Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 21

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< January 20 January 22 >

Purge server cache

January 21

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 Delete DES (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum Stage

edit

Delete. nn, see WP:WEB. Grandfather Clock 00:09, 21 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. --Deathphoenix 00:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Tully

edit

vanity, no google hits, "shot second unit scenes as an Assistant Camerman". Jgritz 00:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see here also. --Jgritz 00:26, 21 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. --Deathphoenix 00:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalp

edit

Not what we need in here--Dangherous 00:36, 21 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 speedy delete. Punkmorten 10:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart eagon

edit

Non-notable biography. Maybe a speedy- not sure. Staecker 00:42, 21 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. --Deathphoenix 00:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christianesque

edit

Political neologism. No sources, but seems to be used by one blogger. Creator has only a few edits on Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 00:42, 21 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 all. --Deathphoenix 00:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ponder & Kegley, P&K SG338, P&K 76, Xander Arms

edit

"A Macromedia Flash drawn gun manufacturer created in the late winter 2005", article by User:Lkegley9. Looks like vanity. Many related articles, check out contribs for this user. Staecker 00:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also AFD'd P&K SG338, and P&K 76 (two of their "products") and Xander Arms (another similar outfit run by the same folks), redirecting their deletion pages here. Is that OK? (not sure on the procedure for multilisting such closely related articles.) Who knew the fictional gun manufacturing business was so vibrant?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 00:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flora_Jessop

edit

This person was on ABC's Primetime a few months ago but has no notability other than that. Should be deleted or merged with FLDS. Edrigu 00:50, 21 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 Redirect to Kate's Playground. This article has absolutely no content to merge, even post-AfD. --Deathphoenix 00:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Anderson

edit

A Google search indicates that this person is the model at an adult content website with an Alexa rating over 200,000.[2] I was very tempted to speedy this but was unsure if it qualified under criteria A7 (non-notable person). --Allen3 talk 01:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Google search also turned up a lot more pages than her own for the same model (apparently), at least the first 50 or so. She seems to be prolific, but the article, as it is, isn't even a stub. I'm witholding my vote for a couple days, and if one of her fans can flesh it out with meaningful content, it might be worth keeping. If that doesn't happen, though... - dharmabum (talk) 01:08, 21 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 speedily deleted as hoax. Mushroom 22:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh Corporation

edit

Clearly a hoax article, I couldn't verify anything in it. The article contradicts it self saying it the corporation is out of business then it will be bought out later this year. It even admits that it doesn't exist anymore. Grandwazir 01:02, 21 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. --Deathphoenix 00:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outpost Containment:Delta Team

edit

NN. Vanity. No external links. Not even released yet. Drat (Talk) 01:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a machinima. Presumably made with Halo or Halo2. I've had to AFD a few articles, for series not even released, whose creators created the articles.--Drat (Talk) 02:21, 21 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Five O'clock Dog

edit

Delete. This article is ruthless self-promotion, of the kind that insists on inserting statements about registered trademarks, spamming editors who remove it and on blanking copyright questions when they are raised. This so-called book has no sales rank on Amazon, even though it has an ISBN, and the Copac, a union of the British Library with various UK university libraries have never heard of its ISBN [3], and nor has the Library of Congress [4]. That Amazon has an entry for it is simply because they will carry absolutely anything, whether it is vanity press or seminal text. Note also, that the website says "Stay tuned because the viral story known only as Five O’clock Dog is going Live" — plainly they are using Wikipedia to begin this. This material is vanity, promotion, unverifiable, crystal-balling and unacceptable on Wikipedia. -Splashtalk 01:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are no copyright questions concerning Five O'clock Dog. The book is copy written and Five O'clock Dog is a protected registered trademark.

All of the "Delete" users have violated many of the conditions for deletion. They are all recomending "delete" without a legal foundation, they have not contacted the Wikipedia foundation to ask for guidance from the designated/official Wikipedia IP attorney prior to recomending deletion. This is a childrens book stub. Everything on the Five O'clock Dog website is part of the story in the book and is relevent material. Are all childrens book stubs ruthless self promotion . . ?, is an admin or editors bio on their main user page "ruthless self-promotion" as they look for a higher paying job? or ask others to check out what great acomplishments they have made in their lives, hey just check out my bio on Wikipedia (Its not ruthless self-promotion - I promise). Are all the porno links and pics on Wikipedia ruthless self-promotion? The official rules of deletion ( if an article is repeatedly nominated for deletion, this is not in and of itself evidence that it should be deleted.) In some cases, repeated attempts to have an article deleted may even be considered disruptive. If in doubt, don't delete.) Did any "delete" folks follow this procedure. NO. Is there anyone else who wants to risk their Wikipedia credibility and just jump on the "delete" side without a Specific legal or factual reason for deletion. If all the "delete" folks want to invite a million people to talk about a children’s book stub, we are hereby not liable for any enticement of defamation or slander. We are also not reponsible for increased or decreased sales because of it. - The Publisher of Five O'clock Dog -20 january 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.32.71 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 21 January 2006

Comment I found listed as Young Adult 200 page book? [5] Confusing since most young childrens books aren't 200 pp.--FloNight 15:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Clearly no legal threats have been made or implied.' A statement of non liability

applied to any possible damaging comments by Wikipedia Admin and users is not a threat. Any PHD's in international intellectual property rights want to weigh in on what an actual threat is? Will the users that have claimed a legal threat was made state their Names and legal qualifications for doing so, as well as the detailed foundation of making one. Please also address your caution under the Wikipedia guidelines for making a false statement and a detailed description of your haste to block another user. 20 January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs) 08:01, 21 January 2006

Threatening AfD voters with an application of libel and slander laws to statements made on Wikipedia is a clear legal threat. Now, I suggest that you make an argument as to why this article should be kept, or else it will most likely be deleted. FCYTravis 08:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I love how you guys JUMP to conclusions without really reading to understand nor to proper research on the matter. Kmac1036 19:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising on Wikipedia is now protected by intellectual property rights? If I vote Delete you will 'sue me for libel and slander'? Yeah, that'll be a short case. Advertise your "book" somewhere else. User:Tokakeke 21:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Five O’clock Dog - Five O’clock Dog Book
  • Qualification Statement:

Upon further investigation we have come to realize that there is a very large amount of commercial fee based porn sites and other commercial services listed on Wikipedia. These pages inside Wikipedia were created and are maintained by Wikipedians as an advertisement that have direct links to the “pay a fee – buy some porn access or DVD’s - join here ” porn industry websites. (To many easy to find examples to list here)

  • Further Qualification:

Our Position from the beginning has been:

These aforementioned web sites are selling commercial products. The Wikipedia page for them is an informational advertisement. Large numbers of the pages contain trademarks as a site designation and heading. Many digital images on the Wikipedia website contain the ® after the Trademark. (This is just one example of many - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Intel-logo.svg)

We are Neutral regarding all maters related to this. We are not singling out one industry, only using the above as a typical example.

  • Summary:

Wikipedians are in the process of deleting a children’s book page. (Stub) We assumed that since we did not see an 18 or over sign on the Wikipedia front page that Wikipedia is for all ages.

At last check there was 100% voting in favor of deleting the Five O’clock Dog Book stub page. (Article) (18 Wikipedians )

We feel that we have been singled out in a very discriminatory fashion. Further, we feel that deleting the Five O’clock Dog book stub is hypocritical.

The Publisher of Five O’clock Dog - Monday, January 23, 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.160.82 (talk • contribs)

I have an email adrdess for Britannica here, you should complain to them because they're not covering it either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have got to be kidding me! Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the book comes out and shatter sales records or wins a Newbery Medal then it might need an article. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As soon as the book is actually published by a reputable publishing house (read, not vanity press) and sells more than 5,000 copies, we will be quite happy to have an article about it, per WP:BIO. We will not put a link to purchase the book on Amazon, nor will we put "this name is a registered trademark" all over the article. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise things. FCYTravis 21:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per above --kingboyk 22:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I very rarely vote to delete, but the publisher's comments here are simply unacceptable. I suggest they not attempt legal threats while not understanding that Wikipedia is no more obligated to carry their content than bookstores are to carry their book. Deletion is not "discriminatory", and the publisher should understand that even if Wikipedia were to be massively, unfairly discriminatory in its deletion policies, there would still be no grounds for any legal action. That said, I urge people nominating and voting on AFD to be carefully uninsulting to the subjects and authors of articles up until the point where they say things like what this publisher has said above. -- Jake 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete because of bad faith - the user that originally posted this article today sent me a rather long email that attacked my personal character rather than my actions as an administrator: I was the first person on Wikipedia to question this user over the content of this article. Nothing in their actions convinces me that this is nothing more than ruthless self promotion by a non-notable individual: if they were genuine I am sure their actions towards me and other users would have been much more above reproach. -- Francs2000   01:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also received a very large email. It was rather non-sequitor. It seemed it was a response to what someone else had said. —Wrathchild (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably the same as the one I received, though mine had additions to the end that were little more than personal attacks against me as a person. I believe the person quoted may have been Jimbo, I have sent a copy of the email to him and asked him to confirm. -- Francs2000   01:46, 26 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 Keep. --Deathphoenix 00:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eszter Hargittai

edit

Improperly (in my opinion this is apparently disputed) speedied under CSD:A7 now listed for due process  ALKIVAR™  01:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete being interviewed or quoted doesn't make one notable, getting a scholarship doesn't make one notable. Being an adjunct professor is not notable. This person is on a tenure-track, and when she gets there maybe that will be notable. Ruby 02:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd disagree: being interviewed or quoted DOES make one notable. You seem to be suggesting, Ruby, that for academics the ONLY measure of notability is tenure. I'd disagree; it's only one measure. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to be a WikiLawyer or anything, but the guide for notability says, "Professors are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field of interest." This is a high bar to clear. The contributions of Eszter Hargittai seem to consist of writing a dissertation on the internet and being the media's on-call expert on internet issues. Now if she had invented the internet like Al Gore that would be a horse of a different color. Ruby 03:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with a reading of those guidelines that implies that professors have to clear a higher bar than non-professors. To clarify, I don't think she clears the notability bar by very much, but I think she clears it. The article in its current state is way too vanity, though. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you call it vanity, as I'm the one who rewrote it?  ALKIVAR™  23:52, 22 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. --Deathphoenix 00:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnophilia

edit

Claims to be a paraphilia, and yet: 103 hits for arachnaphilia and paraphila together, no quotations. A lot of these seem to have referenced this wiki article. No hits on google scholar (the term arachnophilia by itself seems to be some kind of internet formatting program, zero hits associated with arachnophilia and paraphilia), no hits on a search of American Psychological Association article search with or without the term paraphilia, No relevant hits on lexis nexis (although one about nonsexual poems about liking spiders). The 100 google hits suggest that this is a role playing sex term that is in very low currency- how many role playing sex terms get so few hits on google? Compare with 409 hits for microphilia paraphilia together. Lotusduck 01:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I wonder if I would have been out of line in making arachnophilia a redirect instead of deletion. I'm not clear if that's a sneaky deletion or utterly appropriate. Hmm. I'm the nominator


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per WP:IAR and WP:WEB. FCYTravis 04:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phantompyro.com

edit

5 registered members, not even close to noteworthy. Delete Fightindaman 01:25, 21 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 speedily deleted - the name of the game gives this away - "Halo In The Kitchen: The Adventures of Master Chef" - har har. FCYTravis 04:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xboy

edit

Hoax page[7], just not true. Grandwazir 01:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's true, please drop the word "allegedly" and submit a link to the November 31, 2005 announcement. Otherwise Delete. --Walter Görlitz 02:05, 21 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. --Deathphoenix 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maynooth.org

edit

Exists to promote the site, provides no useful infomation. The site only been active since mid 2005 and looks to only have 200 registered forum members. Not notable enough I'm afraid. Grandwazir 01:40, 21 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 No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I LIEK MILK!!!!!!!!

edit
Note: This AfD page was not created by the person who nominated the Article for deletion. Thus far there is no nomination. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As far as I know, this thing happened something like 3 years ago. I hadn't heard about it since ... until now.   freshgavin TALK    02:51, 22 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 as hoax or nonsense --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hobo Staring Game

edit

Hoax entry, I couldn't find anything to back it up, no references given. Grandwazir 02:18, 21 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 speedy delete by nominator. SycthosTalk 03:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Downer

edit

Another hoax there are alot of them tonight. Article about a person who is meant to be a grand master of the Priory Of Sion. Also claims to be involved in a non-existant, Jamaican holiday, Jamaica Day. The article itself says that parts of it are hearsay. Grandwazir 02:40, 21 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 speedy delete by nominator. SycthosTalk 03:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Dembs

edit

This is not an article appropriate for Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrowww (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 merge and redirect to Vending machine. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispenser

edit

Delete poorly-written dictionary definition, unsuitable for trans-wiki, but has an editing history that suggests it should not be unilaterally redirected to Vending machine without a consensus. Ruby 03:16, 21 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 speedy keep - merge request should be handled through proper channels. FCYTravis 04:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific racism

edit

Hi! I think this entry should be merged into Racism since this last entry considers racist ("scientific") theories. Leaving it as it is now is, in my opinion of course, a racist POV, as it may let believe that there is such a thing as "scientific racism". I am aware that the entry is not really racist, as it considers it as a pseudoscience. However, the title itself may lead in error - the proof of that is that I was sure, before reading it, that this was some entry written with racist bias. I would also like to add a last point: to my knowledge, "racialism" is the name given to attempts to scientifically justify racism (see Pierre-André Taguieff's works on racism). So, I think we should considers these options:

  • merge it into Racism (which should at least include a resume of this, as to let readers of the racist entry use the hyperlink to "scientific racism")
  • merge it into Racialism (which, by the way, is really badly written now, claiming that "racialism" is distinguished from "racism" because it has some "political weight" or whatever - whereas it is a synonym of what you fellows are trying to define as "scientific racism")
  • if you really don't want to consider those merges, for reasons that I will try my best to understand, you really should change the title. Believe me: maybe for you it is not equivocal, but the simple fact that I read it like this is a probable sign that I won't be the only one. Lapaz 03:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Lapaz doesn't know what he or she is talking about and I imagine did not read the article. The term is a common one used both in historical discourse and academic discourse about race. And if one is not aware of it being a separate term, one could easily consult the books references (one of which features it as a primary part of the title), or any of the over 66,000 Google hits or over 5,800 Google Books hits. Not a neologism, but a specific "type" of racism, one which claims to be based on scientific facts (sometimes contrasted with "base" racism). The article itself is very NPOV: if one actually read the content it would see that it attributes all POVs, and even goes great lengths to discuss the controversies, discredited research, etc. The term is, frankly, pejorative: nobody wants to be called "scientic racism", as it implies the work is not actually "science" but actually just racism. The Google links above show pretty clearly that the term is used, in the same way we use it, by hundreds if not thousands of mainstream sources, the vast majority of which are anti-racist (Stephen J. Gould, PBS, hundreds of academic books). It is completely distinct from racialism (which Lapaz also doesn't seem to understand in a NPOV way), and is obviously a topic rich enough (an entire article's worth of content) to deserve being a separate article from "racism", though it of course should be mentioned in the latter (as it is). --Fastfission 03:06, 21 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 Keep the edited article. --Deathphoenix 01:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maharani (album) (formerly "Nikki - Maharani")

edit

Vanity and of all things, talks about a CD and not the singer. ARRRGGGGHHH. I'm losing my mind seeing all these < censored > nonsense. DELETE. DELETE. For the love of everything good and kind and sensible, DELETE. PLEASE DO SPEEDY DELETE! __earth (Talk) 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes she is, but the image is safe as it's also used on her biography article - which you really ought to know. I hope you're not voting to delete an album article without first bothering to read the girl's biography?! --kingboyk 13:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, you're a Malaysian, but you say delete because...? This is a non notable album promoted by a dodgy press release? Or because you have 'taste' and don't like lightweight pop music? (I'm being devil's advocate, but we shouldn't take someone's advice just because they come from that country, without some better evidence. I'm no fan of Malaysian pop music, which is all the more reason to err on the side of caution and keep it). --kingboyk 13:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC) formatting --kingboyk 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've mentioned it earlier. It's up there if you cared to read it. Apart from that, copyright problem? And cmon, there's no need to engage in personal insult. Taste is relative and I haven't said anything of my musical preference. Please don't make any assumption of somebody you don't even know. If you want to repair the page, be my guest. Unless the mess is repaired (I won't repair it), I'll say delete. __earth (Talk) 13:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not engaging in personal insult and I must apologise if you misunderstand my British sarcasm trait; a common language divides us all and it's my fault for not putting it more clearly. My use of the word taste was tongue in cheek, because we all like different things. Anyway, I hope you accept my apology if one is needed. That said, I don't think the article as edited is any more gushing than your average Mariah Carey article. --kingboyk 13:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. I had already removed a bit of fluff from the article and added a {{cleanup}} tag. I've also done some minor edits to some related articles. --kingboyk 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea, but she was, it says, a competitor on Malaysian Idol. If she was a competitor on the UK or US Idol, we'd keep an article on her debut album. So (without voting just yet) let's be careful of systematic bias. --kingboyk 12:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can be careful of systemic (not systematic) bias and still vote to delete -- American Idol is viewed by several times the number of people that view the Malaysian "Idol" program. BostonBay 01:33, 23 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 --Deathphoenix 02:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Ski Resorts

edit

No content ad for nn company. Would have proposed it for speedy but wanted to be safe Savidan 03:52, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:56, Jan. 27, 2006

Tubular Rail concept

edit

Unverifiable and fails WP:CORP. Also an engineering nightmare, but that shouldn't sway us too much. Anyway, delete. Melchoir 03:53, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:57, Jan. 27, 2006

The linear

edit

Delete advertisement for a condo in Singapore Ruby 03:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dbtfz 03:57, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 02:58, Jan. 27, 2006

Kanosis

edit

Blatant vanity ad Savidan 04:24, 21 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 redirect to Yucca Valley, California. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:00, Jan. 27, 2006

Grubstakes Day

edit

Delete Every small town has a summertime festival like "Grubstakes Days" or "Wagon Train Days" or "Strawberry Days" but I don't think they should each have their own separate WP articles Ruby 04:28, 21 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Roy Carey

edit

Unsourced fannish bio of Mariah Carey's father. Are fathers of singing stars inherently encyclopedic? FCYTravis 04:33, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:03, Jan. 27, 2006

Darren Reid

edit

Apparent author, whose 'ubiquitous' chronicles of the shadow racks up an impressive 1 google hit, the authors own web page. A vanity hoax MNewnham 04:35, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:04, Jan. 27, 2006

David Alan Goldberg

edit

Claims notability as artist, less than 20 relevant google hits MNewnham 04:42, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:05, Jan. 27, 2006

Collective lounge

edit

Not a notable blog, even the article admits that it is writen by people unknown. Grandwazir 04:44, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:06, Jan. 27, 2006

Hope Cervantes

edit

i doubt this is even notable enough for a redirect... BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:41, 21 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidhuism

edit

Transwiki to Wikiquote and delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:08, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:07, Jan. 27, 2006

Gautam Dhar

edit

Non-notable author with one "published" title. The publisher's website goes to great length to claim it's not a vanity press, but in the end it's just another "print-on-demand" press. Amazon lists the book rank at just shy of the 3 millionth mark. Ifnord 05:08, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:08, Jan. 27, 2006

David Youngren

edit

Minister, name itself returns only 200 google hits, adding 'Harvest' returns 2 unique hits, claims of massive tournouts unverifiable MNewnham 05:13, 21 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. --Deathphoenix 15:19, 27 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 delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:08, Jan. 27, 2006

The Washer

edit

Underground comic that has been around for less than half a year. Does not appear to be known outside the University of Oklahoma (maybe not even there). Delete as unverifiable/nn/vanity. Kusma (討論) 05:46, 21 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chit (band)

edit

Fails WP:MUSIC, but I'm not sure if it's a speedy-fail. FCYTravis 05:47, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:10, Jan. 27, 2006

The Third Resource

edit

This book was published by iUniverse and has no ranking on Amazon, and no reviews. All Google hits seem to be just sellers, no reviews or even mentions in the press. It seems like this article is just an excuse to plug the non-notable book. Delete. -- DS1953 talk 05:55, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:11, Jan. 27, 2006

Universal Ideology of Economics

edit

This is a concept that is introduced in The Third Resource which is being proposed for deletion immediately above. Assuming that article is deleted, this one should be deleted, too. If that one is kept, this should be merged into the book's article and redirected. -- DS1953 talk 05:59, 21 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 speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn. FCYTravis 07:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonplanet.com

edit

is vanity and advertisment; should be put into ext links in 9/11 conspiracy theories if anything. - Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concede. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should know better, though the website itself doesn't look, professional, per say, enough; sorry to Striver, this was a somewhat but not really improper action on my part caused by a misunderstanding. On this basis, I vote to keep on an article I nominated for AfD. Again, sorry for my stupidity, and hopefully I have not violated WP:NPA on myself. Thanks. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok brother, im sure you acted in good faith to ensure WP keeps a high standard. Have a good day! --Striver 07:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not vanity. Its a effort to represent a website with more than 2 million paying subscribers. Alex Jones is a well known Journalist. Not agreeing with its views does not warant a deletion, much less serious web-sites have their own article in WP. The site has a rank of 11 000 making it notable. Please do not remove Alexia stats. --Striver 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information on sources should not be deleted. zen master T 06:46, 21 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 speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn. FCYTravis 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatreallyhappened.com

edit

is vanity/advertisment; should be extlink at 9/11 conspiracy theories if anything -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making same concession, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prisonplanet.com. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not vanity. Its a effort to represent a prominent website for a sub-culture. Not agreeing with its views does not warant a deletion, much less serious web-sites have their own article in WP. The site has a rank of 8 000 making it notable. Please do not remove Alexia stats. Also, gives 200 000 google hits--Striver 06:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information on sources should not be deleted. zen master T 06:45, 21 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 speedy delete - closed AfD had been mistakenly re-opened. -- RHaworth 06:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John_Weston

edit

Delete ..Found to be biast. John Weston wrote it himself, thus spinning it to make it look like the Conservitives are better than the liberals Forgotten 06:35, 21 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 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Weston

edit

Not notable, vanity ad. Ryan Delaney talk 19:10, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:15, Jan. 27, 2006

PeopleinMovement

edit

Original research about the Laban method of dance analysis. Near the start of the article it says on this site you can find. So I assumed copyvio, but since I can find no hits, I have an horrible feeling that by this site the author means Wikipedia. -- RHaworth 06:41, 21 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 no one wants to keep it. Nobody's objected to the idea of a redirect either. Deleting and redirecting per Meegs. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:17, Jan. 27, 2006

La conquista del pan

edit

Delete because there is already an English language article for this book (which is significantly longer than this one. It does not need to be moved because there is already a comparable article on the Spanish-language wikipedia too. Fightindaman 06:44, 21 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 speedily deleted as utter nonsense and unencyclopedic tripe. FCYTravis 07:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German hose

edit

Extremely sexually graphic & non-notable, very low quality article. Mangojuice 06:48, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:30, Jan. 27, 2006

Halobabies

edit

NN webcomic, makes no claim that would pass WP:WEB, delete. Melchoir 07:09, 21 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpoin

edit

This is either a hoax or incredibly non-notable. Blackpoin gets only one hit on Google - this article. I also tried Jeeves and Yahoo. Nothing at all. I can't find any evidence that there was ever a pirate, or even a cocktail, by that name. Completely unverifiable. Delete. Kafziel 07:23, 21 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 redirect as per Uncle G. Johnleemk | Talk 15:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ista

edit

The article has too narrow a focus for a good Wikipedia article. --nihon 07:31, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:31, Jan. 27, 2006

Forilla

edit

Non-notable show Akamad 07:56, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:32, Jan. 27, 2006

AskJohn.com

edit

Non notable personal website with annoying wav loop. No alexa ranking. Ezeu 08:04, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:35, Jan. 27, 2006

GAJ

edit

Google has no hits,non notable, the title is very close to the first part of the authors user name so it's most likely a vanity.

  • Delete as nominator.--Dakota ~ ε 08:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa whoa whoa, It isn't vanity or anything of the sort. This is simply to establish GAJ's history and ecetera as it's believed on some sites to be a symbol of video gamer rights. Try the link. GAJ is very populated. And...The reason you can't find any hits on it is because it's on an invisionfree server. It is also widely talked about on GameFAQS, at least on the boards it originated in. Just give it a chance. --User: GAJ Snake 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Right, it's just to show what GAJ is, to those who are curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dead Decoy (talk • contribs) 08:57, 21 January 2006

  • 113 Google hits means not notable to me. No-one is talking about it anywhere else, so why should anyone read about it here? Delete. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all blogs, forums, and messageboard articles, unless they are extraordinarily influential like Groklaw or Slashdot. Ruby 14:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google won't bring up GameFAQs posts, which is the main reason it gets so low hits. People on the gamefaqs boards talk about it alot (I've found over 40 topics about GAJ on it since last month, but gamefaqs started deleting them for being off topic) Look, it's a symbol of freedom for all peoples, and that not all boards are like gamefaqs and full of corruption and trolls. It stands for something; it has moral value to the people who know what it is. It has a STORY behind it's creation, not like syndicated boards like gamefaqs. But alot of people on GameFaqs still don't know "what a gaj is" so I'm making this page just to educate people on it. It may not be a huge, famous board, but I think alot of people could learn from it. Just give it one chance. What've you got to lose? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I say keep. The site is a good one, and from what people are saying, it has a good and interesting history. It might even give them some members to help their cause, which they are trying their best to fight for. Its the case of David vs Goliath, and would you side with Goliath?220.236.118.182 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Adam Shields[reply]


  • Keep. Being a stickler mod gets many people angry and does no good. It's not as if Wikipedia doesn't have room for this site. These guys seem to have a good, cause, and Snake is right: it has a personal story. I think it should stay here and perhaps be merged with the article "Jack Thompson" so as to educate Wikipedia users. -Saint Shade
  • Keep. If You take into account popular web forums that don't show their posts on Google and the sort, you would have alot more than the said number of hits. Who said that everybody has to rely on Google? And besides, if this is in violation, I know of a few others that should be long gone, but are still here. Well, thats my two cents at least. ~Tim Kowalenko
  • Keep. Ok. So if you guys don't like it, give a reason other than google. This article is more or less about fighting against Jack Thompson's ideals of banning video games. It nullifies the first amendment, and if you delete this, then whats the point of the bill of rights? Keep it. BTW, GAJ is barely starting out small, like every other site, so, if you had banned those articles about web-sites and other things of that sort, then you've basically eliminated a source on how to relate to todays' society.-mothman47
  • keepWhat's wrong with it?
  • Delete The article is sloppy, we don't need a list of everyone who posted on a message board. This article is just people from that board patting each other on the back!
  • !!!KEEP! There isn't another group like this. The nit-picking because of the users' names is ridiculous. They offer a collective voice which differs from other forums. They're a great group of gamers aged 13 to 20-something, with the exception of a few older and one who is a gaming grandmother. They beg for more parental control and have always wanted to educate "soccer moms" and others who have misconceptions about violent video games. Great bunch, it would be a pity to delete this. Stop being so damn anal! ~~maluka
M
  • Keep. Let the page be fixed up a bit, let them make a full attempt. What's it going to hurt if it stays up? -Steph
  • keep. They aren't hurting anything by having it up here. - IU2002

Ok, now that it's been cleaned up and the "users" section is cleared, is it really biased enough to warrant a Point of View warning? --User: GAJ Snake 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- No harm is done haveing it... and it could be of use...

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as copyvio. Mushroom 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NBJ

edit

Seems nn. In addition, text is a copyvio of the cited source. Delete Schutz 11:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn band, based on the article's own assertion "Except for the one song on the Not so Quiet compilation, Dead Porker no other studio recordings were ever released" Ruby 14:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete - yes, but I would opine that any band on the "Not So Quiet on the Western Front" compilation - a historic marker for California punk rock - merits an article related to the topic Punk Rock, as many influential regional punk bands, in the genre's DIY spirit, never did release any widely distributed records. NBJ was widely recognized within the California Central Valley as central to the new punk scene there, and was an influence on several bands that did break through, such as Capitol Punishment. It was not long after NBJ released "Dead Porker" on the Not So Quiet compilation that the lead singer died. FYI, I am the original poster of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.43.40 (talk • contribs) 05:23, 22 January 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristal Fernandez

edit

Appears to be a vanity page. --Uthbrian (talk) 12:26, 21 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:38, Jan. 27, 2006

Ski Yoda

edit

This article is about a college fraternity's annual trip to go skiing. Totally insignificant and unencyclopedic (it just states this trip's existence, it's that unbelievably trivial). Sliggy 12:51, 21 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 06:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joytopia

edit

The concept appears to have no currency outside of it's inventor. Like a minor blog or micronation, this proposed economic system has no adherents and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Google hits are principally Wikie mirrors and pods/blogs. The Land 13:00, 21 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 No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Dimitrov Dimitrov

edit

None too notable biography of a Professor. Staecker 13:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short biography of the leading Bulgarian sociologist. Joro Iliev, 13:27, Jan 21, 2006

  • Weak keep 6-month Fulbright Fellowship, Senior Researcher in American Sociology of Sociology at Chicago. Help counter systemic bias - emerging sociologist, many publications for his age. Dlyons493 Talk 13:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A theoretical sociologist of Bulgarian society.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with a speedy delete conclusion. - Mailer Diablo 06:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Fleet

edit

This page, as seen below, was nominated for deletion in December, partly because the group is unnotable and partly because it read like an advertisment. The article has been recreated and speedy-deleted twice since then I believe, and yet still it's here again. I don't see how it's become more notable in a month, and it still reads like an ad to me. It does not cite good sources justifying its place here and I consider it to be vanity. I could be considered an inclusionist, but it appears to me that the majority of editors are not and so there is no justification for EF having a page of Wikipedia. - Hayter 13:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete again. I don't know what's going on with this page, but it's clearly not notable. And what's up with this message at the top of the article: 'Nomination for deletion of this article as stated in the template below is invalid, and should be ignored. Matter has been closed and any further discrediting/deletion attempts will not be tolerated.'? - squibix 16:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect against re-creation. Blocking only required if future problems occur with user.

The re-posting of this deletion nomination here was an error on my part. I was unaware there was a seperate template for articles that have been nominated before. The current afd vote for this article is located here. - Hayter 23:13, 22 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 18:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Fleet

edit

This seems to be nothing more than self-promotion by the group's creator. If EF is as successful as he seems to indicate then perhaps an article on it would be a worthwhile addition to Wikipedia, but I don't see it coming from this and as such, would recommend a deletion. It's very badly written and inconsistant in its presentation. Perhaps one day someone can make a better article on the subject but at the moment, it's just trash on the server. Hayter 12:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 13:09, 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. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:39, Jan. 27, 2006

Axsellit

edit

Delete as advertising and lack of notability. Eddie.willers 13:17, 21 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 No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death Valley Driver Video Review

edit

The article in question is an online fanzine, with nothing in the text to suggest that the fanzine has enough influence or renown to render it notable. Much of the text is dedicated to describing the forums of the fanzine, or to regailing the reader with somewhat puerile tales of the antics of the writers. The article is certainly long and in-depth, but this alone should not preclude it from being deleted. I think the authors of the article have failed to satisfactorily demonstrate why the fanzine is notable enough that it deserves an encyclopedia article (e.g. what is the circulation / readership of the fanzine?). McPhail 13:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep*-Obviously biased (I was the one who wrote a lot of it), but it's about a wellknown area of the wrestling fandom area.. (David Yellope, 11:16 AM, 1/21/06
  • Delete per Ruby. Stifle 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the site has no really value and does not need a wiki entry. If DVDVR has one every Wrestling site should have one and therefore wiki would have way too many entries
  • Weak keep - one of the more well-known professional wrestling sites on the net. Essexmutant 11:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because a few people find it irrelevant, doesn't mean it should go. It has signifigance for other people, and provides easy access information for people curious about the site and reviews.
  • Delete - Vanity article regarding an irrelevant smarkboard. - Chadbryant 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I need my ALREADY INFLATED EGO~! BOOSTED~!. Love u all lol xxx DeanRasmussen 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Guess "Dean" is tired of pretending to be the board's founder and is trying to torpedo the DVDVR article by pretending to be from the board.. does Wiki delete accounts used for harassment? Probably not, but still.... DMY

(note: This was not a vote, I already commented above (the 11:16 am David Yellope Vote (you know, DMY?) my vote is Keep.. just commenting that "Dean Rasmussen" is obviously someone who dislikes the board, and is attempting to torpedo the whole thing. and if you'll forgive editing twice in a row, that several of the votes to delete on this thread are among those who have been vandalizing the main article)

  • Keep* Its one of the largest fan sites on the Internet. No matter what one may think of some fo the members there, it DOES have relevance. TruthCrusader


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

The result of the debate was delete and BJAODN. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:41, Jan. 27, 2006

Nicholas III of Russia

edit

Non encyclopedic Delete abakharev 13:26, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wedge (Santa Cruz), The King's Terrace, Crazytown Gayville and Studio Marv

edit

plus image:The Wedge.JPG

Garagecruft. Really- it is. Staecker 13:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination and first three votes relate just to Studio Marv. -- RHaworth 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added three more by the same author. -- RHaworth 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand the original response to want to delete this posting, I must claim that the the subject of this entry is quite worthy of an entry. This house plays a significant part in the daily mythology and society of stuents of Porter College at UCSC and, therefore is deserving of a place on Wikipedia as community refenence. There is a significant difference between a housing cooperative and a frat house. More than this, what more reason to validate the existence of this entry than the fact that residents of the house are highly active in the Wikipedia community? While I was not the person who branched out the rest of the pages I propose that, if the entry is allowed to exist, it may be consolodated into one large entry instead of a handful of small nodes. -- Revelude 06:05, 24 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, as copyvio if not as unencyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armand versace

edit

Delete for failure to meet WP:MUSIC Eddie.willers 13:33, 21 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 keep (no consensus). Actually, the thing was speedy deletable as recreation of previously deleted content, but when it wasn't I will let the seconds AFD debate overrule the first one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovari

edit

Vanity. Second deletion- see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lovari. Staecker 13:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.

Has had a charted hit on any national music chart, in at least one large or medium-sized country[1]. "These Tears" - Billboard Latin Freestyle Airplay #4 (8/16/02) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lovari (talk • contribs)

Keep. The page is of a biographical nature and states facts about a performer. I don't see where Vanity fits in. Naomi/NaomiJanuary 2006 (UTC) —The preceding improperly signed comment was added by Lovari (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 speedy keep' per WP:IAR. FCYTravis 17:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bronte International University

edit

"It is widely considered to be a diploma mill, a scam operation offering meritless degrees for a fee." Then why the hell do we have an article about it? Nothing about it seems to make it a notable degree mill (which is something of a contradiction in terms anyhow). Marskell 13:43, 21 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 speedily deleted per CSD G4. Mushroom 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion Fleet

edit

Non-notable web forum/game. Fails WP:WEB (see also the Talk page). Keeps being recreated, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expansion Fleet. Delete. Kusma (討論) 13:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep The discussion page of the article on Expansion Fleet clearly lists various arguments why this nomination for deletion is not only invalid, but also why it is notable enough. Attempts of Deletionists discourage various contributors to Wikipedia, and therefore are not complying to user regulations of Wikipedia whereby their votes should weigh in this vote to a minority only. Aneirin 14:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Alexa finds this gaming forum page but has no information about its level of traffic, which is not good. Aneirin, caution, there are no legally-binding user regulations for AfD, only an emergent consensus. Ruby 14:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gamewyrd.com/others/cyber517

http://startrek.pagina.nl/

http://gamiespelen.eigenstart.nl/

http://www.mountsutro.org/index.php/linkage/

http://elindelwolf.iblogs.com/

http://www.scifi-meshes.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-17955.html

Awards that Expansion Fleet received:

http://www.trekconnection.com/awards/tcaward.asp

http://www.jupiter-station.com/JuPAwardBanners05.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/me4/jaddziadax/page11.html

More awards Expansion Fleet received can be seen on the website itself:

http://www.expansionfleet.com/cgi-bin/fleet/ikonboard.cgi?act=Page;p=ewards

Additionally, there is the Expansion Fleet online store:

http://shop.expansionfleet.com/shop.php

www.cafepress.com/expansion

And also additionally, Expansion Fleet is linked to the IRC server mystical.net (through expansion.mystical.net):

http://www.expansionfleet.com/cgi-bin/fleet/ikonboard.cgi?act=Page;p=irc

http://www.mystical.net/

Those who voted delete for non notable hereby are proven that they only voted on the basis of "I'm too lazy to investigate myself so I'll vote delete because I never heard of it". Notability is a POV argument and therefore invalid. Aneirin 16:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your reaction was as expected, proving my point that no matter which (clear!) evidence would be available, it would be turned down. Therefore, this proves your incompetence and your votes will not weigh upon the decision. Aneirin 17:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Aneirin, AfD is only about the content of the article, no one is making a personal attack on the author and no one expects to receive personal attacks when the article is being reviewed. Ruby 17:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Why are you guys against spreading of free information? I mean, it´s not like it is racist or something. I would really like some answeres on why you delete this article. Is it becouse it is not a christian site? Or is it just becouse you have decided you do not like belgians?

How "free" is this encyclopedia anyway?81.233.40.57 17:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comment I received on my notable references is clearly offending, which is not allowed due to the "dont bite the newcomers" policy. It seems I'm getting more and more reasons to declare the nomination invalid. Also, the deletion policy does not mention notability, therefore my references were not even necessary and expansionfleet.com is sufficient as a reference. Aneirin 17:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP To delve into it being questioned as notable or not, if it has not been added or known, this site has 2 books published about it, one 360 pages, the most recent 546 pages. Other than that, what is such the problem with keeping Expansion up? One would think there are better things to do with time. Users submit the knowledge to share existing things with the world. I look now and see The Free Encyclopedia. Let Expansion Fleet be free information to the world. - Tom Hobson
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.34.232.27 (talk • contribs) .

Which books? Please provide sources. Kusma (討論) 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Keep this Article. Expansion Fleet is a good and very famous role playing community and it deserves to be here. Keep this Please. Expansion Fleet is amazing.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.77.92.95 (talk • contribs) .

Books [www.cafepress.com/expansion Expansion Yearbook 2] [www.cafepress.com/expansion2 Expansion Yearbook 1]-Tom Hobson
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.34.232.27 (talk • contribs) .

Delete, non-notable per WP:WEB. Clearly the site is well-loved by a few, but this is a general-use encyclopedia. -- Dragonfiend 18:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, Expansion Fleet is trying to usher votes into this AfD page from their home page. See the message below:

The article of Expansion Fleet on Wikipedia.org is currently under a hot debate to be deleted. Some "Deletionist" Admins of Wikipedia claim it is "non notable" because they personally don't know it, and attempt to delete it repeatingly at what obviously appears to be a personal attack on anything that doesn't float their boat.

Please help ups keep the article on Wikipedia, by voting "keep" at this URL:

[14]

You can do so by going to the URL above, clicking "Edit this page" and then adding (at the bottom of the already posted text) the following line:

'''keep''' any comments here ~~~~

And click "save page" on the bottom.

This needs to be done ASAP if we are to crush the corrupt abuse of the Wikipedia policies by its admins.

Please also consider signing our petition against Wikipedia corruption:

[www.petitiononline.com/wikiped/petition.html]

Thank you for your support!

Keep in mind that the AfD page is not vote-based, and comments from new or unregistered users are most likely discredited entirely. SycthosTalk 18:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I can only see the above inflammatory commentary incensing some AfD'ers, and making a delete vote more likely. Why the site owners place such importance in their small wikipedia article I fail to understand, unless it is a certain lack of maturity. An unfortunate circumstance. :) — RJH 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Another power tripped attempt to falsely discredit the article and the votes to keep. No such announcement is visible on the website. Aneirin 19:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was there. I saw the announcement too and was about to report it as meatpuppetry but Sycthos beat me to it. Ruby 19:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the fact that the unprofessional behavior of Deletionist admins has proven Wikipedia to be unworthy for an article of Expansion Fleet, this article has been deleted by me. Do with my comments as you wish. False accusations and discrediting is highly unprofessional. Goodbye. Vorak 19:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not blank an article being discussed for deletion. Ruby 19:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As author of this article and copyright owner, I withdraw this article from Wikipedia and deny Wikipedia the use/publication of this article in any form. Please remove immediately. Vorak 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once you submit information to Wikipedia, others have the ability to edit to their heart's content. You do not own the article, Wikipedia does. The information cannot be revoked. SycthosTalk 19:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Expansion Fleet has changed its message to attempt to disprove all arguments against the article and to directly launch a futile attack against Wikipedia:

After various deletion attempts, Wikipedia deletionist admins have attempted to discredit this website in various ways.

Expansion Fleet has hereby withdrawn its article, no longer wishing to be connected with the website wikipedia.org and deeming the censored encyclopedia to be unworthy of an Expansion Fleet article.

On the other hand, we encourage everyone to help us bring a halt to the corruption of the Wikipedia Deletionist Admins who intend to delete any article that they personally never heard about (proves they didn't hear about much in the world). We discourage anyone to contribute any information, images or other things to the Wikipedia.org encyclopedia.

Therefore, we ask everyone to sign our petition to bring this corruption to the attention of Wikipedia:

[www.petitiononline.com/wikiped/petition.html]

Thank you for your support!

SycthosTalk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. According to WP:CSD, if the author of the article requests deletion, the article is classified as a speedy delete. Also, according to the policy, "If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." SycthosTalk 19:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Vorak is not the sole author of the page and did not create it by mistake. Might be a hassle there. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request." Ruby 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vorak and Aneirin are the authors of the page. Logically, they hold high positions in the management of Expansion Fleet. Vorak wishes to withdraw the article and the homepage of the website is blatantly unwilling to keep Expansion Fleet on Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 19:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if speedy is not possible. I understand what you mean. SycthosTalk 19:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-noteworthy. I would also lean towards Speedy delete per Sycthos. I understand Ruby's point but think we'll all fare better if this leave us quickly. Ifnord 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly G4 (recreation of delete materials). In addition, notability is not evidenced. No alexa rankings. Claim of google hits is not valid because it contains a lot of noise (ie: many web site contains the word "expansion fleet" without refering to the online forum/RPG in question. A notable online game should have more than 1136 registered members (which includes active and not-active/visit once members) - after all, Wikipedia:Notability (people) dictates that an author is notable only if circulation is > 5000 ... --Hurricane111 20:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The case for Delete is absolutely crystal clear, and any claims to the contrary are ludicrous. Ergo, allow me to quote a little Mikado: "Behold the Lord High Executioner". The consensus is clear, the protocol is adamant. There can be no exceptions. --Agamemnon2 00:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vorak is the only owner of the site I think. So him saying for it to be deleted probally means it should be deleted. He said he withdrew any allowing of Expansion to be on this place. Realizing that at the time probally would save picking it with the rules to take it off, that its no longer wanted to be on this place.


keep 67.68.222.46 01:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"'Keep"' This is a General use online encyclopedia, this is true, so are you going to try and delete everything from it that hasn`t been widely heard of? This article, simply by being here and through this discussion is, albeit slowly, giving the site exposure to outsiders. So all of those who are in favor of deletion and give this link to thier friends are doing nothing but promoting the site, the oppinion of the poster notwithstanding, they are still viewing the link and taking in the name, there is no reason to delete the site. Perhaps rather than simply try to abolish it you should look at it and then form an oppinion.71.97.190.106 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we accept an excyclopedia article about something which has changed several times just today? Ruby 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For those who are members of "Expansion Fleet"/owners of the site, please do not take the "Articles for deletion" personally. The votes here do not reflect whether we believe the site/article is inferior or not-worthy, we are merely pointing out that the article does not meet Wikipedia's agreed-upon guidelines (WP:WEB). If you do not agree with this guideline, please discuss it at Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites). If the community has consensus on changing the notability criteria, then how editors votes in articles for deletion will reflect that. --Hurricane111 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keepwhy should this be deleted its a cool fourm nthing wrong with it, If it's deleted thats a hate crime!66.58.187.131 06:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is why you shouldn't follow instructions from the Expansion Fleet site. Everybody there is unaware of the Wikipedia WP:VAIN procedures. If they hate Wikipedia, so be it. They are the "haters" for attacking Wikipedia. We are merely following Wikipedia's policies. Think about it this way. If we had an article for every forum, regardless of size, the expenses to run this site will shoot upwards. Therefore, it is not a hate crime. This policy may be changed if you are willing to donate mass amounts to Wikipedia. SycthosTalk 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll call it the Expansion Fleet Expansion. Ruby 06:46, 22 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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon-Dove Studios

edit

According to the article they're "small" and "up and coming", with no claims of actual notability. No hits for "Dragon-Dove Studios" on google. - Bobet 13:59, 21 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 strong KEEP. Ben Aveling 04:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Morgan Research

edit
  • This page is factual and contains no contact information or language that would be biased toward or in favour of this company. This is a large company that has played a significant role in reporting public opinion for many years in Australia. Further research is required for this article for it to be more substantial, deletion is not necessary. Roy Morgan Research was in no way involved in the creation of this article. See: ACNielsen User:PeterPartyOn 20:56, 22 January 2006 (AEST)


  • Keep - very notable company. The article I just looked at is not advertising. --Canley 02:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable Australian company. Cnwb 05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this company is not only notable but also very significant to the political affairs of the country. As nixie says, most adults (and almost certainly all political science students) would know of the company and what it does. 'Roy Morgan' polls are regularly used as a reference source and for this reason it is important to have an article about the company that conducts the polls. -- Adz|talk 06:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Regular mentions in the news, opinion polling is a notable part of politics. While disagreeing with the nomination for deletion, I think the original comment was signed, but the nomination seemed to be divided up by another comment, see [15]. Andjam 08:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Do your research, for gods sake. The most cursory Google search could have told you that this is very notable. Ambi 09:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the profile of the original nominator, and you'll understand why. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sumple (talk • contribs)
The nominator is an Australian, so the person would have known what Roy Morgan was. Using a single exclamation mark, while not a sign of insanity (that'd be two exclamation marks), isn't often done in a good faith VFD. Andjam 09:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberate waste of everyone's time. evil. --Sumple 22:25, 24 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blister pack

edit

A candidate, perhaps, for WP:Complete Bollocks? No doubt, an article concerning blister packaging may be of merit but, sadly, this is not it. Eddie.willers 14:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EH?!? Blister packs are a common form of packaging. This page doesn't need all this 'ooh I can't open it' BS. I learnt some about it during my Product Design A-Level; if I can find my own notes I'll gladly edit it. I'll admit some can be hard to open, but that's where the beauty of Swiss Army Knives come in (got one for Xmas, never looked back) and they certainly don't weigh more than the contents. Lady BlahDeBlah 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, methinks I'm making this a talk page...Blister packs are notable, as the guy who just edited it into something worth keeping just reminded me there are TWO types of blister packaging: foil backed for pills and card backed for productls like toys and electronic devices.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 03:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension Films

edit

Utterly, hopelessly, irredeemably non-notable studentcruft. Eddie.willers 14:36, 21 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Fowlkes III

edit

Mildly interesting but otherwise utterly non-notable. Eddie.willers 14:40, 21 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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usari Delacrioux

edit

I can find no evidence that the article is anything but a hoax. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:40, 21 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 all. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M. Benjamin Levi, Benjamin Levi, Benji & Jessy & Freedom in Christ & Benjamin Levi Moses

edit

Non-notable person, as per WP:Bio. Article created by subject, guidelines on vanity refers. Text also poorly-written and confuses the individual with the organisation that he claims to represent.  (aeropagitica)  14:47, 21 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 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ygre

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armour Oversoul

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Airlines

edit

delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball mtz206 15:03, 21 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane & barton

edit

Incoherent article about indie band, containing some original research. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:36, 21 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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda's table

edit

Delete. I found this working on wikify tags. It just doesn't seem distinctive enough to merit an Encyclopaedia article since the description of its history just sounds like the fate of any other chat room site. Can anyone convince me otherwise? JGF Wilks 07:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom, nn. Avalon 14:34, 21 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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Wright-Buckingham

edit

This person is not notable. looks like vanity page--Light current 04:57, 21 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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omar R. Valdimarsson

edit

I don't think being an honorary consul of El Salvador in Iceland is notable enough for an encyclopedia. Delete. Schutz 09:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination was removed and this page was blanked by User:Alesato (warned for vandalism). Schutz 15:13, 22 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PCRevs

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:35, 21 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 Moved to Psychology/rewrite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology (rewrite)

edit

Page was created to allow Psychology article to be revised, this has now been done -- Paul foord 08:25, 21 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 06:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheWorld2

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 21 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 02:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Proletariats

edit

nn band. Delete Schutz 16:03, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

falls asleep

edit

Not encyclopediac. We have wikt:fall asleep. Dangherous 16:04, 21 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 merge and redirect to deerstalker. Punkmorten 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deer stalker

edit

Merge this page with Deerstalker. The author didn't check before creating the new article.  (aeropagitica)  16:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: I am the original author and will do the merge and redirect. Sorry! - Rorybowman 16:12, 21 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 Speedy keep as the nominator's intention was a redirect. Redirect created. Stifle 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passed pawns (chess)

edit

More complete article containg all the information exists at Passed pawn. Delete and redirect to Passed pawn —ERcheck @ 16:13, 21 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boxcar Betty

edit

Unsourced, created by vandal and only edited by vandal and sock puppet (except for the editor who added the {{unreferenced}} tag. If verifiably hoax, speedy delete (as nonsense), otherwise delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Boxcar Betty was a real person and marginally notable, but there is very little source material to be found to actually make an article. She is the subject of a song by David Rovics, but a Google search for her excluding his album ("Boxcar Betty" -rovics IWW) turns up one or two hits. Mike Dillon 16:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep - article needs cleanup and some attempt at organizing the sources that do exist, but it should probably be kept. I'm not sure whether the article should be about the "amalgamated character" or the IWW organizer, but it should probably mention that there was not just one person named that. Mike Dillon 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Needs better sourcing. The hobo seems to exist [16] but is this the same person as the IWW organiser? One wouldn't expect much material on a hobo but there's a picture of her at hobos.com and the story of the cat suggests she lives in folklore. Dlyons493 Talk 16:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. There were actually several people, homeless, hobos, etc. during the depression who got the name Boxcar Betty. The best known was the one referenced in this article. It will be hard to find anything to verify it. Crunch 16:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete in accord with Crunch's argument. Ruby 17:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She does indeed live in folklore. Apart from already mentioned stuff, especially http://www.film.queensu.ca/CBC/L.html, I've managed to find references on her in "Joe Hill" by Wallace Stegner, "Silent Dreams" by Dandi Daley MacKall and "Part of Our Time: Some Ruins and Monuments of the Thirties" by Murray Kempton (see Amazon). In order to make it more appropriate, I’ve put "legendary organizer" (rather than mythical, for she probably existed). Also, I added the part from http://www.thevalkyrie.com/stories/misc2/boxcar.txt "her name itself has become synonomous with rollicking, rough and tumble adventure". I've also mentioned Reitman's "Sister of the Road" on Boxcar Bertha, who, apart from being a fictionalized amalgam, was a Wobbly (see http://www.sonomacountyfreepress.com/nudge/joe_murphy.html for instance), which points out to the interchangeability of the two names (at least in popular accounts such as Rovics's song).

It's hard to find many references for an uneducated hobo (probably illiterate), she's primarily a part of oral storytelling.

As David Rovics mentions at http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Backstage/1472/rovics.html: I feel like there is a hidden history in most of my songs; a history that probably less than 1% of American society is really familiar with (that is, those that read the alternative press). Very few people know about David Chain, or Judi Bari, or Boxcar Betty, or the many examples from labor history represented in "Glory and fame," or the fact that Ford built tanks for the nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.70.213 (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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Order Brides

edit

Advertising non-notable company.  (aeropagitica)  16:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there is an entry for Mail-order bride already


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

The result of the debate was No consensus keep Marskell 13:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Of Love

edit

Article is about a Donna Summer song; the entire text is copied from an Amazon.com review which can be found here. I considered cleaning the article up rather than recommending it for deletion, but personally feel that most albums—this being a prime example—are non-notable on their own. - squibix 16:25, 21 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 speedy delete after several people verified it was a hoax. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummingbird (TV)

edit

More nonsense from Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 16:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can we be "knowingly" doing something if we only "suspect" something? Ruby 18:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you 'know' what I mean, or at least 'suspect' my meaning! --kingboyk 19:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it's very important, and thanks for bringing the hoax template to my attention. I'll be sure to use it in future. --Muchness 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thank you. --kingboyk 19:53, 21 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 06:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 21 in baseball

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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glucometers

edit

Full article already exists - Glucose meter, which as a redirect from Glucometer. —ERcheck @ 17:40, 21 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 no consensus; keep. THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP; DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Huttleston Rogers Coe

edit

Delete - One of the "Coe Family" series of articles on Wikipedia, this is a biography/obituary for a Navy veteran, his most significant claim to notability is when he turned Buffalo Bill's tepee into a resort Ruby 17:50, 21 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 22:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonomus Gangsta

edit

Google turns up nothing. He doesn't have any records/songs/raps out. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Unless he is some amazing hidden underground phenomenon then this can go. Broken S 17:59, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Roever

edit

NN minister, associated non-profits combine for less than 400 relevant Ghits MNewnham 18:01, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cailolas

edit

Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or any other standards of verifiability that I know of. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:08, 21 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 no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP; DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. On another note, will those who suggested a cleanup please do this themselves? Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Astrological transit

edit

Essay treating astrology as a fact, ending "Please write here your experiences with transits". WP:NOR as well as WP:NOT a web forum. Delete Kusma (討論) 18:08, 21 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 06:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nashtar Suri

edit

Mr. Suri does not seem to meet WP:BIO. He does seem to be active on his college campus, and may well show up in Wikipedia in the future, but I don't see anything in this article, or in my research, that justifies the entry at present. Joyous | Talk 18:10, 21 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 redirect as per Mbsp. Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oracle class

edit


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Grimwade

edit

Delete. Apparently a vanity page, created by a user name "Grimwade". JGF Wilks 18:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stong Keep - many accomplishments, most notable in my mind is giving the ocean-front land to the state to create Coorong National Park. Ruby 18:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:VAIN, tagged article {{PotentialVanity}} -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 18:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many accomplishments, including being an author. Apparently he was also involved in a case that went before the Supreme Court of Australia, (although that isn't mentioned in the article). He got 141 hits on Google. Seems to be a notable person. Article needs to be cleaned up a bit. - Nortonew 18:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Desperately in need of cleanup and verification, but the bits I've been able to casually confirm are enough to establish notability. -Colin Kimbrell 17:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oooooh. This one's mine. Keep keep keep. Sir Andrew, it appears, was convicted on nineteen counts of fraud and conspiracy in something involving an entity called Jetcorp in, I think, 1995. He got off on appeal, on a technicality. But he did it. But I think that definitely makes him notable Now, I'm quite certain that (a) The article can be rewritten to highlight and emphasize the most notable aspects of his career, and (b) the article creator, esteemed editor User:Grimwade, will -- being of course dedicated, like all Wikipedia editors, to the unvarnished truth -- doubtless be both surprised and delighted to find this case the centerpiece of the article -- this giving him exactly what he was asking for. Everybody's happy! Herostratus 20:20, 25 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 Speedily deleted by Danny per CSD:A8 copyvio. Stifle 00:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep intense

edit

Author contested a db-bio, so I'm bringing it here. The article is an ad for a website with an Alexa rank of 3,910,750. Better yet, the author claims copyright over the description and "all rights reserved". Delete. Melchoir 18:32, 21 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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Brotherhood of Magicians

edit

Page is an advertisement for the organization. Dave 18:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - large, international, professional organization. 92,000 hits on Google!! Definitely notable. Needs to be edited to remove the advertisement-like parts. - Nortonew 18:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not notable. I'm just saying that there's only a promo in the article space, and it should be deleted until somebody's written an article about it. Dave 19:29, 21 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 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccompanied minors

edit

WP is not a crystal ball.  (aeropagitica)  18:49, 21 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 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitography

edit

Self-referential protologism. Not worth moving to Wikipedia: -- RHaworth 19:03, 21 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 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Writers beware

edit

Non encyclopædic authorcruft, original thought  (aeropagitica)  19:06, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why other peace theories are wrong

edit

This page was originally located under the title Democratic peace theory (Correlation is not causation). This was done largely by User:Ultramarine. User:Pmanderson inisits that this was a POV fork of Ultramarines and has edited the original DPT page to make such a sub-article uncessary. He has then mvoed the article to this title to prove a point. Basicially, it as the bastard child of an ongoing battle between two editors who refuse to compromise with each other, and who the arbitration committee failed to deal with. Delete it and let them have their petty arguments elsewhere. Robdurbar 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to User space I believe the page contains Ultramarine's original arguments to advocate his PoV, which is that one particular class of peace theory is cpmpletely correct, and others are simply wrong. I have so tagged it. But the article Democratic peace theory does not contain those arguments, and they may be useful as raw material for other articles on the thoeries concerned. Septentrionalis 22:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not refuse to compromise; I would if offered one. Septentrionalis 22:48, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis I Brown

edit

Article claims to be about a 25-year-old billionaire up and coming Republican economic-historian/political commentator. Sounds highly implausible and google gives 39 hits[18], none of which support the claims in the article. Delete as a hoax. AJR | Talk 19:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they got his age wrong.


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramakrishna Puram

edit
  • Delete Clearly Irrelavant Article Noting that this is only a small sector of a huge city. Allowing this article would set a precedent that provoke articles talking about gated communities etc. Also let us note the fact that this "area" is a sub-divison of the city of Delhi, noting that Delhi Public School is infact a Private institution and has no affiliation with the city of Delhi. It is noted that the school is only in the City of Delhi. Also note that this University is in the city of delhi. The map confirms that R.K. Puram is only a residential complex in the city. Abhishekpradhan 00:09, 23 January 2006. (UTC)
  • Strong keep Verifiable and apparently large district which contains a university [19]. Nominator am I missing something here? Dlyons493 Talk 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Unclear what this area is. Is it just a neighborhood? Google does not reveal much and the main web site for the linked universities don't mention this place. Crunch 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's difficult to work out from Google just how big an area is involved here. It does include a notable school Delhi_Public_School, several other schools and Shastri Market slum so appears to be big. Also is marked on Delhi maps e.g.Road Distance Guide from Nehru Place To International Airport OTOH I now suspect there's only a test centre of the University here. There's a map of sorts at [20]. Googling for the abbreviation "R. K. Puram" gives more hits than for the full name. I'd really like some input from someone who knows Delhi. The nominator has few edits and I wonder if he will expand on his reasoning? Dlyons493 Talk 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, area big enough to contain more than one school. Kappa
  • Strong Keep: It is bigger than many big villages and small towns, and is also called R. K. Puram, which gets at least 65,000 google hits [21]. --Bhadani 12:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and move to R. K. Puram, the more common name. --Gurubrahma 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It just needs some more stuff! and to Gurubrahma, I have redirected the R. K. Puram to the Ramakrishna Puram page. I hope that solves your problem!
    per Bhadani.-- Rohit 18:40, 25 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mugglecast Fan

edit

Non-encyclopædic list of people who listen to a podcast.  (aeropagitica)  19:33, 21 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. 03:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Adult Swim F

edit

Asserts that it's a 'huge fansite', but does not appear to meet WP:WEB. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web site directory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:34, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Rummel is always right

edit

Another result of an ongoing edit war between User:Pmanderson and User:Ultramarine. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why other peace theories are wrong for more. Delete Robdurbar 19:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does not belong in article space, but Move to user space. See comments at other AfD; this contains claims, which I believe false, but which do not appear elsewhere in article space. It will be useful for future editors of R. J. Rummel Septentrionalis 22:45, 21 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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blonde English Girl - U.K. News Links

edit

Appears to be a non-notable website. Alexa ranks it not in the top 100,000. David | Talk 19:38, 21 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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workitis

edit

The article is comprised of original research and is about a neologism. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:42, 21 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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VarsityWorld.com

edit

Fails to establish notability, and seems to fail WP:WEB. Has been {{notability}} tagged since the start of January. Alexa ranking of 112,359 [22]. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:44, 21 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 05:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ub3rcon

edit

The website this article is about fails WP:WEB, has an Alexa rank of 1,660,295, and the title has only 149 google hits[23]. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:54, 21 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 22:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durandal (Gundam Seed)

edit

Patent nonsense, no more and no less. Hydriotaphia 19:56, 21 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 no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terminator 4

edit

This was deleted in a previous AFD. After recreation somebody put an AFD tag, but it pointed to a closed discussion. So I'm just fixing this. It will require an admin to tell if this is a repost of the original content, but for now I'll assume that it's original, based on the fact the old content was described as an attack page, but this does not look like an attack page. No vote. Rob 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete: until I see a probably release date, or an article in a newspaper about the movie, it is all just speculation. Calwatch 05:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read the screenplay for Terminator 4 is complete and Jonathan Mostow will be directing it. I think this page should stay. RO 13:09 23 January 2006

KEEP. If someone will quit adding speculative or dubious information to the page. The Wookieepedian 23:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. I think that Terminator 4 would get people talking about what they expect, and why link to it in the Terminator section if it isn't going to happen? I say either keep this or delete all references to Terminator 4. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ID4EVER (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 Speedy keep - nomination was based on a misunderstanding. Kusma (討論) 00:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech (disambiguation)

edit

This is simply a redirect page to "Czech", which is itself a disambiguation page SkerHawx 20:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep, this should (a) be at RfD and (b) it is a useful redirect. The purpose is that it allows you to intentionally link to the disambiguation page Czech. This is used by the people at WP:DPL to distinguish accidental from intentional linking. Kusma (討論) 20:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couldn't someone just link directly to the "Czech" page instead of purposely linking to "Czech (disambiguation)" to get to "Czech"? Forgive my ignorance if I'm not understanding the process... SkerHawx 20:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usually we don't want people to link to "Czech". However, a page talking about the ambiguity of Czech (for example a list of disambiguation pages) should possibly point to this page. Linking through the redirect makes that intent explicit. See also Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Generic_topic. Kusma (討論) 21:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that helps. Thanks for the link. SkerHawx 22:43, 21 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 3

edit

Unsourced speculation. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. Kusma (討論) 19:59, 21 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niraj Bhawnani

edit

Vanity. Only claim to notability is being the first and only person in Thailand to pass the Zend Certified Engineer exam. Hurricane111 20:01, 21 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 Speedy. --Shanel 00:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 Kids & A Goat line

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 speedy keep - disambiguation pages are obviously not deleted simply because nothing links to them at present. — sjorford (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Czech

edit

all main articles linked to this page have been disambiguated SkerHawx 20:08, 21 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Street

edit

A normal road with no claim to notabily, WP:NOT a road atlas Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 20:20, 21 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 keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How now brown cow

edit

One sentence article could be expanded but it's not really notable. Google turns up under 100 000 hits - and not all are actually related to the article's context. Oh, looks like the one sentence is from this site. Note, it did come up in the movie, Anchorman. Mrtea (talk) 20:19, 21 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 move to the singular phosphorene. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phosphorenes

edit

Delete Non-verifiable, only one mention in a med journal and that page is copied word for word from here. RBlowes 20:20, 21 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 05:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mamasayssing

edit

Essay about the username of an "artist and writer" named "Alida Cornelius." Google gets a few hits, all to petitions and message boards as far as I can tell. If she is a published author, she has nothing listed on Amazon.com. Appears to be, thus, vanity article on non-notable Fuhghettaboutit 20:21, 21 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 keep (no consensus) but I think some of the info in this AFD debate needs to be merged with the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoots mon

edit

Hoots Mon is a song by Bad Manners; on the other hand it is also a popular Scottish expression (so a redirect to Bad Manners is inappropriate). It is a minor song, so does not justify a separate article, and the claim that it is associated with a Wine Gums advert is, as far as I can tell, complete bollocks - as you would expect, given that the article's creator is Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs). Because the song is genuine, I did not simply delete it; over to you. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 20:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I could not find a reliable source for that, and the person who inserted the claim is a prolific hoaxer. I don't doubt David's word above, but some kind of corroborative evidence would be good (I am one of the millions who supposedly heard this ad, and I'm stuffed if I can remember it). Also, even if it were, this is still a stub; merge and redirect and include in Bad Manners would make more sense, I think. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'hoots mon' is only a 'popular Scottish expression' in the same way that 'Cor, strewth' is a popular Australian saying, or 'Ja Vol Mein Fuhrer!' is a popular German saying :: Supergolden 16:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well known expression, and the Lord Rockingham's XI piece is part of rock history. That's before we take into account the Bad Manners version and the advertising campaign. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:32, 27 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 speedy delete. Punkmorten 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

edit

Hoax, created by vandal Sunfazer (talk) 20:39, 21 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of albums whose name is not a song on the album

edit

Will be huge if complete, and useless. If the information is interesting to anybody, a category would work better. Delete. Kusma (討論) 20:54, 21 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy loozerz

edit

Non-notable website, spam. --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:16, 21 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. Regarding the "don't delete" vote, see WP:WEB for guidelines, gaming websites, like others, usually need to be large or significant in some other way to be considered a valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda's Secret Ocarina

edit

No evidence of meeting WP:WEB website verifiability/inclusion guidelines. --W.marsh 21:19, 21 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 as a POV fork. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Testimony_of_the_witnesses_to_the_assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy

edit

Comments from RPJ

edit

There appear to be a large number of man hours spent developing the start of a comprehensive list of eyewitnesses. Some contributors seem to disagree with the summaries provided of the witnesses’ testimony. There certainly isn’t anything unusual about that.

What the contributor should do if he or she does not agree with the summary, is merely prepare a corrected one. Doing witness summaries are done every day. Its time consuming –but not technically beyond the ability of the average reader without paralegal training in summarizing testimony.

The answer is not to remove the work that has already been done, even if it is imperfect. Is someone suggesting that a comprehensive list of the JFK witnesses is not a good idea. With the constant stream of information coming out of the documents found under the JFK Records Act, this would be a great resource for researchers and students alike.

The references for the testimony needs supplied. This is an absolute requirement. Otherwise how can one check the summary.

__________________________________

No good reasons are given for deleting The neutrality of this article is disputed because:


1. After the first paragraph, this article is all grassy knoll POV.

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be some one summarized the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.


2. This article contains many errors of grammar and vocabulary mistakes, e.g., using "burrow" when "furrow" was meant.P0M 21:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Noted. Find the rest of the errors.. You can spell check by cut and paste through your computer’s spell checker. The same advice should be followed for grammatical errors.


3. Delete. It's been a dumping ground for conspiracy nonsense; better to start from scratch. Gamaliel 05:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.

"Delete" This page is little more than a copy of a consiracy webpage that slants the Dealy Plaza eyewitness testimony towards the grassy knoll shot origin POV. It's basically propaganda Mytwocents 21:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


This isn’t a very specific criticism. May be these are the witnesses that testified about the shots from the grassy knoll. If there are other missing witnesses put them in. If the summaries are not accurate; improve the accuracy.


It doesn't appear to be a point of view fork. The number of witnesses is huge and cannot reasonably be included in the main article. This is is perfectly acceptable:

"Sometimes, when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article . . . "


This rule applies even if the subject is controversial:

Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork."

No signs of POV forking have been established, such as repeated attempts to place information in the main article and having it repeatedly rejected by consensus. all that this article has at its core is a long list of witnesses with summaries of their statements. The rule is, just because one doen't agree with the content one shouldn't delete it but debate it and do some work on the article. Put some work at least in the explanation on why it should be deleted if not the article itself. RPJ 22:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Bold text[reply]

The entire article is grassy knoll based on the webpage that is linked on the main page Witnesses to the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

The unknown website author breaks it down this way using their own criteria: 

216 Witnesses 
--------------------
52 Knoll  

48 Depository  

5 Knoll & Depository 

4 Elsewhere 

37 Could Not Tell 

70 Not Asked

Well OK... Here's an example from a Dallas Deputy that pretty much sums up the value of the sound of the gunshots as a means to tell where the shots came from.

  • Roger Craig
  • OCCUPATION :Dallas Deputy Sheriff
  • LOCATION : Main & Houston
  • SOURCE OF SHOTS : Could Not Tell
  • NUMBER OF SHOTS : 3
  • DEPOSITION: April 1, 1964. 6H263

It was hard to tell because-uh-they had an echo you know. There was actually two explosions with each one. There was the-uh-the shot and then the echo from it. So, it was hard to tell."

So...... Here is eye-witness testimony, given under oath, before the Warren Commision. I will point out in particular the statements of Howard L. Brennan and the young Amos Lee Euins. They saw Oswald shoot his rifle at the presidents limosine from the TSBD.

I'll conclude with this quote from the WCR:

The cumulative evidence of eyewitnesses, firearms and ballistic experts and medical authorities demonstrated that the shots were fired from above and behind President Kennedy and Governor Connally, more particularly, from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. Mytwocents 04:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mytwocents

edit
The web site that is being criticized by "Mytwocents' has about the same percentage split between the witnesses as do the two researchers cited in the main JFK Assassination article (roughly 50-50).
The Warren Report was heavily criticized by the HSCA for not reviewing the medical records, did not try to make reasoned analysis of why the witnesses heard gunshots from different directions, nor even inquire into a conspiracy by two shooters. The Commission started off with the FBI conclusion there was one shooter, and the objective of the Commission was to convince the public that there was only one shooter and no conspiracy.
It is no wonder that so very few people believe the Warren Commission's conclusions.
The polls show only from 17% to 35% of the people believe the one shooter theory espoused by the Warren Commission.[24]

[25] [26]

In 1998, the Assassination Records Review Board issued this statement in footnote 17:

Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings.

[27]

Mytwocents should also realize that the fact that one shooter exists (even if known positively to be true) does not in any way preclude a second shooter.
The official statements of well over 40 witnesses that shots came from some where else besides the Book Depository should be looked at rather than dismissing them because someone else states that he doesn't seem to know where the shots came from. Using that logic, many prosecutors would likely lose perfectly good cases. He has plenty of witnesses, but defense counsel trots out a couple of witnesses that testify "I couldn't really tell you what I saw and heard", and on that basis the defendant goes free. Does tha make any sense?
This is the reason for assembling all of the witness statement, researcher can make up their own minds. For many years the Warren Commission kept much of its proceedings secret, and took its testimony in secret.


RPJ 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another good example of why witness testimony is important

edit
The testimony of Deputy Craig cited by "Mytwocents" provides another good example why actual witness testimony is important; and the first step towards getting testimony all sorted out and analyzed is getting it summarized. This is an invaluable help. One should never stop at summary but it is a great place to start.

Deputy Roger Craig gave these statements:

On Nov 22, 1963 Roger Craig. was a Deputy Sheriff near the scene of the assassination . He was up looking for evidence near the railroad tracks right after the shooting. He talked to witnesses that saw two men together up on the sixth floor of the Book depository before the shooting and one had a rifle with a scope on it.

Then he was across the street from the grassy knoll about 15 minutes after the shooting and said “ I saw a light-colored station wagon, driving real slow, coming west on Elm Street from Houston. . . . And the driver was leaning to his right looking up the hill at [a] man running down.”

He said in a written statement the man was running “from the direction of the book depository, and jump into [the] station wagon driven by another man that drove away quickly.”

Deputy Craig testified: “I kept thinking about this subject that had run and got in the car. So, I called Captain Fritz' office and talked to one of his officers and--uh--told him what I had saw and give him a description of the man, asked him how it fit the man they had picked up as a suspect [Oswald]. And--uh--it was then they asked me to come up and look at him at Captain Fritz' office.”


Then Deputy Craig said in a written statement, that “later that afternoon I went to the City Hall and identified the suspect they had in custody as being the same person I saw running down this hill and get into the station wagon and leave the scene.” Then, while Deputy Craig was there identifying the man, Captain Fritz then asked "What about this station wagon?" and the suspect interrupted him and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

Captain Fritz then said “All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and this man saw you leave from the scene."

And the suspect again interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did.. Everybody will know who I am now."

Now for those who have read about Oswald know that Mrs. Paine is the very woman that Oswald’s wife was living with, and in whose garage Oswald allegedly stored his rifle.


This information seems to have collided with a favorite theory of the Warren Commission that Oswald made his get-away after assassinating the president by taking a bus and have some evidence they claim to have rounded up to thatt effect. The Warren Commission did not want to find an accomplice. So they tried to shake the deputy’s story which seems to be a useful tactic “Have you discussed with Sheriff Decker the fact that when Oswald was picked up they found a bus transfer in his pocket? Mr. CRAIG - No; I knew--uh nothing about a bus transfer.”

Then he is asked again if he was sure of his identification and tried to shake him again but again the deputy stuck to his story.

Mr. BELIN - Do you feel, in your own mind, that the man you saw at Captain Fritz's office was the same man that you saw running towards the station wagon? Mr. CRAIG - Yes, I feel like it was. Mr. BELIN - Do you feel that you might have been influenced by the fact that you knew he was the suspect---subconsciously, or do you---- Mr. CRAIG - Well, it's---it's possible, but I still feel strongly that it was the same person.


Now, at this point the reader must remember that the Warren Commission didn’t want any accomplice picking up Oswald when he was making a run for it. J. Edgar Hoover is on record wanting to convince the public that Oswald did this alone, and the Warren Commission’s objective was convince the public that there was no conspiracy. Hoover and a deputy attorney general drafted amemo to form the commission and said "The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large." It is still a mystery why this should have been an objective.

Conclusion

This is why the testimony of all the witnesses should be available, indexed, summarized and otherwise made available to the public to historians, and importantly to criminal prosecutors. There may be murderers still running around that need to be arrested, tried and convicted of killing the president. There is no statute of limitations on murder.

RPJ 05:26, 25 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 05:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allochthonous

edit

dicdef that has already been copied to wiktionary-- Babajobu 21:30, 21 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GirlChat

edit

This can get ugly fast, so realize my nominating this is based only on the fact that I don't think it meets WP:WEB's guidelines for inclusion of an article about a website. The article does not assert that this website has been given non-trivial media coverage, and I can't find any evidence that it has been mentioned except in passing (e.g. [28]) --W.marsh 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since it seems like every site Google brings up on this is a kiddie-porn site, and I don't need the FBI or the NSA kicking in my door, I'm voting delete on the basis that it is not verifiable. If it was more notable, I should be able to find more info on it some other way. Kafziel 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Verifiable? // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Say the website goes down... we might have the Google cache or archive.org, but other than that... there's really nothing left, and those are far from 100% reliable. WP:V is more about the idea that an article's claims and facts have "already been published by a reputable publisher", the simple "I can see it now so it's verifiable" argument could apply to any website... or to the fire hydrant outside my house. There need to be good sources for something to be verifiable... that doesn't seem to be the case here (but that's open to debate, hence this AfD). --W.marsh 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Apparent advertisement, no claim to notability in the article. Really seems to only exist to link to the page. If I use my imagination really hard I can imagine some notable page on one subject or another mentioning this or a similar message board, but an article on GirlChat really offers nothing. Perhaps a google test wouldn't do so well as girlchat could refer to more than one thing related to pedophiliaLotusduck 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious advertisement to pornagraphic site. An encyclopedia should not be a list of third party web sites. Watercolour 22:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    GirlChat is not a "pornographic site." // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable enough for inclusion; article was probably made just to antecedent AFD. // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. - NONCENSORED Popeye 23:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(FWIW NONCENSORED Popeye has been blocked indefinately as an egregious troll.) Herostratus 12:59, 24 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. Keep votes fail to realize that a website needs to be significant before it goes to Wikipedia, it does not use Wikipedia to get famous. Delete votes more well reasoned than the keep votes, so deleting in spite of less than two thirds majority. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmopedia

edit

MediaWiki site with only 4 articles. Doesn't sound too notable to me. Staecker 22:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Although I'd say if it becomes more notable. Notability always changes over time. Today's vanity article could be tomorrow's featured article, if the notability of the subject changes. Staecker 13:34, 26 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 keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved English murders

edit

Nothing useful links to it; bad taste lmno 22:10, 21 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 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roseview Group

edit

Advertisement that makes no claim to notability. Delete. Note also the duplicate page The Roseview Group LLC. –Sommers (Talk) 22:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete. The Roseview Group is a rising company that people will try to get information about. Please do not remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcostantini (talk • contribs)

Please tell me how to make this not a advertisment. what to change to keep it up?

  • Comment. In order for your company to fit the criteria for inclusion, it should fit these Guidelines. Most companies do fit these guidelines and therefore most companies are not included in the Wikipedia encyclopedia. Crunch 00:59, 22 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 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Roseview Group LLC

edit

Advertisement that makes no claim to notability. Delete. Note also the duplicate page The Roseview Group. –Sommers (Talk) 22:17, 21 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 05:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional constructivism

edit

not -understandable,suspect copyvio Melaen 22:20, 21 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 Speedily deleted by Curps per request by author. Stifle 00:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Union

edit

Delete. I doubt this thing really exists. The guy writing it (by the way, the user wrote in his page that he caught a "friend" using his account to write this) was probably attempting sneaky vandalism. Perhaps should be even speedied though I'm not sure it strictly qualifies for such.Aris Katsaris 22:31, 21 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 05:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatiana-esque

edit

Non-Notable. Possibly a vanity page. Delete. AKeen 22:37, 21 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maki Kirioka

edit

notability, he composed two songs for a videogame. see also List of Bemani musicians. Melaen 22:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sceptre
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatti

edit

Delete - WP:ISNOT a collection of Punjabi slang. the iBook of the Revolution 22:39, 21 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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sector Software

edit

non notable software house. Melaen 22:46, 21 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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Predicting war

edit

original reseach , see talk page. Melaen 22:47, 21 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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blindecibel

edit

Non-notable music ensemble, 94 google hits outside of wikipedia [29]. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:47, Jan. 21, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Prince of Aeniton

edit

No reference to this found on Google, no assertion that the book is published or meets notability guidelines. I am also nominating the following article for deletion as it relates to this:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Music of Von Schlieffen

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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo roberts

edit

non notable writer Melaen 22:51, 21 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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Allen

edit

Probable hoax - "Deborah Dare" does not Google, and you don't need me to tell you how likely that is for an "adult film actress". Much of th text including picture upload by Deborahdare (talk · contribs) - looks a lot like the serial Paulo Fontaine (talk · contribs) hoaxes I'm cleaning up right now. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a hoax to promote a porn site. Searching Lauren Allen's alias (two by two), results in a handful of websites, of which all except a defunct geocities page are mirrors of wikipedia. This article claims she has a IMDb page. The Lauren Allen on IMDb is a different person judging by the films she has participated in, and there is no date of birth noted there, as this article claims. If this is not a hoax, and there is a porn actress callled Lauren Allen, then she is not notable. --Ezeu 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising. I suspect the subject exists (or existed) as mentioned in the article, but the article has something to do with promoting material that is alleged to have been sealed by a court but later made available. A web page purporting to explain all this can be found here. MCB 05:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, hoax. Ifnord 02:51, 25 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brogo

edit

Delete this non-notable vanity webcomic article which does not meet WP:WEB. According to the article, "Brogo is a Webcomic Created by Malcolm Wilson and the website is webmastered by Wikipedia editor Iain Wilson (Klingoncowboy4)." Klingoncowboy4 is also the creator and almost sole editor of the article. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. I have, however, learned that the Brogo reservoir in Australia is apparently a decent place for bass fishing. --Dragonfiend 22:55, 21 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 05:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Cryonics Society

edit

No claim of notability. Nearly no content. May be notable, but no claim is made. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 String cheese. - Mailer Diablo 05:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enredos

edit

spanish dicdef Melaen 23:10, 21 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicking the habit

edit

not encyclopedic dicdef Melaen 23:28, 21 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 no consensus; keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS DEFAULTS TO KEEP; DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO OPPOSE OR SUPPORT A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Illinois

edit

Hardly seems notable, no context is given, and nothing in the list links anywhere. Not sure if lists can be speedied, so I sent it here. - Bootstoots 23:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, a whole lot of them are going to be added (See here). The lists look like the work of an enthusiastic newbie. Keep, wikify and contextualize. Delete and categorize. See also ongoing AfD here--Ezeu 02:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ezeu. (At least give it a couple weeks to see what happens with them. It could be useful. If the project is abandoned, delete away.-Jaysus Chris) - Jaysus Chris 23:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Once the list is generated, the corresponding entries could be of great use to the rest of the Wikipedia for the significance of a lodge name as to a particular geographical area. For example, the name of my OA lodge in Indiana is Jaccos Towne, given to us by the Wea people, and the totem would be the river otter. Prior to that, though, there were two other lodges that merged into Jaccos Towne with even more history attached to the area. Perhaps an explanation of a lodge at the main list entry would help matters. KC9CQJ 17:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody thinks this info is notable or of use to anyone, then by all means it should not waste space. However, I am sure there are more than a handful of people from Illinois who have some sort of tie to the OA lodges and wish to expand this list. The end goal should be to have someone with knowledge of each lodge create sepearate articles, such that this list is a springboard to a vast amount of information. Of course, this will take collaborating and help, but I am all for keep it. ahill7 15:30, 25 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, and as redirects to sections don't work, not redirecting. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Greek entrepreneurs

edit

not a list, it has only one name Melaen 23:43, 21 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 keep. Ifnord 02:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Quinta High School

edit

Not Encyclopedic and it seems to have turned into a contest of who's "hotter" Damicatz 23:51, 21 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 redirected and merged --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Movement

edit

unintelligible nonsense KHM03 23:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with that. KHM03 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will add mergto and mergefrom tags to both articles so that people knowlegable on this (rather obscure) subject matter may help with a merge. I am well aware that the AFD still proceeds, but this may make it easier if the result is redirect.--Ezeu 12:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to do that precisely, or else I'd do it. KHM03 11:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only admins can do it. --Ezeu 11:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can do it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:24, 27 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 05:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Growing bananas

edit

original research, maybe for wikibooks Melaen 23:53, 21 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 speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 06:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Alienz

edit

non notable Melaen 23:55, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_21&oldid=1234127643"