasing parts of the article to (try to) defuse potential POV claims should indicate what kind of title is most representative. Happy Christmas!  David Kernow 06:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Team 1114

[edit]

Non-noteworthy amateur sports team. Not referenced anywhere within Wikipedia, yields only 650 hits through Google. Thephotoman

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyzzle

[edit]

Advertisement for NN software MNewnham 22:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Vehicle Blueprints

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a vanity page. This entry was created by the author of the site. This is the only entry the author has made. Epolk 22:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 16:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bible thumper

[edit]

Article on slang dictionary entry. Delete from precedent -- Mecanismo | Talk 22:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is useful and should be kept and expanded. I get +95,000 hits for this [60]and the term has been in use since at least the 1930s. The article also discusses software. Furthermore, I would appreciate if you refrained from throwing wikipedia links in my face. I have not talked about the repeated mistaken Afd noms I have seen lately. Please try to contribute constructively to the discussion. -- JJay 21:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudslice

[edit]

Plug for a forum with 39 members... fails WP:WEB proposal. W.marsh 22:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Billie L Garrett

[edit]

I can find no evidence that this filmmaker has ever actually made a film MNewnham 23:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bicester group

[edit]

List article of obscure bands which originated on an obscure town. Completely void of encyclopedia value. Mecanismo | Talk 23:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clown Samurai

[edit]

Plug for a webcomic, fails WP:WEB's proposed guidelines for webcomics. No Alexa rank, [61], 90 members in forum [62], no evidence that it meets the other critera. --W.marsh 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ral315 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg Carey

[edit]

NN 'Survivor' contestant MNewnham 23:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the concensus is keep on this, would all these types of entry not be better placed on a 'Survivor Contestants' page, as it would seem that for all these people, their only notability is that they are contestants, and they are probably more locatable under that heading. MNewnham 14:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Survivor or delete. Being a contestant on reality television does not make one notable except to a very tiny subgroup of people. And for that, they have "People" magazine. Denni ☯ 04:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for extended/signficant appearance on hit show. An actor with comparable air time on a hit show, would be in pretty easily. As disappointing as it may be, far more people have seen this person, followed his activities (on the show, and reading in the press) than have any concern for most of the persons accepted in Wikipedia. The question is, are we picking who has been found notable by others (demonstrated in published national media coverage of them), or who should be. One shouldn't be notable for being on such a show, but one is (personally I don't understand the concern with these contestants, and wish reality tv would largely go away). Also, I think a practical rule of thumb for hit national reality shows, is about ten top contestants (if they're more than just a few episodes, and there's ample coverage specifically of them) are usually (not always) getting articles. For such contestants, rather than doing an AFD, a simpler approach is to redirect/unredirect based on completeness of article. --Rob 11:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete per Denni. Stifle 23:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EasyEnglish

[edit]

Advertising MNewnham 23:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club-mc-chisel

[edit]

Invented word, no evidence it's ever been used outside of Wikipedia, probable joke article. W.marsh 23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Feel free to boldly merge things. —Cleared as filed. 05:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Transplants and Fitness to Practice

[edit]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Faria Salman

[edit]

NN, vanity, zero google hits on 'Faria Salman' +fashion MNewnham 23:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Izehar 22:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paste (story)

[edit]

Personal Essay Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC) Keep after JJay Rewrite. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know much about Henry James, but I also don't see anything wrong, per se, with having articles on each short story, if editors want to submit them. Wasn't James known for his short stories? In any case, for organizational purposes, the short-story articles could eventually be combined into larger pieces on the collected short stories. -- JJay 18:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of James' most important writing is found in his stories, so I don't have any problem with people wrting articles about them. We already have entries on Daisy Miller, The Aspern Papers, The Turn of the Screw, In the Cage, Paste and The Beast in the Jungle. Another article is on the way for The Jolly Corner. I've made a separate category for entries about the stories on the main Henry James article. (Which is now starting to turn into the Henry James Portal for all the entries on his individual works.) But if we do articles on all James' 112 tales, that's gonna be a whole lot of articles goin' on. (wink) Casey Abell 13:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Henry James does deserve pretty thorough coverage on his writing, although articles on all the stories are obviously a long ways off. I actually just cleaned up Paste, which someone else (a student maybe) submitted. -- JJay 13:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this article should be kept. It has been cleaned up.

Link 13:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gamerstrike

[edit]

Non-noteable gaming clan website. Complete advertisement. WP:NOT KC. 23:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worms weapons and tools

[edit]

Fancruft. r3m0t talk 23:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arackal

[edit]

Delete for a total failure to establish notability - even in stub form. Eddie.willers 23:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_18&oldid=1234126814"