< February 14 February 16 >

Purge server cache

February 15[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 to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Gordon Lawrence[edit]

Tagged as db-attack, which it seems to do, but not without reason. Notability? Open to question. A difficult one. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 00:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, the lengths of the articles seems to be correlated to the number of offenses committed. Ruby 00:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point there, but the difference between Shanley and Lawrence is that Shanley was a little more notable, and was a "prominent figure" in a greater Boston scandal (and we just love scandals), whereas Lawrence, although according to allegations is as equally troubled, is a little less notable. It is the first I'm hearing of him anyways, and I'm close enough to Ottawa. --Jay(Reply) 00:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This entry strives to connect Lawrence's pedophile past of 15 years ago to the present. It is clearly a personal attack by one person and Wikipedia has a more noble calling than to allow itself to be used this way. February 19, 2006


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest streets in London[edit]

Proposed for deletion by 82.15.28.195 (talk · contribs) with the rationale "no sources, primary research must be repeated to verify, inherently and irretrievably WP:NOR, until such time as some reputable source publishes such a list, which we probably wouldn't be able to include anyway for legal reasons", also a case is made on the talk page. Kappa 00:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rename. Any entry in a list must be notable. We also don't say List of notable musicians/mathematicians/politicians. We only include the notable ones. - Mgm|(talk) 10:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am offended. Your continued badgering is becoming old information. Stop hiding behind your IP to make attacks, Change your tone and get a user page. Follow? -- JJay 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Part of the whole process of discussion and argument (remember, AfD is a discussion, not a vote) is to examine and attack your opponent's position. I am not attacking your character, but your position that it's not OR when the fact is that it clearly is OR. Read the article, read the talk page, then re-read the arguments for deletion. Re-read WP:OR if necessary. The fact (for it is a fact) is that this list is OR, and anyone who cannot already see why is missing something big somewhere along the line, probably a misunderstanding of what OR actually is. Of course, you could just stop hiding behind your username to make attacks, and actually explain why you think this is not OR, so we can see at what point our opinions diverge (discussion, not vote, remember?). 02:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Re-read the part above about old information, your tone and badgering. Then re-read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion particularly point V and VI under AfD etiquette. The fact (for it is a fact) that you have an opinion about this article was noted with your original statement at the top of the page. There is no reason to keep repeating your position. -- JJay 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and finally mocking the format of a previous comment is WP:POINT. Please retract. 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I cite one wikipedia page and that's how you react? You have called me "misinformed" with "patently false" reasoning and accused me of "deliberately ignoring" policy. You cite 10 wikipedia pages- itself a violation of NPA, AGF and CIV as far as I'm concerned- and claim I'm trying to make a point. The only point I'm trying to make is to get you to tone down your rhetoric. If this hasn't already been clear, I am not interested in being lectured by you or in debating you. Your opinion has been noted. -- JJay 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
that all seems to be a question of interpretation, not smashing through any rules. This is pretty lighthearted information to cause such a serious debate, but no reason why an encyclopedia should not be amusing as well as informative. Absolutely no reason why this information should not be presented in a neutral way, but again I don't see anyone actually seriously challenging the accuracy of this information, so it becomes a bit absurd to demand sources. As to copyright, it is not clear that this is copyrighteable information, since the same information exists in many different works. Sandpiper 01:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, although I agree with points of anonymous who has been bespattering this page, I would urge him not to be a dick. ikkyu2 (talk) 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are several elements of OR here. One is there had to be decisions made on starting points for the streets. How to handle curved streets. What was the algorithm used to verify the measurements on the map are correct? How were they measured at all. Having none of this available is exactly why we have a policy against original research. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it's a bedrock and very important policy. All articles need to meet it. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is an aspiration. Most wiki articles are not verified and absolutely should not be deleted on that basis. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that without actual numerical data, independent verification of this list would be impossible. 09:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No actually it's firm policy. You can't set it aside just because it's convenient. Please spend some time understanding the relevant policies before voting. - Taxman Talk 16:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because someone disagrees with your view doesn't mean that he doesn't understand the relevant policies. Reasonable people may interpret borderline cases differently. So get off your high horse and show some respect for differing viewpoints. | Klaw ¡digame! 16:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I replied to your message on my talk page, I'm sorry if I offended you. It's not because you don't agree with me that I said you don't understand the policy. It's because your statement is directly at odds with the policy. Turnstep's was even farther out, and you said you agreed with his statements. - Taxman Talk 17:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've responded on your talk page, so I'll stick to the subject at hand here. For example, what part of What is excluded? is violated here? I'm not proposing that we waive NOR willy-nilly, but that we recognize that some types of content lie on the border of NOR (for example, plot summaries for books or films). If the street lengths in this article come from measurements off a map (and if so, let's get the cite for that map), then is that original research, or just reproduction of published data, since the map is published and the street lengths are on the map in a non-numeric form? I can see both sides to that argument. I take the view that if the map is published, then the measurements are not original research, and they're verifiable. If the article contains measurements made by some guy with a tape measure or a really long piece of string, then the article still stays but needs a ((verify)) tag. Deletion isn't a good solution in either case. | Klaw ¡digame! 17:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true that any policy requires interpretation, which is perhaps what some mean by "needs to be flexible", but we must do the necessary to correctly interpret it. -Lumière 17:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few components of original research in reading street lengths off of a map, and an additional one in trying to list the longest streets in a given area. There are a number of problems to contend with that make the issue much different from reading text. For one, what measurement tool is used? If a ruler by hand, then the scale of the map greatly influences the answer that will be had from the measurement, but so does the ruler used. Different measuring tools will come up with different answers for the length . How is that accounted for in the results reported? Some rulers have greater accuracy than others, even the thickness of the lines on the ruler will affect the result. How are curved streets handled? Are they considered at all? The choice of what to consider as one street is a problem. Where does the measurement stop if the street changes names? What precision is to be reported in the answers and how did one arrive at that confidence level? If the map is electronic, what tools are used to measure the lines, and how does the algorithm work? All of these items are judgement calls that are innapropriate original research. And no, ignore all rules cannot set aside any of the major content policies. You can't have a POV article just because you want to ignore the NPOV policy, and no "consensus" can do that. - Taxman Talk 03:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulties you suggest in translating the data off the map are really not quantitatively different from the difficulties anyone faces when trying to prepare an article from different sources. It is my experience that different sources disagree with each other, and editorial judgement is needed to choose which versions to include in an article. I have also seen the result of someone who plainly does not understand a source then trying to write an article. Articles do not get scrapped because people make mistakes interpreting, they get corrected. Normally when editors have a difference of opinion over content, they fight it out and a consensus on the correct interpretation is reached. Just so here, though I have yet to see any real suggestion that people are arguing the factual content is incorrect. I am sure there are many wiki editors who have the source material on their own bookcase and the necessary ability to read a map to check for themselves that information here is correct. I regard the existence of such an accessible method of checking as making this article very much more readily verifiably than many others which might have a long bibliography which is however not immediately to hand. I remain of the view that a strict interpretation of NOR as suggested by some people would mean that this encyclopedia should totally be deleted. It is not possible to create a synthesis of data without doing original work. That is why such a synthesis is specifically permitted, indeed last time I read it, was mandatory.
As to major policies. A perceived violation of a policy is not grounds for deletion of an article. It is merely grounds for initiating a debate over whether such an article should be deleted. This is an important distinction. Sandpiper 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To check the length of any street, you can check the map for that street and measure it. That is bordering between OR and verifable due to accuracy in remeasuring, but could be seen both ways. However, to check that street is the 10th longest, you have to measure every street in London, hope you were accurate, and hope you didn't miss any. So, to verify fully any one item in that list, you have to do everything again. The latter problem, to me anyway, is what make this not count as verifiable. MartinRe 09:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not changing my vote (yet), but that's the best pro-Delete argument I've seen. | Klaw ¡digame! 18:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I found this one not so convincing because it relies on the amount of processing and expertise required. I think that we should expect that in some cases a lot of expertise and processing is needed to understand how the sourced information is supported by the source. I find the argument of Neigel von Teighen given below much more convincing and decisive, unless we cite a map that provides all required information. -Lumière 18:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, this is another important issue. Where are the beginning and the end of a street often cannot be determined from the map irrespectively of the amount of processing allowed. A formal criteria could be stated in the article, but the information required by the criteria (such as what is private or public) might not be available. This alone is a strong case for original research: the sourced information is not uniquely determined by the source. -Lumière 15:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The required information is not on any cited map: where a street begins and ends, for example when the street changes name, cannot be found on the map. Often one would need to physically go on the site or rely on local non-published knowledge.
  2. It's either a list of non notable entries (and thus against What Wikipedia is Not and possibly against copyright policy) or, if you think it is more than that, it is against No original Research.
Reasons for delete that I don't like:
  1. It's difficult to measure with good accuracy.
  2. It's a complicated process to list all streets and order them.
I don't like these reasons because they assume that it must be simple for anyone to see that a sourced information is supported by the sources, which is not a policy requirement. For example, translation from German to English is not against NOR. Also, to see that a scientific statement is well supported by scientific sources might require a level of expertise that only a few expert-editors have. -Lumière 11:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please not bold your second delete here. Thanks. -- JJay 12:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lumiere, i don't think it helps this debate that you go through and change things which you have written and others have already responded to. It makes their responses nonsense, which is unfair, and retrospectively does not allow them to respond to your changed comments, which is also unfair. Please stop doing it. I can see that you have corrected your own arguments where you have found them to be mistaken, but instead of changing them, just continue by stating your changed position.
I would interpret noteablity as being a relative as well as absolute term. it means what is worth including, as well as what is widely accepted (as distinct from what is widely refuted) The wikipage you cite suggests that a sense of proportion is needed. So a complete list of all street lengths in London would be unacceptable, but a list of noteably long ones would be includeable. On the other hand, wiki is not paper, which is say it does not have the same space constraints as a conventional encyclopedia. In a paper volume there is a real sense that if one article goes in, another must come out. That does not apply here. So wiki can afford to include articles on relatively minor topics. Wiki resources are creaking at maintaining a free service, but I think the issue is numbers of people wanting to read it, not the still relatively small volume of information which makes up the encyclopedia. Sandpiper 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, with regard to your first paragraph, nobody as far as could see had made any reference to the comment that I deleted. Really, I felt that it was somehow totally ignored. I will check again, and if I see that some had made some reference to this comment I will be happy to put it back. I think I respected the spirit of the guideline which says that we should not modified our own text in a talk page if it was superceded. IMO, if nobody replies or makes reference to it, it is not superceded. -Lumière 13:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Traitors[edit]

Non-notable (I believe) band. Article is... interesting. moink 00:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a hastening of the inevitable, and because this article is more pollution than information Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why al-Qaeda chose the date of September 11[edit]

Original research. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plexus Scientific[edit]

Advertisement. Zarquon 00:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rail-rocking[edit]

Non-notable and non-verifiable TMac 00:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for BJAODN. Barno 01:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jascolio[edit]

Original research, author seems to be reinventing Esperanto OscarTheCattalk 00:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of title tracks released as singles[edit]

Needed? Would surely be a huge list? OscarTheCattalk 01:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Fusion[edit]

Possibly not notable or even hoax (I haven't researched). Creator of the article participated in some later silly editing of it. -- Curps 01:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Noy notable enough." Fix your spelling please.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Badger Syndrome[edit]

Possible hoax. The description of this medical syndrome makes it appear as a possible play on Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease or Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease). A Google search does not find anything that matches the description given in the article.[2] Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of this article. --Allen3 talk 01:51, 15 February 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. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis, The White Horse[edit]

Insufficiently notable horse


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2624[edit]

A year in a game - misleading and not worth keeping as a number.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaults to keep. Ifnord 03:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Resource Management Application[edit]

Insufficiently notable website - 69 Ghits

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 05:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irani slave trade[edit]

Possible attack page - homayon ghassemi is an athlete. Unsourced, unverifiable.


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superherohype![edit]

Tagged for prod but the tag was removed. Nonnotable website, vanity, spam, and all that. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:12, 15 February 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 00:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hind bint Awf[edit]

Being the father of someone (even if they are notable) is not inherently notable Ruby 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I beg you to take a look at Sahaba's ancestors and Non-Muslim interactants with Muslims during Muhammad's era. Take a look at http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html and try searching some hadith. Look at this list Shia view of the Sahaba. You see? Please don't decide that this person is not notable, unless you have a good understanding of this topic. Would I bother to write all of this if she was really of no intrest? Its not like vanity or commercial for anything, and its not like it makes Wikipedia look bad for having it. Give the articles time to grow.... --Striver 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the daughters are notable, send us down an article about the daughters. We don't have articles about the parents of celebrities no matter how famous their children are. Ruby 03:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What about Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy? Just sayin' Crypticfirefly 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that we already have articles about his daughters. Kappa 03:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for removing the personal insult. We do if they are the mother of five celebrities , mother in law of a super celebritie and grandmother of yet another celebritie , dont we? --Striver 03:14, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:34] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Lincoln Park Trixie Society[edit]

Delete not encyclopedic, and who knows what else. Aaronw 02:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try. No place quotes around the two and see what you get 871 results of which most of those are not referring to the subject in question (notice the judicious use of commas in the search results). -- Avi 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But you do get 864 if you search for "Lincoln Park Trixie" and most if not all of those do refer to this subject. Crypticfirefly 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(first of three edits by "anth" a.k.a. User:Gargiulo, disregarded, — <fon>)
Indeed, Valley Girl has a wiki page. boinger 15:15, 21 February 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 List of neologisms on The Simpsons. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homersexual[edit]

Complete nonsense of a page, edits by two new users, most likely the same person or two friends. Entry is completely unencyclopedic. I don't think it qualifies for a speedy, but certainly delete. lightdarkness (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I maybe trouble you to elucidate that statement? :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I might agree, but it already appeared there, so hey. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integrative Manual Therapy[edit]

Big glob of an infomercial Ruby 02:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki. - Bobet 12:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vowel Productions[edit]

A "production company" operated by a group of high-school students. Currently no outside sources to demonstrate verifiability. CDC (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. We should make that a redirect. :-) Royal Blue T/C 02:56, 15 February 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 Speedied. android79 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Side Down[edit]

Band does not assert notability. Article has been around a while so I brought it here. Results on google for "This Side Down" refer to a DIFFERENT band from newe orleans in 2002. No assertion of notability by means of any albums or performances. Non Notable. lightdarkness (talk) 02:52, 15 February 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. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 00:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Road[edit]

Similar to Vowel Productions - a hobby video production group, unverifiable. CDC (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overwhelmingly mighty mondo-keep: Do you see that this is something being taken seriously? That this is an attempt at a career? Now I don't particularly like N*SYNC. I don't think those fellas are particularly talented and I'm far from interested in anything they do, but it's important to somebody. Dismissing this because you don't like it, don't understand it, or don't think it deserves popularity would be like opting for the deletion of N*SYNC's Wiki. The page seems dumb to me, but I know it's important to someone else, and it may help someone find the information they desire. If you oppose this page on the grounds that AtR is unpopular, keep in mind that creating a Wikipedia listing is a way of generating popularity and spreading knowledge of the existence of something. By the way, this is not, as banned by Wikipedia, a fad from a school or an inside joke. It is a film company, albeit a low-budget, unknown, modest one, that happened to be formed by school chums. If you are at all familiar with entertainment groups, you will know that many began as an idea begun between school friends that eventually took off. I'm not saying that Across the Road will ever be a well-known success, but humble beginnings, even without definite endings, are no reason for deletion. Is it really that big of a problem for you that someone wants a bit of recognition? I see no harm being caused, and vote overwhelmingly for a mondo-keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tougi (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 deleted. Mailer Diablo 00:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Beards[edit]

This is an article about an undistinguished band/sideproject but I think it would be kicked back from a speedy nomination Ruby 02:58, 15 February 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 history and redirect to Mafia Rd232 talk 09:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mob boss[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 00:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Lake[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 no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yassmin Alers[edit]

I don't see where any of these apply for this actress. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All that shows is that very few people write articles on stage actors. We have a similar lack of articles on child actors for which very few would argue their notability. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Monicasdude, while I agree with you that many of the women notorious for their plastic surgery and complete disregard for the use of various undergarments should not have articles either, that is no excuse for having this one. Why don't you nominate those other "dancers" for deletion as well? -- Avi 18:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's an exercise in futility; the community seems to have a settled position on this point. [8], [9], [10], and, on the male side, [11]. With the notability bar set that low, there shouldn't be any question here. Monicasdude 19:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good points, but can we please lose the "stage-only" bit from the discussion? The proper term is stage actor, theatre actor, or thespian. "Stage-only" is a further slur against an art that not too long ago was the only game in town.-- JJay 02:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I don't see how we can. It's 2006 and whether a person has television/movie experience is a totally relevant criteria. Calton seems to have found in Sarah Jones the only other person with IBDB credits and no IMDB credits that has an article on Wikipedia. If that standard is so peculiar, then why isn't anyone here adding similar articles? If I can somehow drag this discussion back to the original article here, there appears to be dozens or hundreds of actors that are in IBDB and not in IMDB that would be more notable than Yassmin Alers but don't have articles here. How can that not be relevant? It's like making a list of all notable American cities and starting with Palisade, Nebraska --- and then giving up after that one. If I saw that, I'd guess the list wasn't too impressive to begin with. (Okay, now many people from Palisade have I offended?) —Wknight94 (talk) 03:25, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You don't give up, do you? I said above there was no point in debating this anymore. I merely mentioned a point of semantics. "Stage-only" does not exist. It is a term that you have invented. -- JJay 03:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call the phenomenon whatever you want. Until I see all the thespian fans here adding dozens of articles that fit the same criteria, I'll call it "un-notable". —Wknight94 (talk) 03:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Stage actors: I'm going to start the discussion there with a proposal: I don't think we need "votes" to start a discussion. Mangojuice 13:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personality of Superman[edit]

Listed at copyright problems, not a copyvio (the other site copied from Wikipedia). However, it's clear original research; see WP:NOR. Delete. Chick Bowen 03:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. – ABCDe✉ 05:17, 15 February 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 Karmafist 02:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)tally on talk page[reply]

Kitchen distribution[edit]

Poorly written and un-wikified, one of three edits by IP address 24.51.38.241. Google search for ""kitchen distribution" buffalo" produces 120 results. Delete. Joel7687 08:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:SNOW and because we really do not need political diatribes from problem users in the main space Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 19:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean safe nuclear energy[edit]

Delete. Four words in an SOTU is not something to title an article on. Will duplicate material covered elsewhere. Article created by User:Benjamin Gatti to "Document Bush's propaganda", so little chance of NPOV treatment. --Robert Merkel 04:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malakora[edit]

Seems like a hoax article to me. -Mikereichold 23:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was improperly listed for AFD, listing now, no vote. --lightdarkness (talk) 03:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kamyar Cyrus Habib[edit]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayeeda Warsi[edit]

A failed election candidate (lost easily 41% to 29%), who also has had a few public servant jobs, none of them as notable bureaucrat leaders. Blnguyen 04:50, 15 February 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/merge. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Close[edit]

Does not really assert notability. Delete. (I would have speedy deleted it if I were completely sure that it's not notable.) --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karmøy Unge høyre[edit]

Untranslated at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English for two weeks. Discussion from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 05:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish? No idea what it's about! Tonywalton  | Talk 13:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not Swedish - it's Norwegian. It's about the Karmøy branch of a political group (party?) called Rogaland Unge Høyres, which I think means 'Rogaland Young Rights' (Right vs Left, not rights vs duties). I may have Unge wrong though - I wonder if it might not be 'New Rights' (like German 'Jungendstil' for 'Art Nouveau'.
It says KUH is the third largest branch of RUH, and lists its officers. Probably not notable on its own, but should maybe form part of a RUH article, ColinFine 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in Norwegian, and about the local chapter of Unge Høyre ("Young right", not 'new'), the youth organization of Høyre. It's basically a short blurb on how they're the largest political youth organization in north Rogeland (see? you can always be the best with enough qualifiers!) who are fighting for diversity and equality, and then a list of the board members. Given that the Unge Høyre doesn't have an article (just a single paragraph in the one for Høyre), I don't think this warrants its own page. It's vanity. --BluePlatypus 02:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cercanías Madrid lines[edit]

Delete un-needed sub-article of Cercanías Madrid, content is already in main article Aaronw 05:34, 15 February 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, cc to BJAODN. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sitting U.S. Vice Presidents who have shot people[edit]

This was originally speedy deleted by Bbatsell, but several editors asked for it to be undeleted so they could see it and BJAODN it. Also, there can be a bit of encylopedic merit on the article, if it is cleaned up. By the way, I don't mind if it is speedy deleted again. No vote. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They may cite it that way now that Cheney shot someone, to make him look bad in comparison, but I always remember the story of the duel being viewed negatively. The pride of two men leading to the death of a Cabinet member. It was romanticized to the extent that duelling is often romanticized, but mostly I think it was seen as tragic or discgraceful.--T. Anthony 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And rename: Shooting incidents involving United States vice presidents? = Mgm|(talk) 11:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these events notable in and of themselves?
  • Well, the Burr-Hamilton incident happened 202 years ago, and it is still being talked about today. So, I would say that is a big yes.
Under what circumstances would this topic come up for discussion? I wouldn't even try to guess.-Puss'nPurpleBoots 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wikipedia has an article on Dan Quayle's famous misspelling -- potatoe. Is that more important than Cheney shooting a guy, and then delaying the arrival of the Police long enough that his blood alcohol level would have returned to normal if he had been drinking?
  • Various other contributors have argued here that there shouldn't be a list because only two VPOTUS have shot people. Actually though these are the only VPOTUS shooting incidents that are well known. I have an open mind as to the possibility that there were other incidents which aren't well known. I am sure I am not the only one who wonders how many known incidents there have been. The proper place for that info is not the Dick Cheney article or the Aaron Burr article. -- Geo Swan 20:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to make a point for keeping this article or are you soliciting information?-Puss'nPurpleBoots 22:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) I think the article should be kept. (2) I would like to know if there were more than the two incidents. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I have a brilliant idea! I'll start a List of U.S. Republican Presidents named "George Bush". Sure, there are only two entries, but maybe someday there will be more! And maybe there have been Bushes in the past that I don't know about! Melchoir 22:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that is a brilliant idea. I think it is a disrespectful attempt at sarcastic mockery. Did you even read my rewrite of the article? I did you the courtesy to take your contributions seriously. I strongly urge you to show the same courtesy to other wikipedia contributors.
  • The question of whether other sitting VPOTUS shot people is not a ridiculous one. Duelling used to be popular. Lincoln was the first POTUS to have a security detail. It is quite possible that earlier VPOTUS engaged in duels that weren't publicized, maybe because no one died. Most duels were not fatal. -- Geo Swan 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it was funny in earlier versions, its not now. Too boring and unnotable to keep. Can be re-created if and when US VPs start shooting people regularly, which may not be as far off as we think. Herostratus 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Friends...Different Personalities[edit]

Complete nonesense and a hoax. Airing on Disney in 2008? Google picks up no matches. Vulturell 06:22, 15 February 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 Speedied. android79 15:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Elite Roleplaying Awards[edit]

This seems to be a non-notable list of roleplaying awards (within one group) that consists mainly of questionable copyright images. No at all encyclopedic. --Martyman-(talk) 06:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by MacGyverMagic, csd g1 (patent nonsense). - Bobet 12:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudha[edit]

Obviously not a legitimate entry. What is this article talking about? JackO'Lantern 06:46, 15 February 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trigamy[edit]

Unsigned band, dead website, article is trash. Zambaretzu 06:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaloc (mythology)[edit]

Looks like a hoax. No online information on the critter that is not copied from Wikipedia, and no apparent offline sources either: I got here from this discussion. Amphis 07:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a mispelling of Tlaloc--Mr Fink 16:02, 15 February 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 after discounting sockpuppet votes, no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjutsu (Naruto)[edit]

A massive, wholly unencyclopedic list of every single jutsu from a long-running anime/manga series, complete with overspecific descriptions and an utter lack of context. While Naruto is notable, this list of every single jutsu from the series is pure listcruft. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:19, 15 February 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 01:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thaloc[edit]

It's a "disambiguation page" linking to one other article, and that article looks like a hoax. See the AfD page for Thaloc (mythology) [16]. Amphis 07:22, 15 February 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. W.marsh 03:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Coalition[edit]

Unnotable group. A google search for "American Freedom Coalition" brings 950 hits, including Wikipedia articles. It contains only one source discussing the the groups view on communism. If this is a large group of like minded people, it isn't asserted in the article or on google. Any relevant data should be merged with Robert Grant, the rest of the unsourced should be deleted. Arbustoo 05:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe someone should consider adding that to the article... If true that would indeed be notable and strong grounds for a keep... but right now there is no case for notability in the article(I personally reject the assertion that notability is confered by the fact this group was established by several minorly notable people).--Isotope23 20:14, 15 February 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 12:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Religious Freedom[edit]

One sentence article of unnotable and no longer existing front group. A google search for "Coalition for Religious Freedom" "robert grant" bring 330 hits (includes Wikipedia articles). This organization should not be confused with "International Coalition for Religious Freedom," which brings up thousands of hits. Arbustoo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant is, but this group of 330 google hits isn't. Merge any important information (the whole article is ONE sentence), delete article. Arbustoo 20:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who let the trolls out? --Chuck Hastings 06:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is suspected that User:Chuck Hastings is a sock puppet of User:Jason Gastrich. See talk pages. Jason has a long documented history of trying to sway AfDs. Arbustoo 00:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
According to...? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be notable? In what way? Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain why. Arbustoo 00:46, 16 February 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 A Christmas Album (Bright Eyes album) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Christmas Album[edit]

Delete. This article should be deleted because the correct title of the album is A Christmas Album and there is already an article for it. Andland 07:40, 15 February 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 01:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FN P90 in popular culture[edit]

Listcruft. A list of every single time a particular object (in this case, a firearm) has appeared in any piece of fiction, no matter how minor that appearance. As such, this is an arbitrary list that cannot ever be complete, making it inappropriate for Wikipedia per WP:NOT and the deletion policy.

The introduction is the only vaguely encyclopedic part of this article, and that text already appears in FN P90 (the article this was split from, so no merge is necessary). As merging this into FN P90 would be to the detriment of that article, this article needs to be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are no P-90 lookalikes. There are airsoft pellet gun replicas, and stage gun blank firing props, but no other actual firearm looks anything like a P-90. The list given merely lists what name the weapon was used under in the movie/game in question, which is often not "P-90" for reasons of fictional license. Georgewilliamherbert 19:35, 15 February 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 del WP:CSD A7 "vanity" mikka (t) 09:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron David[edit]

Delete - is this noteworthy? Kukini 07:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why? delete this is useful for some people in the philippines. though it may not be a national issue but im sure it help me a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.177.230 (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 02:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All has fallen[edit]

Non-notable band. Was originally tagged as prod, but was contested by Michaeljones. See talk page for his case. Cnwb 08:06, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

CDO2 Limited[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Sleepyhead 08:15, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:45] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd.[edit]

Not notable as per WP:CORP eLNuko 09:07, 15 February 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 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lingobit Localizer[edit]

Advertising eLNuko 09:30, 15 February 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 01:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosseign Feghhee[edit]

del nonverifiable vanity by anon. No traces of such prominent person in various spellings, with the notable exception of "Hossein Feghhi, undergraduate student". mikka (t) 09:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 01:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam's apple (disambiguation)[edit]

Disambig pages with only two items are essentially meaningless, particularly when there's little chance of it ever being enlarged. Nothing currently links to it. Vicarious 10:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment that's "prodded" as in ((prod)), Vicarious. See Wikipedia:Proposed_deletion. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:02, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:51] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Marvel Database Project[edit]

The article notes itself that "just over 27% of the Database Project's traffic comes from Wikipedia". This is hardly surprising given most of JamieHari (talk · contribs) contributions are inserting links to it across the wikipedia, and he is the site owner and editor in chief, as well as main contributor to this article. The article Marvel Database Project has been the subject of a deletion debate where consensus was delete and has been speedied twice since. The page is vanity, spam and fails WP:WEB. I would speedy again but the page has grown and so can't be thought of as a simple recreation, given User:Xaosflux's comments on the talk page. Delete. Hiding talk 10:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curious; how so? I'd certainly never heard of it before. Where has it been covered in the comics press then? Hiding talk 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's trivial coverage, to be fair. It's not coverage of the site as a resource, which is something one could reference in an article on the site, it's just a link to the site. Hiding talk 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that the article isn't about the MDP project, but IGN is very much a trusted news source in the comics industry and would likely not link to the Marvel Database Project if they felt the resources were inaccurate, out-of-date or the site itself could pose some controversy as a cruft-site.
  • Sadly, per WP:WEB those mentions are trivial. When Marvel Database Project is covered in feature articles, feel free to come back. I'll even help you write the article. Until then, I'm sorry, but it fails notability. As to the two ign articles in question, they're written by someone using a pseudonym, I can find no bio details of the author, it's entirely possible the author is a user of the site, and ign would fall into the dubious portion of our reliable sources guidelines. I don't want to rain on your parade, like I say, get the coverage to be included here and I'll welcome you back. At the moment, it feels to me like the site is using Wikipedia to get a leg up, something I hope you will agree is bad form, and also against policy. Hiding talk 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lar, thank you very much for looking more deeply into our site to see our value. We have worked really hard, but not all of our pages are completely polished yet. The information is still there, but some typos exist and some pictures and sources are missing. I, too, have watched our Alexa rating, but it seems to make no sense... We were at about 80,000 4 months ago, but our rank keeps falling. I have traffic analysis software that says our traffic has since doubled. I think Alexa is a VERY poor indicator of success. We are more well known than Hiding would believe, I have 'chatted' online with several folks I just met, who knew about our site before I even told them... (It was a nice feeling...) --JamieHari 15:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, even pointless, empty websites can get a million hits if the populace gets wind of it as a new fad. I merely intended it to bolster my arguement that I am not the only member of my website. he he he... --JamieHari 05:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The deletion of the MDP page on Wikipedia.

Keep.

I thank you all for not speedy deleting and for the chance to discuss this further. I would certainly like to apologize for adding the page myself. I didn't, at the time, realise it would go against the applicable policy. This time when I added it, I waited until our site was of more substantial value to the community at large. Our site has now had over 55,000 edits and nearly 2.5 million page views. It is not even a year old yet and has already made it to Wikipedia's list of largest wikis at 72nd place.

I had seen the Memory Alpha page, a similar wiki-site about Star Trek. When I first added the Marvel Database Project, I was probably wrong to do so. Not that it wasn't a valid page, but that I was too eager and the project was not YET worth a Wikipedia article. I believe the situation has changed with our recent efforts. The Memory Alpha page was my inspiration to make our page, I figured wiki projects held a special place in the heart of Wikipedians. Their site, too, was added by their (co)founder. User:MinutiaeMan / MinutiaeMan userpage on Memory Alpha.

I assure you our Marvel project is not cruft. We are growing at a very good rate. We have new editors all the time and we have worked very hard to build a respectable database.

I emplore you to reconsider your delete votes and consider other projects of similar nature that have their own articles. The damage was done when I created the article myself, but I believe the value of our project still is there...

Thank you,

--JamieHari 07:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had nominated this for CSD, and it was deleted back in 2005-11-24. at the time the article consisted of nothing but a logo. In interest of this debate only I have speedily restored all prior versions back in to the page history. This does NOT mean that I endorse these versions, and have placed a talk page notice that they are not to be reverted to. In this article's current form I vote Don't Speedily Delete, but don't really have a specific keep or delete opinion. xaosflux Talk/CVU 01:07, 22 February 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. Whore was suggested, but male prostitute makes more sense to me. In any case, that's an editorial decision beyond the scope of AFD. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Manwhore[edit]

Dic def Delete -Doc ask? 11:01, 15 February 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 Consensus that this should not exist as a standalone article, but no consensus as to whether it should be merged and redirected or outright deleted, so default action is merge and redirect. Babajobu 08:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMeta Corporation[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Do not meet WP:CORP Sleepyhead 11:25, 15 February 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 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Angus Glaum[edit]

Zero google hits, zero Nexis hits, zero ABI/INFORM hits. This guy is either fake or non-notable. Either way, he shouldn't have a page here. Uucp 11:54, 15 February 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 01:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katabatik[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. — Feb. 23, '06 [00:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Contact-field microscopy[edit]

Delete. Hoax article. Midgley 04:18, 15 February 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 01:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhoderick Gates[edit]

Rhoderick Gates is a vanity page with verifiability issues.

I also nominate Meblourne Socialist Brigade by the same author. The organization is

Unknown, except that it was led from 1997 to 2002 by the Labour Party activist Rhoderick Gates...

Zarquon 12:24, 15 February 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 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CPDA[edit]

Advertising eLNuko 12:18, 15 February 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 01:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skitz O'Fuel[edit]

Delete. The article relates to a member of a band that was recently successfully nominated for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thick (band)) due to failing the WP guidelines for notability. The person in question has no other significance, as far as I can see. Google delivers 100 hits ([19]) for "Skitz O'Fuel", most of them related to Thick, with the recently deleted WP-stub appearing among the TOP10. Johnnyw 12:25, 15 February 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ananta Das Goswami[edit]

Unverifiable [20] Delete -Doc ask? 13:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have miessed the point. This isn't about vanity but verifiability. WP:V and WP:CITE do not permit us to 'give the benefit of the doubt'. If anyone can verify this, I'm happy for it to be kept. --Doc ask? 12:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the verifiability issue is affected by the fact that most wikipedians are young white males (I read somewhere). This results in WP content being shaped by the inherent baises of its editors (virtually no articles on stage actors/actresses but dozens of articles on Star Wars, for example). I agree that in a perfect WP an editor would post more information, like influences that carry through to today's Indian music. I worry that by deleting things be cause "we" don't know about them, "we" (who are not very representative of humanity as a whole) are creating a biased result. Thatcher131 12:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most subjects on wikipedia I know nothing about - and I don't nominate for deletion. This has nothing to do with the subject matter or my skin coulour gender or (lack of) youthfulness. If this article cannot be verified it should be deleted - if it can, then if shoudl stay. --Doc ask? 12:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although WP is supposed to be a collaborative medium, applying that standard means that if an author writes an article about an obscure subject that can't be readily googled, he has to get it right the first time or else. I voted above weak delete because the article hadn't been edited in months, but I think we should be open to the possibility that the article standard and AfD process will sometimes reinforce systemic bias. Thatcher131 15:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for combating systematic bias, and I'm great believer that Google isn't the be all and end all of verification (a citation from a book or reputable journal is good too). But, what are you suggesting? That we shouldn't require the verification of articles on 'obscre' subjects, or that they should hang arround for weeks waiting for someone to verify them? That way lies hoaxes. Indeed, it is procisely where the subject is obscure and few wikipedians would recognise errors and inaccuracies that we must be rigourous in demanding authors verify and cite. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another reference, though it sounds quite like the Music of Bengal sentence. --Ragib 16:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You miss the point again. The choise is not beween expansion or deletion, but between verification and deletion. You say 'the article should be expanded with references to books' - and that google is not the only source, I agree, but can it be, and are there other sources? If it can be verified, then keep it, if not then delete it for now. Systematic bias is not the issue - the reliability of information is. --Doc ask? 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article deserves more time to have a knowledgeable editor to add the information. This article is not vanity, nor promotion. By the definition of verifiability, a lot of stub articles would face the axe. But many of those initially unverifiable articles have later been expanded. Let the article expand. Thanks. --Ragib 18:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A knowledgable editor can always recreate it. It has been here unverified for almost 6 months, how much longer do you suggest? --Doc ask? 19:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Officially that's true. Unofficially, such an editor must also be knowledgable in speedy deletion and beaurocracy of DRV. As any new article, of a deleted name, stands a good chance of being speedy deleted. Even if you contest it successfully in DRV, you may have to wait a week before being "allowed" to edit the article again. --Rob 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice theory, pity it hasn't worked after 6 months. How much longer would you give it? 6-12-18. And your theory only works if there is verification out there to be had (there isn't at the moment). What if the article is a hoax, or the guy is truely nn, then nothing will happen and we might be left with an unverified and potentially incorrect article indefinately. I'd say 6 months is long enough when there is no corroberation at all. --Doc ask? 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have "no corroberation at all", we have at least one independent and reasonably notable-looking source. Kappa 18:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The nice theory is quite possibly true, but you could always find a few hundred exceptions if you look hard enough. Tintin (talk) 18:59, 22 February 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 replace with #redirect [[Curtain Call: The Hits]] ((R from song)). Note that anybody could have done that. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:03] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Fack[edit]

Delete: Completely non-notable stub. The article on Curtain Call repeats almost verbatim what's here - and I don't think there's much else to be said about the song. Suntiger 13:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OfficeDebo[edit]

Advertising eLNuko 13:44, 15 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HoboWars[edit]

Advertising --InsanityCrisis 13:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising -- ODogg


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Monkey Tennis[edit]

Delete. Fictional game created by fictional character. Monkeyman 14:15, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Mudlen End Studio Pottery[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. eLNuko 14:17, 15 February 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. — Feb. 23, '06 [01:10] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Healthconnect[edit]

Advertising. Posible copyright violation eLNuko 14:27, 15 February 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 01:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (original band)[edit]

Delete nn band. Released only one EP (Slipnot (orignal record) / Slipknot (original record) - two identical articles), then faded. If the band article is deleted, the EP articles should be deleted too. Bruce1ee 14:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nn. --Johnnyw 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can be verified. It's on the Revelation Records site and is available for download on the external link.

er both EP articles...--Isotope23 16:30, 15 February 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. Punkmorten 17:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tzouannis[edit]

This page is a repeat of Nikos Tzouannis Deville (Talk) 15:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. — Feb. 23, '06 [05:15] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Quicksort implementations[edit]

Wikipedia is not a code repository. This article is not encyclopedic content; it's useful, but belongs somewhere else, like the Great Compiler Shootout or Sourceforge or maybe Wikisource. bmills 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd go better on WikiBooks than WikiSource, since most of it isn't sourced. --bmills 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WikiBooks might provide the best fit — maybe there needs to be a "Programming examples" book there or something. I don't think it's useful to move inappropriate content to back alleys and dark corners of the encyclopedia; if people keep adding non-encyclopedic content, we need to point them toward Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, rather than toward articles with lower standards. --bmills 17:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so much defending its inclusion on Wikipedia as suggesting that finding a suitable alternative will make the whole process smoother and easier. Wikibooks sounds like a good idea. Perhaps we should pursue that. Leland McInnes 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incompatibility with the GPL. It's GPL-incompatible in both directions. This means that you can't legally extract text from a GFDL'ed manual and put it into integrated help strings in a GPL'ed program. And you can't extract code or comments from a GPL'ed program and put it into a GFDL'ed manual. (Without getting explicit permission to relicense from every copyright-holding contributor, that is.) [25]

One of the fundamental principles of human/computer interface design is: Don't surprise the human. (Don't do the unexpected.) Here, the idea that Wikipedia content is "open and free", yet at the same time cannot be integrated into "free as in speech" GPL software due to license incompatibility (the two licenses being from the same organization, no less) goes against what most rational people will expect. Source code does NOT belong in Wikipedia. —Pradeep Arya (Talk | Contrib) 21:43, 15 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Street Burying Ground[edit]

Non-notable graveyard? ComputerJoe 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the category this was placed in, I could find no evidence this is a "registered historic place". I've added a verify tag because much of this article isn't sourced.--Isotope23 20:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[26] with the appropriate subpage implying it met federal historical preservation standards for block grant use. And if every subway and train station in the US qualifies as notable, I think Revolutionary War cemetaries would qualify, too. Monicasdude 20:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
Link should probably be placed on page if article is kept... gives it some sourcing/verification. I still don't think it's notable, but then again I don't think every subway, train station, and school in the US qualifies as notable either.--Isotope23 21:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The good thing is that notability is not an inclusion standard, especially for things. Peyna 22:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to verify the NRHP claim and have posted the info on the article's talk page. I couldn't find a link suitable for a reference. Peyna 22:30, 15 February 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. Babajobu 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roman K. Kovalev[edit]

Delete. Not at all notable. Stop submitting articles on people who happen to have a PhD and write for magazines. KNewman 07:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Soul: Helen Keller's Spiritual Life and Legacy[edit]

A classic case of using wikipedia for advertisment. The contributor's username is even User:Marketing@swedenborg.com. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrolean purple dye[edit]

Delete. The information on this page is better served at Tyrian purple, and the title of this page is misleading (Tyrol is not Tyre). Magda 15:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sherazard (video game)[edit]

The video game this character is from doesn’t have a page, so why should the character? It’s not notable enough for Wikipedia. Hera1187 15:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, pushing the boundaries of speedy A1 by rather less than the article pushes the boundaries of WP:VSCA. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN 0877854742[edit]

More advertising from the Swedenborg Society. Delete Tonywalton  | Talk 15:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public forum Israel and Palestine[edit]

POV forum discussion of the mideast situation, completely inappropriate for WP. It was prodded; I wanted to speedy it but I couldn't find a category. I figured if I posted it on AfD an administrator would speedy it without waiting the five days for prod. Thatcher131 15:55, 15 February 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 by User:Chairboy. Punkmorten 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Chopine[edit]

Delete as it seems to just be nonsense Kukini 16:13, 15 February 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 by User:Friday (as personal attack) --Nlu (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japa-the-short-dicked-gay[edit]

a personal attack Kukini 16:19, 15 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerax[edit]

There seems to be almost no references to the existence of Amerax, other than wikipedia itself. Tc61380 16:25, 15 February 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. Mailer Diablo 02:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-brand[edit]

Delete - apparent non-notable band. I found no google hits except the Wikipedia article itself. delldot | talk 16:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junior! The Wendy's Guy[edit]

Minor school movie about a minor server at a minor campus restaurant. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Stifle 16:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There Is No Plan B[edit]

Non-notable and unverifiable EP from a barely notable band. Stifle 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Army of Me (band)[edit]

Band with one song getting local airplay. No albums, no indication of touring [27]. Punkmorten 16:44, 15 February 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 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Dinar[edit]

Tagged for speedy, explanation on Talk is: This ist pure - excuse the harsh word - bullshit. The Islamic Dinar ist no Buillon and this text is only a copy of the Website which sells these coins. I just wrote the text in the german wikipedia (de:Islamischer Dinar) an not one word of this here is true! User:Dickbauch. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 16:48, 15 February 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.

Note to Admins: Do you mind letting this AFD run for a few more days, please? It would be nice of you not to close it at the moment, as Calton has raised a significant objection which, while not persuasive to me, may find support from others. It would be hasty to close this now (in particular with a delete decision), before participants have had a chance to re-consider their view of the article. New views might also be forthcoming. Regards ENCEPHALON 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted, debate will now close on Feb 20. Babajobu 16:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Babajobu. That was nice of you. ENCEPHALON 14:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 02:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Daisey[edit]

This seems pretty clearly to be a vanity page. Jrauser 03:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fifteen minutes on Google (counting the cut-and-paste/formatting time) turns up:
  • BBC - Radio 4 - Afternoon Play - The Ugly American, Written and performed by Mike Daisey. An American student is desperate to absorb the British theatrical tradition, but instead falls into shady fringe theatre...[28]
  • NPR : Tales from Amazon.com: Scott [Simon] talks with Mike Daisey, a former employee of Amazon.com who has produced a one-man show about his short career at Amazon.... [29]
  • Mike Daisey's powerhouse tell-all monologue is elevating and hilarious By Jonathan Kiefer. Encore Encore Our critics weigh in on local theatre ... [30]
  • The Seattle Times: Theater & arts: "The Ugly American":... Mike Daisey begins his new solo theater piece, "The Ugly American," riffing on (and debunking) that ... [31]
  • Art imitates life -- or the lack thereof -- of Amazon.com worker: Mike Daisey has turned his two years at Amazon.com into a one-man show, "21 Dog Years: doing time@amazon.com." Phil H. Webber / Seattle Post-Intelligencer. [32]
  • Comedian lifts lid on working for Amazon.com | The Register: Mike Daisey's 21 Dog Years – Doing Time @ amazon.com promises to reveal the ... Anyhow, Mike Daisey's show takes place on Saturday 23 November at 5.30pm at ... [33]
  • Solo Turns: Monopoly! by Mike Daisey. Sponsored by The Landing. Dubbed “the master storyteller” by The New York Times, Mike Daisey brought down the house at the 2005 Festival... [34]
This was essentially random: I clicked random results pages and pulled stuff off them. It's called "research", people. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's called research. What a pity the article's creator didn't do any, since they are the one who supposedly cares :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 16:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Illinois Center for Anonymous Postings[edit]

This seems to be a forum where some guy puts up pictures of celbrities and other guys chat. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think DJ Clayworth is the devil incarnate. Just an opinion, but its probably true.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.184.106 (talk • contribs)


Go back to England Clayworth. Nobody wants you here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.184.106 (talk • contribs)

What does "AfD" mean? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.246.184.106 (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 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cactus jukebox[edit]

This is a stub about a piece of software currently on version 0.3. A quick search didn't turn up any reliable sources - that is, commentary not produced by its maker - on the software, making it effectively unverifiable. CDC (talk) 16:57, 15 February 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 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlings biggest plot holes[edit]

An article at this title cannot be written in a neutral and verifiable way. CDC (talk) 17:10, 15 February 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 03:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cn-babies[edit]

Tagged for speedy but no relevant criterion. Blatant spam. I guess I should have speedied per WP:SNOW, but let's be unambiguous here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 17:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Jack Hyles. Babajobu 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hyles Controversy[edit]

Delete Not appropriate for an encyclopedia San Saba 17:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy should be put on the article page not just deleted. Arbustoo 04:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo - Please stop valdalizing Wikis that deal with Jack Hyles and Hyles Anderson College. If you cannot learn to write in a Neutral Point of View, then your edits are just a waste of everyone's time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
Once again Mr. Board of Directors for Hyles college, I did not write the article. I am merely trying to undo your POV fork. You have been banned from Wikipedia for your behavior. Arbustoo 05:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, my solution is for everyone to read WP:NOT, use the talk page to come to consensus, source their edits (and not with forums or people's personal websites... with factual evidence), and work together to create an article that is NPOV. Again, this is how things are done on countless articles on Wikipedia every day.--Isotope23 18:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't allow POV forks, you should familiarize yourself with the resource. If something is sourced and murder allegations are part of his past it should be included on the main article. Just because his supporters disagree that doesn't give them the right to take it off the page as it never happened. Arbustoo 04:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arbustoo, perhaps YOU should familiarize yourself with the resource. A fork is clearly acceptible when there is enough material to support it. (Try reading the comments above and checking out the Wikipedia guidelines on forking) AND WHAT THE HECK is this stuff about "MURDER ACCUSATIONS"?? See folks, this crowd just keeps piling on false accusation on false accusation, tell a lie long enough and eventually it makes it into the Wiki. That's crap, sir. - GeorgeS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)
There is not enough material to support a fork in this case, neither article is anything like big enough for that. Addition of rubbish is not a reason for forking (otherwise we'd have hundreds of articles on old smirky by now) - and addition of verifiable material offensive to fans of the subject is equally not grounds for forking. Merge what is verifiable, and if necessary apply protection to prevent addition of unsubstantiated allegations. Guy 00:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No POV forks. Arbustoo 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it here Well, all I can say is that if you rabid Hyles-haters don't abide by Wikipedia's rule of Neutral Point of View, you're edits will be deleted asap; and placing your own personal web site as a "source" is not valid, neither is an obscure rant from a lunatic's blog a valid "source"... if you have valid sources from accepted media or news outlets, that is what makes a solid Wiki. Personally, I think it's a waste of your time, since most of you have proven that you are incapable of writing in NPV style and all the time you spend posting obviously biased trash will be deleted in time due to your non-compliance with Wikipedia policy. -GeorgeS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.214.212.201 (talk • contribs)

George, only one vote per person. Arbustoo 01:43, 19 February 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 09:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Cooper[edit]

Unsourced+unreferenced article full of internal inconsistencies, appears to be a hoax; if not, the subject fails the notability test. See Talk:Jenny Cooper for full explanation. BrownHairedGirl 17:21, 15 February 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.

Please note, the new AFD has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FORscene (2nd Nomination)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 09:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FORscene[edit]

Page was previously deleted as advertising and recreated with some changes. It is still a non-notable software product, the article is advertising posted by the company's founder, and generally WP:VSCA-ish. Ryanjunk 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the important thing is that independent third parties think that this is a notable product. These include the Royal Television Society, who thought it was the most signficant of any product anywhere for advancing the process of video post production, and awarded it as such, as well as the biggest production company in the world, the BBC (FORscene works on their 27,000 desktops).
The product is widely used, with distributors in six countries on three continents.
Finally, the product pushes the boundary of what is possible on the web - a complete web-based editing and publishing system for web and mobile phones (cell phones in the US). By using Java in novel and powerful ways, the client takes the strain rather than the server, giving the internet its first complete (ie from shooting through editing to publishing and viewing) browser-based real time video application.
So, in short, I'd like to contest this deletion, which removes from Wikipedia what has been judged by senior independent people in the industry a very significant product.
((The above comments added by User:Stephen B Streater, the author of the article.

To get you started, here's a video of the award ceremony shot on a prototype Nokia N90 mobile phone, uploaded over the air, and edited and published in FORscene. PS I don't know why the four tildes come out Forbidden on my preview - I'll look this up now. SB Streater. Forbidden 18:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a reference to ITV's multiple programmes (Granada is the production arm of ITV). Their first ten programmes were broadcast on Channel 5 last year.

If you live in the UK, you can watch the prime time series Super Vets on BBC1 every Thursday at 8.30pm. Forbidden 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the signature now. Stephen B Streater 18:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some recent information on Tiscali.

MPEG-4 legal action against MPEG-4 users. FORscene uses Forbidden's own editing codecs, so is not affected by MPEG-4 legal action. Having your own codecs is a significant technological position (as Apple is finding out to their potiential cost), which is why it is mentioned in the article. Stephen B Streater 19:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent news on the Forbidden website from Friday 13th Jan and Thursday 26th Jan show a couple of recent BBC events Forbidden has been invited to attend to demonstrate FORscene. Stephen B Streater 19:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now put that stuff in the article and give people a chance to mull it over. Thatcher131 20:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this, and some extra links to more third party articles too, to the main article, in a new section. Stephen B Streater 23:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything specific in mind? The original version said a lot more about the system and why it was significant, but this was deemed to salesy. This version says a lot more third parties views and usage. Perhaps something looking more like Adobe Premiere would be preferable, showing development history back to 1990.

I notice that other similar UK listed companies have entries eg Vividas. Would the VSCA people be happy with a Forbidden Technologies entry, with a link to the description on the Forbidden website? Stephen B Streater 08:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not after removing Vividas, but thinking of adding Forbidden. Are there any guidelines on what makes a company notable?

I would rather read about a company or product on Wikipedia, where independent third parties can amend or write their own content, than rely on the company website or literature.

To me, notable is not the same as popular or established. In particular, some novel products can be very notable. Judging by the response from independent third parties in the industry, FORscene would appear to fall into this category ie novel and notable.

I've included a couple of third party articles which mention FORscene, and which give a broader picture than the current FORscene article.

I notice in the guidelines that there is no prohibition per se to writing articles about products you are involved in. I know that this has been controversial when applied to biographies and such like, but I would have thought a web based product is relatively simple to verify and so much less prone to bias.

Thanks. I'll have another look. Stephen B Streater 19:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Notability pages themselves mention some discussion as to how important notability is, but I don't think anyone is concerned with this here. More useful is the criteria for notability expressed in the guidelines here. In particular the sufficient criteria for notability which is for multiple independent non-trivial published works including newspaper articles.

Forbidden Technologies, which has been around for a few years, easily meets this notability criterion, with numerous articles including in the national press eg Telegraph, Independent, Financial Times, The Business, Investors Chronicle, The Daily Mail and the Sun as well as the trade press articles which talk about FORscene (see next paragragh), and thousands of "articles" in invesment websites. ADVFN alone has over 4,000 since the beginning of last year (Forbidden Technologies does not post on these boards).

FORscene itself, although relatively new, has also received multiple independent articles, both on the web and printed trade press particularly eg Broadcast, Televisual, New Media Age and Showreel magazine, as well as winning multiple independent awards (the RTS being the most recent and important).

So if people here are happy with these notability guidelines, I'll fish out references to some of these press articles.

Moving on to the VSCA question. The guidelines suggest that although desirable, it is not required, that the author of the article is not an investor in the company.

I've been tidying up the entry, with the objective of making it more encyclopaedic. This process is still ongoing. Stephen B Streater 00:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History section added showing developments since 1990. This could be thinned, but launch date in 1990 is significant because it shows FORscene is not some random new idea, but the result of many years of development in the industry.

I've included Eidos plc developments NOT because I founded Eidos plc (which had reached UKP 1Bn market cap the year I left to found Forbidden), but because thousands of broadcast TV programmes were made on it. One of the reasons for the success of FORscene is that Optima developments had responded to vast numbers of criticsms from professional editors over many years, and this knowhow is incorporated into FORscene. Stephen B Streater 10:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alexa information in particular, which shows a significant recent rise. However it's not obvious to me that links to Forbidden Technologies website directly relate to the importance of FORscene. Most FORscene users have locked down systems and would not register at all in alexa, which may in any case be weighted towards the US, where FORscene is not available.

It's true that FORscene is not widely linked to in Wikipedia. In fact, the original article was deleted after about 1 minute, so I wouldn't expect many links in Wikipedia! No one will link to an article recommended for deletion, so I think the link point is spurious.

The notablity guidelines suggest that the large number of printed press reports, both in the national press and trade journals, should be enough for notability.

Now I've got to know Wikipedia a bit more, I acknowledge that independence is an important issue though, which can only be resolved either by either:

a) people who are independent (such as customers) writing an article; or

b) reducing the article to a stub which contains little information.

As FORscene itself is still a new product, I suspect that over time some of the growing FORscene user base will also be a Wikipedia contributors, so a) will happen at some point.

In the mean time, seeing as I'm me, the most constructive thing I can do is to reduce the page to a non controversial stub, and wait for other Wikipedia users familiar with FORscene to add to it as they see fit.

I was thinking along the lines of:

FORscene is an award winning Java internet video platform, enabling users to edit and publish for web and mobile.

Stephen B Streater 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On notability, this Italian magazine has a four page article (about 2/3 through). Stephen B Streater 20:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another international article - this time in Japan: DRM article. Stephen B Streater 20:27, 19 February 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. Babajobu 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simat, Helliesen & Eichner - SH&E, Inc.[edit]

This page is trying to be free advertising for a company. At very least it needs major editing. Maniacgeorge 18:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is no different than any other company I have seen.


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koopatorivm and Kaptain H[edit]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (twice) as non-notable bio. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 18:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Allum[edit]

This is a self written biography page in a nom wikipedia style about a complete nobody. Maniacgeorge 17:59, 15 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nebraska-related topics[edit]

This sort of thing is exactly what categories are for. -R. fiend 18:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then why do state topic lists exist at all on Wikipedia? I do agree that this article does overlap with the Nebraska category; in addition, I almost always use the category listing instead of the topics list when browsing a set of related articles. However, I see no harm in providing an alternate listing of Nebraska-related articles for those who don't find browsing by category all that intuitive, especially when a precedent has been established for topic lists by state. Unless you're willing to put all state topic lists for discussion on AfD, I see no reason to delete this article. – Swid (talk | edits) 19:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only one I happened upon, but if there are ones for the other states that are resonably identical, then sure, they should all be put up together. -R. fiend 19:38, 15 February 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 1, 2, 3... (40 keep/23 delete/2 other/1 disq.) no consensus, defaults to keep. This conclusion refers to the subject of the article, not the article itself.

I think the best compromise to put this messy past behind us is to give it a fresh start, (with unprotection) and let Wikipedians rewrite a neutral and verifiable version. If there are libellous/disparaging additions, delete only these edits, not the entire article. If it's vandalised, then revert on sight, and keep a watch on the article. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion blanked as a courtesy to article's subject. Ral315 (talk) 14:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shao Yung[edit]

Delete copied from http://www.newagequest.com/iching/shao.html San Saba 18:27, 15 February 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 03:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stobblehouse[edit]

Delete vanity San Saba 18:42, 15 February 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. Babajobu 09:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaumachen[edit]

POV first person essay. -R. fiend 18:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clean up POV and make neutral. Put a neutrality tag on it until that's done. --Walter Görlitz 18:54, 15 February 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 03:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space_Cowboy_Software[edit]

Delete. Page appears to be just a link to author's blog Darthnice 18:53, 15 February 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 09:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Systems' Approach for Interpreting Horoscopes[edit]

Delete well, because its crap, not worth having in Wikipedia San Saba 18:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---keep without testing a system, opinion should not be formed.[user: manofletters]11:00, 4th May 2007Manofletters 05:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC) You "Zodiac sceptics" are just too much. Just because you people disagree with astrology or whatever does not mean it is crap. Actually, to obliterate information because you disagree with it is nothing short of FASCISM. This information has relevance for a lot of people who are interested in astrology and believe in its efficacy and have seen it demonstrated in their lives. The information concerns an author of many books who has lectured around the world, has a web page with over one million hits and students all over the world. If you want to delete something, why don´t you consider some of the crap you may be interested in or believe in. If you delete the article, it will be reinstated and a complaint lodged. I am new at this and really don´t know Wikipedia protocol very well, but take the liberty of removing the DELETION TAG. It just strikes me as being a very unjust and uncircumspect action - just consider the comments by this user above. As stated in the History page, a further edit is being considered to reconcile opposing viewpoints. Ramayan 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramayan, please do not "take the liberty" of removing the delete tag. As the tag itself says:
You are welcome to edit this article, but please do not blank this article or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress.
Removing the tag counts as vandalism, especially repeated removal. You are, of course, more than welcome to defend the article (not, please, your Zodiacal beliefs; your beliefs are not relevant here and this discussion is about the article) here and/or on its talk page, and to edit the article as you see fit, within WP criteria. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed 100%. Changing my vote as above. Tonywalton  | Talk 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mousis have trousis? :-) I've noticed your repeated and fruitless attempts to edit down the POV, Maustrauser (and I'll put the "gumph', "cobblers" and "stuff" in your post above down to pure frustration rather than a lack of civility). Perhaps, Ramayan, you can assume good faith in future (on the part of most editors, anyway), and please don't immediately assume that an effort to make an article neutral (you do know what we all mean by "NPOV", by the way?) is an attack on the subject of the article itself! Tonywalton  | Talk 22:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mousis do have trousis (at least where I live!) Yes, I apologise to Ramayan for my intemperate language. I was frustrated. Maustrauser 23:10, 15 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Listfield[edit]

Delete. Non-notable vanity article Maxamegalon2000 19:05, 15 February 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. Babajobu 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Village Doctor - A.S. Holla[edit]

Vanity, original research, and memorializing. Indrian 19:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the editor of the article on Dr. Holla. I know there were and are so many doctors. But not many like him even in these days in many countries. In the 1970s when medical facilities in villages were often almost nonexistent in India, he would provide the best possible care given his education, equipment and fees he would take. Most of all, he would keep case-histories when I see even in 2006 not many doctors in the developing world keep any case history of any patient.

I appreciate it very much if Dr.Holla page is not deleted.

Thanks


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom (Talk) 11:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hockster[edit]

Factually inaccurate. Confirmed to be a hoax by original author (see Talk:Hockster) Aranae 19:15, 15 February 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. Babajobu 09:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Baptist Church of Lake Orion[edit]

Delete not notable San Saba 19:22, 15 February 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. Mailer Diablo 03:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Clowser[edit]

Cannot verify, possible hoax. Accurizer 19:22, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izwan Firdaus[edit]

Singaporean athlete whose main claim to fame is competing at the World Junior Championships. This is way below the notability bar for sportspeople, who should win major international titles or perhaps compete at the Olympics to warrant inclusion. An event like the Asian Cities Games, on the other hand, gets 2 Google hits. Punkmorten 19:06, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muthukumaran[edit]

This runner is "an integral partof Singapore 4x100m and 400m team", but this isn't particularly important or notable. Every country has a national relay team, and the individual team members shouldn't be included here until they win something or do something great. This guy hasn't even competed in a major international championship. Punkmorten 19:13, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yasin Sulaiman[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore competing on junior level, this article should share the fate of the following articles: Alfred Sim and Tan Rui Xiang. Punkmorten 18:52, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tan Jwee Ann[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore successful mostly on school level. One of the categories does say that he competed at the South East Asian Games, but this is a quite small event and apparently he didn't accomplish much. I'm all for keeping Olympic competitors or medal winners at major international events, but this is below my bar. Punkmorten 19:00, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheena Hu[edit]

Winning a school tournament in 100 metres sprint does not constitute notability. In other words, fails WP:BIO Punkmorten 19:16, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Firdaus bin Juhari[edit]

Nothing notable about this sprinter, except that he is incorrectly tagged as a "celebrity". 5 Google hits indicates otherwise. Punkmorten 19:19, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Wang Kan[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore. He did compete at the 2005 South East Asian Games, but this is a quite small event as far as athletics goes, nowhere close to its European, American or African counterparts in terms of importance. I'm all for keeping Olympic competitors or medal winners at major international events, but this is below my bar. Thousands of people have performed better. Punkmorten 19:24, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 03:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vivian Tang Yoke Pin[edit]

She hasn't won anything, just competed at various marathons. This is below the bar for WP:BIO. Punkmorten 19:28, 15 February 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. Bratschetalk 04:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakeem Bin Abdul Halim[edit]

Another non-notable athlete from Singapore. He did compete at the 2005 South East Asian Games, but this is a quite small event as far as athletics goes, nowhere close to its European, American or African counterparts in terms of importance. I'm all for keeping Olympic competitors or medal winners at major international events, but this is below my bar. Although I am curious about the 2005 West Germany Championships... Punkmorten 19:28, 15 February 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, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christian novel[edit]

Dictionary definition of Christian applied to the noun novel. Made to promote the website link, maybe? Magdela 19:35, 15 February 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. -Splashtalk 20:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProgressSoft[edit]

Does not appear to be sufficiently notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
moink 19:51, 15 February 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. Babajobu 10:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge management for development[edit]

This seems pretty useless.....I added proper formatting, but there's no information here. --NorkNork 14:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've fixed the format and listed, seeing as that was not done at its initial nomination.SoothingR 20:29, 15 February 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: there is clearly not going to be a cleare consensus after three weeks on AfD. - ulayiti (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CBHCO-MA[edit]

This article looks legit; however, I can find no reference to this organization via Google search. My vote is Delete unless References cited. James084 13:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The active duty population, including certain National Guard and Reserve, has unique health care considerations, for instance, line of duty care, active duty claims processing, and post-mobilization care. Hear how each of these offices - Resource Management, the Military Medical Support Office, and the Community-Based Health Care Organization - plays a role easing the process by which active duty care gets coordinated and bills paid.

CBHCO-MA may likely be the provider for that TRICARE region.--み使い Mitsukai 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:04, 9 February 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 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Explorer[edit]

Does not merit an article, per Website notability guidelines. An external link on Google Maps might suffice (and with an Alexa rating of around 130,000, I wouldn't remove it from Google Maps, as spam). --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:37, 15 February 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 to delete, given two go-rounds and couldn't produce a single vote one way or another, default action is keep. Babajobu 09:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norrie maclaren[edit]

A strange mixture of fact and unverifiable statement. Imdb knows about a Norrie Maclaren, but he seems to not be this person. No mention of him on the credits to The Shining per the end credits on the DVD (the assistant director was Brian Cook). There are Google hits on various farming-related activities such as hen-keeping, so that might be this person. The only verifiable bit seems to be filmbang productions, here, but that looks fairly nn. No Vote, I'm bringing this to AfD in the hope that someone with more film knowledge than I can confirm whether this is a hoax ripe for deletion, spam for a production company or what. Tonywalton  | Talk 12:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, Some verifiable facts: The Peerage lists a Norman Angus MacLaren, who is the grandson of a Countess from Britain. [37]. MacLaren's grandmother, Edith Maud Rawdon-Hastings, Countess of Loudoun, is from the controversial line of Plantagenet, who have a claim to the throne of Britain. [38]. filmbang, which is Scotland's film production guide, here, lists a Scottish based producer named Norrie MacLaren. There is a reference in a book on British fashion photography titled 'Look at Me Fashion and Photography in Britain' [39] and a continental European photography web showcase has a sample piece for Deluxe magazine from 1977 [40]. IMDB lists a UK production credit under Norrie Maclaren

There is a Scotland based organisation that does film related work for the local economic agency, that has MacLaren as a chairman, [41]. There are various farm and animal related activities referring to a Norrie Maclaren living in Scotland, consistent with the interest in gardening prominently mentioned in the article. Finally, the article mentioned that he was an assistant to Stanley Kubrick, which is not the same as claiming that he was the assistant director to Stanley Kubrick. There is enough to prove that the article is neither spam nor hoax.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.37.41 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment my question is not whether he exists, which he clearly does, but whether notability is established. Thanks for the additional information, 82.20.37.41 Tonywalton  | Talk 09:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Assistant to Stanley Kubrick" is NOT the same as "Assistant Director": the former job is more of a gofer than a technician's job. If you have The Shining on DVD, check the credits again under the former title, not the latter. Kubrick's assistant while he was making Full Metal Jacket got a credit (and if you're wondering why I would remember such a thing, it's because he {Leon Vitali) gets mentioned in Matthew Modine's Full Metal Jacket Diary -- which I just read -- and I spotted his name in the credits).
Hmm, IMDB lists Vitali as Kubrick's assistant on The Shining, too, so the probability of this being a hoax/inflated resume increases. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
moink 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the creator of this article, I have asked IMDB to update their database. Maclaren was Kubrick's personal photographer on the sets. Until the changes are reflected on IMDB, i've taken out the reference to shining and barry lyndon. The rest of his biography should be enough to establish notability


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Not sure the exact criterion, but it was someone's story they made up. WP:NOT shoudl cover it sufficiently.-R. fiend 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyborg Action Hero[edit]

Material is not suitable for wikipedia. The article is a story, not an encyclopedic entry. Tc61380 20:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep the redirect. (AFD is the wrong place to take redirects, try WP:RFD if you must, but redirects from misspellings are cheap and often considered harmless.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrine Njeim[edit]

Name Mispell moved to Chirine Njeim Kaiser23 21:00, 15 February 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 03:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphiamrk.com[edit]

Not sufficiently notable as per WP:WEB. About 70 Ghits and a dozen sites linking into it including myspace.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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!) 08:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kendall Hotel[edit]

Reads like a promotional piece, or review straight out of some magazine. Doesn't seem to be a notable business. -R. fiend 20:59, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The section was re-written so that it reads more as an historical piece. It's not a review it's a documentation of the hotel/firehouses history. Let me know what parts you think are ads and I'll reword it or if you would like you can reword it Fiend. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aplusjimages (talk • contribs) 14:44, 16 February 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 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will Save Your Soul[edit]

Non-notable single, does not appear to be particularly stand-out. Can be merged with Jewel or deleted. Stifle 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 11:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Da bomb[edit]

Dictdef plus a presumably very cool formula. Belongs on urbandictionary

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Droops[edit]

Hacker, founded a hacker club and a blog, a "staple" in the hacker community -- too much of a claim for speedy candidate, but appears nonnotable. google for "Droops Infonomicon" gets about 84 unique hits; could possibly be more notable than that, since his name is such a common word it's hard to sort out, but doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO from here. Delete. bikeable (talk) 21:32, 15 February 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 to delete nor to smerge. This does not preclude any such merge discussions taking place elsewhere, of course. - brenneman{T}{L} 06:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow_Fight_Club[edit]

Please add new comments to the bottom of the page.

How is this purely vanity? Someone must have had some serious sour grapes to consider this page, which is informative and one of the few sources of information on this "fad" purely in vain to the organizers. If that's the main objection limit the off going links.

22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)12.111.30.89 22:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organization exists in the real world and has had press coverage. The San Francisco Chronicle article, which is linked to at the end of the page, would seem to clearly indicate that Pillow Fight Club is of interest to those outside the organziation.

This is TOTALLY valid!

I agree this is interesting to some and not a harmful entry. Please keep this entry here(JB, 2/15/06).

Someone must be really vengeful and spiteful to want this page removed. There is no other reason. I think the support for this page speaks for itself. If it's deleted, I'll probably stop using Wikipedia altogether, since its whole foundation would be flawed and its name a fraud. ---

I'll elect to ignore the psychologizing, and say only that you must have a very skewed idea of Wikipedia to consider deletion of this page constituting 'fraud'.
Maybe you should read a bit more before making such histrionic and grandiose statements.
Hmackiernan 20:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pillow Fights are real-world events that ought to be documented on wikipedia. They have affected thousands of people in dozens of cities worldwide and the phenomenon is currently spreading. This page is linked to by many websites. Why would you delete it?


Don't delete! This was informative!


Newsworthy, informative are not, in my opinion, valid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. 209.19.42.2 23:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--ConradKilroy 04:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First rule is - never mention the Pillow Fight Club (and certainly never write an article about it). A smerge into the flashmobbing article may be in order, though. Grutness...wha? 05:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!! This is a real event, these do happen, and I wouldn't have found out so much about them if it wasn't for this page.

KEEP THIS - Please

KEEP! Am going to link to this on my blog. Thought provoking, informative, and apparently true: there have been actual events in London, San Francisco, etc. This is no less valid than Pastafarianism. Oh yeah, and I'm going to organize one myself.

I remain unconvinced, but whatever.

Hmackiernan 21:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Pillow Fight Club mentioned in Neil Gaiman's blog and didn't see an explanation. I came here to find out. Now, if it's something that people unrelated to the event would want to research, then it is informative.-E.C.

  • Strong delete. Missed the SF Chronicle - now I see that we have actual third-party evidence that this encyclopaedia is being used to promote non-notable events. "Like many others, Davis learned of the pillow fight from a friend who directed her to a Web site -- in her case it was Wikipedia -- that gave details about a planned flash mob pillow fight on Valentine's Day in San Francisco." (my emphasis) Never mind the WP:NOT paper versus WP:NOT indiscriminate see-saw, this article is literally giving people the wrong idea about what we're here for. Even ignoring that, the two independent references documented two individual flash mobs, not a global pillow fighting fad, and individual flash mobs are generally not notable. --Malthusian (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your comment reeks of subjective judgement, Mal. First off: what is non-notable? What is your criteria for notability? Seems newsworthiness is not a criteria you'd use, although the topic passes your "good coverage in independent sources" criteria. If it helps any, Google has about 10 articles for the SF pillow fight.[42] Second, if you have content on an article that is promoting or advocating an event, you have an example of POV in an article, which would warrant editing. I will concede that the article outside of the opening section and the external links should probably be deleted, and perhaps the opening needs some editing too. However, you can argue any proper article on an event, say, 2006 Winter Olympics, is functioning as promotion as well: all you need is a time and place. It's not the job of the editors to police what the contents of an article is used for by individual users. And the quote does not make it clear that the article was used for the purpose of promotion or as just as a reference. Lets not get into silly authoritarian we need to make an example! sillyness, it's gonna punish Wikipedia users more than the promoters. We on the Keep camp have proposed newswortiness as a criteria for notability, please present your own objective criteria and argue for it. hateless 05:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, all your news articles prove one thing: that in a couple of places people had a couple of flashmobs in the form of a mass pillow fight. This article is a) trying to bulk up those isolated incidents into a global phenomenon and b) trying to turn it into a global phenomenon by using Wikipedia as a promotional tool. As for the Olympics, you might be interested to know that those have been going for decades and receive worldwide coverage from every form of media, and have already become notable without Wikipedia's help. --Malthusian (talk) 13:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And it should be clear that I'm not denying that, yet I'm saying that's enough for inclusion within Wikipedia. What I'm asking for is your criteria for notability and inclusion, and I'd like one where you can't just raise the bar every time you realize the test was passed. hateless 07:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Know what I'd like? If the pillowheads people demanding that the standards and criteria be made available would read up a bit on Wikipedia's policies, standards, guidelines, criteria &c before barging in bloviating about how horribly hateful and unfair we are by threatening to delete 'their' article. Hmackiernan 18:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the strawmen at home, h, no one here claimed ownership of this article in any way. And name calling isn't going to help. hateless 07:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
straw is for stuffing pillows anyway Hmackiernan 22:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Acgrenier 23:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User's first contribution. [43]
User's sixth contribution. [44]
User's first contribution. [45]
but is it Wikipedia's job to be the clearinghouse for information on every passing fad? Answer: no. hmackiernan 00:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep Unless you'll replace it with something more useful, why delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.97.6 (talk • contribs)

  • When there are reliable independent references that state it's a global phenomenon, it's a global phenomenon. Using individual flashmobs as references and trying to pull them together into a global phenomenon is original research. --Malthusian (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Catherine Gewertz has written an article, published in Education Week in 2001, about the school craze of freak dancing, which makes freak dancing a valid topic for a Wikipedia article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.34.46 (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, the article is a substub and has no sources cited. Verifiablility issues have not been adequately addressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umar ibn Walid[edit]

Although I'm much against systemic bias this has no claim of notability and possibly son of and candidate for being father of are just too tenuous.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 09:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost (game)[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Tc61380 21:40, 15 February 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 deleted by author's request. Friday (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous species[edit]

delete as I discovered it was superfluous Camberwell 21:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:SNOW. FCYTravis 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poop Juice[edit]

Neologism at best. If there's an article here, it should be at a more encyclopedic title, and rewritten in a more encyclopedic style (less silly quotes). -- Curps 21:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Deb at 22:27, 15 February 2006, Reason: non-notable. --lightdarkness (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Ramage[edit]

non-notable biography

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 00:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alasdair Fraser[edit]

Not notable- done nothing notable. waste of a page -- delete--Light current 01:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems harsh. Plenty of folks pay to get in to the rooms he plays, and he fills those rooms pretty well, that I've seen. Discography. Has written at least one tune that made it into a standard tune collection: Tommy's Tarboukas in the Portland book. -- keep -- Just plain Bill 03:40, 5 February 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 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Leffler[edit]

Not Noteworthy, is only in X-Play


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The History Of Bluetack[edit]

Take your pick: patent nonense, POV, original research, non notable, etc... Jtrost (T | C | #) 22:21, 15 February 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 03:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Booger murphy[edit]

I really don't think he's notable. -Doc ask? 22:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article author implies they'll come up with references on the talk page, but until then, delete. --W(t) 22:35, 15 February 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 (as copyvio). Mailer Diablo 09:24, 21 February 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. Mailer Diablo 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim prayer room[edit]

Other than saying 'a room where Muslims pray' this term is too generic to be encyclopedic. Delete or redirect somewhere if any good suggestions -Doc ask? 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obvious dicdef unless anyone has anything to add to the article. -- Mithent 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Mithent. -Joshuapaquin 06:49, 18 February 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 03:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey J. Federico[edit]

Tagged for speedy as nn-bio but notability is asserted. Jeffrey Federico scores a massive 32 Googles. Jeffrey J Federico, on the other hand, gets 18. All mirrors, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by JzG. Yamaguchi先生 01:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; nn-bio. This is an easy one. When your primary claim to fame is your lone interview on ATC, you're not notable. Fella should come back in 10 years and try again. ALC Washington 02:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:11, 16 February 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 03:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team PseudoFlux[edit]

No evidence of notability, only four google hits, one of which is the huge web directory on parkour. --W(t) 22:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable --TBC??? ??? ??? 22:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 23:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 21:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AAHHHHHH burn it... send it to hell </homer>  ALKIVAR™ 22:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mailer Diablo 03:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Awesome[edit]

Non-notable group. James Kendall [talk] 22:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy as nn group. --W(t) 22:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete ((nn-club)) applies. Tagged. Stifle 00:17, 16 February 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. No evidence of notability provided. - brenneman{T}{L} 05:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surreal Aim[edit]

Aimbotcruft. Nominated for WP:PROD and then contested. FCYTravis 23:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability provided. --W(t) 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dont Delete Software is notable, Surreal Aim is 'one of' the few very notable Colour Aimbot's ever created, these are unique aimbots and are very notable in the research of cheating. Elvva Majes 09:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn freeware program (ESkog)(Talk) 12:26, 22 February 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 09:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veröld Rúnka[edit]

Supposedly an obscure former Icelandic porn-site, non-notable and unverifiable. Google yields 9 results, 2 are short blog posts and the rest are Wikipedia mirrors or sites that link to the Wikipedia article. Bjarki 23:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleteas per nom.Blnguyen 03:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (a reliable Icelander). Pavel Vozenilek 21:38, 16 February 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 Satomi Ishihara. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isihara Satomi[edit]

First of all, her name should be Satomi Ishihara or Ishihara Satomi in Japanese, not Isihara Satomi. The spelling is wrong. The page for Satomi Ishihara already exists and Ishihara Satomi also redirects to Satomi Ishihara. Also the user categorized the page as Japanese porn stars, which is totally wrong and insulting since she is a popular Japanese idol drama (dorama) actress and has a very clean reputation! The link to that category has already been removed by me before it misleads others. Imperfect information 08:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This sounds like an argument to make it into another redirect, not to delete. If your allegations above are correct, it's a plausible misspelling (plausible defined as "somebody's obviously already done it once"). As for the concern about the categorization, I'd say sofixit but you already have. Either way, that's not an argument for deletion. (By the way, as a regular article page, this should have gone through the Articles for Deletion process, not Miscellany.) Rossami (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to AFD now. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, it's an alternate spelling, not a misspelling. Kappa 18:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as per Kappa. --Kusunose 07:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per Kusunose and Kappa. Neier 08:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Satomi Ishihara, which has the same info and is far better. --C S (Talk) 13:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Vote count is 2d-1k but Kappa has provided a reasonable reason to keep, and good points have also been presented in the comments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot (band)[edit]

No evidence of notability. --W(t) 23:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if closed as delete, please remember to also remove the link at the pivot dab page --W(t)
  • Weak delete. Note that most of their releases seem to be singles or EPs, or minor labels. Stifle 00:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, passes WP:MUSIC: "Featured review and CD compilation in Jan 2005 German Magazine "Rock Hard" Over 90,000 Issues sold per month" Kappa 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, leaning keep - "These guys have some real potential." - and when they seriously use it and move out of the local scene we will have a much better case for WP:MUSIC. Dan, the CowMan 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It appears to me that this band has already moved beyond their local scene. In reviewing their accomplishments, they already have national and international exposure and notability. In reviewing the WP:MUSIC guidelines, the German magazine alone qualifies them, not to mention their exposure on the USA network and several other items in the list.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictator appreciation day[edit]

Recreated again by new user. Should probably by a Speedy Delete. Bobby1011 23:20, 15 February 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 del sandbox without useful content. mikka (t) 23:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Good titles to start a new page[edit]

I have no idea how this page is useful. ··gracefool |☺ 23:19, 15 February 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. It would be nice if people would provide evidence when having these sorts of discussions, and if there were any more meat to the article itself I'd extend it. Top tip - when you write an article, provide references!
brenneman{T}{L} 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwain[edit]

del promo of nonnotable japanese energy drink. Described as "internet phenomenon", hardly a blip among other usages of the word "bwain". mikka (t) 23:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE FROM THE CREATOR OF THE ARTICLE: I disagree. I've seen it mentioned MANY times on a number of different Internet message boards. Just because you haven't seen it personally doesn't mean it wasn't an Internet phenomenon. It was probably just one that you didn't catch. There are many things on the "Internet Phenomenon" page that were also incredibly minor as well, yet still are on it.

Please read about original research. The fact you saw it on many boards and concluded that it is a "pheno" does not count in wikipedia. A published reputable source must report is as "internet phenomenon". There are zillions of things in message boards. Like, I see the word "fuck" in tons of boards. But fck it is hardly an intrernet phenomenon. 04:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

True, but this was actually a big thing amongst forums. I think you have enough server space to accomdate a coulpe k of information that actually deserves to be up there moreso than some others. The moderators have an awfully fickle opinion when it comes down to what deserves to be included and what doesn't.

  • Delete This is a no Bwainer --Ruby 02:30, 17 February 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 and nomination withdrawn. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EN World[edit]

This is nonnotable and an advertisement. It is also written in an unencyclopedic manner. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn per wwwwolf. Sorry about the tag thing, I initially listed it for AFD, then saw the live test of prod notice, changed it to prod and forgot to delist from AFD. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 21:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry, I didn't check the history. Just remember that PROD is the first choice of deletion and intended to take workload off of AfD process; it's kind of pointless to go for PROD after you've already gone and done AfD. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup/wikify (will do that as soon as I'm done with this note). "written in unencyclopedic manner" isn't a deletion reason, nor is "advertisement"; they belong to cleanup. As for notability, any site where I can go to the front page and it cheerfully greets me with "There are currently 1508 users online now" is probably popular enough in my books. =) Plus, enworld is pretty well known in d20/D&D circles and has a very informative database of d20 products and reviews - it's probably one of the most important d20 sites right after Wizards of the Coast's site! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I did a near-complete rewrite (and also, the nominator forgot to de-((prod)) this and ((subst:afd)) it, which I added. Hopefully this makes the thing more presentable. Mmmm. 40,000 registered members. Don't know about your notability criteria - I think it well passes mine! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep — This site is pretty big among the D&D crowd. I still go there myself on occasion. My feeling is that it is just sufficiently notable to keep around. Thanks. :) — RJH 16:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and/or merge with the one I wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ENWorld User:BOZ
  • Keep for sure. EN World is probably the biggest d20 site out there (not counting Wizards of the Coast's Dungeons and Dragons site). But admittedly, the article needs work. Rycanada 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with cleanup. Right now, it's just a stub anyway. I agree with Boz on this one. Kimera757 05:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this nomination has been withdrawn, why is the page still tagged? (Oh, and in case it still matters, keep as one of the most notable and influential RPG sites in existence.) PurplePlatypus 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). I deleted the article on one of the books he published after this AFD debate, but I recognize that authors themselves are more notable than the books they write. Note that the article at present reads more like a CV than something you would find in an encyclopedia, and needs some cleanup. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kenneth Barton[edit]

No grounds given for notability. Writing a few minor books (only one of which is possessed by the British Library incidentally) and being a retired schoolmaster are not grounds for being included in an encyclopaedia. This almost looks like someone's genealogical research. Necrothesp 23:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I created this one... I'm pretty new here, but is it really a problem if I use a few bytes on this? Actually I've only just started this article, there are a whole lot more interesting biographical facts about AKB that I'm going to add, if you chaps will let me - e.g. he was a pupil of CS Lewis and JRR Tolkien at Oxford in the 1930's, he taught John Wain (future Oxford Professor of Poetry) at Newcastle High School when Wain was a boy, he was in charge of the RAF cadet unit in which Anthony Benn served in the Second World War, he was a close acquaintance of Alan Bennett when Bennett was setting up the New Vic Theatre in Newcastle... Give me a chance? A hnau

I have to say that I don't think any of these are particularly notable achievements. I'm not trying to discourage you from contributing, but being the pupil or teacher of someone famous, commanding someone famous and knowing someone famous are not really grounds for notability. Many, many thousands of people could claim that. The question is, was he notable in his own right instead of by association? -- Necrothesp 11:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A hnau, you might want to read WP:NN and especially WP:BIO for information on who is and is not considered notable enough to start an article on. But welcome to Wikipedia, in any event, and please consider contributing to other pages no matter how this discussion is resolved! --Craig Stuntz 14:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thanks for the pointers; I did dive in without really checking the FAQ's, which is poor netiquette so apologies. I've read the links Craig recommended, and have a much clearer idea of the criteria for biographical entries now. Certainly AKB doesn't hit the big, obvious criteria, but there are one or two things which may convince folks to let him stay;

- the basic biographical information is verifiable (starting with the St Edmunds Hall Who's Who)

- his publications likewise are verifiable (Alibris, Abebooks, Internet Book List, getCITED, BookFinder.com all list and/or have for sale one or more of his books, and the BL lists both Circling the Square and Mystery in its catalogue; the Library of Congress lists Circling the Square in its holdings)

- all three of the educational institutions he studied or taught at have their own Wiki articles, so there are places to link to and from him, even if just as an 'Old Boy'

- certainly he has lots of connections as well as the ones I've already mentioned (e.g. he holidayed with Alvar Liddell's family in Devon as a child, his family knew the Jeromes as in Jerome K. Jerome, though I take the point about this not being conclusive)

If this tips the balance, I'd love to carry on adding to the article. A hnau

  • Delete per above. Stifle 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, published author, scope for an interesting article. Kappa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The article does not read like an encyclopedia article either, containing only a sentence of self-description the book and a list of authors and publication info. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery (A.K. Barton)[edit]

Doesn't appear to be at all notable. Not even an original work, but a collection of stories. The British Library does not apparently even hold a copy. Necrothesp 23:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually BL does have this... A hnau

You are correct. It didn't come up on my first catalogue search for some reason. But I still vote to delete as a non-notable work. We can't have pages for every book ever published. -- Necrothesp 15:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the British library doesn't have it, it doesn't exist. Seriously. It's the law in England, you have to donate six copies of any book published to the British library. Although one gets sent to Ireland. Stifle 00:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas above.Blnguyen 03:12, 16 February 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 03:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eminent domain to promote private enterprise[edit]

Not an article but an essay. Also looks like a copy&paste, but I can't find a source. --W(t) 23:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 03:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. describes nothing; just tries to prove that this is a Good Thing. mikka (t) 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, basically an op-ed. ×Meegs 23:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyism[edit]

Original research. Possibly advertising. Bobby1011 00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. --W(t) 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as second def. of Patent nonsense, bad faith original research. Makemi 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weyes. ×Meegs 23:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable subject and original research. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:Mikkalai Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Productions[edit]

Vanity page. Bobby1011 00:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as non-notable group. Tagging now. Makemi 00:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Speedy delete as per nom Maustrauser 00:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"There is Art in a Woman"[edit]

Vanity page by a Blog artist. Bobby1011 00:54, 16 February 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