< December 27 December 29 >

Purge server cache

December 28[edit]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus for deletion, but I'll try to merge this with Oral Fixation 2. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal (Shakira)[edit]

The song has not been released as a single, and therefore is non-notable. Should it be released as a single in the future, the article could be restored, but as per present day, it is an extra egg in the nest. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*reverted blanking by User:Rodrigogomespaixao Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AdwareAlert[edit]

This page is (and was) just advertising. This program is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia, whether a rogue antispyware program or not - delete. --FlyingPenguins 03:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:50, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Detva District[edit]

Page has absolutely no content. (nomination by User:Liface )

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dtcon[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion for being "pure advertising," but that's not speediable. Brought it to AfD instead to respect the desire of the anon user who tagged it. No vote. howcheng {chat} 00:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete A7. -Doc ask? 01:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Krešimir Čorak[edit]

Delete - No Google hits outside of Wikipedia (unless you count a member of a Karate club) Lars T. 00:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also delete the entry in List of fantasy authors - the novel mentioned there also gives zero hits

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Zoe|(talk) . -Doc ask? 01:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Mwalmart Directory[edit]

I can't work out what its about, but it certainly isn't encyclopaedic. o__O - FrancisTyers 00:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (but a possible merge/redirect, as much as I a Sox fan loathe to admit). -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 05:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees Suck[edit]

Non notable neologism with no meaning outside of a small number of sports fans - delete . JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is the "soem cruft justifies all cruft" argument. The genuinely encyclopaedic content of this article could be covered in a single sentence in the article on the team. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. It would more than serve its purpose in Red Sox Nation. PJM 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your crass generalizations are odious, and ergo I vote Delete as per nominator. --Agamemnon2 08:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget the "Yankee Suck" chant at the Patriots Super Bowl rally. Yeesh. --badlydrawnjeff 13:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, it's a motto for Red Sox Nation and that's where it should be merged. I'm frequently in the New England area and outside the realm of Red Sox fandom, it's not a major cultural staple. PJM 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted, thanks. PJM 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't get much feedback when I first suggested it, but it's certainly not a bad idea. PJM 19:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it, still do. A merge to either of the places suggested, then some crosslinking, and a redirect, seems perfectly fine to me. ++Lar 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, overall I think a merge is the best route. PJM 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Phantasmo 03:17, 4 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 vanity. - Szvest 02:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]

Christopher Galas[edit]

nn. Google search just shows wikipedia mirrors, nothing on google scholar or google book search Pboyd04 00:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sewcom[edit]

Reads like an advert for the subject. It was initially marked for speedy back in March, but the admin suggested that "This should probably be a VfD not a speedy." Akamad Happy new year! 00:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 00:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samhwa Crown & Closure Co., Ltd.[edit]

Advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. Akamad Happy new year! 06:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Figure of Hate[edit]

Non-notable, no indication that they meet WP:MUSIC, despite the claims on the article that they are "one of the biggest metal bands to emerge out of that area of England." There is no entry on them on allmusic.com, and their official site has only had 3500 visitors. They have released one album. Akamad Happy new year! 01:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under A3. Akamad Happy new year! 08:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mirmo! external links[edit]

Wikipedia is not a link repository. I don't believe in articles set up only to be lists of external links. Recommending deletion and any external links added to Mirmo!. -- Jugalator 01:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Organized Konfusion[edit]

This page was deleted before as Organised Confusion (see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Organized Confusion) this appears to be an alternative spelling that the creator redirected. Delete Deathawk 00:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The AfD log linked to in the nomination doesn't have a vote for "Organised confusion" or the misspelling noted. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fixed it I think what I saw was a list of deleted articles but regardless if you look at "what links here" and click on the Deletion Log thingy you'll see it was deleted once. Deathawk 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exhalted[edit]

Notable as one of the only Melodic-Death-Metal in the NY area.

No hint of an album, plus their "Official Site" brings a 400 error, equals not notable enough for Wikipedia.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lessons learned[edit]

AFD improperly performed by User:Dcabrilo GeeJo (t) (c) 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - filling out AFD procedure. GeeJo (t) (c) 01:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vote to retain for further expanson of this topic ... Review where lessons learnt is cited (internally)
Business Process Improvement
Cambridge-MIT Institute
History of rail transport in Great Britain - RJBurkhart 00:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to what went wrong, see WP:AFD/Today#AfD_footer for the full procedure. I'm personally in favour of switching to a one-step process, but that's the way it goes. :) GeeJo (t) (c) 01:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's because it is a generic term. It has been used in reviews of every kind sunce reviews were invented, and the meaning is blindingly obvious. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

☯ 01:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mouhteros[edit]

Only notability is in the band Exhalted, which is also up for deletion.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Bellone[edit]

nn filmmaker no IMDB entry, google search reveals wikipedia entry and a video still from something done in 1999. Pboyd04 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ItEndsHere[edit]

Most likely vanity, the article was written by John Robert Connelly (one of the owners/managers of the website), as stated on the creators user talk page. Also possibly non-notable (though to be honest, I don't know what the standard is for website notability). Akamad Happy new year! 01:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VANITY. Self promotion is not allowed on Wikipedia. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Akamad Happy new year! 04:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A7). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Graham (Exhalted)[edit]

Only notability is in the band Exhalted, which is also up for deletion

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hagges[edit]

nn writer. He has contributed to one magazine/webzine. Google search finds nothing else. Pboyd04 01:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by User:Pablo-flores - "blatant copyvio, nothing but advertisement". --Stormie 05:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clubbity[edit]

Advertising. - FrancisTyers 01:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Possibly also copyvio from a Clubbity press release [7]Hansnesse 01:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete along with the rest. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Saldana[edit]

Of the two bands he's credited in, one is a red link, and the other is up for deletion.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Harro5 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Wright (massuer)[edit]

Excuse my ignorance of English football clubs, but is the team massuer really deserving of a wikipedia article? Pboyd04 01:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mopac Trail[edit]

It's just some country trail without any special significance. It is too nn to have an article. It should be deleted. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see my comments on User_talk:76. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. - Sikon 09:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nejaa Halcyon[edit]

Non-notable fictional character, aka fancruft. Delete or merge with list. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC) This article should not be deleted. He is a notable character in Star Wars books. --Starwarsfreak41 01:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:FICTION. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete regardless of copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 06:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University in Novi Pazar[edit]

Not only a pretty blatant copyvio, but what was copy-pasted makes absolutely no sense and cannot be possibly salvaged. This is better deleted and started blank. Circeus 01:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - copyvios should be speedied, not AFD'd. I added template db. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 01:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it was created in November, so it fails the "The material is identified within 48 hours of upload" test that WP:CSD applies to obvious copyvios. This should certainly be handled by the full copyvio process rather than AfD. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 02:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I decided to submit it here is that the material currently in the article is useless anyway, while most otehr I taggedtoday culd probably be reworked toavoid the copyvio, this mess can't. Circeus 02:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rewrite --BrenDJ 02:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Jahl's contribution to the battle of Badr[edit]

Article should be deleted and the information should be saved into Abu Jahl. His contribution at Badr was not notable enough to warrant him his own article on it. Pepsidrinka 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AFD result was "no consensus", but the votes were "Merge", "Delete", "Keep or merge", "Interwiki or merge". I think nobody cared enough to do the actual merge. --Quarl 05:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If possible, add Walid ibn Utba's contribution to the battle of Badr to this AfD. This should be merged to Walid ibn Utba. Pepsidrinka 02:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was already been merged and redirected. Jaranda wat's sup 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzer bass[edit]

Corrupted nomination by User:Sb1234 (completing steps 1 and 3, but not 2), after which point the user blanked the page. Assuming the user still wants the page deleted, I have completed the nomination. Abstain - Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. - Sikon 09:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Generation[edit]

Delete. This article violates the following policies required by Wikipedia: Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources | QzDaddy 02:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Cite sources that have defined "MTV Generation" as a generational gap with the dates provide on this article. If there are no reliable sources to verify the this definition, then this article is therefore original research. | QzDaddy 12:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the misinformation. Please don't be offended by the use of the word MTV Generation. It's only a name, which may have nothing to do with the Strauss and Howe generations, but it has been used to describe a group of people nonetheless. I have changed the article so that it is not a generational gap, but a cusp encompassing the tail end of X and the beginning of Y, but not a separate generation. This is verifiable in: ::::[10] and [11]
I plan to change the name of the article when this discussion is over to XY Cusp. [12] Actually, it is called Xer-Millennial cusp, but since there is no agreement yet on the name for Generation Y, I used XY Cusp. But I plan to refer to the MTV Generation in passing not as a generation, but as a description of the influence of MTV on this group of people within the article. r430nb
  • Fabhcun! Part of those articles do acknowledge a gap or a cusp, which is not acknowledged by Generaiton Y and X pages in wikipedia. So, if I change the name so it is not a generation, but a cusp, would it still be ok?
[16] says There is one other group that's important to mention. The "Cuspers" are those who are born in the transition between generations. If you couldn't neatly place yourself in any of the above categories, then you're probably a Cusper. 1943-1947, 1962-1967 and 1978-1982 are each considered transition times. Many people born during these cusp periods identify with the generations on either side. Often, Cuspers feel like they belong to neither and belong to both. This population caught in the middle can play an important role in ministry. They are generationally bilingual. They can act as translators and ambassadors between the generations.
[17] Ok, I will delete that one
[18] Rainmaker's Martin feels it's necessary to classify the 1978 to 1988 cohorts as a unique, mini Gen-Y. According to Martin, "the problem with longer definitions is that they're too huge" -- in other words, they cover too much societal change. This analysis puts the Gen-Y teens of the early 1990s into a unique buffer zone between X-ers and Millennials.
I'll remove the drug section.
Again I appreciate the suggestions, you're good. Ok, I made the changes, but I'm still waiting on the question about: 1. the name change from a generation to cusp? (as that will cause a redirect) 2. Will you change your vote after I do it? r430nb
  • Good, Thank you! If there is any suggestions you have, please let me know. r430nb
Thanks for the help Lar! I removed the list of bands, but I plan on putting one or two examples of each musical type.
No worries. BTW r430nb, it is not necessary to respond to each and every comment from everyone expressing an opinion, especially if you're just commenting on their comment... that can make these quite long and hard to follow for the "closing admin". What may work better is to try to address all the concerns in one comment that you tack on the end of the discussion, instead of individually. Hope that helps. And thanks for signing your comments, it's hard to remember to do it every time but it really helps if you do. ++Lar 16:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but if every cultural influence is moved out, what should I keep? The list of bands has been moved over to the talk page for the article. Then, for the hard subject of the the phrase "MTV generation" I can't find a source matching it to the specific dates mentioned, like he said up above and that it describes a gap between X and Y. So, while I like the term MTV generation, it doesn't match the specific group we're trying to get. This term overlaps with any teenager born anytime who is influenced by MTV. The only claim we have to it is that we were born around the time it first came out, like how Generation Y has always been surrounded with computers and they don't know about a time before that. Believe me, I don't want to change the name "MTV generation" but to comply with Wikipedia, I have to change it to match the sources or else it's deleted. I hope this doesn't change your vote. r430nb
Cool! r430nb
Good, more power to you! r430nb
Good, thank you! r430nb
Thank you, but if I put any section of it in Generation X page, they will most likely put it in deletion again. r430nb
Why? Please give examples? r430nb
Haha, yeah, it does look like that. Thank you Andylkl and Thank you to everyone who votes "keep" and the love and support everyone gives to this article! I will divert all my other comments to the discussion page. Please look at the old version that Andylkl had because I had to rip it up due to the threat of deletion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and expand. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyckoff Farmhouse Museum[edit]

Seemly a non notable place. ReyBrujo 02:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately also a copyvio, I've tagged and listed it. -- JJay 03:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Learned! I promise! -- ReyBrujo 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mist mod[edit]

Lacks importance Hirudo 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At most it would warrant a mention in the main half-life 2 page. Hirudo 02:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's only one paragraph. While I agree a rewrite would be good, I think this falls under the copyright radar. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One paragraph from a book may be fair use but this paragraph is the entire work in question. Ifnord 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright protection on very short works is limited. Regardless, it's re-written now. | Klaw ¡digame! 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like it's been down since at least October 8th [19]. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: speedily deleted by User:Adam Bishop, blanked by creator. --Stormie 05:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The First Church of the Apostleship[edit]

This appears to be idiosyncratic nonsense, zero Google hits for this phrase. It might be a good idea to scrutinize other articles created/edited by the original contributor. -- The Anome 02:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: appears now to have been blanked by its creator. Speedy delete? -- The Anome 04:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pieces of Heaven[edit]

This page is a direct copy of a forum posting [20], by article's original author, about a (presumably Seventh Heaven) fanfic. It is not notable, unencyclopedic, and probably vanity. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tanner_Hoechlin --Quarl 06:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was history merge. Johnleemk | Talk 06:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic metal/Temp[edit]

This temp page no longer has a purpose. It was originally created to serve as a home to a draft version of a revised copy of Gothic Metal during dispute over the article. Since then, the dispute has been resolved and the article has been revised, with all consequtive edits made to the main article. As such, this old, draft copy, doesnt have a purpose, and to save newer uses making edits to this without reason, it would be better to simply delete it Leyasu 03:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 10:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Wienecke[edit]

Seems to be vanity or atleast nn. Google search just showed an Amazon profile and comments on IMDB. Pboyd04 03:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire T&W American Royal Mead[edit]

This Wiki article appears to be an advertisement for 'Empire T&W American Royal Mead, complete with a link to the seller, a link to a review and no redeeming qualities. I strongly recommend deletion. Ianmilligan1 03:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs Up![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 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compound entertainment[edit]

Non-notable company +/- ad. Ifnord 03:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Mann Elementary School (Oak Park, Illinois)[edit]

Again, no notable information. I'd like to renominate this article for deletion per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Delete. Nothing encyclopedic about this entry. Strong Delete. Wikipedical 04:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Whitley[edit]

Apparent vanity. Michael Whitley + CZI yields 5 google hits, one of which is from Michaelwhitley.com. History shows cleanup tag was added on Dec 6 but deleted by the original author. Saint Midge 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision made to merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny (Guilty Gear) and Leopaldon and now Kliff Undersn[edit]

Leopaldon: Presumably this means something to someone. 500 google hits, mostly about a nn Japanese rock group. Grutness...wha? 04:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fanny (Guilty Gear): not a clue what this is all about. And the google search led me to some very unseemly sites that I won't mention here. Either hard porn or (more likely) something to do with an unnamed video game. Grutness...wha? 04:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Character from video game series "Guilty Gear". The reference to Dr. Baldhead led to less obscene links. Saint Midge 04:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course he isn't very secret, I've never seen a game where he _wasn't_ unlocked. It's like deleting Seung Mina because she hasn't been an "official" character since Soul Edge. However, merging Kliff with Testament (his son, who is a more major character), Fanny with Baldhead, and Leopaldon with That Man (his boss) isn't a bad idea. These pages already exist and are pretty well-developed. -- Narfness 21:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of minor Star Wars Jedi characters. - Sikon 09:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu'ala[edit]

Very minor Star Wars character. Only claim to fame is that he was one of the many jedi characters who died during Attack of the Clones. Not enough information available to justify a merge into one of the Lists of Star Wars characters. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The MSW[edit]

Originally had this has just nn-band, but since the article author or authors seem to think they're establishing notability, I decided to put it up for a vote instead (nothing for them on Google ... not that that was a surprise) Daniel Case 04:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Femocracy[edit]

Not encyclopedic. Appears to be merely a soapbox. A.J.A. 04:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, even if I personally play Utopia. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 06:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utopia General Talk[edit]

Non-notable, the article is about a forum. Akamad Happy new year! 05:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (WP:NOR). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Why did the Galactic Empire have to lose?[edit]

Take your pick:fancruft, unencyclopedic, original research Daniel Case 05:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're only saying that just because you created it. As the above comments indicate, it was doomed to deletion from the start and even if it wasn't, it was not likely to survive. Reread the comments up above as to why it's up for deletion and you'll understand. Wikipedia is simply not the place for this sort of thing. Daniel Case 05:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Must have worked ... author has removed his sig from that comment, from likely embarassment. Daniel Case 06:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that even judging from the way the article begins, it seems like it will be a violation of Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:No original research). Your own theories on the Galactic Empire do not qualify for Wikipedia, but they would be great elsewhere on the web. Do not take offense. ×Meegs 05:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incompetent design[edit]

I really don't see how this is notable. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicheminds[edit]

One Google hit besides the company's own website, which doesn't come up. The very definition of non-notable company. Seems promotional anyway Daniel Case 05:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in the second person can always be fixed, but still worth a delete per Daniel Case. --Idont Havaname 23:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete under A7. Akamad Happy new year! 08:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Troseph[edit]

Orphaned (did step 3 only) deletion by User:24.139.30.75. I would argue original research; it's a neologism from "mid august of 2005". Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Pak Union[edit]

This seems to fall in WP:NOT in the publisher of original thought, as either a critical review or some sort of personal essay. Any useful information could be merged into Foreign_relations_of_India#Pakistan. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article and believe it is important both as a stand alone piece and agree that it should be linked into the other more general article. This is a concept which is unofficially under development between high ranking participants in each country. Why would you ever delete it? It is an important and separate concept than the general political dialogue between the countries, which should refer to it. Yes, it can be improved and I will make efforts to do so later. I cannot understand why anyone would want to stop the blossoming of such an important initiative for 1.3 BN people. Also, please note that the movement is unofficial and should not be given higher accord, lest its own chances of success be reduced. Thanks.

  • I believe the 1.3 Billion people reference is to the combined populations of India and Pakistan. --Gurubrahma 09:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the piece to incorporate the above suggestions, including linking it into the piece on India Foreign Policy. Any help on formatting would be appreciated as I am new to Wiki.

The document has now been reduced to a short set of factual statements. The term "Indo-Pak Union" exists independently, as can be ascertained by a Google search.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as G1. Akamad Happy new year! 08:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Humanitarian convoy under attack[edit]

Nothing comes up under Google. Band name seems unlikely for that time anyway, and members ... well, there's nothing in Arch Hall Jr. and just look at the rest. sounds like a hoax. Daniel Case 06:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arch Hall Jr. sucks. Archjr
Not very nice of you to delete the AFD box. That isn't good faith. Daniel Case 06:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Hoechlin[edit]

Non-notable relative of an actor. No content besides "is younger brother". See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pieces_of_Heaven (I guess his claim to fame is he's "starring" in Pieces of Heaven). Delete --Quarl 06:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was a consensus to delete from article space. But it appears that Taryn85 is Nigel Clarke. Thus, I will userfy this entry by moving it to User:Taryn85 and delete the resulting cross-namespace redirect. I would advise Mr. Clarke to avoid making unfounded accusations of racial bias. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:39, Jan. 5, 2006

Nigel Clarke[edit]

Was flagged for speedy deletion, but does not meet criteria. Moved to AfD. EdwinHJ | Talk 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 05:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew P Sheeran[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "cannot find independent sources of information," but being unverifiable is not a speedy criterion. Bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howcheng {chat} 06:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Almost patent nonsense. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL: We Just Chillin'[edit]

Clearly a joke (no Google hits). Wish there was a clear way to speedy this sort of thing. Daniel Case 06:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad it's too early to invoke the Snowball Clause, but, alas, it's only proposed policy. B.Wind 07:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

}

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Tree Barbeque[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "no encyclopedic content," but being about a "restraunt" (sic), it doesn't qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead. Delete. howcheng {chat} 06:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP via no consensus. Mo0[talk] 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyYearbook[edit]

A feature of a website. So what? Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

601st[edit]

Fan-fictional Clone Troopers legion, not from the canonical Star Wars universe. Cheap ripoff of the 501st Legion. Delete as fancruft. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galak Stari[edit]

Fan-fictional character, not from the canonical Star Wars Universe. Raised on a totally (to human life anyway) inhospitable world, one of the greatest lightsaber duelists of all time, and the only Jedi (bar Yoda) who survived Order 66 to die of old age. Delete as non-canonical fancruft Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me if I'm an orange[edit]

-- Not a notable meme, article has more meta-commentary than info. Babajobu 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Summa Theologica/Notable points[edit]

The text is a duplication of Summa Theologiae#Notable points made by the Summa and the page is badly named anyway. It's quite possible that it was created by mistake. - N (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 20:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holomine[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Eugman with the reason "A quick google search didn't show much. Don't think it's worth keeping." That's not a speedy criterion, so bringing it to AfD. No vote. howcheng {chat} 07:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 20:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PLX[edit]

Advertisement. A very, very obvious advertisement. Greentryst TC 07:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 12:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animate! OSU, Anime Punch!, Armageddicon[edit]

Delete vanity article on non-notable student club for anime fans at Ohio State University. 9 unique, non-Wikipedia derived google hits for "Animate! OSU."[29] Can't say they've made much impact, but what do you expect for a club that meets (as their website puts it) "in the building next to the Math Tower." Postdlf 07:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please add to this nomination Armageddicon, the club's "convention" (about a dozen unique non-Wikipedia hits), and Anime Punch!, which was apparently that highly publicized "convention's" precursor...um...picnic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Weitzman[edit]

The article reads like blatant advertising. It consists of one very pov paragraph and a list of stores. Delete TheRingess 07:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. See joint nomination above. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Animate! OSU' sub-articles[edit]

This is a combined nomination for Armageddicon and Anime Punch!, two low-key, poorly attended conventions organised by the Animate! OSU anime club (speedily deleted a very short while ago for failing CSD A-7: Unremarkable people or groups). If the group is deemed unsuitable for a Wikipedia article, where do the events the organise stand? Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elements of religion[edit]

Essay/original research, useful content already covered in the religion article. Also appears to violate WP:NOT by using Wikipedia as a free webhost, delete--nixie 08:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bibio[edit]

Reason Not notable Kravitz33 08:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied - no assertion of importance. Radiant_>|< 10:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Dark Demons[edit]

The band does not seem to have any releases, notable appearances, etc. --Hansnesse 08:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patch clamp[edit]

None of the articles linked on this disambiguation page exist. If there are no Wikipedia articles on the different types of patch clamps, a disambiguation page is unnecessary. Simpatico 08:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital sound revolution[edit]

"Revolution" is a bit silly, when practically all computers from the start used digital audio, and most synthesizers used for music remained analogue. Also, this article is inaccurate - the Commodore SID was largely digital (all waveforms were digital), and really only the filter was analogue (and remained practically external to the chip, IIRC). The Amiga sound chip was the first digital chip used in a computer? Absolute nonsense. I could name ten others predating that by half a decade just from the top of my head. I know that inaccurate information should be rewritten rather than deleted, but when there was no real digital sound revolution it seems silly to have this article at all. WMarsh 09:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know about these predating computers with digital sound chips you refer to. Pixel8 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you define it narrowly, certainly the Mac in '84 qualifies (it had a DMA-driven 8-bit DAC). Mirror Vax 19:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Machines with the AY chip for starters - this includes popular home computers from the very early 80s and onwards. Okay, it's not designed for playing samples from memory, but the article doesn't say this is a requirement - in fact, it's hard to tell what the article is saying at times, or what the supposed revolution was (another good reason to just get rid of it). There were many chips like this, and they certainly didn't use analogue oscillators, and could be made to act as low-quality DACs. WMarsh 19:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone remembers the Fleischmann & Pons "room temperature fusion" affair of the late 80s, that experiment was controlled using the onboard ADC and DAC on a BBC Model B :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If quality isn't an issue, the Apple II (1977) was perfectly capable of playing sampled sound. In fact, that's all it could do, because it didn't have a sound synthesizer, just a bit-banging 1-bit DAC. Mirror Vax 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this article is incorrect . When it concerns computers there was more of an evolution than a revolution. For instance most early home computers had some kind of DA convertor. So did most early game consoles. The 'revolution' spoken of in the article most likely refers to sampling 'revolution'. As DA convertors beccame cheaper/better and memory became less of a problem sampling became viable. The Commodore Amiga is a perfect example of this evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.224.111 (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case it needs to be moved to a title which does not imply POV and OR; it also needs to be sure it is not duplicating content in the linked and other articles. As far as I can tell this article is arguing that those (elsehwere described) innovations constitute the digital sound revolution but as far as I'm concerned they don't, for the reasons stated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Obviously, I'm ignoring all the forgeries by the anon, after which things are pretty clear. -Splashtalk 22:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Crabtree[edit]

The article said he gained fame regarding his writings about Iraq, but the Google test seems to say otherwise. [31] (Note - there are quite a few hts for just "James Crabtree," but I think that refers to a number of people with that name.) I can't seen to discern anything at all noteworthy about this guy - he's a Marine captian who's posted on a few political blogs... I discovered this article when I was checking the user contributions of Algore2008, who had been making some blatantly orginal-research and potentially slanderous edits to the Alex Jones (journalist) article. But at any rate, since this person doesn't seem in any way notable, I say Delete. Blackcats 23:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note - relisting for more feedback. Blackcats 07:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC) and Blackcats 09:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to weak delete. Blackcats makes some good points about the Guardian article + the guy's blog is lame. However, I do think his dispatches from Iraq got some attention at the time, although the radio coverage is impossible to assess. -- JJay 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been on the radio, too. Not just local radio, BBC Radio 4. And I score more Google hits than he does. And if anyone created an article about me I will laugh heartily before AfDing it :-D - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I might be the Pope. Since we can't verify your statement above, can you create an article on yourself and then nominate it please? We need to debate this...although if your statement is true, I might very well vote Keep. -- JJay 19:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ayden Scheim[edit]

Very non-notable, with less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits. LGBT activist in Toronto who's done a few workshops at some conferenes and had a bio-piece done on some tv show. Judging from the edit history, the article seems to be some hybrid of an attack-page and a vanity-page made by his friends and aquantences there. Don't think this would be of interest to anyone other than perhaps a few dozen people in the LGBT Toronto scene, so hard to see how this could merit a Wikipedia article. Delete. Blackcats 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, one story qualifies as extensive media coverage when the media is generally reticent to cover this sort of thing. Endomion 16:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean "reticent to cover" someone who's not very notable?... Blackcats 08:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "reticent to cover" sexual minorities. Endomion 12:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - I hadn't noticed such a reticence. I find the media loves sensational stuff about gays and lesbians (i.e. all the hooplah about the marriages last year in the states and in the uk now with elton john and all). And transexuality can be even more sensational for the media - particuarly female->male, which is less common. If media coverage of such things was really so unusual, then wouldn't LGBT websites around the world be talking about Ayden Scheim and how extraordinary it was that he got such media coverage? And wouldn't this result in hudreds if not thousands of google hits?... Blackcats 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't explain why google is such a poor tool. However, if you are interested, I could update the article to show the many newspaper articles that have featured Scheim along with his TV and radio appearances. -- JJay 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a "unique local activist" too, and I've been interviewed by local print and broadcast media on a number of occasions over the past ten years or so - even had a personality profile done in a local paper. And I know a number of local activists here and in other towns who can say the same. But I don't think all that adds up to notability on the Wikipedia level. In a wiki about my town I probably would be deserving of at least brief mention (as would some of my friends), as would Ayden in a Toronto wiki. But neither of us are notable enough to have a Wikipedia bio. Blackcats 01:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Programs which air across the whole of Canada on a public broadcasting network are not "local media". And both programs have been aired outside of Canada as well. Bearcat 06:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been featured in two documentaries shown on national TV? If so, please submit an article on yourself- we need the info. -- JJay 01:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The one TV show that I see she was featured on is Rough Cuts - a reletively minor CBC weekly program which doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article, and which gets a little over 10,000 Google hits. [38] Now the show is certainly certainly notable enough that it would deserve a Wikipedia article, but it's certainly a much less well known show than say Dateline NBC, which gets almost two million Google hits. [39] My point is that the show is not notable to the point where someone appearing on that show one week (in Scheim's case with two others) automatically becomes notable. I'm not even sure that someone who was featured one week on Dateline NBC as an example of some phenomenon they were discussion would automatically become notable, but they'd have a stronger case. Also, I don't see any good reason why the Google-test shouldn't apply here, as this person is not historic and is not from outside the Western World. It's really hard to see how a young Canadian activist would have less than 200 non-Wikipedia Google hits if he were notable. Another test I would apply is would anyone who had not met Ayden Scheim in person and did not live in his area be likely to be motivated to start a Wikipedia article on him? And I have yet to see any evidence that they would. And judging from the edit summaries at the article, it's pretty clear to me that it was written by people who know Ayden. Blackcats 04:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Ayden, and I've been involved in editing it. Bearcat 05:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for more input. Blackcats 09:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you had a documentary made about you as well? I really wish you would stop bragging about your unproven accomplishments and judge the articles based on their merits or do some research. -- JJay 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I am not important enough to warrant a Wikipedia entry, so one of my benchmarks for inclusion is someoen who's had more media exposure than I have, it's as simple as that. You can't verify my media appearances for the same reason I can't easily verify the media appearances of the subject: they are transient. Andy Warhol said that everyone is famous for 15 minutes - does that mean everybody should be in WP? The problem here is continuing verifiability, notability is just shorthand for describing someone who is likely to remain in the media spotlight for long enough to ensure that something other than a single current event is verifiable (like candidates for political office, most of whom lose, and many of those are never heard of again). Once the media lose interest (assuming they haven't already) then everything subsequent becomes completely unverifiable instead of only unverifiable by anyone not in the area. As far as I'm concerned we should wait at least a year before adding an article related to any single current event, to see what the perspective of history might be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I reiterate: Have you been featured in two nationally televised documentaries? If not, I expect you will stop distorting Mr. Scheim's record and withdraw your comments above. I would also appreciate it if you stopped talking about your supposed media appearances. Your claims about google hits are not relevant unless you provide a link. If the hits relate to some blog you maintain then they will be discounted. Mr. Scheim is not a current event, he is an activist. There are newspaper references on him dating back four years. Futhermore, I do not judge any bio by the media's interest or lack thereof. If I did, we could immediately trash most of our bios on historical subjects as well as numerous academics etc. -- JJay 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham Norton hosting a celebrity gabfest is not the same thing as a news or documentary program actually reporting on the real day-to-day lives and issues of LGBT youth. His presence on the tube doesn't even remotely constitute "the media covering sexual minorities". Bearcat 05:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. That was beautifully put. -- JJay 02:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 10:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Namis[edit]

Hoax. There is exactly one Google hit for "Lord Namis", which is a Wikipedia listing of candidates for speedy deletion. I have verified the claim of "Namis" appearing in the Bible as bogus (using tools on this site). Delete - possibly a candidate for speedy deletion as vandalism. - Mike Rosoft 10:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beez von Beezen[edit]

Some anon nominated this for deletion and didn't specify why. I'm completing the process. Abstain. Radiant_>|< 10:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Even several of the keepers admit these things are works-in-progress; they are of the nature that the work may never be completed. The invocation of crystal balls early on is significant, and hasn't been challenged. -Splashtalk 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project Chaos, Milkyway Wishes, Around the World (Super Dodge Ball album), Children of Erdrick[edit]

A project to create a remix album of music from Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Sonic & Knuckles. We have established a precedent of including OverClocked ReMix's previous projects, however this one is still fairly new and does not lay claim to so much as a title as yet. The article itself is abysmal (and I don't feel anyone has any right to be offended by my saying such--it can't be described any other way). An infobox is not an article, and an article containing only "More information forthcoming" makes Wikipedia itself look bad. I'm fine with this article existing at some later date, but at the moment it is no cause for notice. Vague | Rant 10:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added three (very) similar articles to this AfD. - Vague | Rant 11:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This vote was originally here. - Vague | Rant 11:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LitFinder[edit]

Clearly an advertisement, not notable. -- Simpatico 11:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still need to Delete. Yeah, I made changes to it (I'm a newbie, sorry about that) before I realized it's not exactly encyclopedic. Still, this database is nonnotable and doesn't need a wikipedia page. -- Simpatico 04:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Passive aerobic exercise[edit]

Passive aerobic exercise is an oxymoron. This article was created by a user whose other edits include three other articles promoting the Chi Machine, its manufacturers and designers. See aerobic exercise for a proper treatment of the subject. This is snake-oil promotion, whether or not the Chi Machine article is deleted. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Mario Kart: Double Dash!!, and possibly transwiki, too. However, the coverage in the article is of such excessive detail, that it's not clear how to merge it. The target already mentions the Bob-omb blast, so I'll just redirect it; the content is still in the history if anyone wants it. -Splashtalk 00:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bob-omb Blast[edit]

Unnecessary detail on a minor element of Mario Kart: Double Dash!!. Perhaps transwiki to corresponding Wikibook smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 11:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Backyard Wrestling[edit]

I couldn't verify anything in this article, delete.--nixie 11:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of software companies[edit]

WP:NOT a directory. Further, this page (and others like it, see Lists of companies for a ton more that may be deletion-worthy) are a magnet for link spammers and astroturfers. —Locke Cole 11:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How does this page encourage astroturfing? Turnstep 23:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is little to no verification of companies added to the list. See WP:CORP (and also see the contribs over the last few months; mostly anon IPs adding companies with external links in an attempt to pump up their PageRank most likely). —Locke Cole • t • c 04:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CORP is in regards to giving a company an article, not its use anywhere in Wikipedia. Further, if inappropriate entries are being added by anonymous IPs, they should be removed, same as any other article. I'm just not seeing a genuine reason for deletion here, unless one is categorically (pun intended) against all lists on Wikipedia, in which case a policy discussion is more appropriate. Turnstep 14:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So what would be the reason for including a company which is not sufficiently important tro qualify for an article of its own, given that WP:ISNOT a directory service, a collection of links or an indiscriminate collection of information? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Xel Lungold[edit]

Bizzare bio of non-notable subject, most of the content lifted from his site, delete.--nixie 11:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, Already trans-wikied. Tznkai 00:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonable people[edit]

About the clearest transwiki i've ever seen. More or less a technicality. Too lazy to suffer the wrath of some policy wonk out there.karmafist 11:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Since I am sort of a transport/communications guy I am always concerned about seamlessness in social technical systems (turns out that people don’t like to catch a bus to catch a bus, etc.). So when there I am in Wikipedia, it is my I am sure quite silly desire to be able to one click to, say, a word that the author has pointed up as a possible key to a message. Or a quote such as this. Which only goes to show you how naive one can be. Thanks so much for putting me into the picture. (But I bet that this seamlessness will come about sooner or later, and probably sooner.)
Perhaps I might add that as I blunder around here, there is a bit more to it than may meet the eye. I have a long time interest in creating and supporting knowledge building mechanisms for public policy decisions and actions, and that at least in part via [Self-Organizing Collaborative Network]s. So, perhaps not surprisingly, we are looking at ways of integrating the Wikipedia into a number of our groups work projects under [The Commons]. My hope is that our use of it will turn out to be useful to others in turn. (Hope I have not put you to sleep.) ericbritton 18:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Roper[edit]

This article was deleted as a WP:CSD A7 (no assertion of notability) but the speedy was disputed and a clear consensus to undelete this appeared at WP:DRV. Listing this article now for regular AFD process. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insider attack[edit]

Basically, it's an essay. It violates Wikipedia is not a soapbox, among other things. Attempts have been made to clean it up, but they have been unsuccessful. Put it out of it's misery. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OpenSebJ[edit]

Very minor freeware, virtually no Google presence, created by User:OpenSebJ. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually Open Source; that's why it's been added here, also you cite this software as currently being of little significance, however it currently is in the top 3% of projects listed on Source Forge - these statistics are visible on the project page OpenSebJ SourceForge home--OpenSebJ 12:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A remarkable feat, given that is scores only 40 Google hits. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Number of CVS commits in the last 7 days
  • Age of the latest file release in days
  • Number of days since the last project admin login
To get an 'activity rank' of 98% for a project, all one needs to do is log into SourceForge once every few days, have recently released a file, and commit to the CVS repository a couple of times. It says nothing about the popularity of the project or the meaningfulness of it.
That said, delete. The project has been downloaded a staggering 306 times since its first release in August 2005. This is not material for an encyclopedia. --Stephen Deken 18:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your feedback on how insignificant this page apparently is when compared to the magnitude of other items within the encyclopaedia, I do wonder to myself what does qualify? Having a look at the category's of Free audio software & SourceForge projects I am still a little confused as how this is any less significant than the least significant already there? --OpenSebJ 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • My comments (and my 'delete' recommendation) are not meant to be insulting. It's just that there has to be a line somewhere between Apache and Joe's File Renaming Script such that projects on one side are included, and projects on the other side are not. Google (while not the end-all of search engines) records 'about 41' hits for the term 'OpenSebJ', of which 16 are 'sufficiently unique'. Of those, 4 are sourceforge mirrors, 7 are posts by you under the username 'opensebj' on some forums, 2 are your website, and one is the sourceforge project page. That leaves just two pages, one of which seems to be a mirror and one of which appears to be a gateway page. No one but you appears to be discussing this project at all. No one but you appears to be using it. While I wish you the best of luck with the development and promotion of this project, I just can't say that it has garnered enough interest at this point for an article here. --Stephen Deken 01:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another good point is that a lot of the stuff in Wikipedia at any given moment should not be there. If AfD'd, I'm sure a lot of those SourceForge projects there would be deleted with clear consensus. --Agamemnon2 09:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Ok thanks for the explantion all clear now ;-)--144.131.111.109 11:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Llangollen Railway. Why did a merge need to come here? We keep the redirect as the easiest way of retaining the history attribution. -Splashtalk 00:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWR 7800 Class 7822 Foxcote Manor[edit]

I have travelled behind this loco. I am a railway modeller and steam fan. I still don't think this deserves an article of its own. Merge with Llangollen Railway, remove this as the redirect is an extremely unlikely search term. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWR 4900 Class 4920 Dumbleton Hall[edit]

Individual preserved loco, not in and of itself famous. I would merge and redirect to South Devon Railway but the redirect is superfluous as this is an unlikely search term. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Brighterorange 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine cooperative[edit]

Wikipedia is not a manual. Nyh 12:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (already merged). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWR 2251 Class no.3205[edit]

content merged to GWR 2251 Class (or rather, the half a sentence which was not already there has been merged); redirect is superfluous. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multilevel Constitutionalism[edit]

Original research; creator is USer:Ingolf Pernice, and Ingolf Pernice is identified as author or co-author on pretty much the entire canon of cited work on this subject. Which is a pretty small canon, apparently. First cite I can find is in 2004, and there is no evidence of widespread currency outside the author and his immediate circle. Sorry, prof, if I do you an injustice, but that's how I see it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Key Combinations[edit]

Is there any need for this? According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not meant for instruction manuals. -- SoothingR(pour) 13:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karunakara Guru, Santhigiri ashram[edit]

Promotional article for leader of what appears to be a very minor religion. Tagged for cleanup, neutrality and accuracy, and nothing done. Santhigiri ashram is a Geogre's Law failure, scores only about 800 Google hits, mostly to its own self-promotion. I see no evidence that this is a major or even significant religion, although of course it is quite possible that the problems verifying might be down to systemic bias. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a new relegion. He is a Hindu relegious_leader/guru/saint. Tintin Talk 14:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mladost (bar)[edit]

Just another snack bar, with no special claim of notability. Wikipedia isn't a travel guide. - Bobet 13:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bankable star[edit]

This article was deleted after a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star). The article was edited during the original AFD discussion and a DRV debate started on December 12 had three votes to "undelete". Relisting now. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Acknowledged. You did, however, describe extremely accurately, I thought, why the dicdef part of this article is of no practical value. The rest is cruft :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan Dlan[edit]

RPG translation clan. About 7,000 Google hits (not too bad) but almost all blogs and forums; no evidence of real significance, and much of the evidence which exists is not in English so is unverifiable in the English WP. I reckon it's forumcruft, but others may disagree. This article is the editor's first and only contribution to date. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know because I am the admin of that site. :) I came to wikipedia after i noticed hits from here to my site in my webstats, and when i saw there was no "Clan Dlan" edition (though the link is there for people to edit it and plz refer to the "planescape torment" page you have here in wiki) i tought i could very well add it. I am sorry if this edition of the link is against your policies, i must admit i didnt read them before i edited this. You can verify all the info just like you verified the "planescape torment" translation exists, or the newly released vampire bloodlines or lots of others at clandlan.net/academia. And again, my apologies for not reading your policies before.--Immort 13:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No problem as far as I'm concerned, and no problem with a mention in the articles for those you've translated. It's quite possible that the group may indeed become famous, it just doesn't seem that way yet. Please see my comment on your Talk page. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heeh! Well, as said, i came around and was very very surprised to see a mention of us in the Planescape Torment page in here! And when i saw the link was empty and could be edited, i added us. :) I take no offense in you wanting to delete it, as said, im so very new i dont even know how to reply your message in my talk or something *cough*, so if you guys think its necessary, its okay :) Famous... hmmm... rather known maybe, but not "taking over the world" famous so far! :) Thanks :) ps: i see your coment, i just dont know how to reply! :s ill keep investigating this... :) EDIT: okay, finally replied. --Immort 14:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was userfy (this is my 6th userfication in the last two days). howcheng {chat} 00:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eduardo Quezada[edit]

A television journalist advertizing himself. Anthony Appleyard 13:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of monarchs of Scotland. howcheng {chat} 23:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs of Scotland in Gaelic[edit]

We've got a List of monarchs of Scotland, why do we need the same thing in Gaelic? This is the English Wikipedia, and the purpose of lists like this is to help the reader navigate to articles about Scottish monarchs. This list doesn't do that. If somebody wants to know the Gaelic names, they can look them up in the articles, or they can go to the Gaelic Wikipedia. Or, the Gaelic names can be put in brackets into the main list. In any case, this list is useless. - ulayiti (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • So include them all. It will be much easier for the user than trying to cross-reference them between three different articles! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, you just added a mergefrom notice to it. That's not the same thing. Doops | talk 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. 1) The mergefrom notice was added by somebody else, not you; 2) I evidently got to the article before you did. The merge has now taken place. Doops | talk 07:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Future[edit]

In all seriousness, it looks as if "merge" has a consensus. My question is: what will become of the old article and its edit history? Are we thinking in terms of a redirect page or an outright deletion? Doops | talk 07:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen them used; and they don't work well. They just make for a confusing muddle. Much much better to leave the old history at the redirecting page. Doops | talk 17:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The International Network for Inclusive Democracy[edit]

Non-notable, gets 9 unique Google hits (two of which are from WP). A related article was AfD'ed recently in a sockpuppet-ridden nomination, and the creator(s) of this article insist that Wikipedia has a political agenda against him/them. They also kept putting up a copyright violation at Inclusive Democracy, which has now been protected against recreation. - ulayiti (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

REGRESSION IN WIKIPEDIA

--TheVel 13:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Talk Towers. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - Izehar 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Polonsky[edit]

Improper speedy-tagging: this was tagged as ((nn-bio)). However, being the head of a higher institution of education, in this case University of Ontario Institute of Technology, is clearly an assertion of notability. Apparently he is the first president[44]] of an entirely new Canadian university.[45]. I am abstaining, hoping for expansion. u p p l a n d 14:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rozzlyn J Heltir[edit]

Blogger, style of the text suggest it was written by the subject, vanity, delete.--nixie 14:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scifi-Meshes[edit]

Non-notable website, Alexa rank > 170,000; promoting future features, advertisement. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 22:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask me if I'm an orange[edit]

-- Not a notable meme, article has more meta-commentary than info. Babajobu 14:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Brighterorange 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Welgevonden[edit]

Meaningless entry Jomtois 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel P. Carry[edit]

Claims notability, but looks like WP:Complete bollocks. 3 google results with the name doesn't seem to be in line with his supposed achievements. - Bobet 15:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BangPypers[edit]

Non-notable computer user group. MeltBanana 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delana Mosalaine[edit]

no content, seemingly abandoned page. Does this character really deserve her own article? Pboyd04 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Brighterorange 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Accessdenied[edit]

The article does not explain what this group does, and why it is notable. Aleph4 15:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was userfy. howcheng {chat} 23:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Michael Lampard"[edit]

apparent autobiography; see username of author David Brooks 02:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

04:31, 27 October 2005 Lucky 6.9 deleted "Michael Lampard" (Reposting of vanity) 04:25, 27 October 2005 Lucky 6.9 deleted "Michael Lampard" (Vanity) Hedley 00:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adigitalman[edit]

Non-notable entry. About somebody who edited their own versions of the Star Wars movies. Akamad Happy new year! 12:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Axel Blomberg[edit]

This page should be deleted. It's rambling and incoherent, and factually inaccurate in places. Clearly the author of this page neglected to do proper research or spellchecking (a "slough" of bands?) before writing this article. It reads like it was written by a sixteen-year-old black metal fan who fancies himself tr00 and kvlt but knows very little about the genre.

A minor correction: the supposed pieces of Per Yngve 'Dead' Ohlin's skull were taken by Øystein 'Euronymous' Aarseth, not Blomberg. Other than that, it should either be deleted or rewritten into an accurate, structured article. --GreatCthulhu 05:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 09:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Holly[edit]

Delete Google search on this guy comes up with nothing. Believe the entire article is a farce.--Looper5920 05:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax:[47] & [48]. However, this I can't find mention of his Grammy nomination outside of his site. Hmmmm.... PJM 15:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 23:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Tall (politician)[edit]

Strong delete Not notable. We cant list every local councillor in the country. Concillors are here today, gone tomorrow. Where will it all end. Can I list all my friends and local shopkeepers too?--Light current 03:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why have my earlier comments disappeared from this discussion? Anyway, as I said, Keep, because he has been elected to a public office, that already makes him noteworthy. Besides, he has an interesting blog on his site, which is more what can be said of several other councillors, who were decided to be kept in this thread. Even the article about Stephen Tall now contains more information than most of thos articles. I really can't see the logic, if this one article will be decided to be deleted, and that bunch was decided to be kept.--Libs 11:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other contribs from you on this page. look at the history!--Light current 02:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Juravich[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Just because he is a college professor does not mean that he rates his own page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've taken the liberty of reformatting your edit to be consistent with the list style used on Afd nominations. It makes it easier to track the conversation. Crypticbot is a bot that lists orphaned Afd nominations. He's not the one who actually placed the Afd in the first place so your comment is misplaced. Also, it is good etiquette to mention that you were the creater of the article when participating here. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll keep that in mind in the future; I'm not sure if I've participated in a page delete discussion before. I realized after typing in the recommendation for a merge if there was an issue with the page that it was actually a bot, but I was really just concerned with avoiding a delete of what could be a useful page for people studying this aspect of the workplace, so I left the comment as it was. I have no problem with putting a footnote about this topic on some sociology page if that's what people want. But I do think it is wrong to misuse the deletion policy because, whether intended or not, it can amount to censorship of the diversity of information available via wikipedia. I'm not 100% sure I understand all of the criteria behind deletion, and I know some people on wikipedia are deletionists and kind of want to run around deleting things (maybe not quite what deletionism is all about. . . ), but my personal impression is if the content serves a valid informational purpose, it shouldn't be deleted; particularly where, if there was a compliant that the subject doesn't deserve a seperate page, the protocol recommends just putting it into a subsection of another page.

RudolfRadna 05:06 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --King of All the Franks 19:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geocentric Coordinates[edit]

I don't understand this in the least, and it's got to be covered somewhere else. King of All the Franks 15:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, especially considering editors have already come to a consensus on Talk:Grunge music. howcheng {chat} 23:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grunge Bands[edit]

This page is innaccurate, and the only accurate information in it already appears in the grunge music article. -- LGagnon 15:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I accidentally voted keep per a delete vote - d'oh!) --Idont Havaname 02:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO RESULT. The AfD was actually a request for reversion and protection, a mandate not held by AfD. Try WP:RFPP. -Splashtalk 00:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zapatero and the 2004 General Election[edit]

Also

No need for a separate article, and these were redirects for months. Nothing has changed. All the material needs to be merged with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero SqueakBox 16:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid there is a need as User:Zapatancas just reverts me every time I make them into redirects. He believes these articles should exist so i have no other recourse but to do this, see the talk pages of the articles, SqueakBox 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, undoubtedly delete and protect the lot after merging, per WP:FORK. And beat the POV pusher vigorously with a stick until he is very sorry indeed. Also, I suggest you redirect the other AfDs into this one and merge them, since they are a package deal. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see them redirected into one, not quite sure of the procedure, but if anyone wants to they have my permission as the person who set these Afd's up, SqueakBox 19:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article about José Luiz Rodríguez Zapatero is very long, but, in spite of that, it does not contain all the information about the subject. That is only natural as there exist printed biographies on Zapatero with more than 400 pages. As it is evident, an article equivalent to 400 pages would be too long, specially as there are a lot of users who do not want to know "all" about Zapatero. That's why I created the "extended" articles, like this, long ago: to place information that is not so important but can be very interesting for journalists, ambassadors, university students specialized in foreign relations and so on. As far as I know, the Wikipedia is for everybody, not only for the "average" user.
When I create the articles nobody complaint, in fact, as can be found in the archived talk, other users accepted the change. In fact, when I divided the article I commented on the talk page my decision and nobody showed any opposition. One day, SqueakBox came to the article and substituted them with redirects to the main article. He did not ask the opinion of the users who have worked in writing and improving those articles. He did not care about making very interesting information inaccessible to others. Well, he never justifies his deletions, although the rules of the Wikipedia recommend to take everything that is deleted to the talk page and explain the decision. That is especially serious as he has spent a lot of time already and he knows what he does is a pure attack against other users. He enjoys those attacks. When other users ask him why he has deleted his contributions even though he has never contributed anything useful he simply insults them: you are a POV warrior, you are a spammer, you are a disgrace for the Wikipedia, "your" article is very bad, "your" article is a pile of cr**p, "your" article is a "disgrace" (it is worth noting that he uses "your" in an individual sense even if dozens of users has worked hard in an article he has attacked). For months nobody has been able to edit the article on Zapatero as he removes everything that is added. Once, he removed a sentence by another user 15 minutes after it was introduced. That user had never before edited nothing but SqueakBox claim he was a POV warrior, so breaking the Wikipedia Policy about assuming good faith.
The redirection was never accepted. It is stupid to substitue with a redirect an article called "Zapatero's foreign policy". Who can search something like that if he/she does not know previously that it exists? It is absurd. However, SqueakBox could impose his abusrd decision because he spends all day long connected to the Wikipedia, what allows him to behave like a bully. He never uses logical reasons and, if you try to protect an article recovering the damage he has done he reverts it again insulting you by the way. I dare to recover the real articles he has destroyed because he has been scared away by the administrator Katefan0. This user blocked the main article on Zapatero. SqueakBox had caused an edit war because he introduced mistakes on purpose. For example, he changed European Union for European union, and paid no attention to anybody when he was told that was an evident mistake. When Katefan0 asked all the users to expose his point of view on the "conflict", SqueakBox dissapeared as he is afraid of administrators as they can punish his bad faith. Against an administrator is useless to spend ten hours every day in the Wikipedia. To play bully is useless.
I simple asked the Wikipedia community to look to the "extended" articles. They have defects, but those defects can be improved and they contain information that can be very useful for a lot of people. The Wikipedia is a place for sharing knowledge no for bullies and monsters. Zapatancas 16:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please remove the personal attack from User:Zapatancas against me. it is unwarranted. me doing my job here doers not mean I have to suffer abuse. He is inventing lies about me, andf I don't like it, SqueakBox 16:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I want you to know I still value your opinion you can tell me when I have lied about you. I am willing to provide a mountain of links that prove your real activities. Zapatancas 16:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See SquealingPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and SquealingPigAttacksAgain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are your accounts and you lied on a number of occasions about me while using those accounts. I can provide the diffs but here is not the place to do itm (perhaps an Rfc?), SqueakBox 16:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is certain is that if our case came up before the arbcom both our behaviours would be under scrutiny, so it would providse you with an opportunity to state your case with diffs and it would mean SQ and SQAA would be the subject of a sockpuppet test to determine exactly where these 2 accounts were being edited from (your IP range is known as you have made edits which are obviously you while not signing into an account). All my SB edits have been made using the same static IP number so your claims that I have edited from the UK or that I was SQ or SQAA can also be disproved. If this is what you want I am sure it will be easy enough to do, SqueakBox 17:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Zapatancas you have also made a number of lies about me and my mental health (which as you have never met me and are not a psychiatrist are patently false) on your user page, SqueakBox 17:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the fact that you have undone my redirect repair linls on the zapatero articles on more than one occasion, which is petty vandalsim, SqueakBox 17:16, 4 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. -Splashtalk 03:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlingfigs[edit]

nn forum site. Alexa rating is all of 729,535. Pboyd04 16:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete forums can be notable, but not with alexa rank that low. Brighterorange 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete nn Essexmutant 15:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nomination Pogoman 06:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fire Star 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination --spman 06:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Not noteworthy enough[reply]
  • Delete per all above. - Liontamer 22:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia at the 1912 Summer Olympics[edit]

Estonia wasn't even an independent country in 1912 (although there were several Estonians in the Russian team). Article is full of factual errors and inaccuracies. There are no other articles about teams in the 1912 olympics yet, so having one on a country that didn't even exist at that time isn't a good idea. Laur 16:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, the International Olympic Committee site doesn't list Estonia among its medal winners (see [50], in the bottom right is a link that will provide a table as a popup). Furthermore, their results database [51] shows no medals for a Kusick (per the site referenced by No Guru) or Kuusik (as listed above). Furthermore, looking more into the site referenced above, if you click on Estonia on that page & then click on the event name, you get this page [52]. It shows an Everard Butler & a Hugo Kusick both getting bronze medals in the same event and it lists both of them under Canada and Estonia. Delete as unverified unless another colloaborating source can be found. -- JLaTondre 02:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The official report of the 1912 Olympic Games can be found here (note: 1426-page PDF file). As indicated on pages 943-44 of the file (numbered as pages 675-76 of the text), the losers of the semi-final matches in men's single scull rowing were E.B. Butler of Canada and M. Kusik of Russia. There is no indication of a third-place match between the two, which would explain why both are listed as bronze medalists. Whatever Mr. Kusik, Kuusik, or Kusick's preferred spelling of his name was, or what his first name was, or what his ethnic background was, he was competing for Russia in 1912, and I have found no indication in the report that Estonia competed independently at that Olympics. If there are Wikipedia editors who want to create articles about the Olympic performance of various nationalities such as Estonians, Ukrainians, Armenians, etc. on the Russian or Soviet teams, I would advise against creating them in this format. --Metropolitan90 06:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: In 1912 Estonia was part of Russian Empire and Estonian athletes definitely competed in the Russian team. An article about Estonians in those olympics would be welcome, but this article doesn't even contain a complete list of them (and Hugo Kuusik's name was misspelt as a result of transforming from Latin to Cyrillic and back), so practically nothing could be retained from this article. Also, Kuusik didn't get any prize and his 3rd place is disputed, so it might be inaccurate to list him as "bronze medal" winner. Laur 10:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 21:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Bhoeble 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 22:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, or reconcile with 1912 Summer Olympics medal count. If it is accurate, a more accurate title would be Estonians at the 1912 Summer Olympics as Estonia didn't declare its independence from Russia until 1918. B.Wind 22:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. - NeoJustin 02:57, Devember 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wexis Curve[edit]

No google hits, no references given. Unverifiable, possible word made up in school one day. Kappa 16:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATCsimulator[edit]

Page reads like an ad and looks like copyvio though I can't find the source Pboyd04 17:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dnomla[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day Bachrach44 17:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom. Brighterorange 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Also, not very funny. No Guru 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Google search revealed just a few nn blogs mentioning this. --Pboyd04 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NoeJustin 21:25, December 28 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luboš Motl[edit]

If we are to judge Motl based solely upon his work, that is, his publications, it is obvious that he is only an average string theorist who is pretty much unnotable. He hasn't made any notable or groundbreaking contributions to physics and his papers, which are often coauthored with other more famous physicists are run-of-the-mill papers. The Czech textbook on linear algebra which he has coauthored isn't notable either. His only claim to fame/notability is his very active and aggressive presence on the internet (the usenet, various blogs and Wikipedia) where he frequently peppers his speech with invectives. In fact, his mere active presence isn't enough to contribute to his noteriety. There are many other physicists who also have an active presence on the internet but they don't stand out anywhere near as much because they don't litter their writings with hateful speech. They tend to blend in with the background, so to speak.

Not only that, this page is a vanity page of Lumidek, which is the user name of Motl here at Wikipedia.

I am not qualified to judge Mott's contribution to string theory. But through his blog, translations and work on Wikipendia he has certainly made significant contributions to the popular understanding of String Theory.

  • Keep. Junior Fellow at Harvard, Assistant Professor at Harvard; either Harvard is slipping up, or the derogatory comments above are misplaced. As the nominator has crossed swords here with User:Lumidek (Motl), I favour the idea that this is mostly spite. Charles Matthews 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete String theorists of Motl's caliber are a dime a dozen. He hasn't even published in a year and a half.
    • See the recent paper [53]. --66.31.40.103 16:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My goodness! Some people publish every three months. But we don't make that a reason for including them. Counting papers is almost as silly as weighing them. Charles Matthews
    • Harvard Assistant Professors, while not a dime-a-dozen, are not exactly noteworthy in themselves. Consider, by way of normalization, this recently deleted entry (CSD A7). The subject is a former Princeton Assistant Professor (now Full Professor at UT Austin), has a prominent physics blog, etc, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.126.243.35 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Your link does not work. However, if it did, it would probably be a good example of the widespread abuse of CSD. The comparison, in any event, is not relevant.-- JJay 07:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not qualified to judge his scientific work and I have no illusions about it. I dislike Lumo for personal reasons and the article is mostly written by himself as a vanity page. Nevertheless, he is one of the notable persons on Czech Internet and elsewhere. His contributions on popularization of physics are significant. We shall keep the article. --Egg ✉ 17:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's a significant popularizer in Czechia. His translations are on a top level. Miraceti 17:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep because of his "notoriety" on Czech internet and popularisation work. The page should be trimmed down on trivia. I have no idea how important in long term is the work as physicist, use of Category:Czech physicists may be reconsidered (will he pass 10 years test?) Pavel Vozenilek 22:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One to add: there are more known Category:Czech bloggers than Motl. Pavel Vozenilek 22:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lubos is a brilliant if unorthodox young theoretical physicist; his papers on Matrix Theory were ground-breaking. What his long term impact will be is as yet unclear. He plays a central role in the article by JAMES GLANZ (NYT) May 1, 2001 about the role of the internet in research.--[MR]
  • Delete nn and vanity. Sarah Ewart 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think he's notable enough. -lethe talk 11:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I strongly oppose deletion. I was going to translate to portuguese when I saw the deletion tag. Sad. User:Mdob | [[User talk:Mdob|Talk]] 00:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable enough -- that he is known to be somehat grumpy as Wikipedian, on his blog and in USENET is no reason to delete --Pjacobi 14:44, 4 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. r3m0t talk 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorn mathews[edit]

Delete: The article seems to be original research, a google search turned up a few hits, but nothing really more then forum posts and similar type pages. Also, name is spelt wrong, should be Mathews. Except for the last graphic novel listed (which may have been turned into a web comic, seems to be a bit NN as well. Falls End (T, C) 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as attack page. B.Wind 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Brown (Dublin)[edit]

Article appears to be complete fabricated gibberish. There was no "Tool Time" show and Christopher Lloyd was cast in "Taxi" in 1978, before Brown was born. Further, Brown was born in 1985, so how could he have been part of Toto in the 1980s? UncleFester 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Someone has apparently already stepped in and deleted the article in question. UncleFester 17:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. While there are four legitimate delete votes, none of them really present any compelling arguments. There is only one legitimate keep vote, but User:Musikfabrik shows the article is properly referenced and NPOV. She may fail WP:MUSIC but apparently has enough notoriety from other activities that her article can be included. I'm following WP:DGFA: "When in doubt, don't delete." Take it up with WP:DRV if you disagree. howcheng {chat} 23:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Marchant[edit]

(left empty; original nominator did not use template properly)

  • Delete This is a vanity article about someone that likes to post on messageboards. --Looper5920 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with your definition of "vanity article" because the article could not have been written by Ms. Marchant, given her distinctive style. While there are varying perspectives about Ms Marchant's talent, she certainly has a following and has made a name for herself and is news-worthy, in her own way. Her offer of selling her CDs for thousands of dollars was reported in any number of sources. I think that she does indeed have a certain importance in the area of web music, as she has become an extremely wellknown figure in these circles--for example, in this article in the Magazine San Francisco Weekly : http://www.sfweekly.com/Issues/2005-12-21/music/music.html . It is true that she does not completely fulfill the criteria for inclusion under the WP:MUSIC directives, but I have seen the "internet" and "Indie" aspects of this directive be brought into question in other discussions, so it would seem that this policy is evolving. There are other, much more frivilous articles about people who are lesser known. I think that this article should stay.Musikfabrik 16:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marissa Marchant is a prominent regional singer-songwriter with outspoken attitudes on the state of the music business. She was the anecdotal lead in a San Francisco Weekly cover story on the variable pricing of records. Her posts on message boards allow her fans to keep up with her progress in recording, as well as her artistic influences. She is also a prolific writer with myriad thoughts on sexism, culture and society. To claim that the entry was a "vanity" post is to underestimate the number of Ms. Marchant's fans, as well as their interest in her artistic progress. I believe this article should be maintained, and hopefully expanded to include more about Ms. Marchant's musical accomplishments. -- robuptight 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's only edits are to this AfD. --Nlu (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marissa has powers.
  • Delete pure vanity. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm-easily-amused Keep I've spent a lot of time reverting vandalism from this article, it's in my permanent watchlist. It might not be the most high-minded of reasons, but I vote to keep this article just because I get such a laugh from the nature and content of the vandalism I remove. Whether it's from Marchant or not (much of the vandalism is rambling diatribes about how Marchant is an unappreciated musical genius - much of that is first-person, implying to be from Marchant herself), it can be damned entertaining while I'm RC Patrolling. --Krich (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a verifiable Web Phenomenon. I mean, just do a search. Don't such as that deserve some sort of explanation? At any rate, she does have the talent (I'll leave it to the article to explain what sort) to deserve some recognition. --LyinDan 00:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    User's only edit is to this AfD. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know LyinDan. I'll vouch for him. He's a well-known indie musician in a band called "Pig Nose Pickers", whose seminal hit was "Girl, you better boil it (I dropped your toothbrush in the toilet)". One of their band pages is here: http://artists.iuma.com/IUMA/Bands/Pig_Nose_Pickers/ He's not a sock puppet. As a matter of fact, he probably deserves an article himself, in the World of Net Musicians.Musikfabrik 09:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Marissa has powers.^2
  • Delete. When sock puppets want to keep an article, it's usually a sign that an article should go. --Nlu (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is a renowned composer; somewhat eccentric perhaps but since when has that stopped genius - bigots
  • I've already voted, but I wanted to make the further comment that this discussion is not about whether or not the votes to keep this article are valid, but rather whether the content in the article entitled "Marissa Marchant" is worthy of having a place on this service. The first phrase of the article states that Miss Marchant is "more notorious as an Internet phenomenon than as a musician", so is it surprising that there are people coming off of the web (who have never posted here before) to support her? I am not an administrator, so I can't verify this, but it seems to be that it would probably be quite easy to verify where they were coming from using the IP address. I'm convinced that they are NOT sock puppets, but rather people who are coming here to underline the importance of Miss Marchant's work.
    • What we have here is another discussion concerning "notability" and whether this fits into various people's ideas of whether or not people are "famous" enough to be on this sort of service. As a classical musician and musicologist, I know that the standards set in WP:Music simply do not apply to many people who are obviously important figures in the classical music World. And given the way that market is changing (for example, the major labels do not produce classical recordings any more, which has lead to many famous musicians-such as Jordi Savall and David Finckel, Cellist of the Emerson Quartet, to name only two--to produce their own recordings...much in the same way as independent net musicians...), the idea of using "label releases" as a means of judging worth is completely passé. Even with a "label release", the majority of classical recordings (even those by name artists and composers) rarely sell more than 200 units. This scale also does not apply to Net Musicians, who work "outside of the box". This does not mean that their actions do not have importance nor does it not mean that their work is without merit. It simply means that they have figured out another way to go about their business, which is currently becoming the norm. It seems quite apparent to me that WP:Music needs to have a major overhaul to take these new aspects of the music business into account.
    • The importance of Miss Marchant's work is centered around her action of asking for $1000 per CD on her website. While it does not constitute artistic greatness (a quality which obviously is subjective and outside of this discussion), it certainly caused a lot of discussion, on the net and off, which continues to this day about the market value of music and what the artist's reaction to it should or should not be. For this reason, Miss Marchant has significant importance as a cultural icon which is not a recent issue, but which has lasted for the several years that I have followed her career. In deleting this article, the Wikipedia community is closing itself to part of the music business which needs to be documented which it is still evolving. To delete this article would be doing a disservice to knowledge.Musikfabrik 09:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Esteban Buttez, mah holmes? He is an internets legend on ilXor.com, greater than Marissa!
  • Keep Marissa is a well known internet personality and musician. --Pablo A
    User's only edits are to this AfD. --Nlu

(talk) 00:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • I THOUGHT WIKIPEDIA WAS SUPPOSED TO BE FREE AND OPEN, NIGGA! NOW I AINT GIVING MAH BLING TO JIMMY WALES!!
  • Hello, I am the person you are speaking about.

You don't know me on a personal level, so it is not nice to laugh at people you can't figure out through the machine. You can keep this article if it is not negative. You don't have to talk about me like I am some kind of God of music. But to say that I am not known as a musician is rubbish. To say that I am more known for my 1000 dollar crazy cd scheme is rubbish, since I play, write and record right now, morning, noon and night.

  • Delete While there are indeed Google hits, most of them seem to be related to her self-promotion rather than to her music. Ohnoitsjamie 03:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is interesting is that it is New Year's Eve and I am recording even tonight. The first few people were definately not myself and you people should know they are coming from California and the South of the U.S. I live in New York State. I am at home recording. I have devoted my whole life to music and art. That should sum up who I am. My devotion is what should be emphasized, not numbers etc.. People who are sour grapes love to flame people because they themselves are often discontent. I like to be positive about life, love and the new year. I am trying to improve myself, my behavior and my language. I want to be more loving this year and more productive. The world needs more of what is positive, and less of what is negative. I didn't write the article in the San Fransico Weekly, and someone else came up with that idea. I didn't prompt them.

    • I don't think you should keep this article. First off I don't like the name Marissa Marchant, and came up with a better name.

Secondly, I don't need Wikipedia's stamp of approval. Who are these people hiding behind a computer? Who cares? I don't care about Wikipedia. I think that my singing and quality of writing spoke for itself, that I am known more for music then anything else. The amount of money someone charges for a Cd is really not important, and either is the price of Paintings. The most important part of art is the quality. The amount of records someone sells is not important. The quality is. Numbers are not important to real artists. If the people at Wikipedia understood the value of true artists or artwork, they would not emphasize numbers or price.

  • This is me again. I was Marissa Marchant, now I am Mariesa Sabriel, soon to be another name.

Anyway, the only Web Phenomenon out there in the real sense are the incredibly gifted Spiders. Spiders are also taken for granted. There is no Web developer who can exceed this mass of brilliance. The creation of Spider was a brilliant one. I was observering a spider as it was weaving its web and coming down on my nose while I was in bed one evening. When it realized it was landing on my nose, it soon made its way up on its string. Amazing creatures.

  • We also have "Webbed" phenomenons, people with webbed feet can be called Webbed Phenomenons.

Does Marchant have Webbed feet? Is she a duck? Is she a webbed phenomenon?

  • I am not as big an ego as you think. You could have a serious article written about me and you could definately start the article with these kind words; Marchant is a verifiable "webbed" phenomenon.

$$$$$$This is pure Vanity.$$$$$$$$ http://www.mariesasabriel.com/poetry.html Please read her new lyric for her Neo Celtic/Classical song on guitar for voice. (Flute added) It is called Meanderings. It took me a few hours to write it this morning. I am auctioning it off for a couple million. Just kidding.


~**** I am not rich at all. I spent over 150 thousand dollars in my little lifetime so far on musical items, lessons, and paintings. I am far from rich. Art is a main priority in my life and a love of my life and my families life. I wouldn't laugh at fine artists in a world that devalues artists. Our world once honored fine artists and fine art composers, singers, singer/writers. Now people are living in the past, following the media trends and not caring about artwork, or caring about the fine detail of a artistic building. We are now living in a ugly, bland world, a world that is living the past and humankinds past accomplishments. http://groups.google.com/group/fa.music.ecto/browse_thread/thread/5a1cc1e80c426bb5/847505b78eca9187?lnk=st&q=marissa%20marchant&rnum=1&hl=en&

    • A bit of context for y'all:

http://ilx.p3r.net/thread.php?msgid=6563752&showall=true

      • A BIT OF VERY IMPORTANT info FOR YOU ALL.

http://www.mariesasabriel.com My name is not Marissa Marchant. I am also changing the name from Mariesa Sabriel to something else. If you are interested in hearing my music. Please continue to focus on the Mariesa Sabriel site until the finished site if completed with sellable Cd and covers. I am getting covers too.

  • Delete

To a few people Marissa or whatever her name is not known as a musician but known more for a 1000 dollar Cd. But to other people Marissa is known more for her music. I think the article is biased to people who want to control the thoughts and opinions of others on the net. It seems they are trying to sway the opinions of others to make Marissa into another hooker of music. They want to say Marissa is another person not known for music but known for a gimmick. This is false information. Marissa isn't a hooker, and isn't someone who isn't worth the money. I am or was Marissa Marchant. But my new name isn't going to be Mariesa Sabriel after I finish this Cd. ..or CDS. This is a waste of your space. It is also mean and nasty to confuse people who want to hear music with so many different names. I came up with a nicer name... I better change it now..before I establish myself a little more. It is intersting that the Britney Spears Wiki articles don't say that she is known more for her body then her music. It is intersting that all these other people who are much more into gimmicks are people with articles that talk about them as though they are really artists and musicians. You sound totally anti-talent, I mean whoever wants to keep an article that says that real artists are not and people posing as artists with gimmicks are really artists. That is what this Wikipedia article is implying. It is implying that the music industry is signing artists. Are the rosters filled up for people who are known for their art? Or other gimmicks? Wikipedia is implying that the music industry filled with Rappers and people swinging around a poll are known more as musicans and artists and that people who are unsigned couldn't possibly be real musicians? How stupid are the people at Wikipedia?

  • User's only edits are on this AfD and on the Marissa Marchant Page itself. Musikfabrik 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't this prove that the people who run Wikipedia are culturally illiterate?

Why would they have to think and question whether a dishonest article about someone deserves a place on their board. Aren't they aware that the music industry isn't signing artists on purpose but people who put out thoughtless music and people who are not complex because the people who run the music industry are as simple-minded as their pricings. The people at Wikipedia should be questioning whether people swinging around polls and people who are known more for writing offensive lyrics then music should be on Wikipedia then giving attention to someone like myself. I think the people in the music industry right now are known as one hit wonders, swinging around polls, grabbing themselves, offensive lyrics, and for their million dollar manison then they are known for music. It is interesting that you are giving a multi-instrumentalist, and multi-faceted artist so much thought, but you don't give thought to advertising non-musicians and non-artists. I think the people in the music industry are not really that well known for their music at the moment. I mean at the present time in history.

  • The last two "delete" votes came from the same IP address and therefore the same person. Only one should countMusikfabrik 19:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

??The main controversy about people like Britney Spears and Christina Agulera is not about their sexual nature and image. It is about their lack of talent, lack of orginality and lack of writing skills and lack of unique vocals. The controversy is not about being sexual, it is about using sexuality to disguise their lack of talent. On Britney Spears article it plainly is very dishonest. Should Wikipedia have dishonest articles written about non-artists? Is she a singer? It said that she is. I don't think of Britney as a singer, and I think of Christina Agulera as an amateur singer or semi-professional. They sound that way to me. All the others, such Jewel, and all the new rock bands, they sound amateurish as well. They sound like semi-professionals to my ears and to some intelligent people. Also, alot of boybands, and people like John Mayor sound like a semi-professional to my ears. What kind of gimmick did they use to promote John Mayor? They took a very large amount of extremely high quality photographs and focused on his image, not that much about his music. They hype these people and they aren't really known as musicians to people like myself. Dave Matthews' first guitarist told me that I was more of a guitarist then Dave is. His first guitarist is not playing for him anymore and told me that he didn't think that Dave Matthews was that talented. Most likely his guitarist has more talent then Dave. I don't think of Dave Matthews as a really polished, professional musician, or his band.

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JOAN AS POLICEWOMAN[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC. (unsigned by FrancisTyers) B.Wind 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 17:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joan Wasser should also be deleted as NN unless references of notability required by WP:MUSIC are added to the article. Is nominator willing to combine nominations? B.Wind 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no problem - FrancisTyers 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this article has already been deleted--64.12.117.10 22:40, 5 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 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erikonail[edit]

Incorrectly listed as a speedy for being a pure advertisement. Nonetheless, I think this is a non-notable ad that needs to be deleted, but that takes an AfD, not a CSD. --Deathphoenix 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn nail salon. --Pboyd04 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete advertisement, NN Pete.Hurd 02:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valerium[edit]

Dicdef, this is wikipedia not urbandictionary - FrancisTyers 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete pn! - FrancisTyers 18:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article does not contain original research, and Wikipedia is not a place for new terms. Ajwebb 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete r3m0t talk 18:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NoeJustin 21:24, December 28 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 22:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth Crusade[edit]

See previous deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tenth_Crusade/Archive1

  • Delete. Content is not notable enough to have its own article; very few actually refer to a "tenth" crusade. The metaphor of crusades has been used by bin Laden and other extreme Islamists to describe US presence in the Middle East for a long time; it is not a rhetorical device invented by Bush as the article claims. csloat 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I said it before, and I say it again, not notagle and is a neologism. The War of Terror isn't even the Tenth conflict, ten was used because of the rhetorical impact. Dominick (TALK) 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Critics of Bush can't have their crusade cake and eat their Jewish plot too. Endomion 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do accusations of Jewish plots have to do with the continuing existance or otherwise of this page? Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Might be justifiable as a larger study of right wing politics and religious conservatism in the United States, if well sourced and well written. Durova 23:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag for cleanup and Keep - 1,250 google hits suggests notability. Plus, as C. Sloat says above, many Muslims do think that Bush is engaged in a crusade. To delete the page because 'we know that he isn't' is reverse political correctness. And with respect, the article does not say that Bush invented the device, only that he used it. If bin Laden was using the term first, the fact should be added to the article but it doesn't present an argument for deleting the page, quite the contrary. I agree that 10th is arbitrary, but the reason for the name is less important than the fact that the name is widely used. Perhaps the concept is misnamed, but it doesn't mean that the page is not correctly named or shouldn't exist. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - many of those references are to Wikipedia; many others are to other uses of the phrase (e.g. the 1983 novel -- some 400+ hits on your results alone -- or the 2001 article about English in Tunisia). A lexis/nexis search of major papers finds three uses of the phrase, listed below, none of which are in the usage here:
1.Dench, Diesel make surprising sci-fi duo, Chicago Sun-Times, July 2, 2004 Friday, North City, WEEKEND PLUS; NEWS; Pg. 25, 721 words, HARRY HAUN
2.Books by Christopher Hyde, The Ottawa Citizen, June 20, 1999, FINAL, 389 words, Shelley Page
3.THE WORLD; A Roundup of Mideast Hostility, The New York Times, May 4, 1986, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 2, Column 2; Week in Review Desk, 357 words, By Milt Freudenheim, James F. Clarity and Richard Levine
A search of magazines and journals nets nothing on lexis/nexis. You're looking at a few hundred google hits at best, most of them referring to or just copying the Cockburn and O'Brien articles; those are the only two real voices using this particular phrase in this manner; I would not call it notable, especially given its nonexistence in lexis/nexis, a better gauge of material that is actually published. If the article is kept, it should be radically revamped and its name changed to talk about the "crusades" metaphor as used in general rather than the specious "tenth" crusade, which, as others noted, this is not really the tenth anyway.--csloat 03:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For the hell of it, I searched the New York Times back to 1857 for this term and found three uses of it; twice in 1904 and once in 1917 referring to the actual Crusades, specifically the battle in Jerusalem. The 1904 references refer to a novel of the era by Frederic Harrison called Theophano.-csloat 03:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"tenth crusade" bush is 404 hits. -cockburn is still 231 hits, not that I see why cockburn should be excluded. As above, I'm not attached to the title so much as the concept. "bush crusade" gets 37,400 hits. "bush crusade" iraq gets 31,300 hits. There's a real concept here, perhaps the current page is misnamed and a mess, but I think there's something worth keeping? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the concept is notable but the title is a misleading neologism. There already was a tenth crusade, and it wasn't this one. There are no references to this in lexis-nexis, a far better gauge than what is on google.--csloat 04:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which one is commonly known as "Tenth Crusade"? Standard numbering stops at 9. Yes, there were more, but then even the "Third Crusade" really is not. --Stephan Schulz 21:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're heading towards agreement that the page should be kept and renamed? But to what? The only think I can think of is Bush Crusade or some variation thereof. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about The Crusades (War on terrorism)?-csloat 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I like it better than Bush Crusade, though that's not saying much. I'd prefer to somehow have "The crusade" rather than "The Crusades" because I think the whole War on Whatever is a single thing, even if the connections between the parts are pretty tenuous sometimes. We did for a while have a page called Crusade (modern) which is now a redirect to Tenth Crusade. If we wanted to go that way, I'd prefer Modern crusade. Other options which I also don't like but am going to suggest in case it gives anybody a better idea are Crusade against terror, Crusade against terrorism or War on terrorism as crusade? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. It's not particularly important, but it is reasonably notable and (now) well-written and NPOV. Disk space is cheap. I'm kind of appaled by user User:Endomion's statement. The article is not an opinion piece, but a fair description of an event (if you doubt this, improve it). Do you want to purge history of inconvenient facts?--Stephan Schulz 17:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep glad i found this. This is a notable phrase. Lots of google hits. Just because the phrase is POV doesn't mean that the article will inevitably be POV. Some consider the War on Terrorism a POV phrase, but thats a great article. 69.22.42.35 21:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as before. It is important that the US president considers this a religious crusade. This is the most important aspect of our Iraq War. That is why we can't leave Iraq. This conflict has grown in importance because of it's "clash of cultures" oventone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.48.167 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep: It is used, and it is reflective of the positions of people in the world, thus it needs to be. Dark Nexus 02:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a viable description of the current events. Perhaps the name should be changed to "Bush Crusade" or "Iraq Crusade" to prevent confusion with the "10th" crusade. --Kdcarver 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I had seen "the 10th crusade" mentioned but I didn't know what was meant. Then I found the meaning here at Wikipedia. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.197.253 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Lawnmower[edit]

I can only find 1 reference to this technique outside of wikipedia MNewnham 18:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism describing an uncommon, possibly fictional practice. -Colin Kimbrell 18:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (already got BJAODN covered). --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism, possible hoax. --Quarl 02:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has more to do with the product of a Bull's backend than anything else. Pete.Hurd 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Ifnord 02:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Johnston[edit]

Delete vanity article about a logo designer created by User:300Bucks.ca. Guess what service is provided at the website 300bucks.ca. Moreover, there are unsubstantiated claims about him helping to pull the Hamilton Tiger-Cats out of financial difficulties while a 20-year old working with the team's marketing department. Also, claims in the article include "premier graphic and logo designer" and "he has become the nation’s most sought-after designer". Mindmatrix 18:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom MNewnham 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no cited evidence of notability. Also, I removed a couple unverified claims, so please review the history of the article before voting (or speedying, which shouldn't be done, since a claim of notability was made). --Rob 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wow very POV. --Pboyd04 19:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NoeJustin 21:22, December 28 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons listed above. No evidence of notability. --GrantNeufeld 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 03:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete for reasons above. The claimed information is unsubstantiated . --Hurricane111 05:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And unsubstantiatable. Does anybody really keep stats on this sort of thing? Is there a list somewhere that quantifies Canada's most sought-after graphic designers? Delete. Bearcat 09:16, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beast (biography)[edit]

I don't know what this is right now, but it's certainly not what it was intended to be when initially redlinked, which is an article about the autobiography of Paul Di'Anno (ISBN:1904034039). If not actually patent nonsense, this page is certainly within shouting distance of it, and it's been that way since its creation. Delete. Colin Kimbrell 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly advise against this. Nobody's going to look for information on the Antichrist by searching for "The Beast (biography)". In the unlikely event that someone went to that string, they'd probably do so seeking info on the real-world book I described in the nom (which is the reason I put this up for deletion in the first place, to keep from storing these incoherent ramblings in the page history). If it has to be a redirect, it should be back to Paul Di'Anno.-Colin Kimbrell 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, if there is a disambiguation page with lots of Beastses, the one that is a biography will send them scooting over to the Antichrist page. Endomion 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you look more closely at the disambiguation page Beast, you'll see that there's already a link to Antichrist. It's the fourth bullet from the bottom. -Colin Kimbrell 20:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Nobody's likely to search for the biography of the Son of Satan. --Agamemnon2 09:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini[edit]

nn actress; almost no content r3m0t talk 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • 21,000 plus google hits, 90 films and an IMDB biog says Keep to me. Article could do with some cleaning up though Jcuk 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. -- JJay 21:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very notable. Tintin 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable. I have marked it as an Indian actor stub. - Ganeshk 00:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Vyzasatya 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Bernoulli's working enviroment[edit]

Original research with a partially misleading (and typoed) title, since this only relates to Daniel Bernoulli tangentially. The relevant parts of this appear to be included in the appropriate articles categorized in Category:Science timelines. - Bobet 18:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as original research, a rambling essay -- probably copyvio or a high school kid's essay. "This paper will follow the style..." --Quarl 02:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Quarl Paul 21:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as band vanity. Mo0[talk] 05:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Else[edit]

Non-notable band vanity Dave.Dunford 18:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete as per nom. (NN bands not yet speedy-able?) Pete.Hurd 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G-Fed[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable group, possibly a vanity page --Hansnesse 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This page appears to be vanity and is not notable. Ajwebb 19:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete some sort of NN vanity that makes more sense when read backwards than forwards. Pete.Hurd 02:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Patient Syndrome[edit]

Information cannot be verified. Does not seem to be a real phenomenon. (see talk page). Arvindn 19:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[54] mentions it, but at the moment I'm neutral. Jcuk 20:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per one reference found by Jcuk. --Quarl 02:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galactic Oddessy[edit]

This was incorrectly listed as a CSD. However, as an MMORPG, this isn't really notable, IMO. --Deathphoenix 19:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it isn't even spelled correctly. okay it's spelled like the way the website spells it, which is still wrong. Endomion 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as completely non-notable online game. Official website has no Alexa rank [55]. Game itself is misspelled. Poor article. --Quarl 02:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been updated. The game was created with that name and the it was porpously spelled that way. There are many non-notable things on Wikipedia. --XanderSholtz 04:06, 30 December 2005 (EST)
  • Delete. Non-notable. -- Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 06:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 09:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Marvin, do you have the funds for all the additional server space and bandwidth needed to keep every article that meets no notability requirements whatever? -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:07, 5 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 22:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monothought[edit]

Non-notable, non-sense, perhaps. Rich Farmbrough 22:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything worth keeping to Jean Baudrillard and leave as a redirect. Dlyons493 Talk 14:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Both this and polythought look like they've come from [56] - that either didn't exist or I missed it when looking at Monothought originally. That makes them both OR as well. Should put polythought on Afd as well. Dlyons493 Talk 14:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Dlyons493. --Squiddy 10:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dlyons493. Stifle 01:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment it might make sense to merge/redirect with/to polythought, but the polythought article seems to be copied from an article that was published online. --JWSchmidt 05:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - copyvio from this site. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The current contents of the article are a copyright violation and the topic is of limited interest. The original author of the material that is currently in monothought and polythought is apparently Claude Rifat (also known as Claude de Contrecoeur), a biologist who has some recognition on the internet[57], [58]. Maybe some day an admirer will make Claude Rifat. --JWSchmidt 20:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not only copyvio, but what hits there are outside Wiki mirrors are for user handles and such; this appears to be one person's idea which is not (yet) widely accepted. Or even noticed, frankly. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polythought as both are (a) copy & paste from similar sources and (b) apparentl monographs; there is little if any verifiable evidence that these are conepts widely discussed in the literature. Or discussed at all, as far as I can see... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable, original research, copyvio --Quarl 02:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunbound Freeboard[edit]

Suggesting to delete this and merge the information to Gunbound. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing to say is Gunboard is real but this freeboard? idont know abstain? --Jingofetts 19:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is real -_- go check out the site yourself
    • i said it was real. but someone thinks it should get voted on. --Jingofetts 19:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC) wish i could help.[reply]
    • It's not a matter of whether it's real or not. Wikipedia isn't a database for every facet of every website that's notable. If it was, we'd have to have pages on every function of Yahoo, H*R, Mugglenet, etc. If you want to add information about the website in question, you should add the information you have in a neutral point-of-view without personal attacks to the page Gunbound. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not see the personal attacks sorry all. --Jingofetts 19:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • "RASTA is known as the most hated n00b in the history of GBFB (Gunbound Freeboard). He did nothing but to flame others with racist remarks, only to be pounded later. He has engaged in many "fights" with the Legend guyfromkorea, in which he (Rasta) has lost in all. He is responsible for imitating the gentle LadyPlayful in order to degrade her name, however his attempt has failed miserably. Ever since then, he has hidden himself forever from the FB community, and forever been marked as the moronic fool." --This existed on the page when you made your edit. I'm not saying you put the material on there, I'm simply pointing out to anyone reading that that information should not be copied to Gunbound. JHMM13 (T | C) 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - terrible bulletin board software, the game is notable, this forum isn't, and the name isn't even accurate. Searching for "Gunbound Freeboard" on Google gets exactly one result. It's not even called this, it's just called the Gunbound discussion board or something and it happens to be running on the Freeboard bulletin board software. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cyde may i say something? If you got one result on google is there enough to make into a article it looks like this person really wants it here. --Jingofetts 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You sure would the Britianica is good. It's good to know not vandalism. --Jingofetts 19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure what you mean or to whom you are writing, but I do think the Encyclopædia Britannica is good: it is highly reliable and well-written, although it doesn't have the cutting edge quality of Wikipedia, and sometimes Wikipedia is more in-depth and has more relevant internet-based references. So, as I said, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Cyde. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, comeon, one Google hit? User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and merge into GunBound if deemed notable enough for that.--Petros471 21:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to merge. Completely non-notable web forum, inaccurate article. --Quarl 02:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Control Solutions Inc.[edit]

Nothing but an ad and some contact info. The company doesn't seem notable based on the 26 unique google hits. - Bobet 19:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netspert[edit]

Incorrectly nominated for a speedy. This is neologism, though googling gets approximately 7,310 hits. This term is too new to be included here. --Deathphoenix 19:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete My bad. I originally nominated it for speedy. As written, the author uses the first person, to me that seems inappropriate for an Encyclopedia article. If someone wants to do some major rework, let them. Otherwise, remove it. BTW, I think we are going to need a neologism in the future similar to google bombing, for when a bunch of bloggers discover that they can create a "notable" word by simply writing it all the time. Wikipedipulation.TheRingess 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, no sources provided. Use of first person is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Zachary Murray (talk • contribs)
  • Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 23:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism. --Quarl 02:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy: author's request. mikka (t) 20:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Normal (2003)[edit]

I created this page before I discovered that another entry had already been created for this film. I updated the already existing page, and now I would like to delete this page as it just duplicates the other page. --Athena2006 20:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy per creator nomination. Thanks for helping out. JHMM13 (T | C) 20:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy r3m0t talk 00:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Cheese Babies[edit]

The article is nonsense and is not notable. From the deletion policy, this article is described as "completely idiosyncratic non-topic." Zachary Murray 20:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matei and Loco Bandito[edit]

  • del nonnotable. vanity. mikka (t) 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging content of two inextricably linked AfDs

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

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 07:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matei and Loco Bandito[edit]

  • del nonnotable. vanity. mikka (t) 20:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging content of two inextricably linked AfDs

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

The result of the debate was MERGE into WERS. Mo0[talk] 06:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Left End[edit]

An indie rock show on a college radio station....not notable. The_stuart 08:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep - plenty of other college radio articles.. so why not this one? -max rspct leave a message 15:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's not much unusual or notable about this particular show. If anything notable about it is found, the information can be covered perfectly well on the article WERS--also a stub and in need of expansion. No sense dividing them so. --Mr. Billion 19:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more feedback. Mindmatrix 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaves Of Power[edit]

yet another gaming clan using wikipedia to chest-thump. Bachrach44 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non notable. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. --Petros471 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and amend the "create" template to divert these games weenies to Wikicities. Or somewhere. Anywhere. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable advert. ~MDD4696 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable online game clan, obvious vanity. "If you are fortunate enough to be asked to join their alliance, it is recommended that you do" --Quarl 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge under a major alliance section on the game. May be relevant to those that play the game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.24.188 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep this is an important aspect of a famous and popular game.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.95.233.248 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Gaming clans (and alliances, and groups, etc etc) are only notable if they have won a major tournament. The closing admin should beware meatpuppets: [59] -- Megamix? 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Note that Just zis Guy is actually a delete. -Splashtalk 00:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KoC farmers[edit]

more gaming nonsense Bachrach44 20:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)\[reply]

  • Weak delete -- If we have an entry for the game, this could be merged into it; otherwise delete. -- MatthewDBA 20:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, we do. If others want a merge, I would certainly see it as a workable compromise. --Bachrach44 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • especially considering there's at least one other article on the same topic that you've already listed for deletion. -- MatthewDBA 21:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still delete as non-notable, however would be happy enough if merged. Same for other related articles. --Petros471 21:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and then delete the target as gamecruft ;-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as online game fancruft. --Quarl 02:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbers[edit]

More gaming nonsense that's just an excuse for some gaming clan to put their website everywhere. Bachrach44 20:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

agreed this post should be deleted! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.129.157.164 (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. r3m0t talk 02:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Sims[edit]

Vanity article, creators username is extremely similar to the person in question. Also google for "Andrew Sims" MuggleCast retrieves only 126 hits. Personally I'm not convinced of this persons notability just yet.-- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agreed. Only 46 non "very-similar" results on google, and many of those are either wikipedia or sites directly related to the article. --Petros471 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity page.Obina 00:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as non-notable biography. Tagged as nn-bio. --Quarl 01:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. JWSchmidt 13:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Pharmaceuticals[edit]

The description of this company is an exaggerated and selfpromoting advertisement. Mhc 11:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 611 Google hits, the vast majority on free listing sites repeating the same drivel. Spam. Ifnord 15:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Mindmatrix 20:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sure looks like advertising. The IP's of major contributors have only been used to promote the website (which is linked to in the first line). --Petros471 21:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete has the #1 hallmark of spam: starts with the company name as a weblink. Says it's private (i.e.not quoted, per WP:CORP), no evidence this is anything other than plain old-fashioned spam. I guess that's "spam classic" in marketing speak? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable company per previous comments. Website q-pharm.com has no Alexa data. --Quarl 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toonophilia[edit]

  • del. nonnotable neologism. Only 86 unique google hits. No solid sexology references. mikka (t) 21:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete along with all the other invented philias and phobias. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable unverifiable recent neologism. We need a speedy-deletion category for this kind of article. --Quarl 01:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Donnellan (reality television contestant)[edit]

nn contestant on reality show, no other claim to fame —the preceding unsigned comment is by Hirudo (talk • contribs) 19:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Simply being on reality shows does not give one notability. --Apostrophe 00:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all appropriate information with Big Brother 6, then delete this article. B.Wind 03:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Mindmatrix 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, entertainment figure of interest to large numbers of people. Kappa 21:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's all been said before: Wikipedia is not about current events, we have no need to scoop anybody. It will not be possible to tell until after the series is finished which, if any, of the contestants (none of whom appear to have been notable before the show) will continue to be notable after the show. This is no different to aspiring politicians, who garner passionate interest right up until the moment they lose the election, after which nobody gives a rat's ass about them. What is the problem with waiting for time's perspective? Take the "reality" shows to Wikicities, where you can discuss them until you are blue in the face, and bring them back a year after they have finished if anybody can actually remember the show by then. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This person will always be of interest to wikipedia users who want to know what happened during and after Big Brother 6. Kappa 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just as important as every other reality show contestant. -- JJay 21:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I knew. Possibly shacked up with Nick Bateman, but without wikipedia I can't be sure. One thing is clear, though, this encyclopedia will never be worth the paper it's printed on until we have bios of every reality show participant throughout history. Let's get a project or portal going on this pronto...-- JJay 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; do we really keep every reality show contestant now? Sdedeo (tips) 22:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seems to be a precedent set already so why pick this guy out? Jcuk 10:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cruft does not justify more cruft. Thoise who want to know about the history of BB6 (God help them) can get it from the broadcasters, or from the article on BB6. We do not need articles for people whose verifiable information begins and ends with paticipation in a "reality" show. The number of BB participants who are still in the press a year after is tiny; those who are not become unverifiable. What's the rush? We have absolutely no need to cover breaking stories, current events, blow-by-blow coverage or whatever. This is not a newspaper, it's not Hello magazine, it's not a fansite, it's not a free webhost, it's an encyclopaedia. Or at least most of it is, the bit that's not full of vacuous nonentities pretending to be stars because they managed to get on TV for five minutes once. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.
  • Keep for role on hit show followed by millions. --Rob 19:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a notable person. 12,000 Google hits for "Michael Donnellan big brother". As Thivierr points out, this show is watched by millions of people. This page does no harm, and is potentially useful for not only those millions, but anyone else looking for information on Michael Donnellan. However, I would also support a merge with link from Michael Donnellan (there should probably be a disambig sentence there already). Turnstep 14:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Big Brother is one of the top rated summer programs and all of its stars are notable people. Jtrost 00:37, 5 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. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul W. Draper[edit]

not quite a speedy delete, so put to vote  J\/\/estbrook       19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; Notable, if barely. Plus, I kind of liked the demo. Tom Harrison (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete little more than a bio and an advert, no real claim to notability. Stifle 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FPBot (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC) Mindmatrix 21:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article about a magician, written by user "realmagic". I wonder if there could be any connection?... OK, userfy if there is any evidence the user is going to stick around, but really this is just garden-variety vanity spam. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep magic expert on TV. -- JJay 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bio+ad+totally unsourced. Sdedeo (tips) 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have made the press a few times Jcuk 10:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 04:38, December 29, 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Mahieux[edit]

(pulled in from orphan articles) Competent engineer, article mostly vanity written by husband, book published this month (1 google hit) by specialist technical publisher MNewnham 21:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7. --Angr (t·c) 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~MDD4696 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom--Esprit15d 16:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 11:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naome Bradshaw[edit]

nn musician. She has a blank page at allmusic. She has a page at artistdirect which they list as "user contributed". Her records are sold at cdbaby.com, where they say they only sell records supplied by the musician. She gets only 88 unique Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:MUSIC as she's unsigned, and per WP:V as no independent source seems to have written about her, as far as I can tell. Note, there was a guest voice credit on the Simpsons claimed, which I removed, due to lack of independent sources. It's mentioned on her web site, and I think it's probably true, but even if it was true, its too minor to make a difference unfortunately. Hopefully she'll qualify for an article in the future. --Rob 22:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7. --Angr (t·c) 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would disagree, as her web site indicates she's a recording artist, performer at various places (locally at least), and has a guest voice on a hit show. This all falls well below WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, but the person warrants an AFD. This isn't (quite) the run-of-the-mill singer-vanity, of somebody who's first attempt at publicity is Wikipedia. In between a keep and a speedy delete there is a deliberative delete, which this should be. --Rob 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete good work by Zoe. Speedy A7, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbar[edit]

nn fictional characters r3m0t talk 21:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, widely known fictional characters and/or toys. Kappa 21:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, do the other Transformers characters have pages? --Liface 23:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's more than meets the eye! Seriously though I don't see what's so non-notable about Transformers characters, it's a pretty well-known show/toyline/whatever. Snurks T C 23:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, other Transformers have pages. Timrollpickering 23:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Kasic[edit]

Non-notable student (well, just graduated in 2005); good luck, but not worth an article even by wiki notability standards. Sdedeo (tips) 22:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr (t·c) 22:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google search just reveals some nn blogs and links to the student newspaper she contributed to. --Pboyd04 22:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete part of a POV crapflood by a fan of some far-right magazine. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --VT hawkeyetalk to me 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. -- Op. Deo 00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -Willmcw 01:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD:A7. Artile is likely to be recreated as it is being linked from three others. -- ReyBrujo 13:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Kasic is engaged in the battle of campus minds that has been going on for years. This wiki elitism only helps prevent accurate documentation of the right wing conspiracy that has been assaulting academic freedom for 20 years. The $20 million that the extreme right is funnelling into campuses can't be accurately understood if not for documenting the key players, and Kasic has been in both roles as an undergraduate and now, after graduating, as part of Morton Blackwell's campus brownshirts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.30.48 (talk • contribs)
Hi anon -- the problem is that Kasic is non-notable. There are a great many reasons why non-notability makes it hard to maintain an article; in particular, it makes it impossible to provide adaquate independent sources to document an article's claims about the subject. Sdedeo (tips) 02:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 r3m0t talk 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Playing god band[edit]

nn band, no albums, no real claim of notability unless you count "swept the underground scene like a tidal wave, destroying everything in its path" Pboyd04 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Counterweight[edit]

Non-notable college student-club newspaper. Sdedeo (tips) 22:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, just like all the other Bucknell-related stuff below. --Liface 23:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as usual for student club magazines. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.-Willmcw 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was revert and keep. howcheng {chat} 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Mitchell[edit]

Non-notable recent college graduate. Sdedeo (tips) 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC) (After the reversion and expansion by Rogue9 and OpDeo, I am happy to retract my AfD -- I was unaware that there was indeed a notable CM article that had been hijacked. Sdedeo (tips) 00:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete, nonnotable. --Angr (t·c) 22:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well he makes a claim to notability "Charles has appeared on NPR, MSNBC, and Fox News and written in the Washington Times, the Chronicle of Higher Education, and Campus Magazine." But I don't see any proof and I don't think any of the google entries I saw were him, either needs to cite some evidence or Delete. --Pboyd04 22:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another part of the crapflood. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ~MDD4696 23:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to edit of 15:40, 11 May 2005 by User:Steinsky - It seems this Scottish doctor who has a tower named after him has been converted to a non-notable US graduate! -- Op. Deo 00:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert, per above. This article title was hijacked. -Willmcw 01:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per above. --Metropolitan90 02:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's try reverted per above. Charles Mitchell is a great, upstanding guy, but he hasn't yet done anything to merit an encyclopedia article about him. Rogue 9 07:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    -- After Rogue 9's revertion I have have expanded the article on the orignal person, cleaned up links in, and provided a Charles Mitchell (disambiguation) page to which some one can add a link to the pundit Charles Mitchell if he can been shown to be notable and a page is written. Op. Deo 23:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bluey[edit]

Can't figure out who this guy is, but given page creator's other choices, very likely non-notable. Sdedeo (tips) 22:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 21:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucknell University Conservatives Club[edit]

Last in a long series of related articles, this student group's claim to fame is having been mentioned in the New York Times once. Otherwise a non-notable group with clearly vanity entry. Sdedeo (tips) 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Bucknell University if anyone can be bothered, otherwise frankly it's no loss. There is endless precedent for removing student clubs. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Bucknell University. --Liface 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is there is too POV for a merge anyway. --Pboyd04 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:AUTO (article is written in 1st person plural) and because student organizations which exist on a single campus are generally non-notable. --Metropolitan90 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per Metro90 Pete.Hurd 02:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fudgebiscuit[edit]

Seems to be a neologism and an unnecessary one at that. Very few Google hits for "fudgebiscuit" written as one word, and not a whopping lot for "fudge biscuit" written as two. Angr (t·c) 22:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Westboro Baptist Church. I will just tag it, and encourage those who advocated merging so to do. -Splashtalk 00:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racial and political views of the Westboro Baptist Church[edit]

Just based on the title this can never be NPOV, or its a soapbox, or its unecyclopedic, take your pick Pboyd04 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge back into Westboro Baptist Church, where the original article content was forked from. This has become a POV fork, I'm afraid; because it's edited by fewer people than the relatively NPOV main article, controversial content has remained in (for example, the "anti-black racism" section, which only mentions WBC members' significant anti-racism work as an aside to its main focus on allegations of racism). I think some of this is notable, but such content as is notable belongs back in the main article. TSP 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give the author Purgatory time. Endomion 22:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the POV extends well beyond the title and into the execution of the entire article. Remove this festering sore on the face of Wikipedia with all possible speed. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per TSP. --Idont Havaname 23:58, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Anti discrimination groups also have "racial views." The phrase "racial views" is neutral to me. pielover87 03:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as per TSP Pete.Hurd 02:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge as per TSP --Xyzzyplugh 14:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per TSP A.J.A. 23:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well sourced, and seems too long for merging into the already very long Westboro Baptist Church article. It is not the article that is biased, but the organization, according to the sources given. To make the organization sound non-racist etc would require deliberately ignoring the sources and would thus make the article non-neutral. Wuzzy 18:17, 5 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. howcheng {chat} 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RightHook.org[edit]

nn website, Alexa has no traffic data, Google search seems to be mostly nn blogs and forums Pboyd04 22:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete POV article on POV website. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB, although I freely admit that the content of the article was sufficiently poor that I did not look too hard. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is notable enough, but needs some work. --Liface 23:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Liface can you post proof of notability (and which part of WP:WEB it meets) if so I will withdraw the nomination? --Pboyd04 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; may one day be notable, but not yet. Sdedeo (tips) 22:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Just zis Guy. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TNL Forum[edit]

nn forum, Alexa rating of 35,812, and while trying to revert vandalism (someone changed the link to Opera forums) I found out that the site seems to be down. Pboyd04 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Although the article has a lot of content, it seems like it would be more suitable for them to start their own wiki with MediaWiki and host it themselves. I can't see how this information would be useful to anyone but members of the forums. --Liface 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pressing the No. 1 spam button, starts with the name as a weblink. Goes steadily downhill from there. This is just forumcruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete for excessive amounts of web-troglodyte garbage. These people need lobotomy, not exposure. --Agamemnon2 10:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Massive, unending Forum Drama (tm) of interest only to those who read the forum. FCYTravis 10:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FCYTravis. Stifle 23:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FCYTravis. Inane and unencyclopaedic. - Liontamer 22:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Pope. - Sikon 09:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Father[edit]

Appears to be nothing more than a vehicle for pushing a POV. Also a Papal title, so someone keeps linking to this article from the phrase "Holy Father" in Pope, over repeated reversions, apparently to make some point. In fact, although "Holy Father" is occasionally used in prayer to address God the Father it's not usually thought of as one of his titles and occurs in the entire Bible exactly once. As an article on the Papal title is nothing more than a dicdef. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Pope, and protect if necessary. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect if necessary, as above. Durova 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Soapbox. The article is making a subtle point that Catholics are in error to call the Pope Holy Father when Jesus calls our Father in heaven the Holy Father. Endomion 01:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Pope, and protect if necessary. Note that contents is pure opinion, per Endomion, and no sources are cited to support that opinion. (I.e. no sources are cited to show that "Holy Father" has only one proper usage and meaning). Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. I think it's maybe a bit much to call it a POV push, but it's certainly nowhere near WP standard. Stifle 23:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macbeth Athletics[edit]

Very little content, not worth keeping around Bootstoots 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete very little content. --Pboyd04 23:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, no context, no content, possible advertisement --Quarl 01:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concrete countertops[edit]

Reads like an ad. Plus isn't this just obvious that a Concrete countertop is a countertop made of concrete. Unencyclopedic Pboyd04 23:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, that's a badly done advertisement. --Bootstoots 23:48, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement. Almost no useful content to salvage. --Quarl 01:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modern word[edit]

Article about a brand new Wiki. Notability not demonstrated. Notability first, article after. Jmabel | Talk 23:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete from what I can tell 74 pages and 2 users. --Pboyd04 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN. Obina 00:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. --Quarl 01:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per non. -- ReyBrujo 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete utterly non-notable. Stifle 23:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expert modeling[edit]

Looks like an advertising page, with little context --Bootstoots 23:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup...it's a copyvio, too. That means Speedy McBye-Bye. - Lucky 6.9 00:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (tɔk) 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (African philosophy)[edit]

Fails the Google test, goes under many things that Wikipedia is not and attempts at improvement have failed thanks to constant reverts. Urthogie 23:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Looks like original research. Ashibaka tock 02:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, even the original research itself isn't encyclopedic. I've talked with the guy himself, hes an art interpreter, not a scientist.--Urthogie 02:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article's talking about art and not physics, this actually strikes me as entirely appropriate. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not called Cool(African art). It's presented as philosophically true.--Urthogie 21:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly origianl research. Gotta go.Gator (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research --Xyzzyplugh 14:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real enough to those who believe in it. Fred Bauder 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Noone has ever contributed to it, except DCV, and she made it impossible to remove the POV from her works, thanks to reverting. Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, so we shouldn't have an article that claims as true things that are unscientific.--Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the page history, this doesn't appear to be true. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there have been failed attempts at objectivity in this article's history. Look at the talk pages for a chronicle of enraged wikipedians, each giving their stab at balancing the article throughout its history.--Urthogie 21:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a while Until the deeceevoice RfAr is complete. -Justforasecond 20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gator. Stifle 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if this is not highly contested after DCV's arbitration --Urthogie 01:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research, unverified and unverifiable.Humansdorpie 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Suggest that relevant information be moved to Cool (aesthetic) (I know that such a link currently leads to the article in discussion, however), which must cover the concept of "cool" both in African and non-African contexts. This present article, however, has no hope of becoming NPOV because it was created on the premise of a POV and attempts to prove or justify that POV. Yid613 00:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs work but it has a lot of solid info and references.--Alabamaboy 20:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand what the specific grounds for deletion are here (constant reverts are not one; that's a case for mediation). What sections of WP:NOT is this violating? How is this original research when it provides five references supporting its claims? It could use more thorough citation, and I'd be happy to see uncited parts go, but it's clear that we're talking about a concept that has some meaning to the art world--otherwise they wouldn't keep publishing articles on it. --Dvyost 20:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nothing raised here seems to meet the criteria for deletion. Also, has the stink of a vendetta to me. Guettarda 21:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never edited a page with DCV before this article, and please view the talk pages if you think I came in with a bad attitude. You'll see that I've tried to handle this with complete objectivity and respect.--Urthogie 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only causes circuitous arguments and tiresome edit wars. Either delete or rewrite the article entirely using verifiable sources. --Modulatum
  • Keep. I don't understand why an article that is as well-referenced as this one would be considered for deletion. If anything, I think the article should be expanded. I am a sociologist and have come across other articles on this and closely related subjects over the years. To delete an article like this one seems almost a racial act to me. Wikipedia needs more articles like this one on African art and culture, not fewer. There is also the possibility (from what I've gleaned elsewhere on this) that there are personal aspects to this VfD, based on an RfA. I don't know all the facts on this yet, but have it from a source I trust. Berenise 11:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you didn't see the old version, the article is currently the result of my deleting the subjective content. I assure you this isnt a personal issue. This is the only article I've done with DCV. Also, if you look at the talk page, you can see in my first post that I clearly support the pages existence, and wanted it improved. It was only when I recognized that POV was the reason for the article's creation-- the essence of the content, that I put this on AfD. Also, if anyone else falsely thinks that this is a personal problem of mine, rather than the crappiness of the article, please understand that Wikipedia has a rule about primary sources. And this article doesn't follow it.--Urthogie 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Following comments were made in reference to Dvyost

Ok, ill answer this one by one:
  • Constant reverts aren't the grounds, they are just what makes it worse.
  • It violates the following sections of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and Wikipedia is not a soapbox.
  • To claim it has primary sources would be in complete contradiction with the words of Deeceevoice herself(who put all of the content up), who said the following in her attack on the established "eurocentric policy" of primary sources:
In subject matter such as this which treat third-world cultural/anthropological matters, primary ::sources often are not available. It is, in a way, saying no article treating San culture has ::credibility unless we can find an authoritative text written by a Bushman. Ridiculously eurocentric and absurd. [60]
  • The problem isn't lack of sources, its lack of encyclopedic primary sources. All of her sources are art interpretations. People can come to many conclusions when viewing art. If she were to approach this objectively, she would say that so and so believes this, unfortunately, she had to take a leave from wikipedia before this could be forced into the ridiculous article.
  • Coolness in african art has meaning, but the article has not a single encyclopedic paragraph. I defy you to find one paragraph written by her in this article which subscribes to wikipedia's guidelines.

--Urthogie 21:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still a bit confused by your insistence on primary sources here, as WP:NOR seems to say that secondary sources are fine for constructing articles. What's even more confusing to me is your insistence on "scientific" or "empirical" evidence; how do you see this coming about in an article on aesthetics? Generally the precedent in art/aestethics articles seems to be to cite the relevant critics (or "interpreters," if you prefer); so far as "scientists" exist in the field, this is them. Anyway, I don't understand how summarizing scholarly secondary sources in this case is any different than what I've seen in dozens of history articles. It's certainly not required that we agree with this (I for one don't) but I don't see the harm in saying that "scholar X and scholar Y advocate a philosophy of Z". That's how Wikipedia articles are built, right? --Dvyost 22:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK to base articles on secondary sources, but she presented the secondary source as a primary one. She actually said "Cool is feminine energy, cool is etc." You can't do that! Even if you do suggest a keep of this article can you please address the fact that that isn't allowed by wikipedia policy? Furthermore, before my mass deletion of the article's content, there weren't statements like "scholar X advocates this". heres an example of how she would say stuff before my edits:
Cool is feminine energy; it is stillness, calm and strength. Cool is composure, dignity in being and comportment and a practiced stoicism. It is a way of being, a way of walking in the world. Cool abides. Heat is masculine energy, strength and movement; it acts. Both elements assume co-equal values in African movement and dance, in African music and art. The cool aesthetic permeates traditional West African cultures and African-American culture, as well— in black artistic and musical expression, in the hitch in the "pimp" strut of urban, African American men; in African American dress and adornment, demeanor and speech.
Not only is that a misinterpretation of Thompson(I've exchanged emails about the article with the man himself), but even if it were a proper citing of his view, it would be presenting his interpretations as the gospel truth! It's a soapbox, no? (PS I want to thank you for maintaing objectivity in this discussion, and im honestly very thankful for your approach to this article. Much respect for that.)--Urthogie 15:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think I have an anti-african bias[edit]

Go read the history section on the article rapping. Hip-hop (my favorite music), is linked to griots, which were essential to west african culture. If I had an anti-african bias that warped my objectivity, why would I bring it in to my favorite thing? Please stop the personal implications.--Urthogie 15:38, 5 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 Human Events. Original article was userfied to User:Abcarpenter (original author). howcheng {chat} 21:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Carpenter[edit]

Was tagged as a speedy as a nn-bio, but claims notablity by winning awards. No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 23:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was regional chess champ in kindergarden does that get me my own bio page? but seriously nn awards as far as I can tell --Pboyd04 23:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but make an article about the site itself that mentions her.--Urthogie 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, also note that series of articles written by her are close to vanity but subjects may be worthy independent checking. -- Op. Deo 00:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect to Human Events --Rob 00:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete/redirect: It appears the original is a copyvio from here. The changes I made are to trivial to fix the problem, so there'll need to be a legit rewrite, or a deletion. It's probably best to delete, and put a redirect to Human Events --Rob 01:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete then redirect per Thieverr|Rob. Non-notable biography, copyvio. --Quarl 01:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per Thieverr|Rob. Stifle 23:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You guys are douches don't hate the player, hate the game. User:bwetmore 14:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The above comment was left by User:24.220.30.48, not by the claimed user. --Rob 20:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. - Mailer Diablo 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossflo and Crossflo systems[edit]

nn company, blatent ad first line is even the same as their website metatags Pboyd04 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete blatant copyvio r3m0t talk 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete spam Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable compnay, advertisement. Alexa rank for crossflo.com is 4,118,377 [61]. --Quarl 01:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 13:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. It's past the deadline for a speedy delete (hint: when you vote for a speedy deletion, please tag the page with the relevant ((db)) template) but it's a copyvio and an advert. Stifle 23:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both articles read like a poor press release; searching WP for Crossflo turns up another spam link example for them National Information Exchange Model and one possibly pertinet external link GJXDM. ChemGardener 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avow (zine)[edit]

Doesn't seem very notable. While Google produces results, little to none of them are actually about this magazine. Delete --Spring Rubber 09:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This zine is referenced in the list of zines page under perzines. Within the Zine community Keith Rosson is a notable figure and was fetured in the documentary "A T-Shirt & $100" about the North West Zine community. Keep --Jacobtrosen 15:10, 17 December 2005
    User has only contributed to Avow and AFD. --Quarl 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable per nomination. --Quarl 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Billion[edit]

NN board game vanity by Dacoutts (talk · contribs) aka David Coutts (talk · contribs). — Dunc|☺ 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I did not add this page in the first place (ask yourselves, when was the game entry entered?), though I did improve the entry. However, the game is not a part of my recent edits. The game can stand on its own in Wikipedia, without any reference to Exponentialist theory.I think you are over-reacting.

Given that other boardgames are listed on Wikipedia, this feels more like being burned at the stake for heresy than a reasoned response. Dacoutts

  • Comment: In retrospect, you are correct, the article is not linked with the objectionable set. I have removed the inappropriate cross-namespace link to your user page. I still think that the article smells of vanity and self-promotion, but I can quite easily find the game on Google, so it's not wholly unnotable. The links at the bottom especially smell of vanity, but I remove my delete vote and leave a weak keep. In the future, you might want to avoid contributing to articles so linked to yourself - it really is vanity, and many Wikipedians will react badly to that and indeed try to burn you at the stake. My apologies for painting all your contributions with the same brush. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, though I note that the 6 Billion entry is still marked for deletion. As far as I could tell there are no guidelines that preclude me correcting what was an inaccurate entry for my game. I reject the charge of vanity, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Dacoutts

The game 6 Billion was distributed by Rio Grande Games in the USA. I've probably sold half of the 2,500 copies I produced. The game was listed in the Games International GAMES 100 for 2001 at number 9. It made the front cover of Games Games Games Issue 137 (see 6 Billion Reviews. It's listed on Boardgamegeek at BGG entry for 6 Billion. The entry shows that 158 people have said that they own the game. I published the story of the games development and production twice - once in Counter magazine, and once here. I took the game to Spiel '99 at Essen - Spiel'99 at Essen.

Dacoutts

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mo0[talk] 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete thanks to DACoutts for quantifying how minor the game was. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Stillnotelf Jcuk 10:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the nomination, delete. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. 1250 units sold is insignificant. -- JLaTondre 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not significant enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logo plastering[edit]

POV term used in production logo fandom; not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. tregoweth 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since I have at leasta passing suspicion that 100% of "closing logo enthusiasts" already know everything there is to know about this subject, and nobody else is likely to be interested. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless verified as a term in general usage. If verified, delete as dicdef. Movementarian 01:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable and not notable enough. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, even after minus socks. - Mailer Diablo 07:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PBS idents[edit]

Subtrivia of interest only to devoted logospotters. tregoweth 23:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this belongs on Wikicities or a fan site. No way is this encyclopaedic. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see how this is any less encyclopaedic than some of the other articles on Wikipedia. Boring as hell, but I think merits inclusion. Movementarian 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Quarl 01:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a nostalgia factor here. Endomion 01:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definately interesting to see how it has evolved over the years. --Pboyd04 02:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep what the hell, we have BBC Television Idents Jcuk 20:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pboyd04. Georgia guy 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - of nostalgic and aesthetic interest. But, as Movementarian says, it's not well written. Also, too similar to teamfx2000 page (referenced multiple times). ScottMainwaring 03:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good Histoy on PBS 69.231.157.85
  • Keep This is historical information Mike 17:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. David | Talk 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Majority rules. I think there are some psychological effects to the older idents for some or for me at least. It may not be really encyclopaediac, but useful and easy to get to for the info. Steven312 01:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Exactly it's information that will be of use to many people and it's obviously overwheling that most people want it to say. Mike 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Lukobe 06:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Viacom[edit]

Subtrivia of interest only to devoted logospotters. tregoweth 23:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, precisely. I used ot be a projectionist, but even I found this boring! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Boring? Yes, but I don't see that as a reason to delete it. Movementarian 00:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Movementarian. --Quarl 01:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Pboyd04 02:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone else, may not be the best subject in the world, but that's no deletion reason. Besides, if it was going to be unwelcome on Wikipedia, it would have never passed WP:AFC (which it did). Also, why did I expect the AfD tag on the page before entering it? I had a feeling because of similar pages brought here. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jcuk 20:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a similar article for Screen Gems, and just because there are a lot of people not interested in historical branding of this nature, plenty of people are. Are we short of hard drive space on the Wikimedia servers? Otherwise, I can't figure out why we'd be going out of our way to delete this article. Jkatzen 09:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Viacom. JonMoore 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberwap[edit]

I couldn't find the site when I looked, only 320 google hits most of which seem to be people with the profile cyberwap. nn site Pboyd04 23:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnus Spaceworks[edit]

Incorrect star wars information. The page for Lambda-class shuttle lists Sienar Fleet Systems as the manufacturer not this company. Probably fan fiction cruft. Pboyd04 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete substub, never going to become a serious article. Stifle 23:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the X-wing computer game series, specifically TIE Fighter. Although I will remove the incorrect Lambda shuttle information from the Cygnus page, I prefer keeping the page since it was responsible for the Assault Gunboat and Missile Gunboat.

  • Merge into List of minor Star Wars organizations. This is all true, as proven by Star Wars Wiki. The company is also in the Essential Guides. -LtNOWIS 01:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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