< February 16 February 18 >

Purge server cache

February 17

[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 redirect to Andromeda A6. — sjorford (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alesis Andromeda

[edit]

The Alesis page linked to the Alesis_Andromeda page which hadn't been created yet, so I created it. After which I realised it should really be called the Andromeda A6 page, since Alesis is the company and the Andromeda A6 is the correct name of the instrument, so I copied it there, of course not realising that I couldn't get rid of the original Alesis Andromeda page. Basically: attack of the newb. sorry ;) Vespine 14:09, 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 Speedy deletion by User:Jdavidb. Closing because A. This is under DRV now, B. Unless I'm misreading, *community* (vs. new anon) consensus supports deletion, and C. Guidelines clearly support deletion. I'm sure this won't be uncontroversial, but DRV can elect to relist this if they feel it's best. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quailtard

[edit]

Previously ((prod))ed with the reason: Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary (from User:JiFish). "Quailtards" isn't "Truthiness" (from User:CrypticBacon. This term is not widespead enough for inclusion. Gets 5 google hits. Delete. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Actually it gets 6! google hits now...[reply]

You do realize that BoingBoing outed this not to save quailtards, but to show that Wikipedia nannies are loons. You've already lost.


Wait a few days. If you keep this up, you'll be forced to have a long entry. Michael Slavitch 21:37, 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 delete. Shanel 03:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Schwantes

[edit]

While this appears to be a viable article to begin with, the actress in question has 1. no Google presence at all, 2. no entry on the German Wikipedia, and 3. some rather dubious credits ("Suck my dick" comes to mind). Ziggurat 00:23, 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 delete. Shanel 03:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Century 21 Thomas

[edit]

Unencyclopediac; does not seem to be a notable business enterprise. It seems there is not a need to have an encyclopedia article for every realty office. Accurizer 00:26, 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 delete. Shanel 05:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fusion03

[edit]

Delete - page is Advertising. Page claims that Fusion03 is a secure application framework, but I can find no other reference to it. The linked external site appears to be a services company - Fusion 03 creative design, but there is no mention of an application framework product on their site. In any event this page is an example of Advertising. Oliver Crow 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - two unique ghits. Camillus (talk) 01:45, 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 to be dealt with by copyvio. Mailer Diablo 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Crotty

[edit]

Delete. I apologize. A good professor, but the article is just a resume without claims of notability. Professors are supposed to write articles. The question is how people evaluate them. Google search gives several dozen of various Jameses Crotties. If exclude most notorious ("James Crotty" -"american express" -"wildlife" -artist -photography), of remaining 300 unique google results I failed to find any third-party discussionss of the importance of this person besides various resumes. Mukadderat 00:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Hampshire Gazette is a local paper; the other two are good IMO. Still, I don't think a couple of quotes in newspapers makes a great case here. Maybe if he was interviewed by a reputable paper or magazine... but anyone can get quoted now and then. As for state of article: you're right, but we delete articles all the time if they don't claim the notability of their subject. Mangojuice 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Mukadderaat, who are you that you decide who is a good or notable professor and who is not. Yo u most probably haven't done 1 percent of what he has done for economics. Ramil--71.195.182.195 18:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Response of Robert Brenner, prominent American economist to Crotty's critique. http://www.tidsskriftcentret.dk/index.php?id=165

Mukkaderat, do you know what is American Economic Review? If you know you should also know that economists are not published in this journal. Your stance is biased and most probably stems from your dislike of the heterodox economics.


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Haruki

[edit]

Only notability seems to be Haruki's theorem and Haruki's lemma (neither yet created). Perhaps an article for Haruki's theorem should be created and this article merged into it, but if neither of those deserves an article, neither does he. -- Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For someone as old as he is, it's not surprising that he has that many publications, especially when one considers that there is some duplication of work and additional expository articles on that work. I find that looking through his publication list, it doesn't seem particularly noteworthy although the fact that he has kept up production is a testament to his work ethic. On the other hand, he has published in some respectable journals (although not so prestigious to make it an automatic keep). I will abstain, but my inclination is that unless the results cited in the nom are of such significance and/or his other activities (perhaps as educator, influential figure, etc.) are significant, I don't particularly feel compelled to vote keep. --C S (Talk) 12:36, 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 belated speedy keep, incorrect nomination. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A kiss could be deadly/Temp

[edit]

I have asked the creator to only make temp pages from his/her own user page. Bobby1011 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment...which begs the question "why?" In any case, it hardly seems like a reason for deletion. This band gets some tens of thousands google hits, and appears to have done some touring, so they would be very likely to reach the notability level for an article. Grutness...wha? 00:59, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slad

[edit]

Looks like an ad. Delete ILovePlankton 01:00, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Zammit

[edit]

Vanity article from Johnzammit. Not sufficiently notable.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of a censorship fork deleted by an overwhelming consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures). If you want to fork, get your own site. — Feb. 17, '06 [01:18] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (image free)

[edit]

This censorship fork has already been up three different times for deletion under various names. Every time the overwhelming majority of votes were for delete. Last time was ten to one. Can we finally just delete this thing and lock it? Descendall 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am the one who AfD'd this. Last time that this experiment was tried, it devolved into an article called "Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse (no pictures)" that ironically had several pictures of abuse, just the ones that a single editor decided were not "offensive." This is exactly the kind of thing that wikipedia doesn't need. --Descendall 01:07, 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 withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortwave transmitter Jülich

[edit]

I'm not sure what to make of this. Ideas? Keep following improvements made to the article. Fang Aili 01:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that page has expanded. VegaDark 21:42, 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 withdrawn by nominator, CrypticBacon. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asset recovery

[edit]

Previous AfD nomination resulted in No Concensus, with 5 deletes and 4 keeps. This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy. CrypticBacon 09:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Perhaps we could have some explanation for why the nom has previously speedy tagged this article, then left uncivil edit summaries with Kill This in all caps [4], nominated once for Afd, then placed a Prod tag [5] following survival on AfD in violation of Prod rules, and has now renominated for AfD. That is a lot of activity for two weeks for an article on a valid topic that can be improved. -- JJay 09:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! Because "This article is nothing more than a dicdef. I fail to see any content here. This information belongs in either foreclosure or bankruptcy.", as stated in the nomination. --CrypticBacon 10:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See above where I talk about expansion. That, or perhaps use of merge tags, would have been a reasonable approach as opposed to edit warring with the editors involved in the article. Furthermore, if you feel the information belongs somewhere else, why have you tried four times to have it removed? Why was no comment ever left on the article talk page?-- JJay 10:13, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Zelenka

[edit]

Looks like vanity. Delete, unless notability is established. - Mike Rosoft 01:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys do not know anything about John. Maybe next time you vote to delete a page you should know something about the topic. John did have a wingspan of 14 feet, he was almost 8 feet tall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 17 February 2006

I hate all of you, I hope you all die and rot in hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravithisis (talk • contribs) } 05:26, 17 February 2006

I'm confused. Revert to what? Mangojuice 19:06, 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 delete. Shanel 05:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert C. Park

[edit]

Notability is asserted, but judging by name of the author, this is likely to be vanity and nn.Blnguyen 02:23, 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 Speedy deletion for nn-bio/group. enochlau (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top NE Freshman Distance Boys

[edit]

Highschool athleticlistcruft. Blnguyen 02:21, 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 delete. Shanel 05:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Ó Maoileoin

[edit]

Appears to be written by owner of this website, which seems very amateurish and nn, resembling a blog. Blnguyen 02:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly self-promotion, and not even very good at it. Fan 02:55, 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 no consensus without prejudice against a redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 12:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nufonia must fall

[edit]

"Kid Koala wrote a book..." need I say more? Bobby1011 03:01, 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. Ifnord 14:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keeley Davis

[edit]

NN musician. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, too. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 03:02, 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. --maru (talk) contribs

Kawaii

[edit]

An honest effort at bloating a dic-def of a non-English word.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider "useful"? Or "notable"?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I consider the topic "notable" because I hear the word in this sense in common use, and I consider the article "useful" because if I were researching the anime/manga subculture in the US, this article would be a helpful source (along with the other articles in its categories). Your opinion, it would seem, differs. My vote remains keep, however. If you believe the article has problems, you can certainly improve it. Given your list of concerns below, perhaps it would be beneficial to alter the article to recast the term as something used by Americans, where the usage is apparently not the same as it is in Japan; better yet, one could make a comparison out of it. I can't comment on that, not being knowlegeable on Japanese culture. I agree with Ikkyu2 and Saberwyn on this one. --FreelanceWizard 07:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (I'm not sure how my comment here got mangled with someone's sig, or why other people took it upon themselves to mangle it further, but I've corrected it, I think. --FreelanceWizard 02:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
This is the same conclusion I've come to after hours spent banging my head against the brick wall that is certain users on the article's discussion page. While the word has been adopted by a specialist interest group, (which doesn't mean it's becoming a loanword) it's meaning has been altered in the process. The current article doesn't address this and operates under the mistaken idea that kawaii is some specific, defined style of anime / drawing / fashion. If this can be rectified then there may be a place for the article to define what the word has come to mean when used in manga and anime fan circles and then this can be contrasted with the meaning in Japanese. Barryvalder 13:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you that etymologies that are limited to small fan circles are not presently considered worthy of Wikipedia articles, although they may be in the future. Do not correct me on my word choice with "small fan circles". While there is a considerable following in the US, there is no "altered meaning" for the word for the majority of these people, who merely use the word as-is, along with other "trendy" Japanese words that they have pulled from anime, such as "genki", "kakkoii", "ohayo" etc. If you can find some kind of proof that the word is being used in a non-Japanese fashion (that would be a loanword by the way) then it may be advisable to rewrite the article, but as you just stated the article doesn't address this issue and thus contains no valid information. As per the previous comment, if you were a researcher looking for information on Anime/manga culture ... wouldn't you rather check out anime (which explains the word kawaii) and manga?  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My initial conclusion was that which I could make from the views of those who pushed the article for all they could. I was assuming, probably naively, that those people spoke for fans of anime and manga. Anime / manga fan culture is not my area. The everyday use and meaning of Japanese words is. If it's the case that fans of Japanese culture use the word with the same meaning as it holds in Japanese, and not as the name of a specific style etc, then the article is entirely without value beyond it's initial dictionary definition. As you note below, the vast majority of the article should either be employed elsewhere, or deleted outright. Barryvalder 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, Freshgavin, I'd check out anime, manga, and anything else that looked interesting or relevant in the related topics or category sections. A good researcher doesn't just read one article and stop, especially when using a source of possibly dubious validity. By the way, I'm with Barryvalder and others on this; it should be kept, IMHO, but it should also be cleaned up. So, I'm altering my vote somewhat to keep and tag for cleanup. I really don't believe a strong case for deletion has been made, though there might be a case here for merging what may be useful from the article (which, again, is speaking more to US anime/manga subculture as far as I can tell) into another article and changing this into a redirect. --FreelanceWizard 22:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is not a cultural fad in Japan. It is merely a common adjective.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I was thinking of the "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" fad, which was apparently studied by Yamane Kazuma, along with the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media marketed and referred to by this term in Japan, the US, and Australia. -- Saberwyn 06:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why you're being sarcastic. If it was considered fashionable to be "cute" in hollywood, and the London Times posted an article that said so, would you consider that a reason to make "cute" a valid Wikipedia article? Also, the whole "Anomalous Female Teenage Handwriting" section doesn't belong here anyways. It has nothing to do with the word "kawaii" except for the fact that girls like to write in a "cute" or "pretty" style. I would have thought the fact that the research was called "Female Teenage Writing" and not "Kawaii writing" would stand for that.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  06:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The one place that "the merchandising, fashion, and pop-culture media" isn't marketed and referred to by this term is in Japan itself. My conclusion from the endless war-of-words on the article's discussion page is that the fundamental misunderstanding over the words's use in it's native country is a huge factor in the unreliability of this article. "Animals are often drawn in excessively Kawaii style" one user insists on writing. What I've attempted to get across is that in Japan there is no such thing as Kawaii style, making the statement meaningless OR. If any article is to exist on this topic, it has to address the Japanese meaning and the meaning being given when used in English. Barryvalder 10:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Explained above. Also, the misunderstanding with "kawaii style" comes from the fact that it is common in Japanese to suffix "-kei" onto some adjectives which may be translated as "kawaii type" or "style", but there is no implication of a specific style of kawaii, simply that X is of a "cute"/"pretty" persuasion, as opposed to a "sexy"/"ugly"/"glamorous"/etc. one.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  14:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by "bloating" was that the editors (particularly one) was adding inutile information to make the article look much bigger than it actually should be. The accusations of cultural influence and transition to English are completely unfounded.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are they original research? We don't have to exclude completely unfounded theories, or "accusations" as you jokingly call them; we just have to source them. -ikkyu2 (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really want to classify it as "original research", though there is obviously quite a bit of that. I'm just more concerned about the collections of material that has no relation to the actual word, many of them POV.
  • Kawaii characters typically (but not exclusively) are drawn with large eyes and small noses and mouths (this comment refers to anime style, which has no relation to the word kawaii)
  • Pets are often drawn in a kawaii style (this statement means nothing more than "pets are drawn cutely")
  • Kawaii characters generally have angelic personalities (original research, I see no reason why the author would want to say this if not just to get a picture of his favourite anime character added to the page)
  • Kawai is a Japanese term (it's not a term, its a word. by saying "term" the author is trying to bloat its importance)
  • Kawaii should not to be confused with "kowai" (Japanese speakers have very little trouble distinguishing the two words, this is a statement fit for an introduction to Japanese textbook)
  • The term can be subjective as Kawaii can be used to describe anything an individual considers cute which can include attractive women. (a completely worthless statement. Saying an adjective is "subjective" is no more useful than saying that "good" is POV)
  • Kawaii merchandise is extremely popular in Japan (should say "cute/pretty things are popular [to certain groups] in Japan" and be moved to "Japanese culture")
  • The two largest manufacturers of such merchandise are Sanrio (manufacturers of "Hello Kitty") and San-X. (original research, sourceless, and POV)
  • The proliferation of mechandise regarded as kawaii is considered by some to be an expression of a female-led youth movement (equals: girls like cute things. Useless information.)
  • Kawaii can be also used to describe fashions. (another useless statement. It is a widely used adjective and can be used to describe almost anything you like, much like "cute" or "pretty" can. The author then goes on to describe fashions that are considered cute in Japan, which should be part of "Japanese culture")
  • When the kawaii 'craze' began to develop in Japan during the 1970s (sourceless OR. A correct statement would refer to the "boom" that Japan experienced in the early 1980s, thus allowing women greater freedom of choice in fashion, another tidbit for the "Japanese culture" article, or possibly one on the boom itself)
  • Previously Japanese writing had been written vertically using strokes that vary in thickness along their length. The new style was written laterally, preferably using a mechanical pencil to produce very fine, even lines. (absolutely rediculous OR statements. Japanese has been written horizontally as well as vertically for more than a hundred years, nothing to do with "cuteness". Mechanical pencils are just another example of influence from western cultures, again nothing to do with "cuteness".
I don't have the patience to pick out any more of this article's flaws. It's pure junk.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  07:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, it seems your criticisms are on the grounds of verifiability. I confess that when I see this sort of writing, my instinct is to assume good faith. I don't have any way of verifying either your assertions or those in the article. Will change my vote to "weak keep" to reflect this. -ikkyu2 (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then I commend you on assuming good faith. I called this AfD because I felt it should be deleted on the grounds of it being a Japancruft dicdef. Most of the points I just complained about above have been deleted before (in fact, the whole article has been deleted recently) and I didn't really feel like trying to rectify all those points before listing it for deletion as a one line dicdef, basically throwing myself into the edit war that already exists. As it is, I'm listing the first line of the article for transwiki (the article already exists) and the rest of it is trash and should be deleted.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  13:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, you didn't say why you thought it should be kept!  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  16:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, because I don't think a strong case has been made for deletion.--Isotope23 17:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And unlike kawaii, moe (hepburn please) is encyclopedaeic material (slightly unfortunately), as it has a super-slang like status in Japan, describing a concept/culture/fad/state of mind? and is not simply a part of speech.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you on that, but where moe (I actually prefer the Hepburn, I just copied from the article's redirect) is the slang term there, kawaii seems to be gaining currency as the slang term here. As I said before, the article needs better justification than it's got right now, but that doesn't mean it's not notable. In any case, if we cannot save the article, that is why I recommended a redirect as a fallback. I don't think outright deletion is going to do any good in this case, but if no one can come up with a good reason for the existence of it as a seperate entity, then there are other ways of dealing with the issue.--み使い Mitsukai 17:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more note. A "delete and rewrite" vote would make more sense than a "keep and rewrite" vote because it would actually force a rewrite, whereas keeping it almost guarantees that it won't be "completely" rewritten at all. Also, a redirect implies a "delete and redirect".  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  17:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is disputing that cuteness is very popular in Japan. That information should be represented within the culture of Japan article. A huge problem with this article is the fundamantal misunderstanding that the word kawaii represents a definable, distinct style or movement (wether it be anime/clothing/writing/etc). Living in Japan, you'll be aware that if you went into a manga shop and asked for the kawaii comics you'd get met with blank expressions. There's no such thing, just subjective judgement. This article, if it's to exist at all, can be made up of two or three sentences. The rest of the details as it stands are sourceless, lacking in evidence, and worthless POV. Barryvalder 08:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Culture of Japan article is too long as it is. This is absolutely a distinct cultural concept and is worth it's own article. As for walking into a comic shop and asking for "kawaii comics", you would be met with blank stares because they would assume you were a stupid gaijin, not because they wouldn't know what you're talking about. No, there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics", but that's because "kawaii" is so ingrained in the culture. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The culture of Japan can be any length it needs to be. With regards your startement as to how Japanese people will react to a question based on the race of the person asking it, well that is a very daft arguement Nihon. Would Japanese shop staff regard Africans as "stupid blacks" for asking the same question? Best to keep your sweeping generalisations and borderline racism to yourself.
Where do you get off calling me racist? If you can't form a coherent argument without calling someone racist, then I suggest you find someplace else to play. It's no more racist than how you'd be met in any other country in the world when asking a stupid question of a shopkeeper. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to get into this as it's getting wildly off topic, but your asertation that Japanese shop staff will respond to customers based on the race of the customer is an incredbibly daft thing to say. It lacks any kind of basis and then you go on to give a sweeping anthropological statement covering ever member of the human race. This is even more rediculous. With such a comment you are treading a very thin line between generalisation and just plain ignorance, but I'm fairly certain you didn't understand the implications of what you wrote, so I can only ask you be more careful with your sweeping generalisations in future. This is a place for factual discussion, not the place for your very own sociological and anthropological conclusions. Barryvalder 23:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you say yourself, "there is no specific genre of "kawaii comics."" The fact that there is this kind of specific, defined "kawaii style" is something most of the article hinges on. As we've long since established this isn't the case, the only information left is that cuteness is highly very valued in Japan. This can be summed up in two or three sentences and doesn't require all sorts of guff telling us what things might be regarded as cute. Barryvalder 02:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a translation of the Japanese article would nicely flesh-out this article. Nothing has been established here. There are just a few people telling a larger group that what they've observed isn't really what they've observed. --nihon 20:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What you've observed? That would be OR then. We're trying to created an article of fact backed up with evidence. Not what you, or anyone else, has observed and made a conclusion on. For the record, the Japanese article is a definition is a definition of the word and when and how it is used. It makes no reference to any kind of kawaii movement Barryvalder 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering most of the false statements that I criticized were written by you, I'm shocked by your comment.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, if it were criticism by someone else I would have listened. Someone who hasn't actively blanked cited sections or attempted to delete the article. You are questioning the "legitness" of cited sources, the other party claims Rice University is some place nobody has heard about... Really guys, obviously article is not a featured article yet. There needs to be improvement. OBVIOUSLY and country to your claims, it is imposible to visit japan and NOT run into SOMETHING that is a product of the kawaii kraze weather that is anime/manga merchendice or company mascot. There is no definate kawaii thing as it is so heavly integrated.
  • Kawaii Craze is similar to the Comic craze of the US in thelate 30s to early 50ies. During the Golden Age of Comic Books superman merchendice etc sold at ridiclous levels. In the US more people are likely to know who superman is rather than who the president is. Any native english speaker may/should thake comic craze for granted. It is perfectly casual for people to wear superman outfits in haloween. You do not reference people wearing superman outfits as a product of "comic craze" even though thats what it is.
  • Of course comic-craze and kawaii-craze are poor comparasions. After all Kawaii was never restricted to paper and has been an ongoing craze spreading overseas.
--Cool CatTalk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I want Wikipedia to make sense.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  08:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is, you started off saying "no vote from me" but you have commented on this page sixteen times, all of them rebutting people who want to keep the article. Why be coy? —rodii 06:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that you are just on a delete kick. Deleting this article will not make WP "make sense". It will, however, remove a decent article that only needs a little improvement in order to be better. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I wonder why Kawaii_Neko would vote support? ;-) Kim Bruning 05:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Using your argument, the same could be said for "Cuteness": it's just a word, a common adjective, always used subjectively. Unless you've lived in Japan, you won't likely know how much "kawaii" is ingrained in the culture there. "Kawaii" is everywhere in Japan. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if we're pulling out the "who knows Japan" card, I have lived in Japan, I do speak Japanese, in fact I am married to a Japanese. I understand this may not be as sterling a credential as having memorized a dozen comic books, but believe me, I do know what kawaii is and what it is not. It's an adjective. It is not a concept. The Crow 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kawaii is integrated into japanese culture and "kawaii kraze" in japan is like nowhere else. You didn't notice something everyone takes for granted (only happens if you are either "assimilated" into a culture (and hence ignore lots of obvious aspects) or if you are not a good observer and I do not believe it is the latter). The Kawaii-kraze is cited to exist by universities as well as various other notable works. Just because you havent noticed doesnt mean it doesnt exist. --Cool CatTalk|@ 14:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting a bit weary of being misrepresented on this subject. Yes, cute things permeate Japanese culture up and down, top to bottom, in and out and I've seen it firsthand. I have seen 50 year old men with Hello Kitty seatcovers on their cars. I'm not disputing that cute things are popular in Japan, mmkay? Nobody is disputing that. I'm disputing that "kawaii" is anything other than an adjective used to describe what someone's vision of cute is. It's always subjective. The Hello Hitty industry is not classified as "the kawaii industry" in Japan. Retailers do not order another lorry of "kawaii merchandise". There's no "kawaii" section of idol mags or manga shops or video rental places or clothing retailers or food or absolutely anything at all. There is no central authoritative body of work that can rule out something -not- being kawaii. Reading more than this into it is a common error of orientalism, the tendency of uninitiated Westerners to project novelty and significance onto elements of Asian culture beyond their true significance. The Crow 16:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a concept. Articles springing from Japanese culture are where we boast Japanese uniqueness.  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  03:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is "kawaii" not a concept? "Kawaii" is absolutely a concept; it's a concept of "cute" that permeates almost every aspect of Japanese culture. You can find it everywhere. You're talking about things of which you have no real experience. --nihon 19:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem intent on playing "I live in Japan so I know Japan" card, I guess I should also state (just for the record you understand) that I also live in Japan as I have done for a number of years now. I know of which I speak. Cuteness is very popular in Japan, but it's not a concept. It's an adjective, always used subjectively. Barryvalder 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we close this yet? --maru (talk) contribs 07:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its obvious concensus is agaisnt the nominator. Prolonging the discussion would be quite pointless. -ZeroTalk 08:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the consensus is against a deletion. The strength of feeling in favour of a rewrite what comes across most strongly for me. Barryvalder 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope everyone realizes that "rewrite" does not mean anything productive here. At best it means "do nothing" and at worst it means "add a lot of original research". I look forward to the vigorous participation of "keep" voters to remove the OR from the article as it is, and guard against addition of more OR. The Crow 16:09, 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 speedy keep - nomination withdrawn, no delete votes. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British involvement in Rhodesia/to do

[edit]

This is not an article. It clearly belongs somewhere else but not as an article. I originally tagged as CSD; however, Xaosflux removed the CSD flag. I am not sure of the reason. James084 03:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC) I just realized what Xaosflux did to this page. I have listed this page for AfD in error. Administrators: Please disregard and remove this page from AfD. Thanks. James084 03:40, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquium (College of Engineering, Guindy)

[edit]

Appears to be just some kind of annual meeting which plenty of universities may have. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramanujan Rolling Shield. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanujan Rolling Shield

[edit]

174 google hits, and a bunch of those (if not all) appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia content. Does not appear notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colloquium (College of Engineering, Guindy). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The National Bitter Melon Council

[edit]

Listed as copyvio, plausible claim for release made. However, it does not seem to me encyclopedic. Chick Bowen 04:14, 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 Redirected to Oxy-fuel welding and cutting Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyacetylene

[edit]

The current content of this page is just an operating manual for an oxyacetylene torch. There is a more encyclopedic article at Oxy-fuel welding and cutting, however a proper merge would (in my opinion) require blanking this entire article and then redirecting Oxy-fuel welding and cutting here, and I guess I'm not bold enough to do that without consensus. Thatcher131 04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is I'm relatively new and I got spanked once before for making too drastic a change without "respecting the work of prevous editors" (although the person who complained had a vested interest and we eventually worked it out amicably). I will do the redirect now and clear the AfD from the article. Thatcher131 06:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on folks, let's Wikipedia:use common sense here. Redirects don't purge the article history and we're getting a strong consensus here. -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:36, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpyMasterSnake

[edit]

Delete? Not in English? There seems to be a Turkish language site that this refers too. Maybe an ad? Cgbikes 04:18, 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. Punkmorten 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Frog

[edit]

This looks like spam and there does not seem to be any notability listed here. James084 04:24, 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 kept.

Note that the discussion went on to consider whether this article should be renamed, rewritten or made into a redirect. No clear consensus emerged on that topic. However, those decisions can best be decided on the respective Talk pages and do not need to be decided in an AFD discussion. Rossami (talk) 05:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thermal Protection System

[edit]

The "Thermal Protection System" article has been made redundant by the Atmospheric reentry article that includes a section on Thermal Protection Systems and the Space Shuttle program article. It is proposed that the Thermal Protection System article be deleted and replaced with a redirect to the Atmospheric reentry article. Egg plant 04:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely should NOT be deleted. The Space Shuttle program article was way too long. In line with Wikipedia:Article size, and Wikipedia:How to break up a page, sections are being moved to other articles INCLUDING this TPS article. Other examples of sections moved: NASA Space Shuttle decision, Space Shuttle abort modes.
The shuttle TPS is a major component of the orbiter, and unique to the shuttle. This article covers that, not TPS in general. Detailed shuttle TPS info doesn't belong in the Atmospheric reentry article. However this article should probably be renamed "Space shuttle thermal protection system". Joema 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see where you're coming from now. I change my vote to Rename to Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System. Georgewilliamherbert 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the answer! I like the way Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster and Solid Rocket Booster are setup. Have a disambiguation page named Thermal Protection System that redirects to a renamed Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System or Atmospheric reentry. Concerning the Reentry article going over the recommended size limit, I'd like to reduce the size of Atmospheric reentry by tossing out "Feathered reentry" but I know people would get worked up over that so I've taken the easy path of ignoring it. Egg plant 05:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think "Feathered reentry" is too small for a separate article; it wouldn't reduce size that much. How about this:
  • Leave a small section on TPS in the reentry article, put the bulk in a separate article on "Thermal Protection System". That's in line with Wikipedia:How to break up a page.
  • Put a top link in the new stand-alone TPS article: This article is about aerospace thermal protection systems. For the U.S. Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System, see: (link).
  • Put a similar top link in the shuttle TPS article pointing to the new TPS article.
  • Fix up any previous references so they point to the right articles.
  • Advantages: avoids going through redirection page for people querying directly on Thermal Protection System.
Why not do a disambiguation page? Google shows about 98% of TPS references are either (a) shuttle TPS, or (b) other aerospace TPS. If three or more separate TPS articles are needed, maybe then do a disambig page. What does everybody think? Joema 15:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my earlier (deleted) reply, I got overly philosophical and went off-topic. I agree that a disambiguation page with redirection is a good solution if the "Thermal Protection System" article is retained. Egg plant 03:20, 24 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swivel gun

[edit]

Article Pivot gun has mergeto Swivel gun tag but Talk:Swivel gun says it has been transwikified to the Wiktionary. I think the pivot gun and swivel gun articles are notable enough for Wikipedia Thatcher131 04:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of the different kinds would be nice. Thatcher131 20:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten the articles and added a pic of a pivot gun. Hopefully this will resolve the confusion! -- ChrisO 00:49, 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 keep. Punkmorten 15:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pivot gun

[edit]

Article Pivot gun has merge tag proposing merge to Swivel gun but the Swivel gun talk page has a notice that is has been transferred to the Wiktionary. I would prefer to keep Swivel gun in Wikipedia and redirect Pivot gun, however seeking consensus. Thatcher131 04:57, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild_Wayland_Wrestling

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, appears to be a bunch of teenagers wrestling in their backyards. They have gotten themselves added to dmoz, which gives them a few google hits, but this doesn't make them notable. Xyzzyplugh 04:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but I am 27 years old. We BEGAN as teenagers wrestling in our backyards, but if you had actually take the time to read the article, you would note that we are an organization now, fully bonded and licensed by the Kentucky Athletic Commission.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wiki-Protest

[edit]

Neologism for, umm, I'm not too sure, something to do with deleting articles from Wikipedia Cnwb 05:00, 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 delete. Babajobu 05:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partypants

[edit]

Nonnotable TV trivia (name of computer password in an episode of House.) Merge was proposed but Partypants is already in the House entry and 4 comments on the Partypants article recommend deleting instead of merging. Nothing notable enough to keep as a redirect. Thatcher131 05:03, 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 Speedily deleted by Marudubshinki under CSD:A7 (article about a band failing to assert its notablity). Stifle 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Ares

[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. Mailer Diablo 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yespinoy

[edit]

Delete. Appears to be advertising and non-notable. Cpc464 05:11, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Driving rock movement

[edit]

I'm pretty sure this falls under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day and am having an extremely hard time finding anything related to this genre. The closest search for driving rock and its creators is disappointing to put it mildly. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonny Guerrini

[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 deleted per PROD, with no objections on AFD. — Phil Welch 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Republicans Block Investigation of Domestic Spying Program

[edit]

Democratic press release. POV. Don't see an applicable speedy category. Can we get rid of this faster than prod? Thatcher131 05:55, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATW1

[edit]

Already tagged with "prod" but removed by an unlogged user (presumably the same one who created the article, based on the user name. This appears to be an advertisement from the owners/operators of the podcast station. Weak nomination, for the record. CrypticBacon 06:08, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autonomic Nervous System Templates

[edit]

Delete. Concept unique to Integrative Manual Therapy, another article created by same author. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrative Manual Therapy. AED 06:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

X BILLUPS

[edit]

Delete. Completely and utterly fictional. I liked the bit about Deal or No Deal, though. Cpc464 06:31, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forums.gamemaker.nl

[edit]

Delete. looks like a forum for Game Maker some kind of scripting language for game development. Advertising and non-notable EricR 06:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xamon Song

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable and possibly fake, only 7 Google hits including Wikipedia. Cpc464 06:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not fake. Go to www.xamonsong.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevesong (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 09:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plenis

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Only google hits I found were for plenis as a Latin word. dbtfztalk 06:53, 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. Withdrawn by nominator, my apologies. Tokek 10:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bathtub hoax

[edit]

non-notable. Tokek 07:29, 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 erase the article. Mailer Diablo 09:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erase the Hate

[edit]

Delete because this organization seems to barely exist According to this organization's website, they appear to have one member and haven't actually done anything. Suggest the article be deleted until such time as the organization actually appears to be active. MichaelBluejay 07:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the article you cite has nothing to do with the organization that is the subject of the Wikipedia article in question. -- MichaelBluejay 19:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. delete the article, then.SoothingR 17:14, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time Spiral

[edit]

Unverifiable; content is primarily original research. Everything after the first two sentences appears to be completely made up, and even the name "Time Spiral" is unverifiable. EvilZak 08:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to note that I was the otiginal contributor to this article and, against the rules for deletion, I was never notified about the proposed deletion by the person who decided to arrogantly propose the deletion.--Bedford 23:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That particular bit of AfD "etiquette" is rather new; you can't really blame the nominator for not notifying you, and calling the nomination "arrogant" is just silly. Articles that violate WP:V ought to be deleted, and it looks like this one does. android79 00:05, 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 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SW-Fans

[edit]

This is an article about an organization that isn't notable. Bobby1011 08:55, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gungan Council

[edit]

This has got to be the single largest piece of fancruft ever created on Wikipedia. This article makes extensive use of the first-person and is littered with first-hand accounts of the "history" and goings-on of club activities, making them virtually impossible to verify. I kind of feel bad nominating such a large work for deletion ...but not that bad. Kill fancruft! CrypticBacon 09:12, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Suresh Muthukulam

[edit]

Autobiography, self promotion. Might meet notability criteria, but I suspect not - well below the professor test. The text is from the artist's website, keralamurals.com. Solipsist 09:12, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 09:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primitive skills

[edit]

this seems to be a neologism of little likely longevity; it's simply a descriptive phrase, in fact. It was put up for deletion by Stifle in the new "deletion review" system, and the tag was removed by Kappa without explanation. When I replaced the tag, asking for an explanation , Kappa reverted me, saying that I couldn't win an edit war... I've therefore opened an AfD, which I suggest all editors should do when they see a "deletion review" tag. Unless it can be shown that this is an encyclopædic topic, it should be deleted. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps when it comes back it will be better than it is today. What's wrong with that?? James084 02:45, 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 redirect.

Reading the discussion, I concur that this term as defined in the article is original research. The closest sourced topic is "Newly Independent States of the Former Soviet Union" which currently redirects to Post-Soviet states. I am going to carry out the redirect. I decline to merge anything because the former Soviet states are already included and the non-Soviet states are irrelevant. However, if I missed anything, please pull it out of the page history. Rossami (talk) 05:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newly Independent States

[edit]

Except for the fact that this states aren't new for the last 10 years, encyclopedia should not contain articles having "newly" in the topic. Dijxtra 10:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The links cited below by rodii show that the title Newly Independent States is used by the US government to refer to states of the former Russian Republic, not independent states that are new. This explains Grandmasterka's observation below. If that is to what the article is intended to refer, then it should be renamed to indicate that and make it clear that it is not a list of independent states that are new. I suggest Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union since that seems to be what the US government use. If rename is not agreed, then my vote is delete. Kcordina 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But the proper, government term, is Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. The current title is misleading as it suggests the article is about new states in general, hence my rename proposal. Kcordina 09:01, 23 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 └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Xiang, Tan

[edit]

This article was deleted, then recreated a couple of times. However it now looks different from the first edition, so here we go for the last time. Punkmorten 10:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Kaiteng 15:40, 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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SKC Corporation

[edit]

Fails WP:CORP (not listed in fortune/forbes, no notable press releases found). Also, article is almost indecipherable and my attempted copyedit failed to reveal any rescuable information. Kcordina 11:03, 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 redirect. Punkmorten 14:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanterne Rouge

[edit]

content already dealt with more effectively at Tour de France, nothing links here. MLA 12:18, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connection Manager Administration Kit

[edit]

Not notable software package eLNuko 12:31, 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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leglessarmless

[edit]

Band vanity. Does not establish notability Cnwb 12:35, 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 redirect to Shill. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Article with no rescuable content for a non-notable neologism Kcordina 12:51, 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 Speedy keep. Nominator withdraws and there are no votes to delete. Stifle 14:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbots Deuglie

[edit]

Not a notable place, barely a village. Map [24] shows about 8 houses. No claim to notability in the article. ::Supergolden:: 13:06, 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 Speedy delete --Scott Davis Talk 10:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandongardiner

[edit]

Delete Hoax article, No Brisbane Bears or draft in the 60s etc. Imagine_B 13:07, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alert Holtman

[edit]

Page is inaccurate to the point of seeming hoaxish. Holtman did not compete in Judo at the 2004 Summer Olympics. No athlete by the name of Holtman found on Athens2004.com search. The links are misleadingly labeled; they seem to actually lead to entirely non-international competitions. 17 English Google hits, none supporting the contention that he is a notable athlete. (98 overall hits) Jonel | Speak 13:24, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azamat Abdoullaev, USECS

[edit]

Autobiography whose subject, Azamat Abdoullaev, has reverted NPOV tags and other attempts at cleanup. Subject claims to have invented a major system of computerised ontology, but only gates 47 unique Google hits. One verifiable published book, published by F.I.S. Intelligent Systems, for which no search results (so almost certainly self-published, especially since the publisher name does not include anythign like "press" or "publishing"). Smells strongly of vanity, even after some claims have been toned down. Also rolling in USECS, his ontological database, which scores exactly nine Googles under its full name (the initialism is ambiguous, although googling the initialism also returns a fair bit of spam pushing the autor of the article). I call vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:34, 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.

Flamehaus

[edit]

The result of the debate was to recommend the article for deletion.--File Éireann 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contains no information on (completely NN) subject. Put up as a joke by somebody I know (I'm ashamed to admit). Closedmouth 13:39, 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. JamesTeterenko 03:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Masters

[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 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steady-eddys

[edit]

WP:NOT eLNuko 13:55, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy (band)

[edit]

The band doesn't appear to come close to satisfying WP:NMG.[25]. PJM 13:52, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentadonakahedrin

[edit]

Article name is spelled incorrectly (correct spelling is pentadodecahedron), practically empty, more suitable for dictionary. Accurizer 14:31, 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 speedy (copyvio). – Sceptre (Talk) 14:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryuta.k

[edit]

Not notable band eLNuko 14:40, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World of arl

[edit]

Note: nomination cleaned up after three users tried to nominate it at the same time... — sjorford (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently similar to an MMPORPG that, with an Alexa rank of 2,575,908, it fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 14:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is non-notable. It gets 260 google hits, way too few in my opinion for a game of this type to be considered notable. —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 14:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason Lord Hegemon 15:02, 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. JamesTeterenko 04:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed rashid

[edit]

Non notable Neigel von Teighen 14:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You only get to vote once, Falcon007. I say Weak keep, he seems to have an extensive bibiolgraphy, though I don't know that we need an article on every book he's ever written. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:42, 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 userfy and delete. Punkmorten 14:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Master Of Masterpieces

[edit]

(also Master Of Masterpieces 1/1 Basketball Hobby Collection)

Seems to be a guy who collects sports cards, and written by the subject DJ Clayworth 21:43, 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. Rossami (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTA LCS Cheat Device

[edit]

This doesn't appear to merit an article of its own but should surely be merged with the parent article File Éireann 21:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from mynameisJayden

[edit]

If the goal of Wikipedia is to be as detailed as possible, then isn't it better that this be turned into a stub and be as detailed as possible? It could elaborate on how the application works, and therefore inspire more homebrews. The topic of how the Cheat Device works (through binary and commands) is in it's own a topic that could be better fleshed out. While I agree that this could be merged with the Liberty City Stories topic, I believe that many details are important and could only be fleshed out if given their own space. These details include:

In conclusions, it is important that each subject of Wikipedia be as detailed and as clear as possible. If this article were merged, it would lose focus on the above details, which are important to those interested. Thankyou, --Jayden 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 15:14, 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 delete. Rossami (talk) 05:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Head-Space Project

[edit]

Defunct website; don't see why it's notable. Daniel Case 15:15, 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 redirect to The Sound of Silence. Mailer Diablo 09:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Of Silence

[edit]

Not Noteworthy Alecmconroy 15:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullpen (software development)

[edit]

Wikitionary has an entry concerning a bullpen which addresses the subject of this article. James084 15:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croup (artist)

[edit]

Delete as not notable, unverifiable. No mention at Allmusic, Amazon. Find me something that shows that this is more than just vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 15:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xbindkeys

[edit]

Delete. Lacks context, notability, importance. -- Krash (Talk) 15:39, 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 (merge into Dames Point Bridge). JamesTeterenko 07:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Cury

[edit]

Comment: This page was listed for speedy deletion as nn-bio. First pass, it would appear that would be the case. However, I found a reference to this individual at [27] (search for name). Again, at first glance it would be easy to think this person is non-notable. Afterall, he's just a grocery store owner. But, take this in the context of a series of events from 30 years ago. As a leader of opposition against a major project, he may have been frequently in the news at the time, and certainly to the region he was probably quite notable. This is difficult to verify today, since those news items would not be on the web. So, I'm bringing this to AfD rather than speedy delete, to allow for comment. --Durin 15:46, 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 delete but without prejudice against it's inclusion at Wiktionary. If anyone wants to carry out the transwiki process, please contact me (or any other admin) and I will temporarily undelete for that purpose. Rossami (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Afnan

[edit]

Nomination by Cunado19 was incomplete. Completing the process - no vote. - ulayiti (talk) 16:02, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radikala

[edit]

Clearly an advertisment. Delete Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 16:07, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Destroyers

[edit]

Page looking to recruit members of a anti-vandal squad. Total hypocrisy. Delete. Bobby1011 16:12, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14 Barber Crescent

[edit]

Improperly tagged as speedy. Smells hoaxy to me. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:32, 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)) Rossami (talk) 06:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Marsh

[edit]

Despite his good deed, not notable person eLNuko 16:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Econazi

[edit]

Googles a whopping 325, with Wiki and clones showing up first. Essentially a word used by Rush Limbaugh and no one else. Also largely a dicdef as it stands but does not warrant expansion. Noted on List of Political Epithets. Marskell 16:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a subtle violation of NPOV, I say Delete instead --Ruby 19:44, 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 delete. Rossami (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plainamp

[edit]

This is a stub about a piece of software currently on version 0.1.9. It is unverifiable because I can't find any information about it not written by the author. Will Loves Beer 16:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of War and Peace

[edit]

Contested WP:PROP but no evidence has been presented for subject's notability. RobertG ♬ talk 16:27, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cafeen?

[edit]

Has been submitted to WP:PROD twice. Submitting here instead. Appears to be a non-notable student social establishment connected in an unspecified manner with Copenhagen University. RobertG ♬ talk 16:32, 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 delete. Shanel 03:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idolizationarianism

[edit]

Incorrectly tagged as speedy. It's a neologism. The page has been tagged with hangon, but no matter how much it's developed, it's still about a neologism. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 16:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no CSD category for neologisms. Here is a list of criteria for speedy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion· Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't you just use ((db|neologism))? J.J.Sagnella 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could, and the admin who came to it would remove the {db} tag with a comment like "not a valid CSD criterion". Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 20:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which is, of course, exactly what happened. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hoaxes do not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. In fact the speedy criteria specifically exclude hoaxes. From A1: Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my vote. Proto||type 13:00, 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 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Medical Schools Comparison

[edit]

Is this really appropriate? James084 16:52, 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 sent to WP:CP. Punkmorten 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ezydvd

[edit]

Looks like the rantings of a crazed corporation written in the third person -- or maybe its just copied from a corporate website. Google search on EzyDVD returns 340,000 hits, so I guess that makes it notable, but maybe this should be deleted so someone could start over. Ewlyahoocom 16:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promolux

[edit]

Tagged as speedy. Advertisement. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 17:02, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nine Inch Nails Songs Played Live

[edit]

I'm favour of Wikipedia being a source of information on many different topics, but I believe that this is going a little too far. There appears to be little use for this list. (Prodtag was removed by Shagg187) SoothingR 17:18, 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 delete. No point in redirecting anywhere because this is a bad misspelling. No point in merging because what could be salvaged out of this article is already present in other articles. —Cleared as filed. 15:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnical cleansing in Croatia

[edit]

Delete Propaganda, heavily biased, factually false statements, unsourced, redundant with all articles about the wars in Yugoslavia. Orzetto 17:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NEUTRAL. I am afraid the current votes are not sufficiently founded. This article is not, like, a hoax, or vanity page. One must seriously argue that the facts were distorted or events didn't take place. A more correct and neutral title could help. The redirect option is certainly misguided. You cannot redirect to an article that does not address the current content. Also, the absense of reputable references is a serious drawback. mikka (t) 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

The events clearly took place. If there is a problem with spelling, fix it. In 1900, Dalmatia had approximately equal number of Serbs, Croats and Italians. Now it is 85% Croat. Serbs were expelled (and killed in a genocide) in WWII and from 1991-1995. Italians in WWII, and expelled after it (it is an issue in Italy nowadays, Berlusconi asks Croatia to give back the property of expelled Italians, called enui). So, there is a lot of substance here, and the article has its place. If you think it is POV or has language errors, you can fix that as per Wikipedia policies. It is not wikipedia policy to remove the content because of language error (or even POV) as far as it is written on wiki policy pages. Mikiolo 08:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austria-Hungary in 1911
The article contains no useful information and is redundant with the very detailed History of Croatia series and with ethnic cleansing. It is written with POV content that borders on propaganda and cites no sources; its very title and introduction seem written to picture Croats as murderers ("Ethnical cleansing in Croatia is a method which was used by Croats several times to change the balance in national composition of Croatia in twentieth century"). Even if it were a good article, it would be in the wrong place, since there are tons of article on the history and wars of Croatia. When it comes to Italian presence in Istria and Dalmatia, this map of the ethnicity of Austria-Hungary comes in handy: it is from an English source in 1911 (times and authors are not immediately under suspicion of POV). Italians are a majority only in coastal areas of Istria, claiming that "Istria was always a part of Italy" (which did not even exist before 1861) does not look likely. --Orzetto 12:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the map you have produced is completely consistent with the article. It says that majority in Dalmatia were Slavs (Serbs + Croats). But Croats were a minority, i.e. Serbs and Italians were also a majority. Both were purged in ethnical cleansing, in several waves and that is the point of the article. from around a third croats are now 85% majority in dalmatia!!! Also, being part of a country (like Venice, Ragusa which had Latin, Italian and Dalmatian as major and official languages) is something not shown on this map. I discuss it below Mikiolo 16:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


File:179600VZ.gif
Venice in 1796

Italy might have not existed, but Venice clearly did. Until Napoleon Conquest, Istria and Dalmatia were part of Republic of Venice. After that Ragusa and part of Venice were given to Austria, not to Croatia (which was in personal union with Hungary). So it should be changed to never been part of Croatia, since that is clearly true.

File:1914austrohungary.gif
Austria-Hungary in 1914
File:1914austro-hung.gif
Provinces of Austria and Hungary in 1914

Istria, Fiume and Zara were never part of Croatia until 1945, and Dalmatia was never part of Croatia until 1939. Also, if information does appear on some other places, this aspect of Croatian policies ought to be separately discussed. Just because some things are discussed in various other articles are not a good reason to remove an article from wikipedia. Would you remove Holocaust article because of the overlaps with final solution, WWII, SS and Himmler articles?? Mikiolo 16:29, 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 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bwhap

[edit]

Delete only 1 unrelated MSN hit, possible neologism, particularly useless J.J.Sagnella 17:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local administration

[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Tc61380 17:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Article has no relevance[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonez, Stan (graffiti artist)

[edit]

nn graffitist. I put the Prod tag on it, but Kappa removed it. Just a mention in a newspaper doesn't make one notable, especially since the newspaper couldn't even decide who he is. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:35, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau de Passion

[edit]

Is not very notable at all. A Google search on the term "Chateau de Passion" only brings up 513 hits. A majority of which are sellers of the film. Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 17:36, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 09:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Dobbin

[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, vanity, written and edited by subject. Delete Ardenn 17:47, 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 redirect to gothic rock. --Celestianpower háblame 15:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic music

[edit]

Request by User:Adrift* Sceptre (Talk) 18:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article does not meet the 3 core policies of Wikipedia. The current article contains zero verifiability, is solely based on original research, and is largely based on the POV of an editor who has debated the same POV in the Gothic Metal article. The article was originally intended to be a redirect for Goth Rock.--Adrift* 18:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I have sources for every claim in the article if people want them. Also, can someone please explain to me what makes Gothic Metal and other froms of Gothic Music devoid of being noted as Gothic Music, when they are also Gothic Themed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
comment: In response to the above comment-- if there are verifiable sources, then they should have been in the article. Gothic "themed", by the way, is different from actually being a certain genre of music...Gothic themes can be found in a very wide range of music, but having a particular "theme" does not mean that it belongs in a particular genre; or even a particular group of genres. If we are simply talking about having an article for music with a certain theme, then in my opinion, it would be as pointless as having articles devoted to the explanation of "Happy-themed" music, or "Agrarian-themed" music. It makes much more sense to have an article devoted to a particle genre or group of genres and styles, and the gothic rock article serves this purpose. Essentially, though, this article is up for deletion simply because it does not follow the three core policies of wikipedia. If you do feel that this article does meet the policies, then go ahead and vote against deletion. CatZilla 20:12, 24 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 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Gable

[edit]

Bumped from speedy. Notable? No vote. r3m0t talk 18:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Straightforward NN violation.Cdcon 22:06, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dread

[edit]
In short, the DREAD weapons system is in all probability a hoax. Therefore the article should be deleted. J-Star 18:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, maybe because there was no Wikipedia when you were in Primary? Only reason I never posted all the crazy weapons I dreamed up in middle school...--Isotope23 20:49, 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 delete, and it's apparently already been transwiki'd. — Feb. 26, '06 [15:11] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Cherokee Slang

[edit]

Clearly against Wikipedia is not an slang or idiom guide. James084 18:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I have completed Transwiki of the Article into the Wikitionary. To the closing editor, verify the content has been preserved in the Wikitionary then the article should be archived if possible, but removed from the namespace. Waya sahoni 04:10, 26 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 08:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Simulator 2006

[edit]

Delete. page has no information Jorge1000xl 18:54, 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 discussion continues at Wikipedia:Images for deletion. Nothing more to see here. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Counterends.jpg

[edit]

Redundant image. Linked all articles using this image to a much better quality version of the same thing (OneOfThemCap.jpg). Also, copyright info on this image. Dogbreathcanada 18:55, 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 delete. Shanel 06:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt francis

[edit]

Delete; original article was ego-surfing, new revision (about someone else, created by suspected vandal) is about a non-notable as well— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metahacker (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. Shanel 06:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthurs annomally

[edit]

Delete because the article is patent nonsense with respect to physics (e. g. speed of light) and does not document anything notable [30][31] or researched [32][33]. xyzzy_n 19:19, 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. Mailer Diablo 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyonesacritic.net

[edit]

Long parts of comments from this AFD discussion have been refactored to its talk page. This is not an assertion that the comments are less valuable than others, merely that these long comments are a little *too* long and are making for too much reading. I would recommend that users involved in this discussion read through the talk page too. Stifle 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN, advertisement. Additionally, was tagged with a ((prod)) but was removed by the author, as per this conversation from the article's talk page:

1. I submitted a request to move the page from "Everyonesacritic.net" to "Everyone's a Critc" taking the URL out of the title.

2. I reworded the content so it is a description of the community and not an advertisement for the website.

3. Other similar movie websites have entries in Wikipedia that are not submitted for deletion.

If the person who submitted this entry for deletion, continues to do so, I respectfully request that specific reasons are stated in this discussion, so I may know how to continue to change the content to fall within Wikipedia's guidelines.

Don't take this personally, but this article is not encyclopaedic. What you can do to prevent this from being deleted is to edit the article in a way that shows what the site is, who founded it, some history, etc. Example: sentences like "Everyone's a Critic, find yours..." sounds actually as a slogan rather than something you can find on an encyclopaedia, or "Dan, being the receptive webmaster that he is, has been applying many of these new features in a very timely manner." is a direct compliment (thus, completely subjecive)to someone that is not even notable. Any questions?
Ah: there's an alternative way to deal with deletion process and it's AfD. In that process, users vote on the deletion or keeping of the article. Would you prefer that instead of this more "aggresive" Proposed Deletion? --Neigel von Teighen 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. One quick thing. What does "NN" mean? --Dave Seidner 10:05, 17 February 2006 (EST)
NN = Non notable. In simple words, only few people knows this and it is not worth enough to be in the encyclopaedia (unless you can verify and demonstrate that it is notable). --Neigel von Teighen 15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Also recommend that the requested move by the author be terminated pending the outcome of this decision み使い Mitsukai 19:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears "TC Candler" above has precisely one edit, the one above. He is likely a double for the author, in which case I upgrade to Strong Delete.Cdcon 22:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Due to the persistent (and apparently good-faith) edits made to this article by its author, I switch my Strong Delete vote to a Neutral. See my talk page for details. Cdcon 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take you at your word for that. From a quick google search I can see that you have some notability in some movie critic circles. However, keep in mind that it looks very suspicious when your first edit is on an AfD page. It usually takes a while for a new user to get to the AfD page, so I can assume you were led here by someone who wanted your specific point of view. Cdcon 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete NN Maustrauser 00:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TendernessTour (aka Richard Propes)



*Comment. Frankly, when I look at the page, I still see what looks like not only POV, but outright advertising. "Words of Hope" as a section header? That's ad copy, not a section header. Links to awards vice simple mentions within the article? That's leading someone to go look and increase the validation of the article vice letting it speak for itself. I initially AFD'd it, because as the ((prod)) was removed makes it somewhat controversial and highly suggests that it needs to go to an AFD for further validation; I didn't have a vote on it one way or another. But based on what I see now, if I had to vote, I would vote Speedy delete based on what I consider to be WP:VSCA. Furthermore, by the increasing appearance of EaC members to come here and "protect their turf" is usually indicative of and done by minor sites that do not meet the notability requirements of WP. Lastly, by your nitpicking every bit of the rules, you are not ensuring that the article will survive; however, you are finding the flaws in the rules that will likely be tightened up after this AFD regardless of the outcome. For that we should thank you, but that does not make your site any more notable.--み使い Mitsukai 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)See below for my revision.--み使い Mitsukai 15:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Dave: You stated under #2 that I refer to "NN" as the reason for deletion. If you go back and look at everything I've written on here, I cited WP:WEB as my reason for deletion. I never stated NN. I'm not trying to WP:BITE, but if you are going to refute my reasoning at least refute what I actually said. Now per your contentions of meeting WP:WEB, in my opinion the award you've cited (Seven Wonders Entertainment Site Award) doesn't qualify as notable and as Karmafist has stated below, the news articles are just blurbs. WP:WEB is just a guideline, not a rule, which is why Karmafist is voting to keep despite WP:WEB. He and I have a different opinion about this though. Again, it is nothing personal against you or your website.--Isotope23 14:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Isotope: Really, isn't that just semantics? Is there really a difference between "NN" and WP:WEB? Click on WP:WEB and it talks about Notability guidelines for websites. I have yet to see a link to a Wikipedia page for "NN". I was told "NN" means "Not Notable". So, what's the difference? And I've been accused of nitpicking.--Dave 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply No it's not just semantics, but since I'm not changing my mind and you are going to continue to fight to keep a reference to your site on Wikipedia, this is pretty much a wasted conversation, so let's just leave it at that.--Isotope23 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment I completely object to Stifle's attempt to stifle me. Stifle claims the reason he moved the meat and bones of this AfD over to the talk page is because it's too long and therefore too much to read (Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!!). Yet, everything he's moved has been the author's comments (except one response to one of the author's comments). Many of the author's comments Stifle moved are a lot shorter than other people's comments he left on the AfD page. So why move the author's short comments and keep other's longer comments and claim it's because the AfD is too long? Then, after all that time Stifle took figuring out what to move over to the talk page be cause it's too much to read all those words; it's blatantly obvious Stifle didn't even read any of it, he just moved it. Why? Because he votes to Delete with the Alexa ranking as his reason when the author already pointed out that according to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, Alexa rankings are not used to determine notability. Folks here keep telling me to not take this personally, or no offense, but... and I'll tell you that I haven't been taking this personally. I do understand the need to edit and delete within Wikipedia. But, over time I'm beginning to take it a bit personally. When rules and guidelines are blatantly ignored, when Wikipedians justify the ignoring of the guidelines by saying "Well, they're going to be changed soon anyway." then how is a newbie supposed to take all of this? I'm trying not to take it personally, but some of you are making it difficult. --Dave 12:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neigel for cleaning up the article. This is the guidance I was hoping for from a more experienced Wikipedian. I believe so much more can be accomplished at Wikipedia through positive feedback and guidance as opposed to biting the newcomers. I honestly appreciate what you've done, no matter which way you decide to vote.--Dave 01:16, 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. Shanel 06:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better Off Sleeping

[edit]

Advertising for an unnotable short film that hasn't even been released yet. Xezbeth 19:31, 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 Delete. Deathphoenix 17:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retsuken Ryu

[edit]

This article is apparently linked to some kind of animu and should at the very least be merged with whatever spawned it if not deleted entirely. --Shuma-gorath 23:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: original AfD nomination was malformed. Re-listing under today's batch. jni 10:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable newly created martial arts. 91 Google hits, almost all from Wikipedia and its mirror. jni 10:40, 26 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. 26, '06 [15:16] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Honour and Justice Alliance

[edit]

This is non-notable MMORPGcruft. Delete. JDoorjam Talk 02:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My computer crashed after I put AfD2 up, but before I got to AfD3, and was only reminded of the article this afternoon, hence the delay in posting here. The other posts are from user(s) who saw the listing at the page, rather than at AfD (i.e., the page's author). JDoorjam Talk 20:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it is notable, it is information on something which is a significant part of game, which a lot of people play. Over 40,000 people play Utopia, and HaJ is relevant to them all. There are about 1000 people for whom HaJ is more directly relevant, as they are (to varying degrees) part of it. I'm sure that to someone that doesn't play the game Utopia, it is irrelevant, but thousands of other articles also seem irrelevant unless you already know something about them.

To be honest, considering the lack of space this page takes up it surprises me that it matters if it stays or not. If it is useful to some people, why not just let it stay?

It has had a blank page for a long time, I just thought I'd provide some further information.

--Kombucha 14:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC) (All contribs are to this article.)[reply]

I fear I must disagree with you when you claim it to be a non-notable game. Utopia http://games.swirve.com/utopia is a game of many players that involved intricate details of strategy, communication and diplomacy. Utopia began as a small gathering of 10,000 players in 1998 and has since then been growing. For a full review of Utopia please follow this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(online_game) to the game's wikipedia entry.

I must also disagree with your contention that HaJ is a non-notable portion of this game. The Honour and Justice alliance has been around since the seventh age of Utopia, marking it one of the oldest and best known alliances in the gaming world of Utopia. Honour and Justice has hundreds of members with hundreds more passing through her halls each year. HaJ has become an integrated part of the game and is note-worthy for such a venue of information -- wikipedia.

69.161.217.134 16:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Arthinius (4 contribs, all to this AfD)[reply]

That article is new, but if you search for "HaJ" you will find a disambiguation page, with the option of "Hajj" (a Muslim pilgrimage) or "HaJ" (this alliance.) Following the HaJ link takes you to a blank page.

I understand that to the vast majority of people, this is irrelevant, but there a still a lot that it is relevant to. There are many articles here that contain fairly insignificant information, but it is still vlaid information. Any information and a subject, if correct, is better than a lack of it is it not?

I see why a lot of people may not see a reason why it should be here, but I see no real reason why it shouldn't be here. If someone can explain that (preferably in a non-offensive way) I would appreciate it.

Although a merge would be better in my opinion than an outright deletion, I don't believe it is a good idea. Although HaJ is a part of Utopia, the Utopia article is not really an appropriate place for the information. To use an analogy that would probably make more sense to those that don't play Utopia, it would be similar to having information on Manchester United in an article on football/soccer.

I'm sure that to those that don't play Utopia or a similar game I must seem like a geek with biased views who places too much significance on something which is completely pointless, but I am trying to be as impartial as possible. --Kombucha 15:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion Policy does not include this kind of article as one that may merit deletion. Of course, the Deletion Policy is not final, but from what I can see, there is no need to delete articles simply because some people don't believe them to be necessary. Correct me if I am wrong and I have missed something.--Kombucha 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Who are you to judge what is worthy and what is not. This is an online encyclopedia, its whole purpose is knowledge. As the two above said, there are over 40,000 people that play utopia. What might not matter to you certinly matters to them. Open your mind for one second. -Fionan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.170.75 (talk • contribs)

(One Wikipedia edit, to this AfD) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs) 16:17, 19 February 2006

First of all, why do you all post together? Secondly, your posts are worth almost nothing, because you are not backing up your opinions with anything. You continue to say, for example: "non-notable gamecruft" and "Merge content with main article" when I have already given reasons why both are not, in my opinion appropriate. You have said nothing to say why you disagree with these views. --Kombucha 12:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding.

What I said was not that their opinions were worth nothing, but that their posts were worth little. My point was that they were giving no reasons for what they said, or responding to my previous points.

Wikipedia is not all there is in the world. Whether I have made a lot of additions or changes to Wikipedia or not, my opinions can still be just as valid and my points just as correct.

I understand that Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia. But from my point of view, that means containing as much information as possible. Of course, incorrect information is worse than no information, but this information is correct, and relevant to thousands of people. It is by no means the most important article here, not by a long shot, but it may be useful to some people. I see no reason to remove the article, it is doing no harm by being there, as long as it does not contain false information.--Kombucha 21:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On being asked to close this Afd I'll add my two penn'orth. Somebody asked me to close the AfD on this "this slam-dunk gamecruft article" yesterday. I declined. I said in reply:

I hope that whoever does close it will take into consideration all opinions expressed, but will honestly express our dictum: if in doubt, don't delete.

If I encountered this article in cleanup, I'd probably just merge a sentence or two into the article on Utopia (online game) and redirect. That is all that needs to be done here.

Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that someone in a neutral position is at least disagreeing with the idea of deletion. I would like to point out, again, that a merge would not be a particularly good idea, and would be akin to merging an article on a famous sport team to the article on that sport. Kombucha 01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's one or two key differences: a famous sports team would surely have reputable sources talking about it, and most editors wouldn't find it an inappropriate level of detail to have an entire article about just one team. Friday (talk) 01:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why what I have written is any less reputable than an article that most people would write on a team. I assure you that what I have written is true. If you would like me to prove this in any way, I will, if it is possible. It is rare for articles to prove what they say; this article does not contain an unusual level of statements that are not backed up.
Edit: How would you (or anyone else) suggest that I improve this article with sources? Due to the nature of the article it is not easy to supply a source for all the statments there, however, I will do what I can. Kombucha (talk) 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for heaven's sake, this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Why would it be such a bad idea to edit this article right now to redirect it to Utopia (online game)? In what way would Wikipedia be harmed by my ending this debate by doing that now? As an experiment, I shall try that now and we'll see if Wikipedia is irreparably harmed by this action. --Tony Sidaway 04:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HaJ is not the same thing as Utopia. It makes no sense to redirect to Utopia. The reason no one has done anything like that so far is because we are still discussing it. Whether Wikipedia is irreparably harmed or not is not the point. Kombucha 08:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little something to compare.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninjas_in_pajamas same thing, different game. Difference: 5 members compared to hundreds.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 15:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Stolp

[edit]

This biography contains claims of notability but they are unreferenced and given the hyperbole in the edit history are of doubtful veracity. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:29, 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 redirect to spliff, with a redirect to wiktionary article on skin up in that article. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skin up

[edit]

This describes a slang term for Spliff, which already has its own article. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:33, 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 Transwiki. Shanel 01:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate SG-1 (Oz References)

[edit]

A page that is a list of quotes - put simply, this should be on Wikiquote, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, this information is not all that article-worthy or interesting, or particularly relevant to the subject matter of Stargate. Suggest moving it to Wikiquote.  Alfakim --  talk  20:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case maybe we should keep it? It looks well thought-out and well written. Would be a shame to waste. James Kendall [talk] 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The quality of the writing has no bearing on the encyclopedic-ness of the article. There are well-written hoaxes and badly-written articles on notable subjects. -- Grev 14:20, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote keep it. -McGyver (no, not that guy...heh)

Transwiki send it to wikiquote American Patriot 1776 06:30, 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 userfy and delete. Punkmorten 14:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Everhard (Matt Everhard)

[edit]

Delete or Userfy I realize articles like this can be ticklish, but I nominate this one for deletion primarily because its an autobiographical entry. He may be perfectly notable, but I get a funny feeling when I see autobios. I have no problem with userfying Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:49, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cisco CCNA in UK

[edit]

Advertising, no obvious way this can become a useful page - SimonLyall 20:53, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vatchik

[edit]

Belgian student leader(?) who died of an overdose. Apparently not notable, also does not google well. Kusma (討論) 20:55, 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 speedy delete as patent nonsense. Chick Bowen 22:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Bailey

[edit]

delete as db-nonsense James Kendall [talk] 21:10, 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.

This page is blank.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Survivor: Palau. Babajobu 12:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulong

[edit]

Crufty page, any encyclopedic information can go on Survivor: Palau. Jtrost (T | C | #) 21:18, 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 Redirect to Jak and Daxter. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Eco

[edit]

Should instead be merged with Jak 3 James Kendall [talk] 21:21, 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: Speedied as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 05:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Divers

[edit]

Belongs on a user page. Non-notable person. James Kendall [talk] 21:28, 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John grube

[edit]

Was at proposed deletion, ((prod)) tag removed. Campaign page for student government candidate. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, original research. Chick Bowen 21:51, 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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Pacific Association of Bible Colleges

[edit]

This is a list of certain schools, which WP:Is Not. There is already a list of Bible colleges so this is a fork to promote certain Australian bible schools. If this group of schools is notable it isn't demonstrated. The group's webpage fails to explain notability [36], which is also just a list of "independent" schools. Arbustoo 22:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we keep this, we will slide down a slippery slope and end up with Tri-state Association of Bible Colleges and Five Corners Free Will Reformed Association of Bible Colleges and Buddhislamic Association of Christian Synagogues of Vishnu Bible Colleges --Ruby 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Other than a date, how is it more than a list? Arbustoo 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you, Ruby saying that these associations exist? This organisation does exist! Paul foord 05:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think his point was we don't know what educational clout/recognition this "association" has or why it is Wikipedia worthy. Arbustoo 20:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, its such a slippery slope...as if writing an article about this institution would cause other institutions to be created. Then we would have to write more articles. Oh, the horror. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:34, 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. Shanel 01:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DS_Meet

[edit]
  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

This page fails due to being considered Self-Promotion of a trivial webpage. Gweedo767 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN, Vanity. Cdcon 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree with you that this page is to trivial for Wikipedia, I should note out to other wikipedians that Gweedo767 is the administrator of a rival website. Just to put things in perspective. IRbaboon 22:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.I could not disagree more. This is not self-promotion because I decided DS Meet needs mor exposure. It's a legitimate, growing community. Just as Nintendowifi.com and Nsider get pages, DS Meet does as well. It's the same service, just an alternative form of it. Agahnim 22:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is a perfectally good page, it has plenty of interesting information, and is not plugging the site. It has some real knowlaedge in it. Lattyware (Not Logged In) --81.79.50.2 23:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates the following rule: "This page could be considering plugging a website. Any form of advertising like that is a violation of Wikipedia policies." catchphrase 23:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I then move that we delete the Nsider, IGN, and GameFAQs entries, based on the fact that they are plugging a website. Agahnim 23:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being suitable for Wikipedia is more then just a definition. The site should be sufficiently large, recognisable and popular. IRbaboon 23:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. I agree that this entry does give keen information to readers. If this entry is deleted, than the NSider, GameFAQ's, and others should be deleted too. We are an alternative. Streetsim 23:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. DSmeet is a well run community of DS players with a very active exchange of gameplay and game related advice. Plus with MKbot and AC:WW automated catalogue they have helped many get the most out of thier games. I think anyone searching for DS and DS related topics would be better off with knowledge of this site. WillofWarrior
Keep. DSmeet is a great site, and it is not "trivial" though it is small.
Not everything notable is verifiable, not all that is verifiable is notable; not all that's deleted is non-notable, not all who wander are lost ... hey, where was I? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More seriously, WP:WEB is, ideally, there to make decisions easier for us, not to make our decisions for us. I do agree that this is tending towards non-notability, and WP:WEB is important here. It strikes me as a (somewhat) close call, though. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. That's a bit strong for a civilized AfD, no? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DJH47 and I are friends, so he likely feels angered that the website of his friend ended up on Wikipedia in what he feels is vandalism or self-promotion. I had nothing to do with the creation of this article, but now that it is here I must admit that I wish it could stay. --Echelon 02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse User:Sakurina's proposed solution as reasonable, but don't feel qualified to do this myself. User:Sakurina, would you like to try for adding this section? Worst that can happen is getting reverted .. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been thinking about my earlier proposal, and I actually must go back on it. DSmeet has, by far, more users and traffic than the others combined. It's more impacting in the Nintendo community. I think if we did a general article on all friend code websites, it would simply ignore the reality that there is only one "big" and "active" directory/service. Consider this: I now think of this issue in terms of an article on, say, an IMDB competitor. There are hundreds of them scattered about the web, but none of them are as significant or well known as IMDB is. If we were to make a general "DS Friendcode Services" article, it would be the same as creating, say, a "Movie Database Websites" article. I think that would miss the point--IMDB is significant in movie culture. DSmeet is significant in the Nintendo WiFi culture. --Sakurina 02:02, 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 delete all four five. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul_Chang

[edit]

Also nominating, since the notability seems linked to that of the company. Delete per WP:BIO. --Hansnesse 22:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn vanity. This one along with the others are also a little ticklish. They appear to have a bit of notability to them, but they also smack of vanity, self-promotion, and nepotism. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 22:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons listed above:

Keep as notable/published author. Paul Chang has contributed to the science of artificial hip joint replacements including software used in measuring gait impact as it relates to such technology. He has several publications and is an engineer and product designer of note. Paul Chang Design is the entity through which he currently makes his contributions. Jon 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable/published author. Wallace H.J. Chang has served as President of the American Association for Hand Surgery, contributes regularly to the American Board of Plastic Surgery board exams, is the inventor of tools for use in carpal tunnel release surgery and a humanitarian who devotes much of his time to operating free of charge in 3rd world countries with established entities such as Operation Smile, Alliance for Smiles, Rotaplast and Northwest Medical Teams International. Jon 05:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User Bugwit is correct - fact was not purposely ommitted that these articles are respectfully submitted to keep as noteworthy articles by myself, the author. Thanks. Jon 05:31, 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. Shanel 05:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Facts about sitting ergonomics

[edit]

Delete as original research, as well as Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement Makemi 22:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It also seems to be a mechanical translator text-dump (conceivably a mechanical copyvio from another language). Makemi 22:49, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Cab

[edit]

Originally listed for prod, but was redirected to Dayton, Ohio; since that is an inappropriate redirect (Liberty Cab is not unique to Dayton), I've put the original contents back and brought the page here. No assertion of notability, fails to meet WP:CORP. Peyna 16:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting in hope of some loving, tender debate. Note also how it is possible to write a relisting note without using garish red.-Splashtalk 22:46, 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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 02:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Dollar

[edit]

This article is an advertisement for a multi-level marketing scheme with a bait-and-switch component. I tried to fix it, and I have debated what to do with it over several days. I believe it needs to be deleted. It contains numerous links to articles singing the praises of this obscure numismatic company that produces this product. It also encourages people to pass NORFED's privately minted coins, which closely resemble some older official U.S. government issued coins. This article and the accompanying links, and as a result Wikipedia, come very close to encouraging illegal behavior like uttering, passing counterfeit money, fraud, and theft of goods and/or services by deceit. This is definitely something Wikipedia should distance itself from. BrianGCrawfordMA 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC) First nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NORFED mikka (t) 23:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.treas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml

Where you can clearly see that to be committing fraud there would have to be the suggestion these NORFED coins "are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues" but there is no such suggestion and the wikipedia article paints them as a novelty item private individuals may if they wish swap with one another in exchange for objects or services.

If NORFED novelty coins were widespread and commonplace then the Federal Reserve would no doubt manipulate the LAW in any way it considered necessary to eradicate them. They however, are not - and this is almost immaterial as the wikipedia article is descriptive and not suggestive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.172.204 (talk • contribs) and is the only recorded edit by this user.

I don't think this article can be made neutral without original research because of this very real problem, and that's another reason I felt it needs to be deleted. Compare Liberty Dollars with silver coins minted for circulation by the U.S. Government. The Liberty Dollars are cunningly designed to look like U.S. Government issues. Like U.S. coins, they have the word "liberty" spelled out on the obverse above the stylized head of a woman. Sound familiar? I guess what this comes down to is a lot of people think that the U.S. Government is irresponsible and should not have gone off the Gold Standard, regardless of the fact that it is one of the basic responsibilities of any government to completely standardize its currency and so prevent frauds like this. Now these people are willing to pay twenty dollars for a piece of silver they could get for eight, just to prove a point. Even worse, they want you to buy the overpriced silver to prove their point too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I would remind everyone that this is not the place to promote a personal agenda, but I fear this falls on deaf ears. There seem to be people involved with the Liberty Dollar who think this is a fine place to promote their product. This is an ad, it's hopelessly POV despite my substantial edits, and there's no reliable information to be found anywhere about the Liberty Dollar. To pretend that this article is neutral is to lie to every reader of this article. Please delete it. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The fact that most editors think it's a scam shouldn't influence whether or not we have an article on it - it should merely influence the tone of the article. If you think it's a scam, back your opinion with research, and put it in the article. Google gets 85,000 hits on "Liberty Dollar", it's pretty clearly notable, so if we don't have information on it, that's a gaping hole in the Wikipedia. We've got articles on Amway and Herbalife and Ghu knows what else, whether or not it's a scam is not a reason to either delete it or hide it as a subsection of something else.
  2. Second, I'm not sure why people keep saying the article is an ad. Every section of the article has some pretty critical lines: "not endorsed", "not legal tender", "not widely accepted", "resulted in arrests"... What more could we want? The very fact that it's hard to find any criticisms of the scheme elsewhere is a reason to keep our article, it's one of the most critical articles on the subject out there! And it does have links to criticisms in the External links section, which otherwise would be quite hard to find.
  3. Finally, unlike Amway and Herbalife and similar organizations, the Liberty Dollar is a political statement. Even if the MLMers are trying to make a fast buck, the actual users aren't in it for a buck, they're just doing their best to criticise the "soft money" policies of the US govt. That's worth expounding on. GRuban 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kmweber, I don't "fail to understand," as you put it, how the Liberty Dollar works. It's a great way of separating fools from their (real) money. Unless you are one of NORFED's very own "patriots," I'd bet you don't know as much as I do about it, as I've spent several days on crackpot militia movement and survivalist blogs that extoll the virtues of NORFED, the Liberty Dollar, von NotHaus, and any other brave soul who purports to put a boot in the Fed's ass. Let me know how much junk silver I can unload on you at twenty bucks an ounce. Buy it for Freedom.
Yes, Kurt, I have plenty of problems with the content, and I will keep fixing it and changing it until the NRA, NORFED, Ted Nugent, and the Aryan Nation and all their associated, so-called "Libertarian," gun-show loving, sh#%-kicking ilk pry my keyboard from my cold, dead hands.
I still don't understand why these righteous freedom-loving patriots in right-wing crackpot communities across the country are so keen on silver, a commodity with a highly variable price that has lost a huge amount of its value over a relatively short time. I'd rather barter with smoked hams than Liberty Dollars. At least you could eat the ham, and it may outlast NORFED.
Yes, I want to hurt this article as much as it has hurt me. Yes, it deserves to die, and I hope it burns in Hell! I may have no real beef with NORFED as long as they keep their propaganda to themselves, and I'd never heard of them till I found out about them spamming Wikipedia articles, but when "Liberty Dollar" survives this vote, you can bet your life I'll be on this article like white on rice, and NORFED will no longer be able to rely on Wikipedia as a free advertisement for its scam. BrianGCrawfordMA 21:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the comment: how exactly has this article hurt you? GRuban 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! Congratulations on your first edit! Deiz 22:14, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pigskinrevolution

[edit]

Non-notable website. Prod tag removed by User:Ffrigo Cnwb 23:05, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jupalu

[edit]

Non-canon (probably fanmade) character. None of the hits on Google (which were few) were related to this character. Wookieepedia also had nothing. KrossTalk 23:06, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Place names considered unusual

[edit]

An article was dleeted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names. It was taken to deletion review where deletion was endorsed, and several expressed themselves satisfied with its continued existence in Project space at Wikipedia:List of interesting or unusual place names, since it failed WP:NPOV. This seems to me to be a pretty blatant attempt to get round that by citing other people's POV - including some newspaper space fillers. I don't want to provoke a war here, but I am greatly disturbed by this apparent forking. I realise it's slightly different in conception, but overall it really isn't significantly different to the old article in that it is still POV and OR, it just says so up front and then appeals to the appeal to authority fallacy to justify it. In the end, "Fucking" is only funny to a sophomore Anglophone - in its native language it is not actually that odd - and the places listed as producing many "unusual" names are merely an artifact of dialect or influx of people from non-English speaking countries. So this should, if anything, be a list of place names considered by an arbitrary subset of people to meet some arbitrary definition of "unusual". But in the end no amount of saying "look, this is not the same thing, really it isn't" doesn't make this any less a fork, in my opinion. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the old article to Project space was the compromise. This is at best trivia, at worst an attempt to ignore consensus. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stable versions mainly. Such article will be left to horde of kids trying to outwit one another and no one will be able to maintain it. Not a first case here. Pavel Vozenilek 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a reason for deletion. We have lots of articles that will continue to get much more vandalized than this one. Nor are the other points you raise valid. Turnstep 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The more such articles the worse situation. Limits of growth. Pavel Vozenilek 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put George W Bush up for deletion, then. (Only kidding) How about only deleting articles with real problems, rather than deleting articles because of potential problems which may or may not eventuate? Andjam 22:32, 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. The argument that this game is not played by anyone else than a small circle of people was never rebutted. The keep votes provided no real arguments. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benito

[edit]

Non-notable card game. A "prod" tag was removed yesterday, apparently by the creator. It's a well written article, nicely formatted, with a picture, but unless we see a couple of references that this is played by more that just the 2 guys who invented it and their friends, it really should go. GRuban 23:18, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

El hombre de oro wrestler

[edit]

Hoax, Google search for ""El hombre de oro" + wrestler" turns up 3 results, even if he is a real wrestler, he isn't notable. Also, the image added to the article is a very bad photoshop, thus contributing to the hoax factor. lightdarkness (talk) 23:30, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 08:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Banker

[edit]

Delete as SPAM. Author removed ((prod)) tag, so here we are in AfD. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 23:43, 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 redirect to Skandia where this has been merged. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common criticisms of Skandia

[edit]

It is a POV fork of Skandia. There is plenty of room in that article for criticisms, and I feel very skeptical when criticisms of a company are moved to a separate article, without even a link in that article. Smacks of censorship. Delete. Makemi 23:44, 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 Merge and redirect to Roper Industries. Deathphoenix 17:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAP_Technologies

[edit]

Corporate brochure. Does not meet WP:CORP. Monkeyman 23:59, 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.
More