Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 23

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 22 December 24 >

Purge server cache

December 23

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 A1 Short article with little or no context about non-notable band. Capitalistroadster 00:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Life

edit

non notable band, the article is barely a stub Melaen 00:00, 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 The result of the debate was delete - as non-notable and spam :) Croat Canuck 04:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Teen Kelly

edit

model "noted for her braces and youthful appearance" otherwise quite non notable IMO Melaen 00:09, 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. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toni-ann byfield

edit

crime victim,unon notable(aso miscapitalization and bad spelling)( Melaen 00:14, 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. NSLE (T C CVU) 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Empire Wrestling

edit

advertising Melaen 00:16, 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. NSLE (T C CVU) 03:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unish

edit

neologism Melaen 00:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep get a life melaen instead of going around complaining about pages all day long. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mahalia56 (talk • contribs) .
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cynical 20:04, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do see our actual policies of What Wikipedia is Not. This is a matter of principle. -- Natalinasmpf 02:08, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saw 3

edit
Saw III was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-05. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saw III.

Film does not exist yet, crystal ball article StoatBringer 00:23, 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. NSLE (T C CVU) 03:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Zactarn Prime

edit

Google reveals that this is merely someone's nation at NationStates. That makes it non-notable. Reyk 00:25, 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. NSLE (T C CVU) 03:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

'The Grid'

edit

I cannot verify this. --Scunthorpe man 00:26, 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. Mindmatrix 16:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jada Deville

edit

Delete. Non-notable stripper who has won seemingly-minor awards. Little information to be found on Google, only a few non-commercial mentions. Unlikely this could be turned into more than a stub. Flata 00:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to expand but there's no real information I can find to expaand it with. Even if I go through and mine out her proportions, all the awards she's won, and the porn flicks she's been in, there's not enough out there, today, to make more than a stub -- I tried, though maybe my methods were flawed. That said, there isn't even enough information on the awards she's done to have so much as a stub page for them, so they'd stay red links for a fair time. Look at the original revision of the article and the similar fanboyish pages thrown up by the original author. Non-wikified, which I can forgive, but not exactly content-rich or encyclopedic. --Flata 10:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can get a friend to give me some titles ending in "Universe", if you like, doesn't mean it merits anything. I can't find much about the Miss Nude Universe pageant. It's run by someone called "Rio Rivers", the one that our Jada Deville won was in a strip club in St. Robert, Missouri. It depends how you define notable. Is the stripping circuit itself notable? This is an award made up of people on the stripping circuit, that is, people who tour as strippers. Most of them also do porn and might be notable for that, but I'd never even heard of this stripping circuit stuff, which surprises me a fair bit. There are 133 Google results for "Miss Nude Universe" "Rio Rivers", what with trying to find out information about the specifics and the organizers and so much. There's no information to be had, but the same news bites and people mentioning it casually. I'm interested in consensus as to whether the stripping circuit is per se notable. It does not seem to foster enough reading material to throw together articles on Miss Nude Universe, which as you point out, sure sounds like a non-minor title. --Flata 10:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
/me gives Flata the Galactic Award for Deletion Voting Rob 14:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Showering French Yak

edit

Doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC Geni 00:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why do you think this article should be kept?Geni 20:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cynical, just because people state that a subject fails to meet WP:NMG it does not necessarily mean they think it's policy. I think many, including myself, refer to it as a valid "measuring stick" and a sensible set of guidelines. PJM 22:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't meet criteria of WP:MUSIC, but come on. Should something be deleted because it is less than well-known? The advantage that Wikipedia has over other informational sources is the fact that it can be made to include more or less anything that exists. I think that the entire policy of WP:MUSIC concerning how well-known artists are is nit-picking pettiness. The quality of this article is higher than a lot I can think of, and the information presented is genuine. Therefore, I argue it is worth keeping. arevolvingonob 13:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added a photo and considerably more information than was previously present. arevolvingonob 13:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notabiity aside, can this info be verified? Are there published, primary sources for this information or is it merely first hand reporting? Samw 22:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that it's first-hand reporting. If you would like me to publish a book on the subject, you are more than welcome to use me as a source on a page you make. arevolvingonob 18:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for confirming that. Wikipedia policy unfortunately excludes first-hand reporting: Wikipedia:No original research and instead asks for verifiable sources. Independent of whether the subject meets WP:MUSIC criteria, facts asserted in the article that are not independently verifiable may be deleted. Samw 02:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Touché. When you've deleted the 56,879 other first-hand Wikipedia reports, tell me and I'll take the SFY one down. Merry Christmas. arevolvingonob 00:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Here is what I'll say as my final defense: Wikipedia is a site that supposedly prides itself as a source for information and as a truly democratic medium of sharing information. What is presented on the SFY page is wholly true, wholly unbiased, and presented in an intelligent (if I do say so myself) manner, which is more than can be said for plenty of other sites. If you people are going to spend your entire lives searching for pages on this site to delete and edit, why not delete or edit the poorly-written and misleading pages that exist in abundance here. As some people on this site are fond of saying, "Wiki is not paper." There is no size limit to this site, nor should there be. Anything true (as the page in question is) should be welcome here. Happy Kwanzaa. arevolvingonob 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While notabilty is debatable, verifiability is not; see: Wikipedia:Verifiability. True facts, unless verifiable, cannot be added to Wikipedia. Samw 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is a word. [3]. Kudos. ;) PJM 22:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you need to do, I don't believe it's hurting anything by remaining on the site. I say keep it, but maybe I'm biased, I made the page. I'll save the content and see if I can resubmit it so that it undeniably meets Wikipedia standards, to be truthful I haven't yet had the time. Sorry if I hurt someone's feelings. Mankind716

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T C CVU) 03:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grafstein-telecom

edit

advertising Melaen 01:04, 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 Hedley 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rimini Street

edit

Advertising for a software support company so new it hasnt even moved into its offices yet MNewnham 01:17, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Wald

edit

vanity page Asw32 01:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Forgive my newbiness, but what's the next step in all this? How does it get delete/kept? Have tried looking up Wikipedia "how to..." articles but can't find anything Asw32 01:22, 3 January 2006 (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 has been blanked on request. For archive, please see the article history.

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

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T C CVU) 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MegaMassMedia

edit

forum vanity Melaen 01:28, 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. NSLE (T C CVU) 04:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history

edit

Additonal point, since the origional author decided to clone his article, keep voters should probably specify which of the two clones they want to keep, as obviously one of the duplicates would be removed either way--Petral 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment something isn't adding up here, at some point you moved the article somewhere else and cloned it's content, back into the origional article space, now I can't find where you moved the origional to--Petral 02:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are accusing me of something I am not doing--you make a lot of accusations, and add nothing to this article Petral. After You said yourself that "user is showing some restraint and is now cooperating with the AfD process". I added a link originally to the new name. I just created this article.Travb 02:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Petral, you cannot put an article on Afd then decide to skip the process and delete it yourself. In fact, unless you are a sockpuppet, you cannot delete it at all. Wait for the Afd process to complete. This is contentious behaviour on your part. Why not go have a nice cup of tea and allow the Afd to complete normally? KillerChihuahua?!? 03:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
um, what? mistaken identity?--Petral 03:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to read too many posts too close together, my apologies. I saw the "I will delete the article myself." by Travb, above, followed by your comment. For some reason I registered you (Petral) as the one who said that. Let me try this again:
Travb, You cannot create an article which is placed on Afd then decide to skip the process and delete it yourself. In fact, unless you are a sockpuppet, you cannot delete it at all. Wait for the Afd process to complete. This is contentious behaviour on your part. Why not go have a nice cup of tea and allow the Afd to complete normally?
Again, apologies for the mistaken identity. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Adding note: As Travb did create the article, there is a speedy cat for that if that is what Travb desires. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever been involved in something that you really enjoy, a book, a movie, a warm bath. etc. And some rude idiot comes along and ruins it. I was smack dab in the middle of creating this article, minding my own business when Petral came along and ruined my "warm bath". I was going along, enjoying myself in a certain train of thought, and then all the sudden I get interupted, I get pulled out of the bath, thrown outside, and beat by some stranger. That may be historonics, but that is how I feel. I got to the point, I just wanted to throw up my hands and delete the damn article. I started a new article, and Petral and Petral's friends (maybe sockpuppers of Petral) all put that article up for deletion too.Travb 04:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not your warm bath and you will be thanked to Wikipedia:assume good faith and not throw groundless accusations of sockpuppetry. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure it's groundless. Travb is hardly the first, or second, or third person to note the possibility. Jim62sch 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The possibility can be imagined" is not the same thing as "there are grounds for a public accusation." Would you like to specify exactly which of the many people agreeing with Petral, some of whom have more years on Wikipedia than he has days, are purported to be his sockpuppets? When actual evidence surfaces that any particular user is a sockpuppet, present that evidence. Presenting the suspicion as you are now, with no evidence beyond "I can't comprehend why people think my article should be deleted", is only evidence that you are violating WP:AGF. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: S-P?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T C CVU) 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pcorps

edit

non notable chat (Our numbers are now up to a maximum of 12 in channel..) Melaen 01:38, 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 NSLE (T C CVU) 04:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mactard

edit

More suited to Wiktionary, I created said entry SailorfromNH 01:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BabuBhatt 04:08, 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. — JIP | Talk 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pintado

edit

I suspect it is nonsense Melaen 01:42, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Zhu

edit

134 Google hits, her only claim to notability is being the wife of a German musician, being involved in some personal and legal spat and making some unsubstantiated allegations. Oh, and she's used Usenet. Wow, I've used Usenet. That mean I get an article too? Unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:45, 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 Renata3 05:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestraw

edit

If I could tell what it was about, I could explain why it should be deleted MNewnham 01:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antti Peltoniemi

edit

"This probably should have been speedied as empty, but it was created back in August. Article is a stub with no references, 1 sentence which primarily says see this other link. Delete and if someone wants to recreate with more material, let them.TheRingess 01:56, 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. Harro5 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms of Mega Churches

edit

Some of you familiar with me may think you're catching me in a contradiction here, since I've stated many times that "Criticism of X" articles are not necessarily POV forks. Well, no contradiction at all; such articles, I still say, are not necessarily POV forks. However, this one is one paragraph of text, three quotes, and twenty-three external links, and none of it actually originated in Megachurch, so it doesn't represent any sort of consensus process. (Late note: The creator of the page has just put a note on the talk page explaining that the material was moved out of Willow Creek Community Church. It still seems to me that it should be treated as a POV fork: the useful parts of it, but only the useful parts, should be merged to the main article.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge very selectively and redirect per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Megachurch and redirect; agree that it also requires heavy editing. Also strongly consider merging and redirecting the article McChurch, which covers similar ground, and does so somewhat better than this'n. Smerdis of Tlön 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we have other channels for dealing with pages needing merges. That said, I would merge per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unfortunately, all those other channels seem to assume that the most they will have to deal with is the merging of an accidentally created duplicate article, created in good faith and about as NPOV as any other newly-created article. The kinds of people who deliberately create content forks regard this and exploit this as a loophole: Faced with the knowledge that the editors watching Foobar won't accept the partisan arguments they want the article to contain, they create an article with a title like Unanswered questions about Foobar or What critics say about Foobar or the like. They figure they can't lose: if it slips under everybody's radar, that's a great outcome for them (and bad for Wikipedia); if someone spots it and tags it for merging, they put a big smile on their face and say "Merge? Sure, I can do that!" and they edit their POV fork material directly into the main article. If anyone protests that none of that material was accepted by consensus, they go on the attack. "How can you defy the will of the community? The will of the community was clearly 'Merge' and I merged it! You're acting in bad faith, by resisting that!" What we really need is a definitive policy statement that when an article is determined to be a POV fork, the burden of proof must be to prove that any of the material actually deserves to be merged. Until then, there's endless incentive for POV-pushers to create as many POV forks as they can. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney animated features' titles in various languages

edit

I somehow doubt this is what Wikipedia tries to be. The list is harmless, looks valid (the Czech names have just one small typo) but it belongs to a fan site, not here. Pavel Vozenilek 02:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is serious effort but do not feel Wikipedia will serve well as translation service. Pavel Vozenilek 02:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
At least these are serious enough topics. WP is not garbage bin for everything. Pavel Vozenilek 04:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not disrespect Disney. It is a very serious subject and not garbage in any way. Disney is much older than the EU, and is possibly more important for many people, particularly our very young readers. -- JJay 04:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete those as well. JoaoRicardotalk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not, let's delete everything and start over. -- JJay 19:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may like to read this: Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot JoaoRicardotalk 03:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but I'm late for the Mickey Mouse Club (non notable group of people with rodent fetishes)- cheers. -- JJay 04:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'm going to use the word listcruft in its least pejorative sense because this is a serious effort, but it's just not the sort of thing that belongs here. Reyk 02:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I doubt a fansite would be able to keep as complete a list as the one seen here. It seems like the sort of thing that a encyclopedia should contain. It is useful to some and should therefore stay. SorryGuy 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Try WP:NOT :-) It is not task of Wikipedia to deal with inability of fans to set up and maintain their own pages. Pavel Vozenilek 04:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, my eyes! To me, that's a great example of a list for the sake of a list, where a ton of people contribute for the sake of contributing: "look ma, i done wrote lots of stuff on this here wi-ki-pedia!" The only entires that are encyclopedia-worthy there are, yes, the ones where country names are different in different languages - which is worthy of more than a list entry. Flyboy Will 03:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Isn't this what interwiki links are for? I remember voting on a list of translations related to Harry Potter a while back. That would probably make good precedent for this. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep If we're going to have other stupid lists, why not keep a list that has good effort put into it. BlueGoose 10:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Danny 12:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 6000 world languages x at least 100 disney films means this list could be 600,000 lines long. The information should be in the individual film articles maybe, or just use the interwiki links. If anyone really wants to keep the info, move each individual list organised by title to the relevant movie article. If not, still delete -- Astrokey44|talk 13:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This vote is completely misguided, and shouldn't be counted. Disney only makes a select amount of dubs for each film, what's already represented here. Not all movie are translated into all languages, even, as represented by The Three Caballeros This list only includes the titles of those official dubs. -- user:zanimum
    • The vast majority of these 6000 languages have too few speakers for Disney to bother releasing a dubbed or subtitled version. JoaoRicardotalk 18:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but I'd personally like to see the second half merged in with their appropriate articles, so they can be of more instant use. -- user:zanimum
  • strong keep if we have other articles of this nature, this one seems just as valid to me... Jcuk 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on, we have interwiki links for this sort of stuff, people. howcheng {chat} 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Listcruft. And poorly formatted listcruft at that. If someone wants to know what a Dinsey movie's title is in another language, make an article for that Disney movie in an alternate-language Wikipedia and interwiki them. This is just a hot mess. --FuriousFreddy 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also, the articles on individual Disney movies should contain the foreign language titles in the intros, as is common practice with other articles (assuming they already don't), and the individual titles should redirect to the movie articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 02:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reluctantly. It is certainly listcruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of inforation, not is it a free web host. Stifle 13:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at best userify. I don't see how this could possibly be kept up to date without a lot of effort and lists of things are not in and of themselves encyclopedic. Arguing that there are other bad lists is not a reason to keep one more. Lar 15:23, 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 redirect to Knox (animator) Renata3 05:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Klay World: Off The Table

edit

Article abandoned by author - information already covered in Knox (animator) MNewnham 02:21, 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 as copyvio from commercial book. Since there's no way this can be exonorated of being a copyvio or being turned into a valid article, I'll just delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 10:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Science vs religion

edit

Original research. If it a lengthy citation it should go to Wikisource. Also not sure about the copyright status. Delete abakharev 02:23, 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. NSLE (T C CVU) 04:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret plan

edit

Oh this is just too much, a POV fork, of a POV fork--Petral 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this one has a better chance of winning against deletion. It is a historical fact that their was a "secret plan" of Nixon, there is also no mention of the other two wars. Thanks you, made this article better, and less prone to other misguided POV warriors attacks in the future. Travb 02:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name that Nixon used in 1968. I am trying to detail this by referencing books and historical journals. Travb 02:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep On 00:39, 23 December 2005 I started a new article: Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents I was hoping to draw parallels between the Iraq, Philippine, and Vietnam wars. In all three wars Americans have been promised by their political leaders before an election of troop reductions. On 01:07, 23 December 2005,[11] while I was still beginning to flesh out the article, Petral added on a {{POV}} tag.[12] The POV tag explains this:
{{POV}}

Since there was no "discussion on the talk page." I messaged Petral on his talk page[13][14], asking him "for maybe a better name, any suggestions" and asking him to discuss why he had put the {{POV}} tag. On 01:34, 23 December 2005 Petral responded by adding my article for deletion.[15]

I then began to edit the page again, adding content, and trying to ignore Petral's heavy handed tactics against my brand new article, I then changed the name of the article to Campaign promises of troop withdraw by American presidents, and I added a link at the top of the deletion page, stating that I changed the name, with a link, which Petral deleted, and then reported me to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate. Petral then retracted his statement, stating: "nevermind, user is showing some restraint and is now cooperating with the AfD process."[16] He then began to revert the redirect to Campaign promises of troop withdraw by American presidents back to the original article, 4 times, and I reported him for 3RR. He then stated on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate "continuously moving an article nominated for deletion, without redirecting the AfD link" Please, someone tell me how to redirect an Afd link! I don't know how, as I said on the Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress/RU Moderate page. Petral will not move it. I asked him how. Can someone please redirect the page?

People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to delete the entire Promises of troop withdraw by American presidents throughout history because there was already several votes for deletion, and I figured there was no use fighting it. Instead I wanted to rewrite the article from scratch, and Petral stalked me to here. People should determine if this is a good article based on its content, not on the other article. Thus far no one has talked about the content of this very scaled down article. What is POV in this article? What is not factual? No one has commented one bit about this.Travb 03:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • you're the only one who has made any changes to this page in at least 10 edits, stop accusing me of changing your words, when you're the only one editing this page--Petral 04:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
changing your words>>>I never said this. This is another fabrication. Here is my argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Travb#Dispute_with_Petral Travb 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
[17] you are literally flame/trolling yourself, you reverted your own change, and called me a pest--Petral 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My aplogies, I was wrong.Travb 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestion--I will do it now, but I will not change the article, otherwise Petral will accuse me falsely of hiding information AGAIN. Travb 05:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Nixon's secret plan, many results on google [18] -- Astrokey44|talk 13:44, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Subrah Iyar

edit

Page created by User:Larvatus (aka Michael Zeleny) to further an unencyclopedic personal vendetta against Min Zhu. "Michael Zeleny has alleged that Subrah Iyar has authorized and participated in the corporate coverup of Min Zhu's rape of his daughter" - which is a potentially libelous allegation not supported by any court of law. This person is otherwise unencyclopedic beyond this un-alleged allegation. See also Erin Zhu, Scott Sandell and WebEx. FCYTravis 02:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of companies out there, with lots of executive officers. Not everyone has a page. Someone accusing such a person of something illegal at a trial does not make them notable --Pierremenard

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Smogon Pokemon database

edit

Advertising. See also: Smogon and Smogon internet database - FrancisTyers 02:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WhatEgo

edit

Small "social networking" website. Being pushed hard by a new user trying to promote himself more than the website he claims to have established. Harro5 03:15, 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 no consensus (3 del, 4 keep) Renata3 05:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slice of SciFi

edit

nn podcast (though that's usually redundant), 133 unique Google hits, alexa rank of 610,695. Plus its rank has dropped 81,820 points in three months. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't think web statistics accurately represent audio podcasts, especially because most of the traffic is strictly client-server (i.e. downloading the episodes). As podcasts go this one is fairly notable and as sf podcasts go this is extremely notable. Podcasts are an emerging field and your comment of "nn podcast (though that's usually redundant)" strikes me as indicating you are a deletionist with an anti-podcast bent. --Cyde Weys votetalk 03:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see. When all fails, attack the nominator instead of addressing the subject. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, what I meant to say was podcasts tend to work outside of the world wide web where they can't be tracked so easily. Here's a hypothetical: someone finds Slice of SciFi through iTunes. They subscribe. They like it. They continue listening to it over the course of many weeks. None of this has any effect whatsoever on the podcast's Google or Alexa ranking. In fact, I am subscribed to about two dozen podcasts that I listen to regularly and I have never visited the websites of the majority of them; I just find them through iTunes. There are probably hundreds of thousands of podcast listeners just like me who aren't going to get picked up on a Google or Alexa ranking, hence why I don't think those are applicable metrics for measuring podcasts. Better? --Cyde Weys votetalk 12:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Forget about that last line and read the rest of Cyde's message. To me that seems to adequately address the issue instead of the nominator. Personally, I don't see why podcasts should be any less notable than notable websites. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason to delete. Article is well written and NPOV. This podcasting seems notable enough to me. JoaoRicardotalk 04:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoaoRicardo. Essexmutant 11:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all podcasts until time has sorted out which are notable and which are not. The phenomenon is still far too new for a generic "keep". Denni ☯ 03:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a rather unreasonable attitude, just delete everything until we can sort it out? In the mean time work which has been done on pages like this one will be lost. I don't understand why your default stance is "delete until we're absolutely sure". And just exactly how long do you propose it will take to "figure out" podcasts? Another year? Should Wikipedia really have a blanket policy of deleting all podcasts for many months? Come now, that's unreasonable. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a rule of thumb: if it won't be important in ten years, it's not important now. Right now, as I see it, there are no podcasts of sufficient notability that they can be considered encyclopedic. No reason someone can't write about them in their blog, or that a magazine can't do an article on podcasts, but this topic is clearly not encyclopedic when it comes to individual 'casts. I think, by the way, there is a major difference between "delet(ing) podcasts" and "dele(ing) everything". I also find it interesting that you pose a series of questions, seem to answer them yourself, and then call the responses unreasonable. Do you often have this conflict with yourself? Denni ☯ 19:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can't even think of a single podcast that you consider notable? You're way out of the mainstream on this one, both in terms of mainstream Wikipedia thought and knowledge of mainstream culture. Podcasts are an emerging phenomenon and there are many that are eminently notable. And I wasn't posing questions myself, I was posing your thoughts as questions and responding to them. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete podcruft. Stifle 13:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It would seem to me that Wikipedia (the cutting edge standard) should be on the cutting edge of defining new technologies such as podcasting, and though it may be new, it will not be going away anytime soon. It, along with videopods are the emerging online technologies that will lead the way for all future audio and video downloading. In the forefront of this technology are such podcasting innovators as Evo Terra, Michael Mennenga, Tee Morris and Mur Lafferty. I believe it would be remiss on the part of Wikipedia to ignore this and simply try to catch-up once its tailights are off in the distance. Slice of SciFi, for those who have kept abreast of this emerging technology, is one of the most recognized innovating podcast programs on the Web, so much so that XM-Satellite (another new and ever-growing technology) has picked up the program to be part of its satellite channel lineup. I guess it confuses me why someone wouldn't want Wikipedia to chronicle this, in the unbiased way that it currently has, in its databse. I would still be saying all of this even if I wasn't so closely connected to the project. -- SK Sloan 26 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 merge and redirect to BodyBuilding.com. For all those who voted to delete after the content was moved BodyBuilding.com note that in order to maintain author attribution as required by the GFDL, merge/delete is not a valid course of action. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BodyBuilding.com Forums

edit

This is an advertisement/spam article based on a message board; page history suggests it was created by a select few that often add nonsense, etc. Jay (Reply) 03:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • This entry is pretty much pointless and should be deleted. Why should a forum have an entry in an encyclopedia? Oh yeah PIITB
  • i started the article, and would like it to be kept up. i will be adding more information. there are some stupid people on the boards. is there anyway that only I can edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirtbody (talk • contribs)
  • Awful article, I find it pointless and uninteresting. It needs to be destroyed quickly. {{smonkey}}
  • It is one of the biggest forums on the internet, and a bona fide cultural phenomenon in itself. What sort of prejudice causes you to list it for deletion, "Master" Jay? If Wikipedia's supremacy over stuff like Britannica is its coverage of more current and popular topics (as well as the more obscure) then why SHOULDN'T descriptions of major internet communities be included? And why do inane blog sites like FARK (which don't even surround a discipline, like Bodybuilding) remain on Wikipedia, undeleted? . If anything the article needs to be cleaned up, but deletion? Stop being a damned Wiki snob, snobs like you are going to kill Wikipedia. -Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
  • Also, deletion motion is a complete fallacy. There is no advertisement for products, and no spamming included, or intended for the future. Page may be rapidly edited due to the actions of a few people who do not understand wikipedia protocol, but this is not the fault of the site itself, nor the owners of the site, and the case for a permanent page is as strong as the case for any other internet site. I make a countermotion that the ridiculous deletion tag be REMOVED. FWIW vandals have been warned to respect Wikipedia protocol. If they can't oblige, then ban them, but don't take it out on this page. -Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
  • i totally agree with mantis above. this is the point of wikipedia. its to have a free encyclopedia full of info that you cant find anywhere else. i will continue to work on the article and make it 100x better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirtbody (talk • contribs)
(1) no nat/internat attention, (2) no impact beyond its own user community, (3) this article is about the *forum* not the *website*. why are you quoting the "entire bodybuilding.com domain" figures? Zzzzz 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, redirect this to BodyBuilding.com if you feel that way; redirects are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
to rename this article "bodybuilding.com" would be a misrepresentation as the article is not *about* bodybuilding.com, its about the forums. so deletion is the only way. if somebody wants to create "bodybuilding.com" and write about the website and why its notable, thats an entirely other issue. Zzzzz 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is not the only way, and I'm not sure why you think that. You seem to have a gigantic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. —RaD Man (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no impact beyond its own community. Stifle 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete merge the fact that forums exist with Bodybuilding.com and leave as redirect. If there is enough content to later warrant a split that will happen naturally. Right now I don't see content worth keeping at all. In sayings should be documented on the site rather than the article, (no one other than readers benefits from the information so why document it here?) unless they have wide currency, and lists of celebrities mentioned are not encyclopedic. Lar 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Whatever little/basic information was here has already been put into the BodyBuilding.com article. I don't believe anyone would look for this article seperately. No reason to Keep now. - Liontamer 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator responses to the above comments

edit

Hold on a second please - having the article listed here does not mean that it will necessarily be deleted. As it currently stands, there is no consensus to delete, and by default, the article will remain on Wikipedia. For the duration of this deletion debate, please focus on improving the article so that it meets basic encyclopedic standards. The article will be deleted or kept based on its merits, so it is advisable to improve on article content first - the article content should speak for itself, and the closing administrator will take this into account. You do not need to worry about this article being deleted if it contains content that is of quality and substantiated. --HappyCamper 04:07, 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 speedied because it was a hoax. FCYTravis 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One Of Us or One Of Them

edit

Originally tagged as speedyable: "Very nn; only 1507 results on Google, most of which are irrelevant to this topic." Doesn't qualify as speedyable, so I've moved it here. CLW 09:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-It might be their 7th album, but "One Of Us or One Of Them" and "Dante Evil" together yielded zero Google hits. "Dante Evil" itself yields only 1,180 hits, most of them refering to the writer of old. --Fang Aili 00:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • the whole band is hoax at least according to Google. I tried "Markus Grennich" and "Roman DiMarius" -> 0 google. Then I tried Repentance "Dante evil" -> 3 completely unrelated googles (and it supposed to be US Mainstream Rock - #9; US Modern Rock - #8; US Metal - #1, etc.) Then I try "Witnesses to Apocalypse: Live in NYC", their live album recorded at CBGB -> 0 google. Then I try "dante evil" band -> 38 unrelated googles. In short, what ever I put in google - no result or no relevant results. Also notice that most albums/songs use pretty common words and are hard to google. Articles provide no external links (link to official site does not work). I suggest liquidating all the pages related to the band unless someone can find something to prove that the band exist. Renata3 01:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. --Fang Aili 02:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to below for AfD for the whole band! Renata3 03:40, 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 a hoax. FCYTravis 10:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Evil and its sub-pages

edit

I found this at discussing deletion of One Of Us or One Of Them (refer above for original discussion). The band claims to have released several albums that top different charts in UK and US, that it recorded an live performance at CBGB, that it has reviews on popular magazines, etc etc. However, I could find absolutely no relevant google hits. Articles provide no external links (link to official site does not work). I suggest liquidating all the pages related to the band unless someone can find something to prove that the band exist.

The sub-pages are: One Of Us or One Of Them, Red Plague, Omega (album), Repentance (Dante Evil Song), Pentagram (album), Misled World, Crowley’s Song, The Unraveling Of A Man, Subtle Clues, One Of Us or One Of Them, Witnesses to Apocalypse: Live in NYC. All created by User:VinTheMetalhed.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Forumer Modifications Center

edit

Looks like an advertisement for this website with nothing really notable. James084 03:43, 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. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Darwin Central"

edit

Article on a joke about darwinism that came up in a webforum. JoaoRicardotalk 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's somehing worth, merge it into Free Republic then. Pavel Vozenilek 01:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's Defense (posted after just the first three comments):

edit

Gentlemen, it's my article, I'm newly registered, and you are correct in noting that "Darwin Central" is most definitely a spoof.

However, for the past four years Darwin Central has played a definite role in the creationism-evolution arena of the culture wars on Free Republic, which is a very high-visibility website. Thousands of posters and "lurkers" are exposed to Darwin Central's "existence" and views each day in threads where evolution is debated. So it's not just a joke that came up one day. Darwin Central has become a fictional, but functional label for the numerous defenders of science literacy (evolution specifically) in a key sector of conservative internet chat. It's become a feature of the culture war.

Also, Darwin Central isn't just one person's plaything (although I am the Grand Master's spokesman). Dozens of science-literate posters on Free Republic all participate in maintaining its existence, and it's been occasionally mentioned on other websites where the evolution-creationism issue gets discussed. As spoofs go, this one is "real."

It's true that Darwin Central hasn't achieved the notariety of other spoofs, such as Flying Spaghetti Monsterism," which certainly deserves its place in Wikipedia. So you could delete "Darwin Central" because it's not a major phenomenon. Or you can let Darwin Central remain, because it does play an important and visible role in a serious issue of our times.

It's a judgment call. I understand that you don't want too much of this kind of thing in Wikipedia. On the other hand, you already have some, so where do you draw the line? I'm hoping you'll let "Darwin Central" in before you shut the door. It's well done (he modestly said), it's been around since 2002, and it really has enjoyed high visibility.

If you leave the article on Wikipedia, I strongly suggest that you invoke the protection feature to lock the article, because experience shows that it will probably attract some vandalism, and you folks have enough work to do.

PatrickHenry-FR 13:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the nature of the article. We can have articles on parodies, spoofs, conspiration theories, hoaxes etc, as long as they are notable. We have no evidence that this thing has gone beyond one single webforum. I am not saying that Free Republic is not an important forum. What I am saying is that this does not constitute notability. It could be mentioned in the Free Republic article, if it is an important aspect of that forum. JoaoRicardotalk 18:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Free Republic and delete. I've never heard of this in my years on Usenet and dozens of various boards. If it's notable enough to be on Wikipedia, it should probably be merged. - CorbinSimpson 18:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC) Edit: The two pages aren't even linked! The author should pay more attention to his contributions.[reply]
  • Author's reply to CorbinSimpson: I've changed my external links to the FreeRepublic website into internal links to the Wikipedia article on that site. Very good suggestion. I don't think I should edit the FreeRepublic article to mention "Darwin Central" until the status of "Darwin Central" as a stand-alone item is resolved. PatrickHenry-FR 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's thoughts on merging: I've looked at the Free Republic article. The "Darwin Central" material would almost surely overwhelm it. You know what's appropriate far better than I do, but from what I've read here about merging articles, it's mostly done to transfer a short article into a longer one. A link from the Free Republic article is certainly called for; but I respectfully suggest that merger is an unreasonable solution in this case, where my article (a spoof that arose on Free Republic), would become the largest portion of the Free Republic article. PatrickHenry-FR 21:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note- I'd just like to point out for our newer member here that we all understand your intent with this "Author's Note" section, but being the author does not give you any special privliages in regard to this article. You released your work under the GFDL, which means any of us can change, move, use or anything else to the text. You are now the sole contributor, but that can change, and it gives you no added voice to the AfD. -AKMask 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's reply to AKMask: Understood. Upon posting, the work is no longer mine. I see that the article has recently been edited so that only the first paragraph remains, and the editor also changed even that a bit. There's really not much left of the original submission for me to talk about. This has been a very educational experience. PatrickHenry-FR 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's reply to JoaoRicardo: Thanks. Your comments have been most helpful. I've had several things professionally published, both fiction and non-fiction, so I'm quite familiar with the editorial process, and also (alas) with rejection. I don't take this stuff personally; and I always play by the rules. From the viewpoint of a writer, however, the Wiki-world is different. Very different. PatrickHenry-FR 12:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Author's acquiescence

edit

There is an apparent consensus to delete the item. It's been edited down to virtually nothing, and there's really not much left to merge. If I were to add something about this topic to the article on Free Republic it would be entirely different. There seems to be no reason to continue debating. I agree that the article should be deleted; and I appreciate everyone's input. PatrickHenry-FR 15:37, 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 REDIRECT. Harro5 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Vandelay

edit

Not notable enough for an article on the subject. Information already exists in George Costanza. ERcheck 03:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of music genres that are not subject to high danceability standards

edit

"High danceability standards" - say what? Listcruft beyond belief. FCYTravis 04:07, 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 No consensus. Harro5 22:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 22:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ruin Mist characters

edit

This article was created on December 16. Since that time, not a single entry has been added to this empty list. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of adding to this article when this was posted. User:Henrydms 04:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If significant information is added about more than one character (currently links to page with one line summeries of several), then Merge and Redirect to Characters in Ruin Mist (so we don't have a whole ton of stub articles, like the one this page currently links to. Otherwise, Delete as (attempted) fancruft. Concur with MGM, merge character articles into this one and keep, but ONLY if something significant can be added (and if there is more than one to add). Otherwise, Delete. --InShaneee 04:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not place to put in fan material. Try geocities or set up your own website. Pavel Vozenilek 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all character articles into the list and keep. The main article is too large to merge characters into. Still, if it's a list of characters, that's what is should be called. Please don't rename. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Important in the context of Ruin Mist. -- JJay 19:38, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jack D. Lee III

edit

Vanity. Gamaliel 04:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see how this article is on the deletion list. This is about a true person who actually made a difference in the lives of college students. I assume because he is young and not a child start that one must think that he serves no purpose on this website, but I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.252.110.175 (talk • contribs)
  • I'm confused on how this article is considered vanity. Simply becuase this is not a "nationally" known person does not place it in a category of vanity. 06:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubba415 (talk • contribs)
On AfD, "vanity" has a specific meaning and is used to refer to articles, usually overly detailed, which appear to be written by the subject of the article or someone personally known to the subject. Gamaliel 06:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, Lee appears to be a student, not a professor. Gamaliel 07:15, 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 Speedied by User:Drini as copyvio

Doosan

edit

Not encyclopedic, not notable. brenneman(t)(c) 04:19, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Taylor, Michigan

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 Renata3 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of some phones, PDAs, computers, and game systems

edit

"List of everything" kind of article, covering "some" unrelated technologies. Poor quality, prone to spam, no informational value - just list of products. Pavel Vozenilek 04:26, 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 to Cappuccino. howcheng {chat} 17:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iced cappuccino

edit

Could possibly be an article, or recipe, but not in it's current form.--MONGO 04:28, 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 'Speedied by User:Deltabeignet as nonsense.

Jibbiff

edit

Appears to be made up with no google results. Also even if real should be transwikid to wikidictionary, does not belong here. SorryGuy 04:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hanashi

edit

This article seems to be a hoax. Searching for it on Google with the words 'hanashi' and 'vitamins' only brings up the Wikipedia entry. I don't believe it is possible to write 'hanashi' in Korean, though I know it is a Japanese word, meaning 'talk' or 'stories'. As it is unverified as a factual article as it stands, I believe it should be deleted. Maaya 04:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being 2,130 years old would make it just plain Korean, not "South Korean" if it were true. Not to mention it contraverts a number of facts about the digestive tract (and which organs are and are not capable of absorbing which nutrients) and makes patently absurd claims (the body stores nutrients in feces, for instance). May in fact be a speedy deletition candidate as patent nonsense, although it's possibly just a borderline case for that. The Literate Engineer 04:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Patent nonsense is very restrictive, but this is still nonsensical enough to be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 10:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True, it is restrictive, and does explicitly say it doesn't include hoaxes... but if you stretch "no meaningful content"... The Literate Engineer 16:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keith bowden electrical

edit

Advertising. Delete. bainer (talk) 04:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate pudding

edit

I realize that chocolate pudding is notable enough to warrant mention on Wikipedia, but this article is so brief as to be almost empty. Plus the author makes a claim and provides no reference for the claim. The statement "Currently, the top-selling brand of chocolate pudding is manufactured under the Jell-O® brand by the Kraft Foods Corporation." the author needs to date that statement, and provide a reference. So I suggest Delete and any relevant information can be combined into an article about puddings.TheRingess 04:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite. Good job. - Mgm|(talk) 12:06, 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 no consensus. howcheng {chat} 17:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Barber

edit

Professor of questionable notabilty. Google pulls 151 unique results, about half that when coupled with his area of expertise, Modern Arnis, a type of martial art. Notabilty claimed as the only accredited teacher of said martial art in North America, which he has been for 18 years. Being the only accredited teacher of a subject for 18 years makes the regional significance questionable, and the position equally so. Delete as is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the long, reasoned description. Nevertheless, as the developer and prof of the only college level program in this sport, and as a Martial Arts Hall of Famer, I have to vote Keep here. -- JJay 02:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm open to adjusting this vote if new info comes to light regarding Barber's notability. It's difficult for me to judge as I am not an Arnis practitioner. -- JJay 10:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Question for nom. It looks like this has been speedied 3 or 4 times, is there any explanation for that? -- JJay 05:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. It's good to know that for the discussion at hand. I'm glad we are encouraging new users in their efforts by teaching them about csd and vfd. -- JJay 10:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto. I dont know if google hits should be a standard of importance here, but thats a decision beyond my control. The fact that Professor Presas started his art by having it taught in the Filipino School system made Dr. Barbers college program of special importance to him. I have head rumor that he used to mention that his art was taught at an American college with pride. That and the fact that he is well known amongst all the major players and set up and ran the Symposium (which was big news in the MA circles even with the controversy) earns him a place IMO. KEEP -- Renegade68 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC) This is the article's author.[reply]
  • Other instructors in the same art were influenced or aided by Dr. Barber over the years (for example, Dr Barber coordinated, ran, and acquired funding for camps with Professor Remy Presas in the 1980's and 1990's which were attended by currently in vogue instructors such as Tim Hartman). Professor Remy Presas (inventor of the art in question) considered him a notable if not exceptional student before his death. In terms of the history of Modern Arnis in the United States over the past 20 years he has been a significant instructor of the art and the entry should remain as is.TriVR 04:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User's only contribution[reply]
  • Dr. Barber's "for credit" Modern Arnis program is the only one of it's kind in the USA and was approved in writing by the late Grandmaster Remy Presas (founder of the system). I have personally witnessed the approval documents to this effect. In addition Dr. Barber was inducted into the World Martial Arts Hall Of Fame in the second year of it's existence, becoming one of the first six Modern Arnis practitioners to receive such an honor! He is also held in high regard by other members of the Modern Arnis/Martial Arts community being a techincal advisor for the International Modern Arnis Federation of the Philippines (USA) and the World Martial Arts Society (a testament to his notability). I vote to keep this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omastad (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User's only contribution[reply]
  • Modern Arnis is a small fish in the larger martialarts pool. It doesn't have the name recognitiojn of karate, kung fu or ninjutsu, so it doesn't surprise me that Dr. Barbers program is the only one in the US. I'm unaware of any martial arts programs taught for credit in US collages, so having an accredited program does strike me as notable. Modern Arnis is taught in the Phillipines schools though, and at least 1 other practitioner, Lisa McManas (with IMAF under Jeff Delany) also teaches a program in a collage, though I am not certain of the specifics there. Keep --Bob Hubbard 15:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC) User has been registered less than one week; seventh distinct edit[reply]
  • Dr. B's program brings Modern Arnis to people that might otherwise not step into a martial arts school because of cost, self esteem, or other issues. As a college course and a self defense club that is accessible to non students through the adult education program, Jerome has made Modern Arnis available to those that really need it instead of just those that can afford it. Since enrollment is generally between 12-25 students per semester. Factor the number of semesters that the program has been running (at two campuses for a number of those years) not to mention the number of Modern Arnis Seminars as well as for other arts he has hosted over the years, Dr. B has been very influencial IMO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.169.28.179 (talk • contribs) User's only contribution

Good Christ, this was a mess. First we get rampant sock-puppeteering, then the explosion of some acedemic and personal debate between Barber and someone named Jeff (JJL, not me). I have moved this to Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Jerome_Barber. I am also pre-emptively relisting the nomination to gather legit debate on the article's veracity. To the closing admin (I can't close this myself because I nominated it) still take into account the previous votes, but keep in mind the meat- and sock-puppetry. To new Wikipedians, please keep in mind that AfD guidlines state that "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made." Discussions of the article's content should be made on the article's talk page and longer discussions of the article's veracity on the AfDs subpage. Personal issues between editors don't belong anywhere on the Project, so drop it. Let's try this again. RELISTING. VOTE BELOW. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There isn't any other person who has my credential in terms of approval in writin from the later founder and system GM Remy A. Presas, for a college credit course in Modern Arnis within the USA. His approval was given in 1989 and the program has been running continuously from 1987 through the Fall Semerster at Erie Community College in Orchard Park, NY. I have noticed that the most recent votes for deletion have been given sans any supporting reasons. Admitting that I am somewhat biased on the matter, I none the less have put my martial resume up for review and camparision to anyone who is willing to do the same. My position in terms of creating and teaching a college based, credit bearing courses in Modern Arnis, is singularly unique in the art, within the USA. My tie-in to the IMAFP as an Advisor is indicative of my continued interest in positively promoting the art.

Jerome Barber

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Sandell

edit

Another page for a non-notable person created by User:Larvatus as part of what appears to be a POV-pushing campaign. See Talk:Scott Sandell for this quote by Larvatus: "Sandell's backing of paedophile Min Zhu." FCYTravis 04:51, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Immaculate Machine

edit

Non notable band from Victoria, no edits since October, no references, one link to bands page.DeleteTheRingess 05:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They've also performed in London, which I think is more to the point; a band from, say, Buffalo, New York touring in the US and Canada might not necessarily be noteworthy. While the London shows establish notability, though, I didn't think they themselves were worthy of inclusion in the article. - squibix 15:34, 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 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

George e. woodberry

edit

Doesn not provide claims of notability, nn-bio tag was removed, bringing to AfD. brenneman(t)(c) 05:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts redirect to George Edward Woodberry -- Astrokey44|talk 23:29, 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. — JIP | Talk 16:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pacea lui Cristos

edit

Not only is it not in English (creator's summary says it's Romanian,) but it looks like it might be copyvio. Probably doesn't belong here. If there's a Romanian wikipedia, should it be transwikied there? Vary 05:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Article has bee identified as non-salvagable on WP:PNT (see below). -- Vary | Talk 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't speak Romanian, but from the cognate words it looks like this is a sermon or possibly essay based on passages from the Gospel of John chapter 20. I would be surprised if this turns out to be an encyclopedia article. --Metropolitan90 07:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PNT the creators summary says "This is an article about "the peace of Christ" in the Romanian language" -- Astrokey44|talk 23:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copyvio concerns. It says "By Romeo J. Fulga". But beyond that, it does read like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article: "Care este această pace pe care o oferă Isus? Meditând la aceste scurte cuvinte, trebuie să accentuăm mai mult acest pronume “Mea.”" ==> "What is this peace that Jesus offers? Meditating on these short words, one needs to accentuate more that pronoun 'My'." It's pretty much all like that, only some of it is more florid. I don't think there is anything here worth keeping, and I think we should delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I've read it, it's not nonsensical, but one's Christmas sermon for his church doesn't belong on Wikipedia.Dunemaire 08:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion copied from Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English

edit

Romanian? Found this on WP:AFD. Hopefully the nomintator will retract the nomination so we can have our two weeks. Unless, of course, this is a copyvio or something... Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like the nominator retracted the nomination. The title looks like "The Passion of Christ", and I think a biblical reference, not a reference to the film. (There are bits in the article that look like chpater:verse citations.) I can't find any obvious copyvio on Google, nor can I find this in the Romanian wikipedia. Hopefully someone who can actually read the article (unlike me) will chime in.  :) Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The orginial editor of the article had "This is an article about "the peace of Christ" in the Romanian language." in the edit summary. — TheKMantalk 07:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have copyvio concerns. It says "By Romeo J. Fulga". But beyond that, it does read like a sermon rather than an encyclopedia article: "Care este această pace pe care o oferă Isus? Meditând la aceste scurte cuvinte, trebuie să accentuăm mai mult acest pronume “Mea.”" ==> "What is this peace that Jesus offers? Meditating on these short words, one needs to accentuate more that pronoun 'My'." It's pretty much all like that, only some of it is more florid. I don't think there is anything here worth keeping, and I think we should delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[end copied text]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. - Mailer Diablo 00:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Capricorns, List of Sagittarii

edit

do we need these? anyone who wants to know can simply look at the articles on particular days. are we going to have everyone famous (how many?) in 12 list farms? BL kiss the lizard 05:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Zavala

edit

Delete Boot Camp Info wrong. Claims fraternization with an officer which is actually a crime and names someone. Other 85% of article is about cancer treatment. She is not "famous", cannot be found on the internet and should not be here. For here to get a page then every person in Iraq and every person to get cancer would also rate one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Looper5920 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics and Anthropology

edit

Appears to be a copyvio, like similar page created by this user, Urban life in Jericho -- Vary 06:03, 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 'Speedied by User:Deltabeignet Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael E. Ruhl

edit

vanity, unverifiable Tedernst | talk 06:12, 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 userfy and delete. Harro5 06:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Williams (network security)

edit

Two reasons for deletion - Firstly because I am requesting deletion as the original author, and secondly because I have made a social faux pas (ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AUTO). Kw 06:20, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decision Technologies International

edit

Not notable, low google, very little in the news. brenneman(t)(c) 06:25, 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 Speedied by User:Deltabeignet Jamie (talk/contribs) 06:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Sorrows

edit

I just looked into this band, and there is only one refrence to them, and that was their own website. Magmafox 06:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete NN --Darrylv 15:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sanford

edit

Searches for "Peter Sanford" yield no results pertinent to this article. Based on age and statement that Sanford is an "aspiring British Politician" this looks to be a vanity article. Additionally, the only contributions from creator's IP address (86.131.41.201) are for this article. jareha 06:42, 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 closed, given that all had votes on their own. Admins closing these votes should consider this at their discretion as well. - Mailer Diablo 00:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidated punk voting

edit

Since so many -punk articles have come up for AfD all at once, this is your one-stop-shop to vote for those you think should be kept and those you think should go.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk

edit

Neologism invented for a RPG (Children of the Sun). Seems to have had no real use outside that, despite this voluminous article, which is as far as I can tell wholly original research. Delete —Matthew Brown (T:C) 06:58, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 12:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dieselpunk

edit

From speedy. "Reposted content". I can't find the original. r3m0t talk 21:38, 17 January 2006 (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 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stonepunk

edit

Another alleged x-punk "genre". Only problem is, nobody is actually using it. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:01, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bronzepunk

edit

Yet another alleged x-punk "genre". Like the others, doesn't actually appear to have any works written within the genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ironpunk

edit

More alleged x-punk "genres". Like the others, doesn't actually appear to have any works written within the genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:07, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sandalpunk

edit

Another -punk supposed genre. Like the others, no evidence that this is in actual use or that anyone is consciously considering their works part of this genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Middlepunk

edit

More -punk "genres". No evidence that this term is other than a neologism not in real use. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Transistorpunk

edit

Neologism for a genre nobody seems to actually be using. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

if it existed then the page should not be deleted

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

Spacepunk

edit

Unused neologism. The article content appears to be unsourced original research; no proof that anyone considers this a real genre. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:23, 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 . - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychedelipunk

edit

Like the others, this appears to be a neologism that nobody really uses. Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:25, 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 . - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nanopunk

edit

Seems to be made up along with some of the other -punk genres up for deletion. Contains no verifiable sources. Cyde Weys votetalk 16:57, 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 . - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nazipunk

edit

Only verifiable source seems to be a reference in a song lyric, punkcruft. Cyde Weys votetalk 17:00, 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 move to Mannerpunk. I know you meant well, Cyde, but next time please don't remove the AfD notice until the discussion is closed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mannerpunk

edit

No sources so let's delete! Piecraft 16:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination was orphaned, listing now. --Cyde Weys votetalk 17:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NO NO NO, please as I echo my fellow editors, don't take this as a personal attack! I am merely pointing out the flaw in this article. Piecraft 21:43, 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hosteau

edit

Unverifiable. Either a hoax or non-notable. No Google hits for '"Hosteau" "howard stern"' and none for '"Lauren Albert" and "Christopher Riley"'. Angela. 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of their web presence, Hosteau is a band that plays shows in Philly. I have been to see them. Their myspace page is at www.myspace.com/hosteau.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero proof

edit

The proof mentioned in this article is flawed. As is mentioned on the bottom of the article, since it involves dividing by 0, so it doesn't seem like a valid article since it is not a valid proof. Akamad Merry Christmas to all! 07:12, 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 deleted' article has no content/empty - and is disruptive to boot. Wrong namespace - OR - inherently POV - self-referential - take your pick. OK this is perhaps IAR - but the continued existence of this article is not in the interests of building an encyclopedia Doc ask? 14:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in the Wikipedia community

edit

JUST READ THE TITLE King of All the Franks 07:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

spuddledumps

edit

This is a dictionary article submitted to the wrong project for a word that does not exist. Uncle G 07:53, 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 Speedied by User:Lucky 6.9 as copyvio from www.beagle.com.au/aboutus.html


Beagle Internet

edit

Delete this advertisement in disguise. - CorbinSimpson 07:55, 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovering the Language of Jesus: Hebrew or Aramaic

edit

Listed for speedy delete, with a reason of "Vanity review of book, it's more an essay than an encyclopedia article. Plus it seems to be written by the author of the book." This is not IMO a reason for a speedy under WP:CSD, but it is a very good readon for an AFD. Delete or else cite for notability and clean up and NPOV. DES (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm the one who nominated it for speedy. The article is written by the author of the book. It is a biased review of his own book, so probably counts as Original Research.TheRingess 08:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - actually it reads like a copyvio. I can find a few paragraphs of it in "reviews" on amazon, but I can't find the rest. Jamie (talk/contribs) 08:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak delete - it's a vanity review, but that isn't a reason to delete, but to clean up and de-POV. We could simply make this into a valid stub. Amazon verifies that the book exists, so, in the end, this is a question of whether this book is notable enough to justify an article. An Amazon rating of 600,000 isn't good - but isn't pathetic either for a technical book (my own is at 2.7 million). What pushes it towards delete for me is that google gives it nothing beyond Amazon - which means university libraries aren't listing it (my book scores several dozen on this front). However, this book was only published in August 2005 - so perhaps there is time yet. We really could do with working out a WP:BOOKS policy. --Doc ask? 14:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep its on Amazon and it exists...but I'm a Christian and can see potential NPOV problems....DePOV it, then Keep Jcuk 20:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's also Language of jesus from the same user with basically the same content. Now, Language of jesus can actually be salvageable, but the article in question definitely should go. It's an article on a book, not the theory - and this book is in no way notable enough to warrant its own entry. Flyboy Will 23:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Psychosocraticneurolation

edit

In google there are only to references to this word - both references to the wikipedia-article, and the phenomena hasn't made it into the diagnostic manuals or anything like that (the kind of books I work with as a psychologist). It is questionable, if you would put the mentioned symptoms in a new category, because they are fitting into some other well documented (so called) disorders. But as we psychiatrists and psychologists love to give new names to old things, this is no real argument against the existence of this thing. The word as such sounds strage to me, but we also like strange words, therefore ...

Anyway, I am not (N O T) objecting to include articles on "disorders" that affect only a small group of people (who knows, it might become a fashionable diagnosis next year allready), but I thing, we need a source, like some psychiatric journal ... as long, as there is no source, I think, this article is violating wikipedias verification-policy Enfiladissa 08:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chevaliers

edit

An Oxford secret society, or so the article claims. I find no mention of this in the ODNB biography of Shelley, nor any relevant hits from a full-text search of the entire ODNB. Searching for "Chevaliers" is obviously difficult, as it gives too many hits, but a Google search for Chevaliers oxford shelley[28] seems to find nothing relevant. I believe this is a hoax, but am willing to retract the nomination if it can be verified. u p p l a n d 08:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but one search engine hit (and even then the mention is only in passing) in this case indicates no one else researched this secret society. Endomion 07:46, 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 no consensus and tagged as {{unreferenced}}. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martinsons

edit

If we forget for a moment this is mistitled, I can see multiple claims of notability in the article including several publications and claims of being a leader in their field. Was tagged as a speedy, but I don't think it is one. Abstain. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 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 to Thomas and Friends - Season 1. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble in the Shed

edit

Are individual Thomas the Tank Engine stories really that notable? It is doubtful this will ever be more than a stub. You can call me Al 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've merged all of the Series 1 episodes into Thomas and Friends - Season 1, and put redirects on all pages except this one, since Wikipedia:Guide to deletion advises against putting a redirect o this page untilt he AFD is over. So there you go. Would the last one to leave please slap a redirect up, assuming that is the verdict. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Good work. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:48, 15 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 House of Fools (band). howcheng {chat} 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House of Fools

edit

Vanity, besides the Russian film is much more well known. Maybe the band info could be moved to House of Fools (band) or a disambig page could be made? - FrancisTyers 17:42, 15 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, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goods and services

edit

This page can't ever have any content that wouldn't end up in either good (economics) or service. Recommend changing it to a redirect and replacing links to goods and services with goods and services Scott Ritchie 17:58, 15 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. -Doc ask? 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellendross

edit

unverifiable neologism. I see only 1 use of this word [30] outside of Wikipedia mirrors, and in that case it's someone's login for a game site. Thus, cannot be verified as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 18:15, 15 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} 18:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Ellquist

edit

Article on a very obscure, non-notable person. The google test fails miserably (250 hits) and the article is probably vanity --Mecanismo 22:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:33, 15 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. -Doc ask? 13:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Masters Publishers

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:34, 15 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} 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social clubs

edit

Problem: Article discussed at length here, I would suggest a deletion or merge. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) delete or merge no new points here -Drdisque 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added most of this information to the club article, though I believe it really deserves its own space. Please let me know what you think.

Pretend you are rural Chineese for a moment - and ask yourself if this might describe social clubs in your culture. The bias is that it assumes a Western (probably North American) experience is universal. --Doc ask? 20:49, 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 should have been speedied in the first place. -Doc ask? 13:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prank ideas

edit

Problem: Vulgar, non encyclopedic dribble. Perhaps a BJAODN would be in order.....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:04, 15 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. -Doc ask? 13:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Internation Mexico Day

edit

Non-notable. --Quasipalm 19:11, 15 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, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emosnap

edit

NN neologism. Durova 19:14, 15 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. Harro5 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozaloshtsh

edit

del Nonverifable. The anon is creating Wiendish mythology here, totally unreferenced, taking an advantage this being an unknown area. mikka (t) 16:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete original research per referrer. If this is taken from neopaganist manuals, please clearly say so in the text. --Ghirlandajo 13:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mikkalai. Several homepages refer to the Bozaloshtsh. What is your problem? Dr. Anthony E. Smith is behind this interpreation of the Bozaloshtsh. Remember it is Wendish - not Russian mythology in this case. See: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/bozaloshtsh.html

But on the other hand. I may have been fooled by this Wicca, I'm must admit. see: http://www.heathenfolk.net/forums/view_topic.php?id=599&forum_id=&jump_to=2750 "Now this guy, Dr. Anthony E. Smith, is a prime example of parroting Wiccan doctrine."

LK

Bozaloshtsh's also got an article at http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozaloshtsh (where it should be less of an 'unknown area'). 24.17.48.241 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Please check out: Bonnerjea, B. A Dictionary of Superstitions and Mythology. London 1927

user:konzack 20:23 December 13 2005

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep has credible sources. Kappa 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This whole area seems full of circular references. I can't find a copy of Bonnerjea for example. Has anyone independent seen/read any of these works? There may be a story here, but I sense it is not balanced.Obina 12:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this article has been on AfD for 13 days now, which seems to be stretching the process beyond what it's meant to be. Clearly there is no consensus to delete, so the article (as ridiculous as it may be) should be unburdened of the AfD notice. The 'not verified' notice should be enough to warm people that this is a potentially questionable article. - squibix 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic Delete. There's no consensus to delete because it's such an incredibly obscure topic. As one of the few people who actually know anything of pre-Christian Slavic mythology, I have to say this is complete bollocks. The people had no writing. We're not even sure of the functions and relationships between their chief deities. I have never heard of Biren Bonnerjea or his 1921 book before, but in the past few decades made up Slavic mythology has been used to support a huge number of hoaxes in wiccan literature. I'd need to see more modern sources, with detailed explanation on where they found this deity, to change my mind. A single obscure 1921 book isn't nearly good enough. Flyboy Will 23:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with the unverified tag -- Astrokey44|talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's the worst possible solution. This entire encyclopedia will go down the drain. Any insane tidbit of idiocy can be kept here, as long as a couple of geocities pages copy it off of each other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a secondary repositary of information, which means reputable sources must exists before an article is created. Flyboy Will 02:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to me like complete bollocks. Stifle 13:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Flyboy Will unless proof of given reference text, or other independent source provided. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:00, 28 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. -Doc ask? 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In Evil Hour

edit

"There is a book called this, in spanish it is called this." is not an article. StealthFox 19:35, 15 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} 18:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SLAGIATT

edit

Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Unlikely to be expandable beyond its current form. You can call me Al 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Original research. SLAGIATT returns 464 hits on Google, but I was unable to find a widespread use of this term in the internet context asserted by this article. Endomion 13:42, 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. -Doc ask? 14:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RPGnato

edit

"Brasilian gaming group formed by students - irrelevant for an encyclopedia"

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

The result of the debate was DELETE (could have been speedied as well). -Doc ask? 14:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ramendra Singh Bhadauria(Lal-Kitab-Astrology), Ramendra Singh Bhadauria,Astrologer

edit

Vanity Page Varco 20:18, 15 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 Gabriel García Márquez. howcheng {chat} 18:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyes of a Blue Dog

edit

sub-stub on a short story, belongs in the author's article Dalbury(Talk) 20:29, 15 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 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xylos

edit

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria; no AllMusic entry, no releases for sale, relevant Google hits appear to be limited to band site and Wikipedia. Jasmol 20:38, 15 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 don't see how 4 deletes and 0 keeps is insufficient . -Doc ask? 14:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bondfire

edit

nn website. No alexa data, no "site:" results in Google. No media coverage. No incoming wikilinks. No significance asserted. Fails WP:WEB.  Perfecto 20:40, 15 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 00:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Horiuchi

edit

This looks like a vanity page to me. The text was cut and pasted from his website. I found one other biographical entry on the web, but it was also pasted from his website. There are no articles about him in the archives of ClayTimes, one of the two major pottery magazines. The page was also listed as an orphan. Paul Stokstad 20:38, 15 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 (11d/2k). Mindmatrix 22:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Life and Times of M.C. Beer Bong, M.C. Beer Bong

edit

256 Google hits This article has been on Wikipedia for over a year so many of the results are Wikimirrors. Someone's personal project. delete Lotsofissues 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EVERYTHING is listed under IMDB -- no matter how minor. Lotsofissues 05:20, 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 merge and redirect to CKY Crew. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art Webb 1986

edit

Only claim to fame seems to be that he is related to a regular on an MTV show. Delete unless someone can tell me something about Viva La Bam that I don't know. JHMM13 (T | C) 23:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Art Webb 1986

edit

Delete AW1986 is a very minor cast member in the CKY / VLB dynasty - in fact, to call him a cast member is itself laughable. I seriously doubt that he deserves a separate entry, all that needs to be known about him (which is that he's Rake's brother) is on the CKY (videos) page. No diss at all to Art, I've seen - and love - everything these guys have put out, and edit the CKY video page. I can just confirm that whatever forums and google say, he is only very vaguely important to CKY and seriously not worth an entry. If all of Bam's friends who make occasional 2 second appearances in the CKY films and spin-offs were given pages there would be a hell of a lot of them. The whole of West Chester for a start... Other minor cast / crew members who have managed to get entries should also be looked at.

Also, as far as I know it isn't a psudonym, his surname is certainly Webb - "Rake Yohn", as his brother is known, is a psudonym, real name Ted Webb.

Deiz 16:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Deiz 16:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combined Page

edit

I have created a combined page for minor CKY Cast members. I intend to redirect this and other similar pages to there. Any objections?

Deiz 23:17, 1 January 2006 (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. -Doc ask? 14:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph & Brigitte Sykes

edit

According to the article, their claim to fame: Appearance in one episode of a soap opera as babies. Does not pass the actor criteria. delete

Lotsofissues 23:45, 15 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 Renata3 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional employer organization

edit

It's basically an ad for this lot - http://www.napeo.org - I've removed the spam links, and it's a bit of a nothing article, and a spam magnet. Jgritz 23:43, 15 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} 18:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WCReplays.com

edit

Website with no external significance, Alexa ranking lower than 75,000. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Agentsoo (talk • contribs)

This site is the main site for the community of warcraft 3.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seibertron

edit

Google tells me that in Japan it's the "homeworld of the Transformers". Article consists only of an info box with a commercial link - is it spam? RobertG ♬ talk 10:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right, I've expanded on it quite a bit EnerJolt 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now it looks like vanity and fancruft. Trolls are a dime a dozen, and shouldn't even be noted; ignoring the obvious NPOV violations. There's more NPOV problems in other sections, as well. --Apostrophe 01:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apostrophe, I've expanded further to include other features of the site, to make it seem less like fancruft. I've read the NPOV page, and I don't see what the problem is (if you could elaborate on the problem, instead of simply telling me there is a problem, it would be greatly appreciated). Moreover, the section on the trollers is a part of seibertron.com's coloured history, and as Gunbuster has pointed out, seibertron.com is well-noted in the Transformers internet fanbase, for better or worse. There are many other fansites concerning celebrated television shows i.e. alt.tv.simpsons and newgrounds, so I really don't see what the problem is, unless you have no great affection for Optimus and Megatron
  • I would like to note that I am the creator of the article, and a member of Seibertron.com, and it is true that Seibertron is among the best known Transformer sites on the net, and in the way of the VSD, not so much unlike Wikipedia itself. If you look at our page, it's grown since I first started it, and with time it will grow more. We only wish to bring our collective knowledge forth so those interested Transformers will be able to learn about it's past. Please give the page a second thought.
    • The article lacks even basic information on the majority of things that make it noteworthy. Heavy Metal War deserves it's inclusion, but where is the site's history? Seibertron.com has become (in?)famous throughout the fandom for the controversy it's either courted or created, not because of it's forum set-up, moderators or trolls.--Gunbuster 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep, needs cleanup to eliminate forumcruft. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. -Sean Curtin 22:10, 29 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 {chat} 18:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SHINE - Spreading the Light through Human Values

edit

Hmmm. No CSD that I can see, but it's WP:OR and can not be expanded into an encyclopedic entry. Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 10:26, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1st Street (Taylor, MI)

edit

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of streets in Taylor, Michigan. Article doesn't tell anything about the road which cannot be gleaned from reading a map. Wikipedia is not a road map. Delete. - Mgm|(talk) 10:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, you were doing so well until the vote! Bugger, eh? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:33, 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. Harro5 22:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatzic

edit

non-notable; article's assertion that there is a "whole conculture" surrounding the made-up language is irrelevant because a conculture is, by definition, also imaginary. [38]. Adunar 10:34, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Pickard

edit

vanity bio; asserts notability due to winning Oregon high school tennis championship in 1973 and position at an athletic club, but that seems non-notable to me. Adunar 10:48, 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} 19:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

India empire

edit

Advertisement. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 10:56, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew_Hilger

edit

This page is laced with spam advertising Matthew Hilger's book on Texas Hold 'em and his for-profit website.

Strong Keep: Matthew Hilger's site is not just for profit. It contains numerous strategy articles and forums for amateur and professional players, equal in value to those at Card Player, The Hendon Mob's site, 2 2, etc. He is also a notable and respected poker player/author in his own right, with tournament results exceeding those listed in the article, and his limit cash game theories are a major component of the way internet play has progressed. If there are issues with him being an author, then this is attributable to David Sklansky, Mason Malmuth and others. There is no spam here, merely a link to his own official website and the ISBN number of his book. Furthermore, many other poker players (Daniel Negreanu, Dave Ulliott, The Hendon Mob etc.) have for-profit websites. I feel the only issue with the page could be the line about when he eliminated Doyle Brunson from the WSOP - if you have an issue with that, then please use the talk page first, rather than putting the page up for deletion. Also, please sign your name when putting articles up for deletion. One more thing, as the user who AFD'd this article did not add this page to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 22 I can only assume that the person may be misinformed about AFD criteria. Essexmutant 22:35, 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 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kitteh

edit

NN neologism. WP:NOT a dictionary. Delete. Kusma (討論) 11:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Essexmutant 11:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jaber Rouzbahani

edit

Non-notable failed basketball pro, although no doubt a nice chap. Gotta love that picture caption. Soo 11:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a famous persian basketball star. Who gives us the right to decied that he can't be in wikipedia due to his inability to make it into the NBA. Keep- User:Farzon Lotfi I started this article and I beleive you showed keep it because it is factual and it brings diversity to wikipedia, which shows that we report on more than just american public figures.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Cherry

edit

Not expanded despite request and page contains nothing of note. Delete Essexmutant 11:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jerrold Gaylord Turner

edit

Looks like a hoax, along with the closely related Jeffrold Finklestein Turner. Only one Google hit for "Jerrold Gaylord Turner" -wikipedia, and that one came from here anyway! Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:13, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrold Finklestein Turner

edit

Seems to be a hoax. Zero Google hits for "Jeffrold Finklestein Turner -wikipedia". Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:17, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinophobia

edit

It's a dicdef of a neologism, already two reasons to delete. It might also be a hoax, since if rhinophobia meant anything it would mean "fear of noses" (or possibly "fear of rhinoceroses" if formed in the same way as "homophobia"). Angr (t·c) 12:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dicdef, probably of neologism or wrong (there seems to be a medical term, but not very common, only one google-hit ...) --Enfiladissa 12:49, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phil stocks

edit

This guy does seem to be on the far side of notable to me - presenter on a local radio station - but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise. Shimgray | talk | 12:43, 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. I see very little purpose in redirecting this since nobody is going to look up a possible name for elemenet number 970. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ennseptnilium

edit

Crystalballing to the ridiculous. By the time this is discovered/synthesised, we'll probably all be dead Sceptre (Talk) 13:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey dacker

edit

Neologism alleged to have appeared on the web in 2001, but which gets only one Google hit. Also a borderline attack page. - squibix 13:39, 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 delete both. howcheng {chat} 19:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Health Wikispace, Health wikispace

edit

Unilateral attempt by a single user to change Wikipedia's policies without discussion or consensus, publicity for an external site, wrong article space. Delete Plus a bonus autobiography page, Health wikispace, nn-bio.

Huh? Lots of organizations have limited-access wikis that are "invitation-only." rodii
He can do whatever he likes elsewhere -- however, blending it into Wikipedia as a privileged source is definitely not allowed here. See his edits to bipolar disorder, and the intention to protect Wikipedia pages containing his content, is certainly not allowed here. -- The Anome 21:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a response to me? I'm only rebutting the claim that an "'invitation only' wiki is a contradiction [in] terms." I said nothing about what any user did or should do on Wikipedia, and my vote (see below) was to delete. rodii 00:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though. rodii 21:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will explain, but not now. Please make sure you are looking at the most current version of the article. I removed the bio immediately after posting it. I reported the problem to #wikimedia-tech that the article kept reverting itself. My father thinks that some intermediate caching server is at fault. The current Wikipedia article on this topic does not contain the bio. I wholeheartedly agree that a bio of that sort violates Wikipedia's policies.

But unbenowkst to whoever nominated this article for deletion, I invited discussion in my edits to bipolar disorder repeatedly (these invitations and due process provisions were deleted).. and tried to give the community adequate due process (according to my perception of Wikipedia's customs and courtesies (that all changes that may offend someone or aren't self-explanatory (the exception that I thought I was falling into), however when the requests for due process were deleted from the article with nary a notice on my talk page, or on the article's talk page, which is where I first saw Anome, and got to know Anome a little bit, I decided to simply put a link inside the cleanup tag. I created the Health Wikispace because someone complained on the Bipolar disorder talk page that they were reading about bipolar disorder for the first time, or something to that effect.

Modifying the cleanup tag is not vandalism -- it is providing remedial sources in response to feedback left on the talk page; it is merely responding to the needs of a sub-community within Wikipedia (the sub-community the talk page represents), in a way that does no permenant damage to the page. When the cleanup tag is removed, the links to alternative sources will be removed with it, because those links are inside the cleanup tag. This is not vanity or publicity of an external site for the purposes of muckracking. It was responding to the needs of the mentally ill, who may have trouble finding the appropriate resources in crisis. I would prefer that the cleanup tag contain a link to Answers.com, or medicinenet.com -- but the Answers.com link [also inside the cleanup tag] was removed. Wikipedia already has discussed Answers.com before, and decided Answers.com could include Wikipedia on their site, so I think it is an appropriate link to include inside the cleanup tag Wikipedia is not intended to do harm to someone indirectly by way of not giving them the best information first when they are in a really bad state and may be about to do things which for triggering reasons I will not list. I do not want somebody to read about bipolar disorder, and feel that marijuna is the best choice of treatment (illicit drug use will delay treatment),for example. (The TLC reference is still being debated on the talk page). Given the exigent circumstances for someone who is mentally ill, I really feel that at least until the article is cleaned up, we should provide links to more credible sources in the cleanup tag. I will cease modifying the article itself. I look forward to a decision being made, however I would request that we wait until after I have sorted out any caching issues that may be affecting people from accessing the article, and until after Hanukah.



Navigating the Internet

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. LtNOWIS, Stifle, Kappa, JJay, Pboyd04, SockpuppetSamuelson, and any other interested parties are cordially invited to merge this article into an appropriate target at their leisure. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chiss Expeditionary Defense Fleet, Chiss Expeditionary Defense Force

edit

minor starwars fleet, non notable Melaen 23:10, 13 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 14:10, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman Spiff

edit

This and all other comic stubs are much too insignificant to be listed in their own article. There is already a description of Spaceman Spiff in the Calvin and Hobbes article.--FelineFanatic13 14:11, 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. Harro5 22:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elsewhere Artist Collaborative, Psychological Growth Spurt, Elsewhere Imagination Laboratory, Independent Epistemology and Independent epistemology

edit

nn art collective, 65 unique Google hits. Author is creating other vanity articles about this collective. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe originally nominated Elsewhere Artist Collaborative and Psychological Growth Spurt - to this, I am adding Elsewhere Imagination Laboratory, Independent Epistemology and Independent epistemology (as in the subject header above) for identical reasons. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 01:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why would one delete what exists? 65 google hits, various references from artists web pages, articles in Scupture Magazine and local newspapers. Suggest for revising

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 14:15, 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 Speedy delete A7. -Doc ask? 16:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Earthquakes

edit

one sentence long article, importance not explained since october Melaen 14:33, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anomalous girls

edit

urban legend translated from http://www.trastorno.masalla.net/ seems a fake. the wiki spanish article was written by the same user , no other reference found .
The same user also created Sadorexia also listed for afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadorexia) the term should came from german dünneluder 28suspicious google hits
Consider for deletion also the redirects Dünneluder and Skinnies -Melaen 15:00, 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 redirect to Chrismahanukwanzakah. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismahanakwanzahah

edit
  • SAVE It was/is an enlightening item.

Neologism. We already have Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa. Aleph4 15:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs in a dictionary of slang terms or something, but not in an encyclopedia. imho. Sholom 15:23, 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} 19:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismahanukwanzakah

edit

This page exists to promote an advertising term/neologism used by virgin mobile. See also Chrismahanakwanzahah, which is also nominated. --CastAStone 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Is there a policy on wiki concerning commercials? Blatant advertising should always be rubbed out, but this commercial and this article seem to be making a comment about society at large. If TV shows (which contain tons of advertising albeit usually less explicit) can have a page...then? If I was a marketing/advertising student, I might find this page usefel..but more than that, I'd like to know what wiki policy is for this kind of thing.--Hraefen 20:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and bill them for the advertisment. BL kiss the lizard 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Fictional holidays are a genuine subject matter on Wikipedia. This is a needed article. -- Judson 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --NaconKantari 04:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it stems from a ad campaign, it's worth keeping as a starting point for any discussion regarding the winter holidays in a globalized, multicultural world. Also, if you were a marketing/advertising student, it's a great example of how to handle the holidays in a non-offensive way while still making a good point that strengthens the brand
  • Keep' -This term has definitely entered the standard vocabulary, at least here in New York City. User:PZFUN/signature 17:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a satirical cultural meme that was viewed by hundreds of millions of people. If O RLY wasn't deleted, why should this? karmafist 17:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an annoying neologism, much like metrosexual. Definitely some people will hear it and not know where it came from. Dnavarro 17:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please note that I nominated it, don't count me twice. The article describes a commercial people! --CastAStone 19:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The lyrics to the song were the best laugh I've had while reading all the artlicles about the Christmas Season. I agree with all the other "Keep" comments, plus I think some commercials have the status of cultural icons "Where's the beef!" --pschroeter 24 December 2005
  • Keep. Not promotional in tone. Advertising and marketing are notable business subjects worthy of academic study. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 00:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is prominent enough to belong here. --Lunatio 24 December 2005

KEEP THIS ARTICLE. It is much needed, as the term has entered the popular lexicon.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zakharov Sawyer

edit

Delete: either vanity or deliberate spoof. --Ghirla | talk 15:21, 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. Harro5 22:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auralization

edit

personal essay Melaen 15:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmoglen 04:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC) NOTE: I've just chopped off about three quarters of the article. It could now use some formatting, or input from other users (the objective of Wikipedia) but is now far more encyclopedic. 66.92.14.198 09:21, 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 redirect to Sorghaghtani Beki. howcheng {chat} 19:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beki

edit

Beki page appears to be a self-promotion article by someone of that name. --Oscarthecat 13:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clockpunk

edit

Like the other -punk genres I've nominated, this appears to be a neologism invented by GURPS and not in common use. No authors appear to consider their own works "Clockpunk". Delete. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 07:16, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Higher animal

edit

Pointless, dicdef, really. Informal, not an actual science term. Not universal definition - contentious as well. Delete. Natalinasmpf 21:37, 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Martin Crawford

edit

Arrggggh!!! first it was executed murderers, then victims, now its murderers who weren't executed. A ruling from above on this subject is due, I think. Incidentally, the author has submitted at least 2 more entries on the same subject in the last 24 hours MNewnham 15:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Sutcliffe, Hindley and Brady are especially well known criminals who still (many years after their deads) evoke a strong reaction in the minds of the British public. Can this guy claim any noteability based on amount of newspaper coverage, for example? Sutcliffe, Hindley and Brady have miles of newsprint dedicated to them. JanesDaddy 23:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would really like to see the following approach to all borderline notable subjects like murderers, webcomic characters, races from the extended Star Wars universe, etc. Make the main "List of <whatever>" article; list all subjects with a very brief summary; and redirect all potential candidates to the main article. It's as much as they deserve. Flyboy Will 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Crawford is notable because he was a horriffic serial killer who was, at the time, mostly ignored. He's lately become the subject of a book and television documentary on the CBC. Needless to say, Canadian serial killers would get less attention in America, but that doesn't make somebody an unknown ... and you're only going to find killers being executed in the dark ages, in America, and in third world countries, so I can't see how that is the standard for worthiness as an entry. Or would you suggest that somebody like Paul Bernardo should lose his entry too? Doooook 01:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After looking up the info on Google, it seems he is somewhat noteable, ironically for his relative obscurity, given the scale and nature of his crimes. The book Just Another Indian goes into the dichotomy of his fame/obscurity. It does need a lot of tidying though. JanesDaddy 17:11, 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 speedy deleted by Zanimum. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disney roles

edit

the article author stated in the talk page he wanted this page deleted Melaen 15:54, 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 redirect to Abrahamic religion. howcheng {chat} 19:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic God

edit

POV:Fork Jim62sch 15:59, 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 REDIRECT. Harro5 22:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Bowl

edit

Looks like spam to me, even if the incredible Lou Diamond Philips is involved. Leithp (talk) 16:09, 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 redirect to Tahan Mountain Trekking Team. howcheng {chat} 19:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahanners

edit

This is a very short definition of an affectionate name given to a training team. It's not suitable for expansion, and in any case the information should be already at the main article. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:45, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis L Swinford

edit

He released a recording of 100 copies. Woo-hoo! -- user:Zanimum

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Zanimum. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Sue Vardeman

edit

Vanity Page Lbbzman 17:29, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain's Bar

edit

This article was created almost a year ago, has only one sentence about a bar, and doesn't appear that this bar is remarkable for anything. Seems more spam or yellow page entry -- Jbamb 17:32, 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 by Ulayiti (CSD A7). howcheng {chat} 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Glen Taylor

edit

Delete, nn. -- user:zanimum

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 22:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Efax

edit

non-notable company; advertising (ESkog)(Talk) 17:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree with You can call me Al -- j2 Global holds a registered trademark to this term, and so this is nothing but proper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haynesj (talk • contribs)
  • Withdrawing nomination - verifiable claim to NOTABILITY found at EFax, and I have redirected this one there. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This article (written by me) was once about a computer program called "efax" (all lowercase), but User:207.213.246.3 replaced it with spam content about "eFax" (uppercase F), which already has its own article at EFax. (Before I wrote the article about "efax", the article now at EFax was at Efax, so I moved it.) 207.213.246.3 is an IP address which belongs to j2 Global Communications, the company behind eFax. I have reverted it to the last edit by me. — A.M. 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have restored the AfD notice on the page. Given the current content, I would change my vote to Delete and redirect to EFax. You can call me Al 14:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep - this is a notable program. It's been around since 1995, is included in major Linux distributions (Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, etc.), and appears to still be maintained upstream (there is a pre-release version available from as recent as August 2004). — A.M. 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually I was wrong about this; it's the latest version from the original author is only from 2000. However, there is a fork of efax with a GUI added, called efax-gtk, which is under active development. — A.M. 20:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) A.M. 07:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that j2 Global and Ed Casas should discuss this issue and agree to work together to craft a meaningful entry for this term. --71.105.109.113 04:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you created that article and made the efax unix program first. j2's first trademark to eFax goes back to 1989 and it is very well known. Why shouldn't the description of j2's eFax go first? If not that, then the parties should draft something together that they can both live with. I believe j2 would work with you A.M. to do this.--207.213.246.3 17:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I mean is that j2 has a trademark to efax, whether with a capital F or not. When someone types "efax" or "EFAX" in wikipedia it goes to this efax site, which I thought you first created. In any event, efax has a proud history, both with respect to the unix software and the eFax.com and eFax service of j2 Global today. I would hope we could agree to work together to develop an article helpful to the public in understanding this entire story.--207.213.246.3 23:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This idea makes a lot of sense. I think we'll be able to work this out. I don't know how the AfD process works, but I would imagine if we are the only two interested parties that our agreement would prevail. For now I suggest we include both of our respective entries in this location, and then j2's professional writers will come up with a draft for your review. How does that sound? --207.213.246.3 00:00, 30 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 JYolkowski (CSD A3). howcheng {chat} 07:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958

edit

This is simply the act that establishes NASA... perhaps relevant to that page but not on its own. (As of this AfD there's no content on the page anyway, except an external link. JDoorjam 17:53, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bellman's English: 9th Edition

edit

I think this is a joke or something... I have had the request for verification tag up for a month and nothing has been forthcoming. I can't verify that this textbook exists [42], other attempts to figure out what it's talking about also aren't very helpful [43]. Doesn't seem to be verifiable at all. W.marsh 18:08, 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 redirect to Slavery. howcheng {chat} 07:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slave market

edit

Considdering the poor quality, the missing verification, the lets-call-it-strange content and the lack of any reaction to the calls for verification, clean-up, importance or accuracy I started an AfD procedure. --Enfiladissa 15:59, 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 redirect to List of Star Wars races#Quarren. howcheng {chat} 19:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tessek

edit

Non-notable fancruft -Dr Haggis - Talk 18:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open Game FAQs

edit

Not notable. Also, while 1600 articles might seem impressive, in my random sample fewer than 10% actually have any content. This article can never be more than a stub until they become the be-all of video gaming resources. Wikipedia is not a web directory. You can call me Al 18:25, 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 RESULT : Speedy delete JoJan 19:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orik (Inheritance)

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. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spoonerisms

edit

Delete as unencyclopedic, collective original research. Rather than being a list based on verifiable occurrences, it's just a list of neologisms coined by any editor with the inclination to think them up. I don't dispute that some of them are quite funny, but this is a creative exercise rather than documenting fact. See specifically WP:NOR#What is excluded?: "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments. That is ... * it defines new terms". Picky weedier? Cyst of lunar prisms? Tearlach 18:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the article could list notable/verifiable spoonerisms, like quotes from movies and famous speeches
Spoonerism already does that. Tearlach 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spoonerism lists examples (specifically, those spoonerisms in 'modern entertainment'). If anything, they should be moved to List of Spoonerisms. Undoubtedly, there are a lot more notable/verifiable spoonerisms than the 10 that are listed on Spoonerism. The list isn't going to grow any more while it's a part of the Spoonerism article, due to the convention that an embedded list, if used at all, should be short. Even if we were to just blank List of Spoonerisms and then move over the 10 examples currently on Spoonerism, the verifiability objections of the AFD would be met and we'd have an encyclopedic and verifiable (albeit incomplete) list. --Vastango 03:18, 30 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 by JoJan. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zeldazeldaandmorezelda

edit

advertising - Gimboid13 19:05, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in Chinese

edit

This aborted project has been sitting here since August. Was marked for Speedy, but doesn't really qualify under CSD. Delete Owen× ☎ 19:07, 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} 07:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forward-looking statement

edit

This article tries to turn a narrow concept from modern United States financial law into a linguistics term and apply it to history research. If cleaned up it would be deletable as a dictdef. Google results for "forward-looking statement" plus "linguistics" are incidental references to modern finance and computing. [44] Google hits for "forward-looking statement" and "gerund" are virtually nonexistent. [45] User:Dzonatas has been trying to apply the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as a style manual for copyediting Joan of Arc. This is WP:Complete Bollocks. Delete. Durova 19:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, clean-up and expand. The article represents a valid approach to forward looking statement, a business term that gets almost 1 million google hits. We clearly need an article on the concept, which is comparable to numerous other articles here on financial and legal terms. I see no reference here to Joan of Arc or Medieval history or anyone named Joan. As the nominator seems to be involved in a dispute with the submitting editor over an unrelated article, I question whether this is not a bad faith nomination. -- JJay 19:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment yes, I am also an editor on the Joan of Arc page. User:JJay advised me to nominate it here: "If you are that opposed to this article, for whatever reason, please follow procedure and take it to AfD. Thanks. -- JJay 19:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" User talk:Durova Now he accuses me of bad faith for following his advice. The nomination is substantive: this article makes claims for the term that extend far beyond any accepted use. Please follow my Google links for verification. Durova 19:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I advised you to follow procedure after you tagged this article with a nonsense speedy. We have many templates that can be used if you disagree with the content in an article. Again, your reference above to Joan of Arc is irrelevant and I seriously question the need for this nom. -- JJay 19:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Then I ask you to strike your accusation of bad faith. I tagged it as nonsense because it conflates a narrow piece of financial terminology with general statements about grammar, linguistics, and historiography. The phrase has no application to those fields. Style manuals don't teach students to end creative essays with "forward-looking statements." This is pure fantasy on the part of the article creator with jargon added to impress the unaware. If it gave the actual dictdef I would have tried to transwiki. Durova 21:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: If it was only dictdef, it would be limited to forward-looking and not the more historic forward-looking statement reference. Please note that User:Durova has bias about deletion beyond this article's content. As noted on User_talk:Switisweti, "...Dzonatas...created a fictitious article Forward-looking statement which I've nominated for deletion. Happy holidays... (snicker)... Durova 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" On my talk page: "Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you.<!-- Test2 (second level warning) --> Durova 19:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)" — Dzonatas 23:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cut this right down to only the U.S. financial topic. If restricted to this context, keep, and expand. Otherwise, delete.-- The Anome 21:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is more notable by its legal usage; however, the reader should know the basis for which such statements entail. Hence, one doesn't finally learn about such statements after one is employed by a business. The roots of it are in linguistics and social sciences. I want to address how businesses also organize their plans with a forward-looking statement on efficency at the start of the year and with a backward-looking statement that reflects how much they acheived at the end of the year. This would help expand the article a bit more when I find a good source. If there is anything close to original research, it would be how forward-looking statements affect the accreditation of an entity by its subject material, but the abundance of search-hits on disclaimer related context makes it harder to avoid the "shorter" temptation of an exploitation by common sense. With wikipedia's implementation of "approved" and "developmental" versions of articles, I 'm sure, scientifically, any forward-looking statement is a considerable qualifier or at least a questionable one, like how it works in law. Societies settled on "open source" as not jargon, and, in a similar way, we have the common expression for a forward-looking statement. — Dzonatas 10:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 13:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm surprised you stated "per nom." If you review Durova's nom related argument about Joan of Arc, you'll notice the page is protected. As of Dec 16th, Durova and possibly another editor has tried to revert any further change. A review of the talk section reveals where Durova states the notes being WP:Complete Bollocks because of functionality, yet other editors and I have found the notes to functionally work correctly. I'm sure the nom is part of Durova's continuation to "edit war." The subject of a forwarding-looking statement does not have anything to do with a style guide, but it is about historical fact. Obviously, Durova feared this might be an issue for whatever reason. Consider, Durova put up the AfD tag the same day I created it. Durova and another editor has strived to make Joan of Arc a FA, but in essence has also tried to own the article. Joan of Arc may become a FA one day, but not by ownership, reverts, or in the chase of my activity on the forward-looking statement article to put it a nonsense nom on AfD. Instead of the defensive side which I shouldn't have to do for an AfD, notice the content is still verifiable. Even if it is hard to wade through over a million search-hits. — Dzonatas 15:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: With limited attention to the VfD process for this page, I'm left to make further comment in the hollow. I've noticed the related WP:POINT subjects and concluded the nom was an experiment of Durova's. In contrast, I've also noticed other articles that haven't been so quickly put up on AfD, like Functional shift which has barely any content. It receives only 13k hits on google. While that is easier to wade through and find verifable content, there are many hits that express a different definition than given. There is also the Shatt language that barely has any impression, which google reports only 160k hits just for "shatt." Nevertheless, just "forward-looking" alone comes up with more than 17 million hits. — Dzonatas 06:10, 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 00:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Cracker

edit

Local, self-published author. Does not meet WP:BIO. howcheng {chat} 19:33, 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 deleted by Ulayiti. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Merediths

edit

Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC -- band itself is of no significance, and their record label is a two-year old local co-op. VT hawkeyetalk to me 19:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Designbreak

edit

This new wiki has had only one contribution so far today. File Éireann 19:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Principles of the Ustase Movement

edit

Text dump. Alr 19:41, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rajender Singh Sangwan

edit

Seems to be non-notable. Wackymacs 19:43, 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. howcheng {chat} 07:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible shoes

edit

i don't think it's a common expression see google Melaen 19:58, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tactica Core

edit

Forum-based RPGs aren't usually notable, are they? --Spring Rubber 19:58, 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. Harro5 22:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bioelectronics of Vincent

edit

Quoting from the article:

  • "There are to date no readily available publications in English that explain BEV"
  • "It is nearly impossible to cross-check this information since much of it has not been published in the public domain. What follows is drawn from material that was presented in one of the proprietary training courses offered by the Occidental Institute Research Foundation in the early 1990's."

This is very confusing, frankly, but the above statements make me think that this is original research. If no sources can be cited, we can't really verify the claims of this article. If sources become available, perhaps an encyclopedia article can be written, but WP is not the place to actively write research on a topic. W.marsh 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hadn't searched for the french version of the name... still, that doesn't change the original research problems. There will, as is policy, be 5-7 days to get this article to an acceptable form (well, acceptable to other participants in the discussion, not me). --W.marsh 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Interesting stuff this:
    • Vincent was a notable water engineer
    • Its all about the principals of linking water quality to health
    • heres the official website (in French)
    • The principles of this have been around since 1948
    • There are books (in French) available from amazon.fr on the subject, so it is clearly not original research
    • It's true, there really isn't anything available in English about this stuff
    • I vote keep, and bring it to the anglophone masses.

MNewnham 23:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Even though there are books available, this can still be original research. To qualify as non-original research, the material would have to have been peer-reviewed. TheRingess 08:46, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, don't let these people convince you that only Amerikan sanctioned works are valid, it is published in France and Germany. Shame on you disinformation agents (TheRingess). There is absolutely no doubt that humans function on electrical principals, unfortunately the term 'bio-electronic' does sound silly. I am growing heartily sick of the wikipedia's arrogant tone of writing and subtle censorship. If you didn't rely on donations then I wouldn't care at all how you edited your articles, and I do take it with a grain of salt, God help anyone who thinks wikipedia is authoritative. *update* here seems there is a growing demand for such technology...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 07:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mootstormfront

edit

Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but it doesn't qualify. No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A request, next time could you please list the given reason for speedying, so us AfD monkeys have something to work from? Reason for speedy deletion was given as "Self-promotional, does not assert notability (CSD-7) and currently non-existent site".

  • The website given is currently offline, and according to the article has been for several months. The site's only claim to fame is trying to act as a counterbalance to Stormfront. Google has 46,200 hits for mootstormfront, of which 113 are unique, most dealing with forum posts and internet link-directory lists (We're the second hit, right after the defunct website itself). I make no claim or disclaimer as for how many of these are pages internal to the website itself. I'm actually going to go weak keep on this one, pending an assertation that this website had a decent-sized impact before it was pulled down. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 20:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems important. -- JJay 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a defunct minor website. Their goals are commendable, but unfortunately it does not appear to have had any impact. Flyboy Will 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was the party responsible for the Speed-delete tag. Like Flyboy above (who is not related to me, really!), I think the site's aims may have been worthwhile, but that in and of itself doesn't qualify for encyclopedic entry. There are many, many, many (active) forums of all sorts on the Internet which have significantly more notability, and very few of which are being promoted through Wikipedia. This particular one has not been referenced by any verifiable source outside of other similar forums. It's defunct, and may never return. Wikipedia is not the place to be providing promotional space for just any organization/group/forum. For specific reference, see: Notability guidelines for Web sites. —LeFlyman 02:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Mootstormfront is well known for being Stormfront's anti-racist counterpart. True, the site is currently down, but according to its members it should be back up. Websites and forums sometimes have technical difficulties, and the site being temporarily down is no reason to get rid of the article. --Gramaic | Talk 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that as the original author of the entry, you have an interest in seeing it saved from deletion; please don't take it personally. However, can you legitimately say that it meets any of these guidelines for a Web site entry, as noted above:
      • Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
      • A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community;
      • Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. (Alexa Traffic Rank for mootstormfront.org: 1,641,169)
—LeFlyman 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Websites don't cease to be notable just because they go off line, any more than books cease to be notable when they go out of print. However, if the site does not come back shortly perhaps the material should be merged into Stormfront (online site) and the existing article made into a redirect. It'd be easy to restore it when the time comes. -Willmcw 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, however, the article could use cleaning up. - MootStormFront is known amongst anti-racist activists on the web, and is generally considered a failed effort. Synapse 01:25, 30 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, default to keep.--Sean|Black 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Netflix distribution centers

edit

Advertising/directory, not encyclopedia material. u p p l a n d 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC). Making my vote explicit: Delete. u p p l a n d 06:38, 2 January 2006 (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.

--Sean|Black 08:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Farmer

edit

Looks to be a non-notable musician/personality, per Google. He was apparently 'Music Geek' on a program called 'Beat the Geeks' for a period of time, which may suggest some notability, but it doesn't seemed to have brought him a great deal of attention on the internet. - squibix 20:07, 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 deleted by Ulayiti. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jonizzle h II

edit

Insignificant or fake. WP:MUSIC, "Jonizzle h II" is unknown to Google, as is the claimed chart "Southeast urban hood top 100". Either an insignificant musician, or patent nonsense. Up for speedy. --VT hawkeyetalk to me 20:19, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 09:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Muir

edit

The creation edit said he was a notable usenetter, but there are few of those in reality and his actual notability based on what is written is questionable. He does have a list of publications, but its hard to tell if its enough. Delete as is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Tristes tigres 22:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC) -[User's sixth contribution][reply]

      • Relisting for more debate, per major meatpuppetry. FCYTravis 20:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delisting. What evidence do you have of meatpuppetry? Looking at your edit history, you have an extensive history of activities taken against User:Larvatus, this article's author; mulitple AFDs, and RFC. This is beginning to look more and more like bullying through abuse of wikipedia process. I'm delisting this until you can show credible evidence why the article should be relisted, not vague allegations of sock or meatpuppetry. FeloniousMonk 03:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
--
AfD Relisted on Dec 23
--
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsburian

edit

Lengthy article describing the purported qualities of students at Kingsbury school. (I was dismayed to learn that pupils at Kingsbury are "tired" and "burnt out" by their late teens.) No evidence of any encyclopedic value, not verifiable, point of view. Delete. Sliggy 20:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I reverted a blanking of this AfD discussion by User:Reapa (talk · contribs), the article's creator. Sliggy 14:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


my apologies. im new so i have no idea what i did. and when i realised i forgot what was said.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SolidZ

edit

Another advertisment for a non-notable website/blog. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 557,663 [47], and is linked to by only 7 other websites. No verifiable impact in national news media [48] [49] Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 20:36, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biogas in Misamis Occidental

edit

Obvious original research, this is an unencyclopedic essay, evidently written by the only editor (User:Karlimanoel). I have requested it be rewritten in an encyclopedic tone, if possible, but that hasn't happened. W.marsh 20:38, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic Rabbit

edit

This band doesn't qualify for an article per WP:MUSIC standards. -- Bobdoe (Talk) 20:48, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sladinki007

edit

Non-notable website. Does not meet WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 151,747 [50], and is linked to by only 2 other websites. No verifiable impact in national news media [51] [52] Deletion precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." Agnte 20:57, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Century 21 Real Estate

edit

This does not look anything more than just a small block of text that does not describe the company or its focus clearly. Ajwebb 20:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RateMyProfessors.com

edit

This is an advert for a site? Matttt 20:59, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Biperiodic sleep

edit

Confusing article, seems to be about a sleeping strategy (for lack of a better word). per article, it was invented by "a young college student, H. G. Hauksson". As this article's only content editor was User:HGHHafstein I think it's a fair assumption that they are one and the same. Thus, combined with the lack of sources, this is original research. W.marsh 21:22, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kawaiipets

edit

Article is about a website which appears to be not only non-notable, but nonexistant as well. The author has also included the text "Don't edit this page! We are warning you! You will be blocked from editing pages if you edit this page!" - squibix 21:38, 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 as nn-bio. --GraemeL (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mahgerefteh

edit

The article contains no useful information about the real but little-known author whose name should be spelled Michal Mahgerefteh.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James S. Putnam

edit

Tagged as speedy, taken to WP:DRV. Restored out-of-process by Tony Sidaway who then failed to notify User:NSLE and take to AfD per Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Exception. Completing the process for him.
This article cannot be verified: [53]. Always happy to see new information. brenneman(t)(c) 22:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is unverifiable or not "in general" is irrelevant - it is, today, unverified based on any accessible sources. Should verifiable sources be produced at a later date that support his claim to notability, it is a simple enough thing to undelete or create a new article on this man. We should not be allowing unverified content to be introduced into Wikipedia, whether positive or negative about its subject, so as this article fails to cite its sources, I vote delete. FCYTravis 00:12, 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 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chamas

edit

Probably a vanity page. CG 22:28, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Platial

edit

Add for a website with a 1,245,696 Alexa ranking, [54]. Fails WP:WEB Delete. --Jaranda wat's sup 22:35, 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. – Robert 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Ouyoura

edit

Probably a non-notable person. CG 22:36, 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. – Robert 00:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Theo-fascist

edit

the word is just something made up by the author Thesloth 22:54, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Robert Smith

edit

The article is about the author of the article (as substantiated by him in the article's discussion page), and he does not appear to by someone of note, worthy of an encyclopedia entry.Fuhghettaboutit 22:49, 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} 07:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Analog_Pussy

edit

Vanity page. Behaviour 22:55, 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. Owen× ☎ 23:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overnightscape, The Overnightscape (duplicates)

edit

Non-noteable podcast, vanity, non-verifiable, non-encyclopedic. Delete. JanesDaddy 00:48, 11 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. Harro5 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Like this:Grye 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mahabone

edit
  • DeleteThis has no place in the dictionary. It is not a real word.
Comment anonymous vote by User:67.185.0.123 [55], a user with 9 edits.
  • Keep It is not a mere speculation of one Author, since the article includes 4 different sources. It is a real word, since several people are using it. Additionally it seems, by looking at their userpages, that MSJapan, Millenium Sentinel and SarekOfVulcan are members of Freemasonry (by the logo with the letter G inside a square and a compass), as such they are just teaming together for spreading their own opinionated views on that subject stomping out other ones.
Comment anonymous vote by User:212.54.221.227 [56]
Comment I created a user account, I am the 212.54.221.227 poster Mahabone 13:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but improve) or merge with Freemasonry, 1000 google hits, including books so the info is verifiable (this site is useful [57], and the anonymous author above may sound like a mad conspiracy theorist but he's right 3 of the votes do appear to be freemasons! organized campaigns, to keep or delete, always seem susipicious to me. Zzzzz 19:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Grye 20:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTE: ya ever wonder why there's about 15 screens of talk about an article only 1/2 screen long?
    Because people are too interested in seeing it there at all, with critic's citations, than to actually write an article. Grye
The article has citations from four different books, including one written by an ex-member of that cult. What do you define as 'real citation'? User:212.54.221.227 (unsigned) MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC) (MSJapan note: He refers to William Morgan, whose membership was never proven, and referring to Masonry as a cult clearly shows an agenda)[reply]
Cite the "infusion into popular culture" that you speak of. Third degree is. this word is not. Grye
The word has been associated, for some unknown reasons, with freemasonry since more than 150 years at least (read the publication dates of the referenced books). Additionally it returns more than one thousand hits on google alone. This is enough to classify it as an "infusion into popular culture". User:212.54.221.227 unsigned (MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]


again with your "1000 hits". A few several of those were yours. A couple of those hits were you seeing how many hits there were. And finally, 1000 Google hits 1) is nothing for a Google-searched page, & 2) Google is not a citable source, at least not in this context. Oh, & no, it is not enough to "classify it as an infusion into popular culture", not only because net users, I'm sorry, the sub-catagory Google net users, are not really "popular", in the "in crowd of society" sense of the word. Grye 22:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I got 468 hits on Google myself, some of which are unrelated, and most of which are book links to either Born in Blood or Mahabone, both of which are speculative in the extreme when it comes to the word. MSJapan 23:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some webpages that list that word, relating it to freemasonry, somehow:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/mas/dun/dun09.htm http://mazeministry.com/resources/books/doombook/doomtext/14melchizedek.htm http://www.advweb.com/kw/misc/misc/kw_ncrm.html http://www.bannerstrade.com/raremasonic.html http://beachsidechurch.com/jesus/heals4.html http://iantiquedeals.com/Antique/Antique-Books/American-Antique-Books

I've even found T-shirt and bumper stickers with MAHABONE on it, but I would save them for later. mahabone

What do they cite for their sources? The abovementioned books? If anything? Grye
BTW those little tilde thingies sign your statements. Grye


The ISTA link is Duncan's Royal Arch Monitor. Royal Arch is not part of mainstream Masonry, and in fact starts on the 4th degree. It's certainly not pop culture.
Melchidzedek is something that looks like Masonry, but isn't, and is clearly meant to imply Satanism by being located on a ministry site for, presumably, "ex-Masons". Also not pop culture.
The third link is "Necromantic Origins of Freemasonry", once again attempting to claim Satan worship, and citing Morgan, no less. It plays with semantics to make a point, and is also written by an anonymous author. Also not pop culture.
Bannerstrade has a list of a whole lot of thngs for sale, probably on auction sites. That is not popular culture, or else you need to claim the same for "rosicrucian". That's not pop culture, that's collectibles.
Beachside Church's goal is also obvious: "recite this prayer if any of your ancestors were involved in Freemasonaray {sic). Also not pop culture.
iantiquedeals is an antiquarian listing site, which is also not pop culture.
I bet the church sells the shirts and bumper stickers? Now, let's try this again, shall we? Pop culture, by your definition, seems to be "evangelical Christian anti-Masonic material", which 98% of the world knows nothingg about. MSJapan 23:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be mainstream pop culture, such as word like "dude" or "cool" but that word is still there.
Additionally you seem to confuse Masonry with Freemasonry, we already discussed about it. You seem to have it forgotten already.
I am neither anti-masonic, read my comments in the discussion Forum for Mahabone, and definitely neither christian. Those links are just what I did pop up in a few minutes of google search. Good you read them. You vandalized the article a few times on the allegations of Copyright Violation, Ethymology uncertainty, and 'speculations'. The article do not present any of mine speculations, but actual quotes from books that are more than a century old.
Please behave.
Actually, you've misbehaved several times over, if in no other way by violating the 3RR rule with edits [[58]], [[59]], & [[60]]. Check you user talk page, if you know how. If not, here's a clue. Grye 04:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the 4th revert that breaks the rule, not the third. He's still good.--SarekOfVulcan 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pop culture

Freemasons all, combined, including Blue (Craft) Lodge Masons, York Rite Masons, Scottish Rite Masons, Every other Freemason, put together, in any given country or the world, & divided into the populations of same, are not, now, theoretically or actually, by definition, Pop Culture.

Grye 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Masonry Vs. Freemasonry

I don't know what planet some are from, but here on Earth it is usually acceptable to refer to Freemasons as Masons, especially when Freemasonry is clearly being referred to. Grye 06:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK I know Serek is of Vulcan, but I think, maybe, that's true there too. Not sure though. Grye
  • Keep, Nice article.

*:"Nice"? OK, yeah sure. Flying Spaghetti Monster, you will from hereon be know as Prisoner:62.1.195.1, now lights-out!....;-D Grye 15:08, 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. -Splashtalk 23:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Time Radio

edit

Apparent podcruft. Closely linked to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Overnightscape. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:29, Dec. 23, 2005

Comment its apparently an alternative name for "podcasting", along with Audio magazine, blogcast, audio blog. Zzzzz 01:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if "New Time Radio" was the word coined by so-and-so in 2003, the word "podcasting" has won in the marketplace of ideas and is the one people really use and know. Endomion 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Defence I must question the reason for deleting this article. This is a viable and used term and has been so for a much longer period of time than podcasting. Deleting it in place of podcasting for the reasons stated are laughable; given Endomion's reasoning does this mean the term 'tube' should be deleted because the term 'subway' is more widely used? I believe democracy and the free and open exchange of ideas are truely being trampled on by deleting this article; everyone has the right to use alternative termenology. As for the argument that it is not the one people really use and know, a) people in different social contexts use differernt terms and b) podcasting and New Time Radio are NOT interchangable; New Time Radio refers to audio programs done in the style of Old Time Radio but that are broadcasted through the internet rather than radio. Podcasts can be speech, musical works, interviews and such, and c) Old Time Radio is an established term, as such New Time Radio is merely a derivative which arguably makes it more widely recognised to a greater audience than podcasting even to people not familiar with technology. Rubenerd 11:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Not only do I agree with Rubenerd, but I do not see how this article meets the requirements for deletion. Ross412

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Hasan

edit

Vanity article created by User:Superkashif. Very, very vague on specifically why he should be on the encyclopedia. Google returns few hits. As an aside, The only other contribution by the user is Image:David_mohd_davachi.jpg, which is labelled as a photo of a personal friend and is not used on any article. GeeJo (t) (c) 23:44, 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. JWSchmidt 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars

edit

Delete. Yeah, a flame war on USENET is really encyclopedic. If this is encyclopedic then about half of the arbcom cases are too. karmafist 23:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, unless we want an article space biography of Willy on Wheels too. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 23:49, Dec. 23, 2005
  • Keep. The article has been on WP since September 2003, and describes a notable series of events. The VFD appears to be part of Karmafist's recent and bad-faith campaign against Usenet; see [61] and [62]. Andy Mabbett 00:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep most usenet flamewars are surely not notable (I've been involved in several and witnessed many more) but some are, particualrly when there are real world effects. Shutting down the mail-servers at Boston University alone is enough to make this notable IMO, and being the, er, catalyst for the adoption of digital signatures in usenet control msgs is an even stronger reason to regard this as notable. One may diappapprove of or dispise internet trolls and vandals, but when they have real-world effects, we should report on them. DES (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia needs articles on every flame war that ever happens. And arbcom is a court of law in Trenton, New Jersey --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I remember these events and have heard reference to them since then. I'm not sure that the label of 'biggest flame war of all time' is accurate, but it was certainly a notable event which established a 'Meow Wars' meme which people might wish to look up. Keeping an article on one notable flame war is not synonymous with keeping articles on all flame wars. It might be better to cut down and merge this into the Flaming article. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.... the Meow Wars literally changed the way Usenet conducted itself and was an important test of extreme free speech on the internet. wikipediatrix 01:33, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems slightly notable, but laden with POV. I remember WoW voting on the last one. -- Natalinasmpf 01:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This was the great granddaddy of flame wars. Endomion 01:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now nearly ten years on, we can reasonably measure whether the "Meow Wars" have had any lasting impact. The answer is not really. The article doesn't mention any substantial aftereffects outside usenet besides vague references to the fact that Web forums tend to be more moderated (they are, but not directly because of the Meow Wars). The article has no mention of any mainstream coverage by the media, no books, newspaper citations, etc. Finally, I count 151 unique Google hits out of some 350 total. If anything, it should be merged into a Usenet or flaming article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Considering that the History section of the Usenet mentions none of this, the only Links To are from the "see also" sections in a handful of articles, and based on the miniscule google hits, I think it don't even deserve to be a redirect to Usenet. Flyboy Will 03:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: seems to have affected Usenet as a whole.—Stombs 05:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This isn't just another flamewar. This is the flamewar. It pretty much brought most of Usenet to a standstill, and was basically the beginning of the decrease in the signal to noise ratio for the social parts of Usenet. There wouldn't be much in the way of google hits or mainstream press, as this was during the time that the Internet was still in its infancy and most of the MSM had not heard of the Internet, and the documentation of what exactly happened isn't great--all we have is the content of the flame war, so there's not much on the Web about it, as this was still three years before the creation of the first web browser. --Thephotoman 08:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. In 100 years nobody will remotely care about this specific incident. If not deleted, I strongly urge merging this into a flamewar or generic usenet article. —Locke Cole 01:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In 100 years will anyon remember Sharon Tate (a featured article)? Whther or not something will be remembered in 100 years has got to be one of the worst reasons for deleting an article. Johhny-turbo 00:02, 29 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 Geni (copyvio). howcheng {chat} 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Taylor

edit

I orginally speedied this, but was disallowed because claims notability. Only notability appears to be as CEO of Taylor Reach Group, which you will see on AFD list below MNewnham 23:52, 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 delete. – Robert 00:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Reach Group

edit

NN Call-center consulting company, appears to be 4 people MNewnham 23:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Simply saying "NN" tells us nothing more than that you'd like the article deleted. Instead, explain why you think it's non-notable (in more detail than "4 people"; four-person companies are capable of being notable.) fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:14, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_23&oldid=1234126783"