< February 20 February 22 >

Purge server cache

February 21[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 06:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon City[edit]

Non notable webcomic, hosted on Tripod.com (?!) and found here. Google gives back roughly 25 hits for the search of "Dragon City" webcomic. - Hahnchen 23:54, 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. - brenneman{T}{L} 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bunny System[edit]

Is this webcomic, found here notable? The Alexa ranking of approximately 4 million suggests otherwise and a google search for "The bunny system" brings up around 120 links, which isn't a lot at all. - Hahnchen 23:54, 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 09:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultrageeks[edit]

A webcomic/blog found here. What's notable about it? Alexa gives back a rank of 2.5 million and Google gives 60 links for "The ultrageeks". Fails any sort of guideline at WP:WEB and before it. - Hahnchen 23:54, 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. —Cryptic (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love, Life, and Pain[edit]

A webcomic, found here. It's been on hiatus since last September, so the absolute lack of Alexa data may be misleading. However, a search for "Love, Life, and Pain" webcomic on Google shows up about 90 links. Taking a look at the article, especially the section on its popularity will tell you it's anything but popular. - Hahnchen 23:54, 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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bier Suppe[edit]

A webcomic with 41 pages, found here and largely written by the webcomic author, a User:C Labombard. Alexa shows no data for the website, and a google for "Bier Suppe" webcomic gives under 50 links. Is this website notable? I don't think so. Hahnchen 23:54, 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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Cresci Comics[edit]

Another webcomic offering, found here. A google search for "Greg cresci comics" generates 80 links and there is no Alexa data. Is there anything here that makes this website any more notable than all the other websites out there? I don't think so. - Hahnchen 23:54, 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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway Church (Leeds)[edit]

This local church is so not notable, it doesn't even have it's own sanctuary; they meet every week in a theater in downtown Leeds. --Ruby 00:19, 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 09:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mathura Krish[edit]

WP:PROD nominator's reason was "Probably hoax, Google only has 2 hits, none of which are related to the movies listed below.", which sounds about right. CDC (talk) 00:32, 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 dealt with by copyvio. There is no consensus to delete the subject of the artice, though. Mailer Diablo 09:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Calvary Holy Church of America[edit]

This is an article about a small church which makes unverifiable claims such as "more than 249 persons were saved" --Ruby 00:34, 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 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2T Organization[edit]

This is not a real company (yet?). Sorry. CDC (talk) 00:35, 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 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elite flyers[edit]

Advertising. Jtrost (T | C | #) 00:34, 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 09:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tsubaki Risa[edit]

WP:PROD nominator's reason was "Non-notable video game and fanfic character" which sounds about right. CDC (talk) 00:36, 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 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Koch[edit]

It is written by a user of the same name, and appears strongly to be vanity. It claims notability, but this is not substantiated nor explicitly descrived.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:39, 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 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Malone[edit]

Appears to be advertising, as the top camerapeople would probably work in the film industry. It seems nn in any case.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:46, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolceoro[edit]

This is a disputed WP:PROD, the prod tag was replaced out-of-process several times. However I can't find much independent external coverage, so the company doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. Kappa 01:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no rule against removing templates, not ((prod)) at any rate. Anyone can remove it for any reason. Please reread the PROD proposal. "Leaving the template on" is equivalent to agreeing with the removal. (I'm voting delete nevertheless.) rodii 03:39, 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 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armadda regime[edit]

completely non-notable, likely to be vanity judging by creator of the same name.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 01:20, 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 09:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anhydride Decarboxylase[edit]

Non sense. I've never heard of this enzyme. IUBMB search results in NO entries. Geogle results are either wikipedia or defining anhydride alone. This enzyme doesn't exist.--Wedian 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about decarboxylases. Decarboxylases are a whole group of enzymes, a subclass of Lyases. Wikipedia has articles for some decarboxylases e.gUroporphyrinogen III decarboxylase. The IUBMB (The International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology)[3] is responsible for enzymes nomenclature. Please refer to the Enzyme naming conventions. If an enzyme exists, it will be in their database.Please search their database here. No results are retrived. However enzymes as Uroporphyrinogen III decarboxylase exist in their database. A complete list of decarboxylases can be found here. As you can see Anhydride Decarboxylase doesn't exist. The protein data bank has no record for it either. Same applies for the other 3 enzymes. These enzymes exist only in wikipedia.--Wedian 03:38, 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 somebody's already dealt with it. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:42] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Pandrol clip[edit]

Delete sex toys are one thing, but this..? Rklawton 01:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shoulda thoughta merge Rklawton 17:18, 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 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Door Ministries[edit]

This is a little group that runs bible studies in a few high schools and college dorms, no Alexa rank for their website, no outstanding achievements --Ruby 01:47, 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 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetika[edit]

Vanity page by high school (?) musician, talking about an "album" he made. No commercial release, no apparent connection to anything or anybody of public interest. No significance. I had marked this as {prod} but somebody objected that there is "lots of good information" on the page. This seems retarded to me, so let's see where the consensus lands. Uucp 01:58, 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 10:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aeternitas Demo[edit]

Disc was never released and seems to have created no ripples in the musical world. Created by non-notable high school(?) musician. Honestly, this might be a speedy. Uucp 01:56, 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. W.marsh 00:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetNobel.org[edit]

Non-notable website. Prod tag removed by User:68.98.164.66 Cnwb 02:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, yeah... — Feb. 28, '06 [10:43] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Mudface (band)[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. W.marsh 00:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeeJay Link[edit]

Prodded but tag removed without explanation. It's some kind of music chart. No vote. NickelShoe 02:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix 04:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Levicoff[edit]

*Delete non-notable vanity. JoshuaZ 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to keep after looking at Zophar's Domain --JoshuaZ 03:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Actually I'm fine Merge. JoshuaZ 15:25, 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:46] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Dukey[edit]

Biography of a dog who has "earned cult status in some online communities". The one genuine claim to fame (or should I say "fame") is that Dukey apparently appears in the Trainz railroad simulator. I'm not sure how we know it's Dukey and not, say, Lassie, but in any case I think this merits at most a mention in Trainz, and a deletion of this article. bikeable (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • ok, thanks for the info. I still think Dukey deserves a spot in the Trainz article, but not a separate one. bikeable (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A biography of a dog which MANY have come to love! There is a large community out there of Dukey fans, and just because one has not heard of the beloved dog, does not mean this article deserves a deletion. There are many seperate large interent relations to Dukey, as well as ACTUAL proof and word of mouth that Dukey is in Trainz. Dukey has become a symbol, and loved by all who learn about him! Keep this article.--Gods killed 04:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dukey is quite known though, it would be unfair to delete an article that a few people took time to put up. It's not just there for fun...it's up because it is based on a real thing. I just don't see why you would want to delete this... DON'T DELETE! --King Andy 04:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the owner of Dukey and I do know all the facts. Dukey is no joke although it is unbelievable what he has achieved just by being a dog, its surreal but still REAL. It is amazing how many people know of Dukey. It keeps growing. A lot needs to be added still about Dukey's history and family tree! Keep! --David_VI 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dukey is 100% real, and has a rather large fanbase, which has extended well beyond Trainz. Most notably, Dukey is idolized among a large portion of those who partake of the last.fm website. Dukey's popularity is continually growing, and the ranks increase on a daily basis. KEEP DUKEY!!!!JeffTheTerrible 04:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And can I say assume good faith? I resent and deny the allegation that I have created sock puppets - I was asked by David_VI by instant message to confirm that the model in Trainz is of Dukey. Apart from that, I am staying out of this AFD - and my apologies for not knowing the 'correct' formatting. FiggyBee 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sock puppet? I did not just join because of Dukey, but reather he is part of the reason. I have contributed twice now to my knowledge, and just because we have just joined does not mean that should exclude us from wanting to share our knowledge of a subject that has become widely known. There are people that even we do not know who talk about Dukey. I recall a discussion on a french forum about the dog. It is not just us, there are plenty others who would love to know more about Dukey, but just dont know where to look.--Gods killed 18:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not denying that there's clearly some outside organisation going on here. I'm just denying that it's me behind it. I wasn't even aware that the article in question existed before today, when I was contacted directly by David_VI and asked to post here. FiggyBee 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, If your truly innocent, I apologise for blaming you. I blame the timing. ---J.Smith 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note you are taking part in the practise of meatpuppeteering. As such, your votes should be discounted. Also, read through Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articlesFinally, it should be noted that since all the users who have voted for a keep can all be considered meatpuppets, there could technically be no 'proper' keep votes tommylommykins 17:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's remember not to bite the newcomers, and to assume good faith. bikeable (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cant just assume everyone is a meatpuppet... As I've said I actually take part in wiki in other parts other than just Dukey, and I actually do believe Dukey does deserve his own wiki page. As for WP:BIO, Dukey is not a person. A lot of those things the dog can not achieve, like, being published, unless dogs learn how to write. Nor can a dog be credited for making an album and such.--Gods killed 00:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there is no WP:PETS, WP:BIO is the closest guideline to apply... otherwise this is just a "delete non-notable dog" proposition.--Isotope23 17:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take a look at WP:BIO, which does not generally apply to dogs, but there's no reason it couldn't. I understand that you all think Dukey merits an article, but from the point of view of an encyclopedia, we just can't include everything, and I can't imagine that Dukey could pass WP:BIO without some major media attention. Take a look through today's list of articles for deletion and you'll realize that many hundreds of articles are created every day that describe stuff that simple isn't encyclopedic. If we include everything, wikipedia would become an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information, which is not our goal. Don't take it personally -- I'd encourage you to stick around and add to other articles, or create new ones that are notable and verifiable. bikeable (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like how Dukey isnt a person--Gods killed 20:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the Duke's page doesn't meet the WP:BIO information, but can't you just once make an acception? It's not like the guys who pitched in on making his page did it just for shoots and ladders (to be appropriate), ALOT of people know who Dukey is...as apposed to a guy who makes his own page just because he has nothing else to do. Please, I beg of you all this small favor, let us keep the Dukey page up. --King Andy 14:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guys and girl :P--Gods killed 22:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of rules is not to make exceptions. Wikipedia has criteria for its content; while you are "free" to post, it actually means "free" as in "beer," not "free" as in "lawless" (see: WP:ENC). To give "favor" and make one subjective exception would set a bad precedent and be more unfair than being objective, as hundreds of pages get deleted for similar reasons on a daily basis. And it is nothing personal about your work: if the consensus is to delete, then it simply means that the subject of the article did not merit inclusion. Do not be discouraged, and please continue to make constructive and positive contributions to Wikipedia. --Kinu t/c 18:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can definatly see it from both sides, I just wish there was some way to make it so we can save Dukey's page...--King Andy 00:17, 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 Merge and redirect to Oral sex. Since this AfD is for Cum fart, I am only merging that article. Anyone wishing to merge and redirect felching, creampie, or queef don't need an AfD to do so. Deathphoenix 04:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cum fart[edit]

Delete. Does not warrant an article. Was probably created as a result of inappropriate redlinking. No encyclopidic value, can be described in one sentence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.246.247 (talk • contribs) 2006-02-20 18:34:57.

Fixing improperly transincluded nomination. No vote. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obscenity is not a criterion for deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obscenity is not a criterion for article deletion, but articles cannot have obscene titles. As I understand, the subject of the article is spoken about somewhere else. Smashy. - Sikon 13:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50,000 google hits is actually fairly significant :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:01, 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:49] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Lust Treasure[edit]

Films notability cannot be verified. Furthermore, a Google search using the term "Lust Treasure" produces 700 hits. Not only this, but the first hit is the Wikipedia article (and the mirror from Answers.com). Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:37, 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 Recreation of multiply-deleted content User:Zoe|(talk) 03:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universism[edit]

Several articles have already been created on this subject; several of them have been deleted by the VfD/AfD process, and others have been deleted by speedy deletion as substantial re-creations of previously deleted material. This article contains much of the same text as previous versions; however, the actual reason that the article was nominated for deletion in almost every previous VfD/AfD is a lack of evidence of notability. The article now contains more evidence of notability than previous versions did; in the view of several editors, this is a reason to decide the fate of the article by AfD, rather than speedy deletion.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 01:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim politicians[edit]

This is one of the few times when I think that a category would serve a better purpose than a list. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentWhats up with the deletion frenzy? Guys, we all know that categories are great, but they have their weaknesses. They cant included extra info, like birth date and field of proffesion, something that a article can do. I mean, take a look at Islamic scholars. A category will never achiev that kind of information. Further, why dont you go and delet and categories all other article here: list of lists. This is totaly unfair, why dont you take a grab att List of jews as well? --Striver 04:35, 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 Result : Speedy delete as reposted content (already three times deleted : # 13:52, 9 November 2005 Thue deleted "Future Infinity"

  1. 23:23, 26 October 2005 Fire Star deleted "Future Infinity"
  2. 19:17, 19 October 2005 JIP deleted "Future Infinity"

JoJan 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Infinity[edit]

Very small potatoes online role-playing game, Alexa rank for futureinfinity.com: 4,111,370 --Ruby 03:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previous nomination was incorrectly transincluded. Re-posting. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Game[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things you made up one day at school. Original research. No NPOV. Bobby1011 04:02, 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 keep. W.marsh 00:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

System-∀99 ∀ Gundam[edit]

Obscure fancruft. Nonnotable and hard to search for due to the weird symbols. KI 04:04, 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 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aerobin[edit]

Appears to be advertising. Bobby1011 01:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 01:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Awesome Compilation[edit]

Non-notable per WP:MUSIC Nv8200p talk 23:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 04:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addition "My Awesome Compilation have announced some tour dates in the UK before they go to Japan and Australia" [7]. Clearly meets third criterion... --Johnnyw 14:24, 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.

This request was retracted by the nominator in favor of talk page discussion. Discussion started on this page regarding the reorganization of the majority of the articles listed in this AfD can be found on Talk:List of Muslims. Those who weighed in on the debate here are asked to take a look at Talk:List of Muslims and a proposal regarding the organization of several articles and lists below. joturner 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim athletes[edit]

This should be a category that lists Muslims athletes, not its own article. joturner 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following articles for deletion for the same reason stated above: they all are lists that should be categories instead. Some of them may just need to be deleted without being replaced by categories.

Note that the above does not fall under cardstacking since, if you were to look at each individual article nominated for deletion, you will see they are all simple lists.


Yes, take a specialy hard look at Muslim soldiers, Muslim scholars (who already cleared a AFD) and List of Islamic philosophers who can NOT be categorized.--Striver 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Striver's Additions Follow

wtf, why not including this as well:

Lets vote on all of them, why only the Muslim lists? --Striver 04:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, you forgot Islamic scholars --Striver 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote[edit]

Not so in Islam. Sharia penetrates every single aspect of life, down to personal hygiene. Dont forget the hijab rules, and rules against alcohol and other drugs. --Striver 05:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sportspeople generally don't drink alcohol during sporting activity; hijab isn't a big deal, as sportspoeple aren't characterized by their fashion statements while playing tennis.as for drugs, I guess we could have a category for drug cheats couldn't we??Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it would be an issue what you wear. I believe some Islamic traditional dress effects performance in track-and-field as well as certain other sports. I believe the Iranian women at the Olympics, for a time anyway, only competed in shooting because it was the one area unaffected by their dress codes.--T. Anthony 08:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't put Islamic scholars up for deletion. And the articles listed in the List of Jews article have more information. Could the articles above potentially become that informative? By presenting this request, I saying I think not. Many of these articles have been up for over two months, but they are just lists. joturner 04:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? Is that a new rule? If a stub is not de-stubed for two month, then it should be deleted? Give me break! --Striver 05:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


CltFn, i hope you are going to vote the same on a eventual afd for all the lists in List of Jews? Since when does one delet a article that does not have enoght content? Shall we start deleting all stubs as well? --Striver 04:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
look at this Muslim scholars This page has been empty since its creation ,how about filling in some information? Right now it is just a list of links, and thus should propably be a category page . We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too --CltFn 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim scholars is an entry way to other lists, some of which I worked on. If you want to create a Category:Lists of Muslims to replace it I'd be good with that. As the idea seems to be just delete Muslim lists I think this is essentially a form of bias. We have a fair amount of Muslims at Wikipedia, but not all that many so Muslim lists may not be as well-cared for. The idea that that makes them deleteworthy is silly. Or I'm way off here. Check with some at Category:Muslim Wikipedians to get a sense of whether they want these or how they feel about it.--T. Anthony 06:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too
Yeah, i agree, if we are going to vote for all thos Muslim lists, lets bring them ALL on! --Striver 05:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalistroadster, note that almost all of the links on each of the pages nominated for deletion are in fact blue links and therefore have articles for them. joturner 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep-This is a ridiculously over the top delete effort that I think should never have happened. Even if some of these do deserve deletion there's no way all of them do. I've been here long enough that I get how intensely some hate/despise/loathe religion related lists, but they do serve a purpose. Policy on lists say lists are valid if the items are important to the topic or contributed to it in some way. To pick one I have on my watchlist, List of Christians, much of it is founders of several denominations too small have denominational lists of their own. Or important religious poets and missionaries of said faith. As well as being a link to other, often well made, lists. Things like List of Muslim scholars is also clearly relevant to Islamic history. Side issue why doesn't anyone ever AfD the numerous lists that are actually stupid? (Although the original for Muslim athletes makes some sense except that I thought it was already deleted)--T. Anthony 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the naming of Muslim athletes see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Muslim athletes--T. Anthony 06:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72 houres AFD with no Muslim editors voting? No wonder it got deleted... --Striver 06:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles (not just lists) have these types of problems, but deleting them isn't a very good solution. I think it's better to have them, flawed as they are, than be completely without them. As long as the subject covered in the list is verifiable, maintainable and provides more information than categorization does, there's a good reason to keep them. --TheMidnighters 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify: the above is for the articles originally included by nominator. Speedy keep, of course, for those added out of process by Striver. Lukas (T.|@) 12:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and censure Striver for violating WP:POINT.--Isotope23 19:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People de-taging AFD articles in mid AFD[edit]

Wtf? You AGAIN removed my afd notices? FFS! Who are YOU to determine if i may or may not add a article to afd?! The articels WILL remain, removing them in mid afd i a blatant violation! Dont get me started on List of Jews, that even the nominator supported for afd a while! Not removing the list of atheist clearly shows that you have a agenda in remonving SOME of them.--Striver 11:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver I think some of the ones you added were unjustified and was kind of a "making a point" violation. Although I think you should be the one to withdraw the AfD's on those. Fact is the original proposal was extreme enough on it's own that I think it would've attracted "keep" voters on its own merit. You maybe needed something to get our attention, but there were better ways to do that.--T. Anthony 15:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey dude. Check the history for "List of atheists" again, and very closely. Actually, I did remove the tag. Sorry, your "agenda" theory doesn't hold up. Removing notices "mid AFD" because they were never nominated "AFD" in the first place. Each article you nominate has to be given a separate AfD page - and you have to explain the merits of each nomination - and sorry, anger and want of vengeance because Muslim lists are nominated isn't good enough. It seems to be concensus that you actions here are an inappropriate violation of WP:POINT, so I wouldn't make it worse by tampering with WP:CIV. The real question is: who are you to disrupt and mess around with wikipedia in line with your own personal agenda? Yid613 18:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I left anger get the better of me, and in what i perceived as injusties, i broke WP:POINT. However, i would like to say that there was two (2) people that seriously considered voting down list of jews. Does that make it a little little little bit less bad?`

Ill try to trust the common sense of wikipedians a bit more in the future. I have had some ugly disputes with user:Zora over time, and since nobody seemed to care that i was right and she was wrong, i started to distrust people. I apologise. Feel free to remove any, some or all article on this AFD.

I also apologise for not being civil. I did brake WP:Point, but people broke the "do not remove afd tag" rule, and since people actualy did take my move seriously and voted on them, i perceived it as taken as a legit move. I would also like to point out that i added list of Jews after another user suggested it. That made me feel even more angry.

In short, a user suggested me to break wp:point, and another endorsed the inclusion. That made me confident that the move was accepted as legitimat. People trying to undo that against afd rules angered me and made me uncivil.

For the third time, i apologise. --Striver 21:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Striver, do not tamper with my request for deletion. Just because you have a problem with me nominating a large number of articles started by you for deletion does not give you to the right to start adding articles. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. joturner 04:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, dont remove my additions, you dont OWN this afd! If you can add to it, i also have the right to add to it!


DO NOT REMOVE MY EDITS! --Striver 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not disrupting to make a point, im just following your line of afding all list of religious people - That is only fair, lets vote for real, i want to get ridd of those list as well. --Striver 05:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striver, please create your own request for deletion. You are clearly adding those other articles to sabotage this request for deletion. joturner 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go "please create your own request"! You dont OWN this one, to tell me to creat my OWN. You made the rules: Add multiple list of people by religion. CltFn agreed with you and proposed to include list of jews. I did as he proposed, and for fairness sake, expanded it. --Striver 05:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to waste no more energy on this; just keep adding articles if it makes you happy. I don't see how I'm being unfair. Are you saying I'm biased against Muslims? joturner 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

joturner, dont remove afd tags while voting is in progress. You are violating me and CltFn inclusion of List of Jews. --Striver 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved List of Jews to the list of the ones I endorse since I do actually agree with that one. joturner 05:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed List of Jews from my endorsed list because I fear it will comprimise the request for deletion; it's not as clear cut as the other ones. joturner 05:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


No, im saying you are AFD lists on random basis, looks like you dont want to see lists, period. Why else include Muslim soldiers, who is far from a single list? If it being simple is what bothers you, why dont you spend your energy fixing it, instead of trying to destroy peoples effort? Do you think the underdeveloped list came from nowhere? People actualy spent hours assembling the list, and you want to destroy it only since its not flashy enough? Since when do we delet stuff only since its stubby?

And you did such a poor job at picking the "stuby only" articles that you included Muslim soldiers, Muslim scholars (who already cleared a AFD) and List of Islamic philosophers who can NOT be categorized. This gave the obivous result of people assuming you just wanted to delet them since they where lists, period. Why else do you think CltFn said We should probably nominate list of jews for deletion too? Well, i abliged him. Dont spend energy destroying peoples work, we have Zora for that. Im not sitting here to waist time, im sitting here to make Wikipedia better, and having people doing their best to destroy my and other peoples efforts only since they dont approve of how it looks RIGHT NOW is not doing this a good day. --Striver 05:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What i wrote is perfectly illustrated in you momentarly endorsing list of Jews. Cant you see people spent time creating that? you think it can be improved? Well do it, dont deleted it! --Striver 05:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the list of lists article seems to contradict my rationale for my request for deletion. Maybe it is a personal vendetta against lists of this type. Or maybe it's that the over-listing for the Muslim articles irk me. Or maybe it's that Striver is rubbing me the wrong way. I don't know, but I certainly believe that, at the very least, the majority of the articles nominated for deletion are unnecessary and worthy of deletion or moving to categorization. joturner 06:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bro, i have been heated up on this issue, but from the bottom of my hart, i never inteded to uppset you. I was sitting here and working on a part of wikipedia that hardly anyone is touching, the lists, since 03:02, 21 February 2006 [8], when all the sudden all hell breaks lose at 03:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC) with this. All the sudden, every single thing that multiple editors have put their valuable time on is going to be deleted for not being perfect? That made furious!

But putting that aside, you are my brother in Islam and humanity, and i hope to be at least friends with you after this. --Striver 06:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations[edit]

Might I suggest you all use this chance to re-rationalize the whole Lists vs. Categories scheme for all these subjects. It does seem arbitrary and odd to delete all the Muslim-oriented lists but to keep other ethnic-religious designated lists. Please form a new policy page, discuss, announce on the mailing lists, etc. But edit warring over this is bound to get ugly. -- Fuzheado | Talk 05:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sentiment excatly: "You dont like it? Fix it! Creat a project page, dont afd the whole bunch, making people pissed while you are doing it!" --Striver 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists can do things categories do not. At Wikipedia:Featured lists there are a few that involve religion or people. There is List of Archbishops of Canterbury, List of popes, List of Presidents of the United States, List of notable brain tumor patients, List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological), and a few others. There are some lists I've worked on that I think are more similar to the lists up for AfD here and are of fairly good quality. For example List of Catholic authors.--T. Anthony 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this survives the request for deletion, I am at least reccomending we better organize the pages regarding Muslims. The List of Jews page seems much better organized. Perhaps would could put all the lists onto the List of Muslims page so they are much more accessible. The confusing linking structure through the current lists regarding Muslims makes the lists look like a disorganized and arbitrary. joturner 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss that on the talk page. --Striver 20:55, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Jóhann Sveinsson[edit]

This article has been around for a few months. The person's claim to notability is that he competes for a swimming club. This does not seem notable, as there is no international representation, even for a country which has no history of being a swimming power.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:53, 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 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra scientist[edit]

There is no evidence that this is anything but a neologism, and in fact this article was originally at Super-scientist which was also tagged as a neologism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Luigi's[edit]

Delete. Non-notable restaurant; vanity. Previously listed as a proposed deletion but removed. Superm401 - Talk 04:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. It's been operating in DC since 1943 and is in no way advertising. It is a fixture on M street and in the Dupont Circle neighborhood. If it isn't notable, I don't know what restaurants in DC are. User:Tma88

[[10]]: "In a fickle restaurant town, longevity counts for something, and Famous Luigi's has been holding strong since 1943" [[11]]: "Before there was Domino's or Pizza Hut or Papa John's, there was Luigi's. Make that way before -- Luigi's opened in 1943. People who grew up in Washington consider Luigi's an essential part of their childhood."

Perhaps this will make some of you rethink your decision. In the world city of Washington DC, Famous Luigi's is the premier spot for pizza and has been for some time now.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, after the bold renaming. Deathphoenix 04:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonpoint source pollution[edit]

Belongs in the Wikitionary. Bobby1011 04:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like the idea of renaming it. Makes sense. Append my vote: +Rename ---J.Smith 19:19, 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 Userfy due to nn-bio -SCEhardT 01:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodolfo novak[edit]

Looks like a good ol' cut'n'paste job to me. Even if it's not, the style is unencyclopedic, the subject is not notable and the article needs lots of cleaning up. Bobby1011 04:25, 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 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hart[edit]

Note that a previous AfD was for a different person with the same name. I am putting this one up because the only claim to fame that this Brian Hart has is that he has one imdb entry for a show which included all of the members of his family, and the only other thing that can be said about him is that he has a lot of relatives. Fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:26, 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 as described below [16]. — Feb. 28, '06 [10:58] <freakofnurxture|talk>

List of heterological words[edit]

Pointless. We have List of autological words, and every adjective that isn't autological is heterological by definition (except the word "heterological"). The overwhelming majority of words are heterological. - Sikon 04:32, 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 10:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Point Software[edit]

This is a crystal ball piece about a game developer who is waiting for a contract and funding to produce a game...as the title suggests, there is zero point to having this on WP. --Ruby 04:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Paul Wellstone#Aftermath. Content has already been transwikied: wiktionary:Wellstoning Deathphoenix 04:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wellstoning[edit]

Removed from Wikipedia:proposed deletion, where it was called a neologism, listend here in order to allow for possible discussion, no vote. youngamerican (talk) 04:43, 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 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Clifford McElroy[edit]

Article found via "random article", appears to be non-notable. Ran Google search, only Wikipedia and mirrors show up in its 10-11 appearances. No articles link to this page. Ataricodfish 05:00, 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. W.marsh 03:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading on India[edit]

Non-encyclopedic matter. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:09, 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 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark McClure[edit]

Welcome Mark! Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Did you miss the introduction, tutorial and your first article on the way in? This is not a service where someone can submit a profile to announce to the world his or her own great achievements. I invite you, as a newcomer, to read these three articles first.-- Perfecto 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (darn edit conflict)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crying While Eating[edit]

Someone put this for speedy delete, but NN websites don't qualify for speedy, so I'm putting it here. Right now, I'm no vote ---J.Smith 05:32, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 10:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 12, 2003[edit]

-- Appleboy Talk 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC) should be merged in the proper WP event pages, I think this was just somebody wanting to bring extra attention to these events, PoV?[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. 28, '06 [11:04] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anchormix[edit]

Delete - NN podcast as per WP:WEB --Xorkl000 05:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series). — Feb. 28, '06 [11:07] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Belinda Thorpe[edit]

Barely survived Vfd a year and a half ago here. I remember the incident and it deserves a mention at Big Brother (Australian TV series) which it already has, but the persons name is not remembered and nn. The creation of the article could be called bad faith because of the opinion of the creator who wrote at the last afd that "The entry should remain, because it serves to remind us Wikipedians of the cynicism of popular media and manipulation exercised by media corporations in the protection of their interests." which is no reason to keep an article -- Astrokey44|talk 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Her time in the public eye, brief as it was, has passed. Worth a brief mention in the article on the Australian version of Big Brother but not a standalone article. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Delete The minor in question was actually going to school with me at the time. I didn't know them that well, but as you can imagine, the school was ripe with gossip. That being said, I don't think that the event should be covered in such depth. A mention on the aussie BB page should suffice. Bobby1011 06:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- to Big Brother (Australian TV series) - Longhair 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 06:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series), as there is already a fair amount of information on her and the incident she was involved in. Cnwb 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series) and blank the text on this page. This appears to be a notable event in the programme rather than a notable biography.  (aeropagitica)  07:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 08:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series). --Terence Ong 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per aeropagitica. This person is not notable and after she voluntarily left the house she vanished from public view, so does not need an article of her own. Some of this information should be rolled into the main Big Brother article as the crime revelation as well as her voluntary departure from the house have proved to be unique and notable incidents in Australian Big Brother. Asa01 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per prior AFD. There is no basis for a renomination. There's clear precedent of keeping Big Brother contestants. Even if there hadn't been a prior AFD, being on a hit national show warrants inclusion. --Rob 19:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was considering precedent in one country (US) to apply to others, despite the disparity in country/show size. FOr BB6 in the US, the winner (before she won) and the bottom two players were all AFD'd, and were all kept. Lack of an article is not precedent for an article (AFD keeps are). BB contestants in general, like Idol finalist, and Survivor contestants, simply aren't being deleted anymore. Those without content are being temporarily merged/redirected. But that's a matter of current content, not notability, and not a deletion issue. There's been, as of late, a general acceptance of notability of BB contestants. As for your Google Test, I see an adequate supply of different sources. I'm getting a little tired of explaining flaws and misues of the Wikipedia:Google test. People see so many absurdly high bogus numbers, that when they see a moderate number, they to fail understand its meaning. As a story grows older, "free web" stories in newspapers go "offline" into fee-charging archives, but that doesn't mean the person is less notable. It means we should rely less on Google (note: I've voted delete, despite Google counts in the hundreds of thousands). Wikipedia should not be as transitory as Google results. Also, I submit, that if I treat this person like an actor on the show, she'd pass WP:BIO (as the contestants are stars of the show). And getting back to precendent: I think this is a pretty relevant precedent. --Rob 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Rob. Jcuk 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Big Brother. Xtra 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the relevant Big Brother series. Stifle 15:50, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Bingtrotter[edit]

delete: no references, nothing on google, created by unregistered editor, probable hoax. Nesbit 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ((hoax)) article.  (aeropagitica)  07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a nn-bio or hoax. I couldn't find anything either. ---J.Smith 07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax or nn-bio. --Terence Ong 14:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No Bingtrotters to be found. --Lockley 16:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obvious hoax from content and name and google. --lightdarkness (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 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 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot (original record)[edit]

Delete. This is the first of two identicle articles on the only EP made by Slipknot (original band). (See below for the second.) The band has been deleted ([18]) and so should the two EP articles. Bruce1ee 05:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of notability of band and EP. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the band did not survive AfD, it is highly unlikely their album will. Delete. -- Saberwyn 09:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, lack of notability has already been established. Night Gyr 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn-band. --Terence Ong 14:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is secrewed up beyond repair. The Republican 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 16:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 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 10:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slipnot (orignal record)[edit]

Delete. This is the second of two identicle articles on the only EP made by Slipknot (original band). (See above for the first.) The band has been deleted ([19]) and so should the two EP articles. Bruce1ee 05:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of notability of band and record. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the band did not survive AfD, it is highly unlikely their album will. Delete. -- Saberwyn 09:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, lack of notability has already been established. Night Gyr 12:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable band. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 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 10:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Watermarks (band)[edit]

The band fails the allmusic test and it generally not-notable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness (talk) 06:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree -- Samir ∙ TC 06:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a ((db-band)) candidate, non-notable as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  06:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn-band. I couldn't find anything about the band on google. ---J.Smith 07:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 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 10:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hungry Hungry Hypocrites[edit]

A high school band. Google gives 5 hits. They've got their own website, and I hope they do well, but right now I don't think they meet WP:N (music) -- Samir ∙ TC 06:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase. Unfortunately, they don't meet WP:MUSIC. -- Samir ∙ TC 06:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 06:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If in doubt, don't delete. Straight from the policy. Ebang 06:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, this user started the Hungry Hungry Hypocrites article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:44, 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 speedy delete as nn-bio. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan He[edit]

Non-notable nonsense Dethomas 06:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete nn bio -- Samir ∙ TC 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and Delete in the article space per WP:BIO. --Hansnesse 06:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per Samir. Bobby1011 06:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7 as notability not asserted. --Kinu t/c 07:05, 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 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arabstudent.org[edit]

Delete non notable web site, as per WP:WEB --Xorkl000 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Alexa rank: 4,355,630. Yowza. --Kinu t/c 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. James084 13:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Alexa rank is an indication of notability, WP:WEB refers.  (aeropagitica)  16:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 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 10:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Path Magnetic Technology[edit]

Seems promotional. Most of 109 Google hits come back to ad pages or mirrors of ad pages. Daniel Case 06:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete or extensively modify to make it clear that this is pseudoscience - just another perpetual motion machine. Currently the article doesn't mention this at all, let alone make it clear. Graham 06:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional content has been added, please review.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.32.67 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete promotional, not sound science. --Wtshymanski 23:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material, crap physics. I added some debunking in the interim, but it should be deleted.

  • Keep --Twingy 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a perpetual motion machine as some claim from results. Check additional section for explanation. I believe the current content (physics) can be agreed upon by all individuals now.

  • Delete. And don't invest any money in it. Meggar 07:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nn pseudoscience. --Malthusian (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this entries current form, all of the information is correct. While previous versions of this article were incorrect, and thus caused a number of people to help correct this entry, as it currently stands this entry is now informationaly accurate in terms of describing what PPMT can provide over traditional electromagnetic motors. Due to the vast transformation of this entry I recommend this entry be reconsidered for not being deleted.

  • delete, delete, delete! No, it is still a black hole of suckage and pseudoscientific claims, sorry. I say axe it. zowie 06:41, 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 10:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arizmendi Bakery[edit]

Delete - not notable as per WP:CORP, might be advertising as well --Xorkl000 06:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. James084 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 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 10:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ DAT[edit]

Another rising star who would make a fine addition to Wikipedia once they become notable. Daniel Case 06:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can hear the D-A-T in the beginning of the track that Cam'ron is talking over (Swagger Jacker). He is clearly the producer, thus this entry should remain. Anonymous. 09:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.53.144 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, per nom. Stifle 15:50, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Devil Plays Doctor on Tuesday[edit]

Nonnotable local band. Only gets 98 google hits, some of which are wikipedia mirrors. There is no evidence that they have released any albums, though they did record a few mp3s of themselves, and appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Indrian 07:02, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montgomery Farquhar[edit]

Utter bollocks. De-proded sans comment. Weregerbil 07:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense. Chairman S. | Talk 07:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious hoax. Choess 06:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There's not even a kernel of evidence for this on the Internet outside of Wikipedia.-RomeW 03:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTNY[edit]

Maybe a neologism, maybe a hoax, heck it might even be real, but it does not seem to belong. Indrian 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete protologism, fails google test. Weregerbil 07:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:WINAD Schizombie 08:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The operative word is "could stand for". It could stand for a lot of things, and no, I'm not suggesting expanding it to a dab page full of redlinks! Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 13:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:35, 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 10:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambient media[edit]

Delete - context and information free --Xorkl000 07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Wedian 14:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll go with that. James084 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable neologism Jdcooper 14:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:35, 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 keep. Mailer Diablo 10:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vasco Pajama[edit]

Article about non-notable cartoon character. The real purpose of the article is to mount a POV attack against the cartoonist. Article submitted by Beucephalia (talk - contribs) whose entire editing career consists of POV attack against cartoonist Michael Leunig. Weregerbil 07:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cartoonist is notable, as is the character, but the article goes off on a tangent. It needs a rewrite. Bobby1011 07:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So this is a notable cartoon in Australia/elsewhere? Ok, the first sentence of the article is about the cartoon, the rest is copypasted from Michael Leunig or discusses other matters. Keep the first sentence, delete the rest? Weregerbil 07:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stubify (you know what I mean) the article, and allow it to be expanded on with info pertaining to the subject not the creator of the subject. Bobby1011 07:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a Keeper now that Bobby1011 cleaned it up. Weregerbil 07:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand in order to make a firm claim to notability for the character.  (aeropagitica)  16:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Michael Leunig. 52 google hits [20], not notable enough for its own article -- Astrokey44|talk 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well done Bobby1011 for the cleanup. Cartoon by notable cartoonist. Capitalistroadster 00:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per  (aeropagitica) . ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Keep and Expand: despite raw number of google hits, 9 out of 10 australians will know who Leunig is. The article needs much more information about the character. - Synapse 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dream Machine (Chris Howard)[edit]

Delete Not NotableSchizombie 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Bobby1011 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable play. Weregerbil 07:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Terence Ong 08:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:35, 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 10:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity Cubed[edit]

Delete Not Notable and WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Schizombie 07:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 07:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 07:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agree per nom. -- Samir ∙ TC 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it's NN. ---J.Smith 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedy maybe. gren グレン 07:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cubed per all above. Not yet released? Come on. --Kinu t/c 07:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Kusonaga 09:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:35, 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 keep. Withdrawn by nominator, my apologies Schizombie 08:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pisastratus[edit]

Delete WP:V Uncategorized stub, word not found on Google or Amazon's Search Inside This Book Keep per Bobby1011, I must have made a typo when I did the search, as it is coming up now, albeit not many hits. - I'll withdraw this as soon as I find the instructions on how. Schizombie 07:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I wasn't sure myself, until I looked it up in a paper encyclopedia, and there it was. He's real alright. Give me a minute and I'll fix the article up some. Bobby1011 07:51, 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 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woque[edit]

Completely and utterly ficticious. "The idea emerged in classrooms at the Evergreen State College" Wiki is not for things made up at school one day. Bobby1011 07:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can't find with google. From the article: The idea emerged in classrooms at the Evergreen State College. You know, that thing. Weregerbil 07:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if it was a really used term, 80 hits on google is too insignificant. The first page of results is mostly about a user who goes by the name of woque. Other results: Woque "open source" --- 1 hit, Woque "intellectual property" --- 0 hits--Tokek 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sometimes i wish that WP could detect when articles were created at school and automagically zap 'em. Camillus (talk)
  • Week Delete... not realy sure why I'm wish-washy on this. ---J.Smith 06:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:35, 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 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leira[edit]

Besides being a copyright violation of the material from their website, the article is an advertisement for a non notable production company. Not to mention there seems to be a lot of factualy inaccuracies associated with it. I mean come on, 39 billion in revenue for a company that produced 2 movies that have no entries on WP? Or how about nearly 60,000 employees? Is someone pulling my leg here?Delete TheRingess 07:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I've never heared of this company, and I have serious doubts about the accuracy of the information given by the article. Bobby1011 08:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax -- Samir ∙ TC 08:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 08:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear hoax VirtualSteve 11:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to previous version which was a redirect to some Dungeons and Dragons article (which looks like a lot of twaddle too (IMHO), but not as bad as this crud). Camillus (talk) 14:49, 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 10:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the seal[edit]

Delete WP:WINAD Schizombie 07:52, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of people by name: Huh-Hum[edit]

A complete list of everybody? Ever? Bobby1011 08:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Subpage of List of people by name, which overwhelmingly survived deletion here. —Cryptic (talk) 08:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, fine. I thought that this must be a joke. Especially with those letters (Huh-Hum). I wasn't around for the initial debate. Bobby1011 08:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got a point there! But the Huh-thru-Hum range got squeezed together by the Hug names and the Hun - Huz ones, which were too big (in different senses; documentation in progress) to accomodate either any names, or enough more names to be worthwhile, from this range. (Unfortunately, it was not workable to use the kind of ranges that would let us have a
    How to Hug
    page. Huh! Hum...)
    --Jerzy•t 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt No, notability goes without saying. Specifically, a list of people with bio articles on WP (and, since WP is always a work in progress, also of some notable people who probably should have WP bios. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography#Hierarchy and classification, Lists of people#People by name, and an edit of 14:39, 4 February 2002 .
    --Jerzy•t 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there any need to repeat the arguments that produced lopsided keep votes in 5 previous AfD's on pages like the nominated one, or on the whole list?
    --Jerzy•t 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as implicitly withdrawn by nom, unless anyone has objections to that. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Bobby1011 08:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There have been at least five prior AfD nominations for various parts of the ~750 page hierarchy (+ few hundred templates and helper pages in Wikipedia and User namespaces) that is known as the List of people by name. I don't think the same arguments need to be rehashed over and over again. This list is currently being maintained actively, although I must say it takes some time to polish this to Wikipedia:Featured lists level, mainly because we currently have only about 37000 entries. However, there is no reason we couldn't link to all Wikipedia biographical articles (clearly a finite set) from LoPbN, especially with help of automated tools. jni 09:16, 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 10:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selena Trewarne[edit]

Advertising for a non-notable jewelry designer. Article is identical to a press release released on her site, but not deletable through the copyvio process because it was posted by the subject's webmaster. Gets all of six Google hits outside Wikipedia and her own sites. —Cryptic (talk) 08:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Have seen this girl's jewellery work - and it is good - but that doesn't make it a pedia article. VirtualSteve 08:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete why are so many Aussies spamming Wiki tonight? Boredom? Oh yeah, as per nom. Bobby1011 09:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Croc hunting season just finished. Cnwb 02:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yet another cheapskate using WP as free advertising. Camillus (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Little verifiable evidence that she is notable enough yet for Wikipedia. 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Capitalistroadster 05:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)" . Capitalistroadster 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair 01:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 06:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:35, 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 10:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximillian Bryant[edit]

Vanity, no information other than picture which should probably also be deleted Xtra 08:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Usually I advocate giving articles more than 20 minutes between creation and nomination for deletion, but this one doesn't look to be legit. Tagged as ((db-empty)). — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gah. No longer empty, still not a real article. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally unencyclopedic and a blatant hoax, with elements of a vanity page. Bobby1011 09:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopaedic vanity hoax. --Terence Ong 11:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete get a blog! Camillus (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not for self promotion! Tawker 04:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NN-bio? Fails WP:BIO --lightdarkness (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible candidate to userfy (if requested). Labor Students could also use a cleanup (so as not to encourage similar n-n bios, I think.--Karnesky 07:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this the same as Max Bryant, which was just speedied? And why was that article speedied when only one deletion is shown in Special:Log&type=delete&page=Max_Bryant? --Karnesky 05:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently it is. That was speedied under CSD A7 (and an apparently mistaken accusation of "recreation of deleted material"). I suppose this should have the same fate. Speedy delete. --Karnesky 06:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ub3Rm3Ist3r[edit]

Delete WP:WINAD WP:VANITY WP:V Schizombie 08:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete incredibly local non-notable unverifiable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was gonna add "or userfy", but the author already mirrored it on his userpage, so no issues with deletion. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • übermeister ist not a word in German as the article suggests. Delete as the whole article is complete fallacy. Bobby1011 09:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Returns only six results on Google. Obviously just a username and not an established word.--Tokek 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Given the above comments, I think this qualifies as a vanity page as well. Perhaps this kid was trying to prove to a friend that ubermeister was a real word? Shaggorama 10:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete complete twaddle. I'd vote the same if he'd said "Ob3rh3rr" instead (Oberherr being German for overlord). Tonywalton  | Talk 13:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete something made up in school -WP:NOT. Camillus (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One schoolboy's non-notable l337-speak handle, based on a misunderstanding of German in an article replete with spelling mistakes. WP:VANITY refers, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  21:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:33, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NDFF[edit]

They keep on removing the speedy header. I think it should be speedied G1 -- Samir ∙ TC 09:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • What. The. Frak?! I'm going to take a stab in the dark here, but based on the content on the main and talk pages, this article is about a collapsed fan forum for a band. The former users of this forum look like they're trying to either post their forum bios, or recreate the forum in some form here. I'm going to assumethat the former forum would not have passed WP:WEB. Either that, or the 'biographies' being bullet-posted here flat out fail WP:BIO. I would support any form of deletion or speedy deletion, but think this article would best fall under a combination of CSD G1 (patent nonsense), A7 (unremarkable people or groups), A3 (attempting to contact other former forum members), and possible A6 (attack on unspecified No Doubt fan forum(s). Finally, from the talk page "If you keep it I'll give you a blow job.". 'Nuff said. -- Saberwyn 10:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, nonsense.--Tokek 10:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per above. --Terence Ong 10:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy: whatever this is, it doesn't belong here. Shaggorama 10:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted. Patent nonsense, no cohesion at all in the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:02, 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 keep. Ifnord 01:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet slang[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary for neologisms and ASCII art. delete Tokek 09:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- I disagree somewhat. Doesn't really qualify as a dicdef page. -- Samir ∙ TC 10:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very, very, very weak keep. I can see the possible potential for a list of common examples as a subset of the Internet slang article, but at the moment, this is not it. In my opinion, this article needs a serious, chainsaw-massacre cull, some kind of sourcing, and a possible merge back into the "Internet slang" article, or some continual, heavy policing to prevent this from blowing back out into the massive, unsourced repository for any tripped-out acronym or "Look what I just created!" Ascii art this currently is. -- Saberwyn 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not dicdef, quite useful. --Terence Ong 10:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If these dictionary definitions don't deserve a mention in individual articles in the first place, why should they suddenly deserve a mention in Wikipedia once they're clumped up together into this article? By combining the dictionary definitions into a single page, it just means that the user has to go through the trouble of scrolling to the term he/she is looking for, as opposed to having it show up in an article by itself. It also appears to have become a popular article for miscellaneous nonsense and vandalism. See in WP:NOT where it says: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, 1. Dictionary definitions. 2. Lists of such definitions. --Tokek 10:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: you make a reasonable point, Tokek, but I took that to mean lists linking to dicdef pages. -- Samir ∙ TC 11:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, like it or not, this article is both useful and used. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful list, and a as a merge target, this is a very useful vacuum cleaner which can sweep up articles people write on individual internet slang terms. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian Lamo and Terence Ong. youngamerican (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • --You could add this to the netiquitte page... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.20.30.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Very obvious delete per WP:NOT, but this is purely academic. The only reason this exists at all is so that silly little kids who forget how to get to urban dictionary have a place to put their unverifiable cruft. On a pure cost-benefit analysis, this article does not benefit the project. There's little or no encyclopedic value, and keeping it in any kind of reasonable shape is more effort than people have been willing to put in. Those that want to cut it down and merge it to Internet slang have a reasonable idea, but they've forgotten to be practical. The reason it exists is that people wanted Internet slang to be in some kind of reasonable shape so they moved all the crap to another article. Friday (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh really?: So it's for kids you say? Well then, my research work on how to help adults to navigate throught the majority of Internet sites, containing portions of this this "not-encyclopedically valuable" material, shouldn't have been such a success. The article doesn't offend anyone and it's valuable alright. It has information, that can be utilised very well by users, who have little or no expirience in Internet communication. 16:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep No reason to delete it; a well-known cultural phenomenon and the list could be useful. --Shadow Puppet 15:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Useful. Few of the slang terms on the list are noteworthy enough to be included singularly in an article, but grouped together and organized, they provide some insight into both the viral memetic qualities they have in spreading on the internet and the relation they have to one another. The list is more than the sum of its parts. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary or lists of such definitions - this policy could use some further explication, but this case seems straightforward - what could an encyclopedia offer in such a list that a dictionary cannot? Individual entries could be transwikid to Wiktionary if notable and verifiable. Might be useful if WP searches on dicdefs or lists thereof could offer a redirect to WT. Schizombie 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have an article internet slang, and we have this urban dictionary style unmaintainable article. There is no such thing as "internet slang" - there are internet slangs. I would support the creation of articles on chat room slang, instant messenger slang, Something Awful forum slang, Wikipedia jargon.. Those articles would at least be maintainable and verifiable. The internet is far too big and multilingual a place to have one set of slang. If the jargon used is important to understanding an online space add it to the article on that space. Secretlondon 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No such thing as internet slang? The plural of 'slang' is still 'slang'. Or it could be 'slang terms'. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An obviously great list that can only improve over time. I also have to laugh when people start talking about "cost benefit analysis" for judging article worth as part of a volunteer project. -- JJay 21:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Those who want Wikipedia to be a dictionary and/or slang guide might want to raise the issue over at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Currently, consensus seems fairly clear on Wikipedia not being a dictionary or slang guide, so finding another place for this seems reasonable. Everything2 allows stuff that's "obviously great" without regard to encyclopedic standards. Friday (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised you are encouraging all the keep "voters" here and the contributers to this article to leave wikipedia. I guess we all fail your personal cost benefit analysis and need to be cut or redirected to another site that will accept "silly little kids" like us. How insulting. -- JJay 22:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? I'm not saying any editors should go away, I just think the article should go away. Friday (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need. The policy already endorses this list: "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields." Honbicot 16:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is where internet slang terms which dont yet deserve there own article are directed to. Also I have actually used this list before to look up names of internet acronyms -- Astrokey44|talk 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite WP:NOT, this list is both useful and used. I'm not usually one to say this, but sometimes WP:IAR is good, and in those cases we should emphasize practice over policy. We have a lot of lists that are pretty useless that haven't had their legitimacy ever called into question. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful reference. No cogent reason given for deleting this. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Better to have a one-stop shop for these, and link into the dicdef for individual terms, than not to have it. icebrrrg 10:14, 22 February 2006 (EDT)
  • Keep - usefull collection of info
  • Keep Useful list. The policy referred to explicitly approves of this sort of thing: "Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields." Honbicot 16:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of us don't see that slang words made up last week on some forum somewhere are for a "specialized field". But, it's all academic, there's no way this "article" is going to go away. Wikipedia's natural bias toward all things net-related ensures that. Friday (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The List of Latin phrases, List of French phrases, List of German words and phrases would also be under WP:NOT, but each serves as a useful list not under controversy because of usage. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of the abbreviations are either outright invention, not externally verifiable or not notable enough to deserve a place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an internet slang dictionary. Lavareef 20:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent we have some many jargon & slang lists and we keep them all. Carlossuarez46 22:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep XQ fan 08:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ramymamlouk 09:10, 23 February (GMT)
  • Keep - Yes, WP:NOT (section 1.2.3) implies some restrictions ("Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used"). However, this article is not meant to define or teach internet slang. It's still useful. It might be compared to List of elements by symbol - also a dictionary which translates a specialized vocabulary into normal language, also without saying how the stuff should be used. Still, the article List of Internet Slang needs to be beefed up; currently it's of rather low quality. Heck, it's even missing a link to Internet Slang! --Klaws 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and cleanup) - I'm ignoring WP:NOT on purpose here. I agree with above commenters that while dicdefs are generally undesirable, a specialized glossary (which this is) is not necessarily so. If we keep it pared down to something reasonable, it will remain useful and encyclopedic. Directing users to Urban Dictionary (or even Wiktionary) is overkill for something like this. Powers 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Subtle glossaries seem to be formualted all over wikipedia, and I believe that if there is justification for something such as the list of ethnic slurs, there very well should be justification for this such article. Salluste 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having a list of Internet slang and its meanings will greatly help those who are unaware of what such terms mean. Granted, there is urbandictionary.com , but having wikipedia have an article on it would help many immensely. Vagrant 00:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is not meant to be a complete reference, but just a sample of what you can find and read online. This is just a sample. If anything, it should be expanded by adding links to other sites which deal with slang. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 07:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep really useful reference Deleteme42 17:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Why would you want to remove this? It is very useful. As somone said before there are lists of things all over Wikipedia. 68.127.150.222 13:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep — I don't watch AfD. I just stumbled on this page doing a lookup (for FTW). My rule is, if I go looking for something, and see it's got a VfD, then I vote strong keep, because the articles' existence has already assisted me as a reader of the encyclopedia. --TreyHarris 04:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Kompik 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 17:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The majority of these words are hardly in use at all, it is not helpful in any way. -- spring heel
  • Keep. I used it a couple of times to find out what something meant, parhaps it doesn't belong in wikipedia, but I'm too lazy to do a google search for a list complete like this one. Dandin1 00:29, 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 10:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr abuse[edit]

This article appears to be a non-notable band vanity article. --Martyman-(talk) 10:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- --Martyman-(talk) 21:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as non-notable band vanity. Ifnord 15:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Ifnord. Stifle 15:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:33, 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 Speedy Deleted as A7 by Mathwiz2020. -- JLaTondre 16:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting on Tom[edit]

non-notable band, a user removed the prod tag Obli (Talk)? 10:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Battlefield 2. Deathphoenix 04:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield 2 patch 1.2[edit]

Topic is not notable, relevant information on topic already exists in section on Battlefield 2 article, bugs section is either original research or uses forums as sources. Remy B 10:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge the patch itself isn't especially notable but the information here is not replicated on the Battlefield 2 article. I'd suggest merging the reasons for the patch and the bugs sections. MLA 10:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Battlefield 2, as not notable. --Terence Ong 10:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above Shaggorama 10:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above Zxcvbnm 14:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — When merging, watch out for NPOV bias... game articles tend to be rife with them, ;-) Kareeser|Talk! 14:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per above The Nameless 14:48, 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 10:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duglohuluk[edit]

Delete. Looks like non-notable nonsense, a word somebody made up. Dreamyshade

  • Delete as per nom. Bobby1011 10:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete word made up in school. JPD (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:33, 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 10:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ralf Jasso[edit]

He seems to be a non-notable musician from a number of non-notable bands. --Martyman-(talk) 10:23, 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 10:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Startled Calf[edit]

Non-notable band that seems to have released one demo album. --Martyman-(talk) 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per speedy deletion policy regarding bands and band notability guideline. Weregerbil 12:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NMG, [21]. Since the article mentions a seemingly notable "former" band member, it's not a speedy. PJM 12:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, one guy was a member of The Mars Volta and At The Drive-In, with five albums between the two bands. WP:BAND says "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable; ..." (emphasis added). I figured that means almost Grateful Dead or The Beatles... Weregerbil 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but remember that there's a yawning chasm between what's speedy-able and what passes wp:music. I'd agree that the "former member" being in two bands with 2.5 albums each is in that chasm. - brenneman{T}{L} 13:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both At The Drive-In and The Mars Volta meet 5, if not more, of the lines in the Musicians and ensembles criteria. I don't see why either would not be notable enough. The article just needs some redirects. Raggedy 10:05, 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:09] <freakofnurxture|talk>

The Dregtones[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable band that does not meet our guidelines for notability. --Martyman-(talk) 10:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn-band. --Terence Ong 10:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Bands that do not assert notability are speedily deletable per policy. None of the criteria in the band notability guideline is even remotely asserted in article. Weregerbil 12:19, 21 february 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG. One notable member, apparently. Not enough, in my view.[22]. PJM 12:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One notable member IS in fact enough in wikipedia's criteria. Not to mention a member who was in two quite notable bands. Raggedy 10:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline to which you're referring specifically states "extremely" notable, which dosen't apply here, IMO. PJM 12:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Lanteigne[edit]

Delete. Article gives gives no reason to belive this individual is notable. Google search supports non-notareity. All edits by same individual, User:RogueLance, who apparently only registered to write this one article. Shaggorama 10:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious hoax. [23]. PJM 12:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above.--Wedian 14:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while the link above suggests that this is a "real" person, he's entirely non-notable, and the content of the article classifies it as a hoax and something made up in school. Zap it! Camillus (talk) 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:30, 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 10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kokkar Kempo[edit]

Non-notable martial art tagged for cleanup since Sep 2005. Consists of a brief and poorly written dicdef. Google search reveals mostly wiki mirrors, non-English language sites, discussions of whether Kokkar Kempo exists. Nothing links here - not even Martial art. MLA 11:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. (No other opinions?) Sandstein 22:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one-line orphaned substub with not enough context to do anything with. Stifle 15:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and per Stifle. Ifnord 02:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:30, 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 10:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZQC[edit]

Dab page for a three-letter abbreviation with no disamiguations and the only entry is redlinked. MLA 11:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism at best, unless the subject can be demonstrated to be notable. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 12:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if someone did write the Zero quality control article, it woulnd't need this page. Thatcher131 12:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other users and nomination. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No, no, no. Stifle 15:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:30, 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. 28, '06 [11:20] <freakofnurxture|talk>

HMS Press[edit]

Tagged as a speedy because of a previous AFD. However this version is significantly different, it is written in neutral form, is far more legible, and it's not a first person essay for instance. It looks completely different from the version deleted. Unsure about notability here however, so I have brought it to AFD. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • And the reason HMS Press can't put a list of its titles on its own web site is...? WP:Not a web host. Delete Thatcher131 12:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thatcher131 and previous nom. Ardenn 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO DELETE WayneRay 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay I had spent a considerable amount of time adding and updating the Canadian Poets and Publishers within Wikipedia. I have been busy at work for the past two months and haven't logged on to check on things. One of my authors, who has a wiki page Navtej Bharati, said both his page and mine were up for deletion?? I looked on my publisher page HMS Press and it was only updated until 1995. Mr. Bharati (who incidently is one of London Ontario's largest book publishers) book came out in 2002 so therefore was not in my authors list. I had re-written HMS Press in accordance to one of Wiki's editors and the new layout was accepted in 2005, NOW you say it is up for deletion. You guys dont like Canadians?? I don't understand the logic. I can update the information and add the next 50 books I did and his name will be on the list for verification. Please explain. I have been publishing Canadian and American poets since 1982 and have about 150 publications. ???[reply]
    • WayneRay 00:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)WayneRay I have just this weekend placed over 125 HMS Press titles in PDF format and placed them on my website for reading by anyone. As I said above, the revised article was already ok'd in its revised form. I havent had time to update the lists but I have 200 or more titles since 1982. [24] Why so much criticism of American living and writing and publishing in Canada??[reply]
  • Delete unless cleaned up. It's nothing more than a list of their books at the moment. I would be willing to revisit my vote if some verifiable evidence of notability was added and the book lists removed. The information there belongs on the company's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any publishing house that's put out works by Robert Priest and Milton Acorn is an unquestionable keep. Especially when its Acorn title is The Whiskey Jack. This does need some cleanup, but it's not deletion material. Bearcat 08:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I am really on the fence; I see Thatcher131's point about an encyclopedia not being a host for web pages but this doesn't really read like an ad to me. It is also notable and verifiable. Ifnord 02:05, 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 Speedy delete verbatim re-creation of previously deleted content. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples)[edit]

This article was nominated for speedy deletion, which has been contested. I'm putting it up for AfD instead. No vote. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The democratic peace theory is a very prominent although controversial theory in political science. The contents of this article was moved to an article named Why Rummel is always right. This is obviously a POV name that is not allowed and that article was correctly deleted. However, this referenced article should remain. Any problems should be corrected by discussion and editing, not deleting. Ultramarine 12:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Democratic peace theory (Specific historic examples) is about the democratic peace theory, can't the contents of this article be moved there? Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 12:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article describes the possible wars between liberal democracies in more detail. The main article is already very long. It discusses many other aspects like statistical significance and correlation is not causation. Also, the main article looks at other claims like fewer lesser conflicts between democracies and fewer civil wars. The main article now has very little of the information that is in this subarticle. In addition, this subarticle should be greatly expanded with more conflicts and sources from the literature.Ultramarine 12:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a PoV fork of Democratic peace theory, and Ultramarine has proposed this precise content for inclusion on its Talk page. Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a POV fork. The title is perfectly neutral. Add your own referenced arguments if there is any.Ultramarine 18:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If it is too much detail for the main article, it probably shouldn't be here. This article seems to be mainly a discussion defending the theory from particular criticisms. JPD (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should not then referenced counter-arguments be added rather than deleting all the current referenced contents?Ultramarine 13:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why there can't be the main Democratic Peace article and then articles about specific aspects of it. This is the case with a lot of cultural articles and sporting event articles. This article and the Democratic Peace article could both do with an NPOV comb. MLA 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per criterion G4; verbal recreation of deleted article Why Rummel is always right (non-admins can see a copy of the deleted article in userspace here). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Rummel is always right, the previous deletion decision; I was the only vote to keep. Since my reasons no longer apply, we should stick with policy.Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article remains advocacy, drawn from a narrow range of extreme sources within the subject, and backed up by further PoV (for example, a description of Imperial Germany, drawn from an American book written in support of WWI and published in 1917). Useless for any purpose. Since its complete text can be found in Talk:Democratic peace theory, it is not needed to write a real article on Rummel or Weart; and a real article on wars between democracies would have to be completely rewritten under a less cumbrous title anyway. It could do worse than to start from this website, which discusses more wars, and actually presents arguments on both sides. Septentrionalis 17:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Huh? There is no book from 1917 or anything similar to what you state in the sources. White's personal website presents his opinions without any references. However, I do encourage you to add more referenced arguments to the article. This is a controversial area with many different views. However, you have presented no reason for deleting the article. Could you please explain why you previously moved the contents to an article called Why Rummel is always right. This seems to violate Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Ultramarine 17:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • James W. Gerard: My Four Years in Germany. Hodder and Stoughton; 1917 University library catalog listing Septentrionalis 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ok, that book by the American ambassador was only used as a source for that there was a vote of no confidence in 1913 that the Chancellor ignored. Again, I urge you to add your own referenced statements to the article and discuss objections on the talk page. Renaming articles and deleting them should not be used as part of content disputes. Please edit and discuss as other editors do when they have objections to the contents.Ultramarine 18:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • This exact text is being discussed under Talk;DPT. Ultramarine knows this; he started the discussion. Septentrionalis 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do not be ridiculous. That is a completely different text.Ultramarine 18:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • (fuller width) See the text being discussed under Talk:Democratic_peace_theory#Possible_exceptions_to_no_wars_between_liberal_democracies. Looks like a cut and paste to me. Septentrionalis 19:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Different sources, different and more examples, different arguments, and different format. I am discussing that text on the talk page in order to try to reach an agreement so situations like this can hopefully be avoided.Ultramarine 19:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as POV fork, recreated material, excessive detail, etc.--Sean Black (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Ed, Edd n Eddy. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:21] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Mission Ed-Possible[edit]

We do not need a separate article for every episode of Ed, Edd, and Eddy. There is no way these are ever going to amount to substantive articles. There is already a series of articles covering all episodes of each season, which this previously redirected to. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 12:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Revert to a redirect, no reason to be here. - Bobet 12:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert per Bobet. Stifle 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • REDIRECT to Ed, Edd n Eddy. The main EEnE article has been a breeding ground for juvenile editors who think the show is a religion and are intent on listing every minor, redundant, fact about the show. just take a look at the article now. --Phil 01:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Knights (film)[edit]

Supposedly the "latest in a long line of comic-based screenplays circulating studios". WP:NOT a crystal ball, it's not even close to being a film and a screenplay circulating studios wouldn't guarantee that a film was ever going to be made or that it was going to be called this. I can't find any information on it and the article doesn't cite any sources. - Bobet 12:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; nuff said. PJM 12:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sounds like vanity and promotion... The JPS 13:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The number of screenplays "making the rounds" or even "in development" without a foot of film ever being shot has probably devastated vast forests. Fan1967 18:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither SuperheroHype.com nor Comics2Film (two prominent pages about upcoming comic book movies) has anything about this. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 18:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:30, 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 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Besthöven[edit]

Not notable per WP:MUSIC --Xorkl000 12:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NMG, [25]. PJM 12:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. James084 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:30, 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 keep. Ifnord 02:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nachattar Gill[edit]

Tagged as speedy but cursory google shows at least one album. Brought to AfD for wider examination. Abstain. brenneman{T}{L} 12:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Tough call. I think I'm seeing three albums: http://www.musicindiaonline.com/l/23/m/artist.1115/ so clears the two album guideline. On the other hand does not assert notability. It's not enough to be notable, you need to assert it in a verifiable manner :-) Weregerbil 13:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Being notable should be enough. Kappa 17:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup adding albums. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kappa, but someone please add in details of the albums in order that it isn't renominated in short order. Stifle 15:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the proper spelling of his first name is "Nachhattar",[26], so the stub should be moved if that's the case. Can anyone clarify? PJM 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, based on what I find. PJM 15:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, maybe I should have checked before tagging for speedy. Conscious 18:57, 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 Deleted by Marudubshinki with summary of per afd. -- JLaTondre 16:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Place[edit]

Should be speedied: re Delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Place.--Mais oui! 12:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Since this discussion has been nominated for best UK weblog. Very influential among the pro-democracy left. David | Talk 16:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as G4 Recreation of deleted material. --Aaron 19:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn/CSD G4. Didn't Hemingway used to drink at a bar called Harry's Place? That'd be encyclopedic. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Important blog, described as the 'meeting place of the anti-fascist left' and as such widely read. Mentioned several times in the media, including the guardian and evening standard. The last vote for deletion seems to be full of sockpuppetry. Also, this was deleted by the 'war on blogs' group: [27]. Nothing wrong with people co-ordinating their efforts of course, but the Harry's Place article didn't/doesn't even meet their own criteria! But as their rhetoric shows (on the deletion pages as well) there was clearly no serious effort made to discriminate between what is notable and not. Anyway look at the history page, it's clearly important to the several people that constantly vandalise it! (good work on that btw, Dbiv). Wikeawade 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • eh? I stopped being anonymous yesterday, before this went up for deletion. Pretty shrewd, that. 163.1.42.195 03:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Oops. Wikeawade[reply]
    • Can we have links to the media coverage you mention for the terminally lazy like myself?
      brenneman{T}{L} 05:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, relevant quotes:
"Harry's Place, the "blog" to which he is now a prolific contributor, has become one focus of Britain's culture of political blogging " [28]
When Harry 'left' they gave some space to the event : "Nigh on 2,500 words of political reflections follow, but that shouldn't detract from the site's significance. It provided a rare example of convergence between old and new media, with Fleet Street columnists, including The Observer's Nick Cohen, championing the site. Harry's postings have prompted a conversation between newspapers and the blogosphere,.." etc. etc. [29]
Also, for everyone's information, the guardian's 'Norman Johnson' column is a satire on Harry's Place, David Aaronovitch, and similar (probably named after Norman Geras and Alan Johnson of Labour Friends of Iraq), commisioned by the guardian opinion ed., Seamus Milne (no friend of HP). An example of 'Norman' mentioning the site specifically is here: [30]. This should be put in the article, incidentally... (and adds to notability). Its pretty absurd that a national newspaper devotes several column inches every week to surreptitiously attacking a blog, and usually doesn't let the readers know the context.
A search at the guardian's website turned up several more mentions, but that will do. The Evening Standard was where it was first called 'the meeting place of the anti-fascist left'. Not online, unfortunately, but evidence here: [31]. --Wikeawade 14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
An afterthought: Presumably Norman Johnson will soon get an article like the other Guardian columnists... in which case we might have an article on a spoof without an article on the original.. Wikeawade
  • Delete The weblog award on its own still does not notability make, and otherwise, it's essentially the same article that was deleted before. --InShaneee 05:31, 23
  • Keep This is one of the centres of the UK's pro-war left.--Cherry blossom tree 14:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G4. Tagged. Stifle 15:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-tagged for speedy as G4. Author had assumed from the three-day backlog on CAT:CSD that this article was not being considered for speedy. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:20, 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 10:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BibleWorks[edit]

looks like advertising to me --Xorkl000 12:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — Cleverly concealed behind lots of "what I can do" statements is the advertisement. As debated as using Alexa rankings goes, Alexa has no data on the external website link provided. Lack of notes on how it (the program itself) has been used by anybody notable, has yet to be seen. Kareeser|Talk! 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete absent cleanup; has this been sent to cleanup yet? I had at least heard of the package before seeing it here. This does read like the work of a shill. Smerdis of Tlön 15:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, no discussion of notability of product.  (aeropagitica)  16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant advertising. Carlossuarez46 22:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:29, 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 keep. Ifnord 02:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virokine[edit]

Tagged as speedy because "w/o context". It's close, but perhaps someone who knows something about this can help it out, even if only by redirecting. Abstain. brenneman{T}{L} 13:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable viral component. Kappa 13:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there's someplace better to merge/redirect it to. This is the sort of thing where Google scores and the like aren't really relevant. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa and Starblind. --Terence Ong 13:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can expand it since the original author seems to have abandoned it, but probably not before the end of the week. Thatcher131 15:38, 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:23] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Block Entertainment[edit]

smells of copyright violation to me --Xorkl000 13:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yup, from here. Will db-copyvio copyvio (can't db-copyvio since older than 48 hours). Press release about some record deal. Weregerbil 13:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, copyvio. --Terence Ong 13:53, 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 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D2 (band)[edit]

Delete nn pop band. A Google on D2 "Dimitar Karnev" yields exactly 1 hit. Bruce1ee 13:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn band. --Terence Ong 13:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, possibly vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:28, 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 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borderware[edit]

Page mostly contains advertising and unverified claims of their products. Sundae 13:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — 8000 Customers worldwide? That ain't a lot. I live in both Mississauga and Toronto, and I've never heard of this company, or its products. Kareeser|Talk! 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kareeser. Ardenn 16:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:28, 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 10:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PHP_vs_ASP.NET[edit]

The information on the page is redundant with PHP and ASP.NET, and doesn't hold up NPOV. Quamaretto 13:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it looks more like a troll than anything else in my humble opinion. It doesn't gives real facts supported with statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.240.163 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete OR, POV, a list of random things. At least it's consistent in that apparently ASP.net is both not as fast and slower than PHP. MLA 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, POV, and unverified. Even if it was all verified, I'm not sure the page should exist, as it simply compares two things. Better a full comparison of all related software, but this article seems to make no statement even as to what the two have in common. Turnstep 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, OR, POV and except for few phrases essentially empty. Pavel Vozenilek 19:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Stifle 13:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:28, 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. 28, '06 [11:24] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Freak attack[edit]

Was originally speedied but withdrawn due to author intervention. NN band that possibly fails notability guidelines at WP:MUSIC. Listing on AfD because author may want to comment. Kareeser|Talk! 14:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable, possibly vanity --Mecanismo | Talk 23:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep definitely notable, highly interesting.

Let me know what we need to do to save the FREAK ATTACK!

An encyclopedia, by definition, is a work that covers the entire spectrum of human knowledge. As an online source with an endless supply of informants, Wikipedia should be the grandest encyclopedia out there, and it is. However, how deep does it really delve? Freak Attack may not fulfill any of the criteria on the music list, but this is simply because they have not had time. I know them all personally, they are amazing people with an innovative sound. They're still working on getting their first album out, sure, but it's not easy in the inner-city when everyone is fighting for himself. These four young men have overcome a lot of odds already. If you want to stand in their way of spreading Freak love, there's nothing a few guys on a message board can say to stop you, but consider how pointless it really is. They're just rappers trying to bust into the scene, and from the speculation in the neighborhood, they will do so sooner than later. Your criteria are ridiculous anyway, because circumstances beyond control are going to shut many talented artists out of your endless libraries of information. From an honest standpoint, it doesn't make much sense to delete a true, well written article from your pages. Not many will read it anyway, but those that do will be learning something about this group. To a few kids, these guys are heroes. Let them stay, for goodness sake.

  • Comment — As much as I want Wikipedia to become the source of all knowledge, there is a reason that the notability guidelines on music are Wikipedia policy. If we had a lengthy article on every garage band ever created, not only would most of them be disbanded or forgotten, but it would also take up an extraordinary amount of storage space. We, the Wikipedia community, appreciate your interest in a band that you support, but perhaps you can recreate the article once Freak Attack has attained some notability! If you can meet at least one of the guidelines, there's no reason why you can't continue writing. The last thing we want to do is scare you off Wikipedia, but we do have to keep Wikipedia from turning into everybody's "free 5 MB of webspace". Perhaps you could create something on Wikicities? Kareeser|Talk! 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-speedy per correctly-applied CSD:A7. ((nn-band)) applies. Not verifiable either. Stifle 13:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violation_of_Innocence[edit]

Delete. Probable hoax. And, as the article says "project is extremely secretive, no public announcements or comments have been made", this would make it unverifiable. Xyzzyplugh 15:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it wasn't too secret, it would be crystal ball stuff. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No verification possible without press releases or other media mentions. Until such an announcement is made this is crystal ball material.  (aeropagitica)  16:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bad faith nomination by someone who couldn't even be bothered to leave a note on my talk page - "Make a good-faith effort to notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised." People=Shit 17:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't keep articles simply because the creator of the article wasn't notified of proposed deletion. This would have been a good place for you to explain why the article is not a hoax, how we would verify this, etc. --Xyzzyplugh 01:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I don't expect an article to be kept for that reason, but being notified my work was up for deletion would have been nice. I'll address the verifiability below. People=Shit 12:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Noisy | Talk 18:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V, unless author can produce sources to address concerns raised. My concern is that there is no evidence this supergroup exists.--Isotope23 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be provided. — orioneight (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable. —thames 20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just alone for implying that Slayer would work with Linkin Park and Bob Rock. // Gargaj 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable (and damn unlikely) Dead 06:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looks like I can't save this. You're right - there are no published sources I can cite, due to the nature of the project. The information was obtained personally. So I can understand arguments from a verifiability viewpoint. I'm less happy about editors voting for delete as 'hoax' and 'unlikely'. As for the guy voting delete 'for implying that Slayer would work with Linkin Park and Bob Rock', you're exactly the reason the project is under wraps, as you're quite willing to hate the very idea of radically different groups working together. I will say this - Wikipedia is going to be left looking very stupid when the project reaches fruition and you won't have any information on it. People=Shit 12:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If and when that time comes, someone will add it, rest assured. PJM 12:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People=, first of all, the article did look to me as if it were a hoax. I will take your word that it is not. However, this doesn't change anything regarding keeping this article. Encyclopedias are not the place to publish secret information that is not available to the public. Once this project becomes publicly known, written about in magazines or on major websites, we will end up with an article about it. If you want to leak information about it out ahead of time to someone, there are plenty of online magazines and other websites which would be appropriate places to do so. --Xyzzyplugh 14:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --OneEuropeanHeart 04:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above - unverifiable/unlikely Senner 03:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 05:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nine Inch Nails covers[edit]

List serves no real purpose. Is listcruft. Also, seem to be original research as no references are provided. Localzuk (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, shows how NIN has influenced other bands and vice versa. Kappa 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - How does it show other bands that have been influenced by NIN? I am a big fan of NIN myself but providing a huge list of songs that have been covered does not have any encyclopedic value. -Localzuk (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I think the list is probably entirely verifiable, but does strike me as listcruft that is maybe better addressed on NIN fanpages (and I am a fan) and places like [Covers Project] which is much more thorough. That said, WP also a List of notable cover versions, List of songs covered by the band Pearl Jam, and List of songs covered by Dream Theater. Policy on this could use further explanation. Schizombie 19:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The above lists you quote are a much better set than the AFD'd one. They provide lists of songs covered *by* a specific band rather than bands that have covered a song. The information included in this list should be in the articles about those bands and any specifically notable ones included in the NIN article itself. -Localzuk (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Nine Inch Nails. No reason for more lists to spawn pertaining to songs written by a band and covered by another, or songs a band has covered that were written by someone else.--Isotope23 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, per Schizombie. As it is, this seems like listcruft, especially since a large part of the list is just the tracklistings of four or five tribute albums—I think if the albums themselves aren't notable enough to have their own pages, they shouldn't be included in their entirety here. - Rynne 21:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. After more research, I'm strengthing my vote. As per my comment to Mecanismo, the relevant information is already merged into the articles of individual NIN recordings. Furthermore, almost every link to the list comes from these NIN articles, meaning that the list is redundant. -- Rynne 16:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. There is really one basic issue here, and it is listcruft. If there is any notability to the elements of this list, the NIN article itself should be able to reveal it. Also, what importance does this list have? Cdcon 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change vote to Delete. Rynne informs me that all the information in the list is included elsewhere in Wikipedia. Cdcon 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge relevant information, delete article. listcruft --Mecanismo | Talk 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. A lot of the relevant information here is already available elsewhere. Most of the covers are already listed on the respective release pages (see section "The Song" in Down In It, Head Like a Hole, Sin, etc.). The main issue that's being brought up is whether the list itself is relevent, and I don't see how merging it into Nine Inch Nails or any other article addresses that. - Rynne 15:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you are right. It seems that the information available at the AFD is already covered and easily accessible. The reason why I explicitly voted "merge and delee" was that I find the information valid but the article is redundant. So, if all information is already listed in other NIN-related articles, then this AFD obviously should be deleted. --Mecanismo | Talk 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redundant list. Stifle 13:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice to have everything in one place. Redundancy is good.  Grue  18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest Language[edit]

This article claims that Tamil is the oldest language and does not cite sources. I do feel it does not enhance Wikipedia in any way as it is presently written File Éireann 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Original research, POV and in its present form it is nonsense (though that may or may not be the case if it was oldest surviving language). MLA 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep the new quality version by Smerdis of Tlön per Craig Stuntz below MLA 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to WP:V and because it appears to be contradicted by Tamil language.--Craig Stuntz 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original research with no sources, citations or references provided for the linguistics researcher.  (aeropagitica)  16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Linguistic research has concluded that the oldest languages are almost certainly part of the Khoisan family. I don't think Tamil would even come close. Grandmasterka 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I can't let that pass. Linguistic research has concluded no such thing. The idea of "oldest language" makes no sense. No language is older than any other. All languages change; they all have developed out of some older variety. Khoisan languages or their ancestors may have been in situ longer than others in the area, but they are no older. That argument applies to Tamil too, of course, so Delete. rodii 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, original research, and a possibly interesting but vague subject where results will vary depending on how you define what you're looking for. Sumerian is the oldest language for which texts have survived; I don't think there are any written records from 16000 BC. I know that some have suggested that Elamite might have been Dravidian, it ain't Tamil. This text will not help anyone write a better article. Smerdis of Tlön 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waidaminnit! I have drawn up a proposed rewrite of the article now here, which appears below the original text now. Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much, much better! Changing my vote to keep the Smerdis of Tlön version. I still disagree with some of the assertions, and it needs sources, but that can be addressed by editing, not deletion. Great save. rodii 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MLA. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, this content is not salvagable, and if somebody were to write a real article under that title, its main content would have to be to explain how the whole concept of an "oldest language" is inherently not meaningful. Perhaps I'll try my hand at that some day, but not now. Lukas (T.|@) 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lukas. JoshuaZ 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to keep. New version is much better if used. JoshuaZ 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It would make an interesting article if citations were provided, but otherwise, it is useless per POV speculation. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - linguistic garbage. I note that Tamil chauvinism is indeed an interesting topic, though. Morwen - Talk 00:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the re-written version. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the re-write, which is astonishingly better than the original. Note that most of the delete votes above probably saw only the (very delete-worthy) original. Zompist 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rewrite. Stifle 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep rewritten article. - Rynne 15:24, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common physics confusers[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-encyclopedic science FAQ. WP:NOT a collection of Lists of Frequently Asked Questions. Weregerbil 17:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Monkeyman(talk) 17:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonencyclopedic in title and content. Content not good enough to even modify and move elsewhere. WAS 4.250 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JoshuaZ 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Good start for a website teaching basic physics, completely out of place here. --Talain 11:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but maybe something like it could find a home on Wikibooks? Right now it isn't well-organized enough to make a good Wikibook, but the author might be encouraged to improve it there. --Trovatore 04:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:27, 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 10:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Stasiak[edit]

This actor is not notable, having appeared in only three episodes in 1994 in a children's television show and as background in a wrestling(?) show. Furthermore, the page is clearly a vanity page, having been created by the person himself. Finally, the page has previously been speedily deleted, albeit with much less content. --Yamla 15:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the creator of the page has added some comments at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Stasiak explaining why the article should be kept. In part, he claims that the filmography is broader than is presented on the article page and that any actor with screen time should have a wikipedia page. I am not trying to put words in his mouth, though, so please check out the discussion page. --Yamla 17:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Mr. Stasiak's website is now live. In my opinion, this does not substantially change matters but I'm noting this here in case it causes anyone to change their vote or for people new to this vote. --Yamla 15:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete plus request admin action. User:Redkane deleted the AfD tag on the page and also blanked this entire AfD day page. MLA 16:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User appears to be new and may not have known the correct way to defend the page. --Yamla 16:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough and assuming good faith on the Robert Stasiak page seems reasonable but this diff: [32] doesn't appear to be particularly innocent. MLA 16:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article made by the notorious vandal connecting as 203.14.53.15 and Redkane. Although for once this seems to be correct info. Although in this case it is seems to be about himself. I am pretty sure that user 203.14.53.15 = user Redkane = Robert Stasiak. (Same age, lives in the same city, studies at the same school (I traced his IPs to that school) and more. As far as I can see he came on Wikipedia in June 2005 and since then ALL his edits have been vandalism. --David Göthberg 10:11, 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:27] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Warfield Games[edit]

Delete. Advertisement and probably non-notable. EdGl 05:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page for my reply to CMHQ_Widget and frostpdp.

Don't Delete. Please read discussion page. CMHQ_Widget 11:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - All user's edits are to this page.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Same as Widget; the article definitely still requires work and we are perfectly willing to put that work in. frostpdp 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note except once, all edits are to this page or the page of the articel.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete. Please review WP:CORP. You must meet the criteria here to have your article kept. Monkeyman(talk) 17:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP, and there is no discussion page per earlier comments.--Isotope23 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There was one but it was posted to the article page itself by accident. I have moved it to the talk page. Monkeyman(talk) 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, let me review it then.--Isotope23 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it doesn't change my opinion, but kudos to the frostpdp and CMHQ_Widget for being civil about their disagreement with this "Article for Deletion" proceeding.--Isotope23 21:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP. The information on this page belongs on the company's own website, not Wikipedia. Stifle 13:34, 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. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:30] <freakofnurxture|talk>

WhatIf Productions[edit]

Delete, doesn't seem notable. EdGl 21:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I argue against the deletion of this entry. In fact, give me a few more days and I'll post some more info on here. Knoland 17:00, 16 February 2006 (PST)

I just read the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and the rules outline that this has all three criteria. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research and the info I provided should meet that criteria. If your opinion is that this is not notable then that does not qualify this for deletion, unless I'm missing something? Knoland 17:00, 16 February 2006 (PST)

Yes, you are missing something; read this official Wikipedia policy. If you can meet the criteria listed there, then this article may be kept. EdGl 22:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, that is a guideline, not an official policy. Ardric47 17:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The game they made, NTE: Strike and Retrieve, has over 29,000 downloads as of August1. I can only speculate what the current downloads are, but from what I've been able to dig up, it's well over 50,000(adding up all the different downloads from all the different carrier sites such as fileplanet and gamespot. The software criteria for submissions has been met for the NTE: Strike and Retrieve and I thought it would be okay to have a little blurb about the company that made it. Perhaps I should merge this with the NTE page? Knoland 19:30, 16 February 2006 (PST)

Perhaps; let's see what the consensus is. If this game you mentioned is as popular as it seems, then this article could be notable yet. EdGl 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Whatif was on the advisory commitee for the OpenGL shader spec1, specifically the GLSL portion of the spec. Knoland 20:00, 16 February 2006 (PST)

As per WP:CORP. "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations." Which has been met, I just haven't had time to finish this entry. Knoland 17:30, 22 February 2006 (PST)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. If this goes to WP:DRV then we open the wikipedia cow level. - brenneman{T}{L} 05:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GG-Bomb[edit]

Used ((prod)), which was reverted by Gg-bomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the creator (!). Playing it safe and taking it here. It appears to be a hoax WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. James084 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speedily as hoax vandalism if possible. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Oldelpaso 19:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G1, patent nonsense—tagged. — orioneight (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That makes this article one of the few to exist in all three deletion systems -- prod, AfD, and CSD. That is not a good sign for this article. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Today, we heard a terrible cry from the throats of a million nn-bio subjects: OUCH. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "This is not a hoax!" Oh yes it is - ((hoax)).  (aeropagitica)  20:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a... thing with little context and as a nonnotable person, if not even as pseudo-coherent nonsense, depending on if you squint at the article right. Assuming the author is talking about themselves, this isn't a hoax, but let's not bother ourselves finding tons of sources and ve-ree-fy-eng things when we have here what appears to be a prime example of a Nonnotable Bio which certainly doesn't contribute much to the great scheme of things. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Horror Picture Show/audience participation[edit]

Delete. Unencyclopedic. Indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 17:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is a Cult following section in Rocky Horror Picture Show which covers this aspect. Any useful info could be added there. PJM 17:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PJM. Monkeyman(talk) 17:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per PJM. I played Dr. von Scott in the Rochester New York floor-show cast in the mid-Eighties, but there's not enough reason for this breakout article. I don't think these few examples (which are far from universal) need to be merged into the parent article. Barno 19:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per PJM.--Isotope23 19:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:26, 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 Speedily deleted. Aaron 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colin stanton[edit]

Nonnotable person

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ELECTRIPED[edit]

This is a neologism with 4 relevant google hits, which means no widespread use. DJ Clayworth 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Although so far there has been limited discussion of what the generic term for these type of products should be, there is no term for this category of product with more widespread use. Clearly there is a need for some generic term, as products like the the Segway HT are not adequately described by the term "scooter" or other attempts at short descriptions. "Electric Pedestrian", logically contracted to "electriped", is clearly the best categorization. Perhaps "Electric Pedestrian" would be a less controversial name for the article, but ultimately "electriped" will prevail as the most convenient form. --AturoUrbo 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to introduce or promote new terminology, no matter how useful such terminology might be. CDC (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and per CDC. Barno 01:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle 13:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:26, 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. 28, '06 [11:33] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Lloyd Helferty[edit]

Delete This article is of the Green Party candidate in the 2006 election in Thornhill. The election is over, Mr. Helferty lost with only 4% of the vote. According to wiki's biography guidelines for local politicans: "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage," Helferty is not eligible for an article. pm_shef 18:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again yet another polically motivated request for deletion from PM_shef --69.156.151.238 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Missing even such thing as birthdate. A person reduced to an unsuccessful candidacy isn't article. Pavel Vozenilek 19:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsuccessful Canadian parliamentary candidate. The article provides no evidence to meet WP:BIO guidance on politicians' notability. Sliggy 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 22:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable --Mecanismo | Talk 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and Sliggy. Article has no indication that he has been "a major local political figure" nor that he "receive[d] significant press coverage". Google shows this WP entry first, then results of the 2004 election (3.43 percent of the vote), then some local and contribute-your-own websites with environmental activism. Wikipedia is not a place to promote candidacies, people, or ideas, see WP:NOT. Barno 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, past AFD's on unelected candidates have pretty consistently sawed off at the compromise position that they can be kept in a merged party candidates in X election list, but not generally as separate biographical articles unless they meet WP:BIO on other grounds beyond having been a political candidate. It may not be the ideal situation for some purposes, but as things currently stand it's what the established consensus happens to be. Accordingly, merge into Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian election. Bearcat 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. I've added him to Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. —GrantNeufeld 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per GrantNeufeld's helpful merge. Samaritan 02:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election#Lloyd Helferty (Thornhill) until he or someone else by that name can meet the criteria for having his own article. --maclean25 21:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Mac Obli (Talk)? 11:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. A small note to some of the people voting here: long comments spanning multiple paragraphs do not help your case, and when I read these votes when closing AfDs votes, my eyes start to glaze over after a few sentences, so you're really just wasting your time. A simple and concise comment stating your vote and rationale behind that vote is all you need. Anything more makes it harder for us to process, which leads to an article staying in AfD for much longer than it really should. Also, attacking those on the other side of the debate, and comments such as "SHAME ON YOU" breaks Wikipedia's policy of No personal attacks. Deathphoenix 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Strelchik[edit]

Delete - Wikipedia's guidelines for living people's biographies when discussing politicians reads "Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage" and also mentions people holding the office of MP, MPP and so on. Strelchik does not fall into either of these categories. pm_shef 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepThis article of Mr. Strelchik is very note worthy and from the tone of the unsigend (PM_shef) above sounds very politically motivated. Mr. Strelchik is currently President of the New Democratic Party of Canada EDA, he has been nominated for three Noble Peace Prize's and he was the candidate of record for the New Democratic Party of Canada in the Thornhill riding in the recent Canadian federal election. Please keep in mind that this request to delete was from the son of a candidate that ran against Mr. Strelchik in a municipal election a number of years ago. Mr. Strelchik is more worthy of an article than PM_shef’s father, which he posted a while back.--69.156.151.238 18:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, Strelchik was not nominated for any nobel peace prizes. The organization that he happened to be a founding member (and director) of was nominated, not him. Yes, I'm the son of a councillor, Alan Shefman, Mr. Strelchik's opponent in the election before last, that has been established long ago on here and is not germane. As well, as you can see from the Wiki guidelines, being President of the NDP EDA in Thornhill does not constitute notability. Finally, again if you go to the Wiki Guidelines for Bios, Strelchik does not pass the Google Test, the 100 Year Test or the Verifiability Test. pm_shef 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, Strelchik was in fact part of a group of people that has been nominated for the noble peace prize. He was one of the founding directors of the organization that has been nominated. This is verifiable.--69.156.151.238 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is a founding member of an organization which was nominated. He was not nominated, though I'd welcome any concrete proof you have to the contrary. And even so, being nominated for the prize still does not make one noteable - again, see wiki guidelines.pm_shef 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a final note before I stop commenting here, please consult wiht the Wiki Bio guidelines (link above) before voting. Do not vote on politics, vote on rules. pm_shef 21:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. mikka (t) 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major party candidate in a federal election. We actually have many hundreds of articles on these people. - SimonP 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable person. this attempt to delete is politically motivated. We are having many proplems here in the city of Vaughan from a few elected officials who think they can dictate to everyone. --Eyeonvaughan 04:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont think this article should be completely deleted, but definetly shortenned, to, as I have said, 2 or 3 sentences. Theonlyedge 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strelchik is a rising star in his community. His list of accomplishments are amazing given his age, and he was very skillful and articulate in the election.

If his opponents each deserve pages, he does as well. In fact he deserves a page for the sole fact that he founded along with Craig Keilburger one of the most important huminitarian organizations in the world. And he crafted along with Mayors and Councillors the very influential York no-smoking bylaw. Not to mention the fact that his campaign received the highest percentage increase in votes in the election. Keep CasanovaAlive

Note: user's first-ever edits under this user name were to this page and the Simon Strelchik article's talk page. Bearcat 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CasanovaAlive --TheKvetch 00:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, past AFD's on unelected candidates have pretty consistently sawed off at the compromise position that they can be kept in a merged party candidates in X election list, but not generally as separate biographical articles unless they meet WP:BIO on other grounds beyond having been a political candidate. It may not be the ideal situation for some purposes, but as things currently stand it's what the established consensus happens to be. Accordingly, merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian election. Bearcat 03:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, Strelchik meets the WP:BIO because he is a longstanding "Major local political figure who receive significant press coverage." Also, as a founder of Free the Children, and an author of the influential York Region No Smoking Bylaw, he is a "Person achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events." Israelforever
  • York By-law
Note: user's first-ever edits under this user name were to this page. Bearcat 08:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per SimonP. Ardenn 16:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Article should focus on his work in founding Free the Children, not his NDP candidacy. That is his claim to notability. Otherwise merge into New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian election as per Bearcat. Luigizanasi 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Party candidates in X election is precedent, yes, but I think it's getting awfully clumsy, especially when you have subsets of each sets of candidates who run again in Y election, and Z... do you have to have multiple iterations of the same person? Or do you refer additional references to the same repeat candidate to... the first? the most recent? the most important? But this is a broader discussion. Weak keep or (regular) merge. To Simon's supporters: Please don't try to stuff the ballot box here; let invested members of the Wikipedia community judge whether to take the article in on its own suitability. Nothing's keeping you from putting up a page about Simon on your own website. :) Samaritan 20:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep to Simon's non-supporters please don't try to stuff the ballot box here. let non-partisan wiki members judge this article. This attempt to delete is obviously politically motivated by a political opposition.--Eyeonvaughan 20:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeonvaughan, the only ballot-stuffing going on here is from supporters of the article. Remember, WP:SOCK clearly spells out that contributors whose first known edit is to an AFD are at best suspicious, and at worst irrelevant and disregardable. And, for the record, you can can the allegations of partisan attacks; whatever your feelings about pm_shef, Wikipedia has a strict policy of assuming good faith in a dispute — and for what it's worth, I'm an NDPer and so's Samaritan, and we both expressed reservations about the article's keepworthiness too. Bearcat 22:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the puppets are now also vandalizing the article's talk page to remove any discussion they deem unfavourable to the article subject, and also blanking any comments to their own talk pages advising them of Wikipedia policy in the matter. Bearcat 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete to the entire City of Vaughan if it will end this endless debate on their no-name, non-notable city councillors. --Dogbreathcanada 05:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep To quote the very first disgruntled poster: "Wikipedia's guidelines for living people's biographies when discussing politicians reads 'Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage...'" WELL .... Mr. Strelchik is most definitely a local political figure who has received significant press coverage: he was chosen as a local hero by the Thornhill Post in 2000, and the media has consistently reported on his community work and advocacy. As well, running for parliament as the NDP Canadidate in the last federal election at such a young age is also a MAJOR accomplishment, as well as a MAJOR position to be in, and this most definitely makes him a noteworthy individual. While Wikipedia criteria mentions people holding the office of MP, MPP and so on, this is NOT a prerequisite for having a Wikipedia article of mention and his personal and political accomplishments as they stand make him a noteworthy individual. PERIOD.

As an aside, I have been silently watching this thread and simply because I read and dont post does not make me (or anyone) a PUPPET, and I resent the accusation made from afar in my silence and absence from posting in all candor. This is, in my humble opinion, simply a weak tactic made only to circumvent people such as myself from posting in support of Mr. Strelchik's article, and to discredit your opposition for same. However, in my case it had the opposite effect cos I do NOT respond positively to passive aggressive bullying - I never have, and I never will. As the accuracy of the article (Note: with minor clarification/revision Re: The organization for which he was a founding member has been nominated for 3 Nobel Peace Prizes as previously mentioned), AND Mr. Strelchik's political and personal accomplishments have already been verified, AND he has (obviously) met the Wikipedia criteria as outlined above, why all the personal attacks on his accomplishments or his right to have a Wikipedia article?* Consequently, I have to question what motivations or personal agendas are really in play here in attempting to discredit or disallow his being mentioned singularly on Wikipedia. If ANY other individual made such strides in life they too would be entitled to a Wikipedia article, would they not? Personally, I became aware of Simon's many stellar accomplishments during the recent federal election, and I was duly impressed and remain so. Why arent YOU? I now actively watch his political progress due to his personal commitment and huge potential for positive social impact with great interest and support -- so much so that I recently became an NDP Party Volunteer. He is truly inspiring in his dedication and commitment. In my humble opinion, as this IS a forum in which to express one's opinion on Wikipedia articles, and NOT a forum in which to make personal attacks on individuals for personal reasons, your negative arguments at this stage (considering my comments above*) appear to be rather petty to this poster who has absolutely NO STRINGS attached to her fingers or her brain as she types this. Mr. Strelchik's record and political profile speak for themselves, I believe, and I am of the opinion that the article should be kept as is, and hope Wikipedia's Administrator's agree as a truthful account SHOULD be told without personal resentments or censorship and he most definitely warrants individual mention, and if someone chooses to DELETE my posting in order to protect their own agenda....SHAME ON YOU.

Note: Above unsigned vote from User:CelticChick (talk, diff). User's first-ever edit under this user name was to this page. Samaritan 19:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To the anon contributor above: it is explicitly spelled out in Wikipedia policy that these debates are to represent the consensus of established Wikipedia users — people who have enough of a track record around here that we can trust their view of an article's notability to be objective. An editor whose first-ever contribution is to an AFD debate can be disregarded in the final tally, because they don't have that record of reliability — the chances are too high that they're a personal friend of the article subject who came here to stack the vote, and we simply don't allow that kind of thing (or else every high school class president in North America would have an article, because he could just get all his drinking buddies and football teammates to come game the system.) You may not like the policy, but it's there, and we're not going to disregard it just because a newbie thinks it's inconvenient.
Frankly, I don't believe for a bleeding second that you just happened to find this article and are providing a purely objective view. Given what's been going on here and on the article over the last few days (and for months over a whole subset of other York Region politicians), without even knowing any of you I can state categorically that you're almost certainly a personal friend of Mr. Strelchik's. The onus is not on us to trust you; it's on you to prove that your words can be taken as an objective view. What you and your talk-page-blanking friends need to be aware of is that you don't have a right to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point, and this kind of behaviour frankly makes Wikipedians even less inclined to take your side. In fact, in the few years I've been editing Wikipedia, I've never seen a single solitary case where a genuinely notable person needed a sockpuppet swarm to protect their article for them — this kind of behaviour almost invariably surrounds articles about people whose inflated egos outweigh their actual encyclopedia-worthiness.
If Simon's legitimately notable, then he doesn't need a bunch of hooligans running around breaking every one of Wikipedia's rules to protect him; he needs a properly-reasoned, mature, calm discussion to be conducted within the rules. So can the bullshit, all of you, and work with us here. Bearcat 02:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Clarification WOW. 1. I AM a regular user of Wikipedia, and do extensive research on this site in order to find the most current info on many things. I also often refer people to this site as well so I have a vested interest in it's accuracy and inclusion of what I believe is important reference information, but admit I do not post, or haven't, before now (obviously) so I am not (yet) "established".

2. I am new to being involved in politics, and the NDP party, as I said, but to the last poster: you assume WAY too much about me from my posting. First of all, I am NOT a personal friend of Mr. Strelchik's, although I did meet him post-election in November, and spoke with him at length at that time, and was duly impressed with his accomplishments, as I believe I said. Now, because I am new to posting, everything I said about his accomplishments is UNsubstantiated? ok ignore me than ... but the facts about what the guy has done speak for themselves.

3. Since the election I have taken an active interest in following many NDP party members, and found this particular 'edit' page by a simple search and ultimately I felt compelled to post something, as i said previously. You dont believe me? Tough. Sorry ... no offence but you have attacked me for NO REASON and Im a tad TICKED OFF at this point. Regardless, I was dismayed by what was being said, and what I believed (and still believe) were obvious 'personal' agendas against Mr. Strelchik, and admit I felt compelled to post something in support of the article about him. I have no personal interest or benefit from doing so. MY arguments are (as outlined previously) simply that the article about him should be maintained on the site in accordance with the site's guidelines because his accomplishments are noteworthy. The other 'established' users ALSO verify the accuracy of the information posted, they just argue that they arent important ENOUGH. Isnt that the administrator's job to determine THO?

4. YES this is my first posting ever and after THIS most probably my last because in choosing to post on this matter, (naively perhaps?) I am now forced to read rude aspersions on MY character? All I can say is ...WOW. While I was fine with the administrators editing my posting if they saw fit to do so, I didnt realize that in posting a supportive commentary, because I am a relative unknown, that it would then leave ME open to be accused of all kinds of ...'bullshit' I think the term was? Again, all I really can say is WOW.

5. I have NO PROBLEM with the guidelines for this site, and IN FACT am arguing, ironically, in support of them! Simply because this is my first posting, I am accused of some alliance with Mr. Strelchik any my opinion doesnt count? Again ... WOW. Ironically, I tried to keep the personal attacks out of it, and did not direct any criticisms AT anyone in particular, and simply expressed my personal opinion about what I felt about the guy's accomplishments, using the site's guidelines to support my arguments. BUT could you actually be saying that an unknown who supports substantiated information is given less importance than negative arguments based on personal agendas simply because of the proflic postings of the other "users/posters"? Good experiential data THERE boyo. Isnt it quality NOT quantity that REALLY matters when it comes to INFORMATION?

6. I feel wholly insulted to be called a "hooligan", and I am amazed that my ONE posting is considered a "swatpocket swarm" or whatever the hell THAT is! I felt that negative attacks that I saw in this thread should have an alternate voice for the site administrator's consideration, and I opted to be that voice. One supportive posting by me and this is what you choose to post about me? A glaring personal attack? WOW.

7. My posting was anonymous ONLY because I obviously do not know how to post properly. I have no problem in identifying myself, and did, or thought I did, and will once again.

8. To the Site Administrators: This further commentary, and my prior arguments, were made simply to support the article as meeting the site's criteria because I strongly felt, and feel, that Mr. Strelchik's accomplishments ARE most definitely noteworthy. As one poster said here it is important "to vote on rules, not politics", which is ALL I argued in support of to begin with! I HOPE that you will determine this matter on THAT basis, without prejudice.

I can only hope. Have a great day. CelticChick (in case I post this wrong again)

  • Comment' CelticChick, this is not the place for your personal rants, FYI, User:Bearcat IS an Administrator and throughout all of these Vaughan/Thornhill AfD's, has been remarkably cool-headed and I think we all owe him a debt of gratitude for that. Wikipedia does not need these 'holier-than-thou' rants. pm_shef 01:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carleton University Physical Recreation Centre[edit]

Non-notable advertisement. Delete Ardenn 18:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete vanity, void of any notoriety --Mecanismo | Talk 23:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. —ERcheck @ 00:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. -Joshuapaquin 06:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:26, 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. 28, '06 [11:41] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Carleton University Residence Commons[edit]

  • Wikipedia isn't free webspace. Vanity. NN. Delete Ardenn 19:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the above is a bit extreme. Residences are an important part of student life and an important part of the university. People want a NPOV view of them and they do not get that from University advertising copy. I did clean it up earlier but it needs more research and more detail from someone at Carleton with access to sources. I suggest keep, but in this case (and not in general), looking at Carleton University it could perhaps be merged there, at least until it is expanded and improved to deserve standing on its own feet. --Bduke 21:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Ardenn --Mecanismo | Talk 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Relevant information can be included in the Carelton University article. (See Wikipedia:List_of_bad_article_ideas: "Your dormitory (unless it's on the Historic Register).") —ERcheck @ 00:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ERcheck. -Joshuapaquin 06:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 15:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solarmon[edit]

Delete. Non notable comics person that is just like other one but yellow does not deserve article of its own. It is just Digimon fancruft. Article about this figure was deleted before (objection to deletion on the talk page is from previous discussion). Jan Smolik 18:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Real digimon, keep or merge somewhere. "does not deserve article of its own" is no reason for deletion. Kappa 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See category:digimon and subcats. You'd have to delete/merge dozens of of these. At WP:DIGI, we're trying to make these actually useful, so tere's no need to nuke our efforts. Circeus 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and Keep BTW Circeus 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Other comments: the nominater is completely misleading by stating "that is just like other one but yellow". Hagurumon and Solarmon are perfectly distinct (if similar in design) digimon. Circeus 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you read the article? I quote: "Solarmon is a Rookie Level Machine Digimon that looks like Hagurumon, but is all yellow." --Jan Smolik 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Attacks and other stats differ. This is different from, say the different colored versions of Agumon. Circeus 23:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say Keep. After all, you never know, it might show up as a semi-important character in the manga and/or anime. N. Harmonik 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is semi-important the same as notable? --Jan Smolik 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is might the same thing as does? Thatcher131 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep, hoping that WP:DIGI will work on it. Punkmorten 21:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak keep in agreement with Punkmorten. I remain of the opinion that WP:DIGI should take their large and thorough project to a separate wiki, and replace their WP content with, say, two or three articles and one list. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia and it's not a game rules guide. Character stats aren't encyclopedic, whether it's Pokemon or Advanced Squad Leader or a Star Wars game. But I don't want to mess up their efforts, just as I don't want Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR messed up by people who say "they just go around in circles and crash." Barno 02:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article really is rather weak, perhaps WP:DIGI can merge it into something relevant? Sliggy 02:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps, but to where? Punkmorten 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea where it might fit comfortably. Therefore, in the absence of a page to merge with this article, I've changed my vote to delete, as it can be recreated when someone's got the time to build a stand-alone and fully-fleshed-out article. Sliggy 22:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently, as a substub, it should be deleted, whether it's notable enough or not. If it was this short, I'd delete George W. Bush. Notability, in my eyes, only comed into effect when there's a decent article there already. I'm giving you 3 more days to at least write a decent stub on it (2-5 paragraphs) or my vote stays the same at strong delete. --Celestianpower háblame 16:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, and I have to be able to understand it (try putting small bits of explanation of terms in parenthesis). For example, what is a machine digimon? A rookie-level digimon? --Celestianpower háblame 16:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still prefer it if I were able to understand it but at least we now have some content. Weak keep. --Celestianpower háblame 15:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Currently, WP:DIGI is busying itself mostly with character, anime and game articles. If this article is deleted, several dozens more will have to be (see for exemples, Kenkimon, Gabumon X and Witchmon). The non-list data (i.e. description and attacks) cannot be readily merged anywhere. The article is already listed at List of Digimon and Metal Empire (though the latter would be converted to a cat if I had my way, but we don't have the time for it ATM). I think statu quo is preferable at least for the time being, if only because we might have to find back the information anyway if the article is to be recreated based on the Pokemon precedent. Circeus 16:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's where I disagree strongly. The Pokemon precident is only there because the articles are on the whole, of high quality. See Bulbasaur (almost an FA), for example. There was a policy a while back to merge them but because we took the time and effort to expand them, they weren't deleted. If we hadn't, there'd be no "Pokemon precident" to fall on. if you can't be bothered to write a good stub on a subject, it shouldn't be here in my opinion. --Celestianpower háblame 16:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sheer amount of articles in relation to the number of those willing to work them out prevents us to apply such an emergency remedy. I remain convinced that, given enough time, we actually can do it. Circeus 17:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The point I'm making is that I don't see what good is to become of having it here. Experience shows that redlinks are more inviting for contributors than substubs. Also, if anyone comes across it now, will it help them? No. Better to start afresh when someone gets round to writing something worthwhile. What's already there looks like information that anyone that plays/watches Digimon would know, so nothing's being lost. --Celestianpower háblame 18:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. As said before, WP:DIGI has recently become quite active again, and the chances of us finding a solution for this information are high. I have another idea; give some time for us to archive information and find the weak articles. Make this a task for WP:DIGI and allow a lasting plan of action on where to store the information (if it is to be stored on wikipedia at all). As big of a fan of the Digimon series that I am, I know wikipedia is not our own personal fansite, and that a line should be drawn sometimes when it comes to the relevance of information. With Digimon receiving a new series there is renewed interest in WP:DIGI and more activity. I believe we can get the task done if you leave it in our hands. And perhaps a deadline, if we cannot meet (doing something that is satisfactory with the information), would just mean the articles do get deleted? -- Ned Scott
for those who are interested in the future fate of other similar articles you might want to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#is it possible to merge some digimon (monster) articles? -- Ned Scott
  • Delete as a substub on a random digimon. In fact, speedy as per CSD:G4. Stifle 13:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've seen Digimon articles shorter than this. I am not sure if they are expandable or not because they have not appeared in the anime or anything, or are just part of a list that Bandai released. I don't think all the Digimon have made an appearance in games and/or anime and/or cards and/or other items. However, I would keep it because, like Circeus says, lots more of these types of articles exist. It is possible that these articles are just short. x42bn6 Talk 01:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Soloarmon is a real Digimon, he has his own card and has even appeared in Digimon video games, I added a bit of info to its article a couple of days ago... --Nightmare_SE 25 February 2006.
    • Nice. Punkmorten 14:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 single parent, there is no content to merge. --Deathphoenix 05:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherless[edit]

This is not an article, only a list of very one-sides surveys more or less dealing with the topic. --BarbD 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Barb, nice to see you on this side. Always hiding some interesting staff! ts, ts, ts .... Look at that, your favorite work tool Google delivers us 1.230.000 hits isn't this amazing. Btw fatherless is only a "side topic" of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifeminist Someone is looking for more information there. --M.R.A. 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder how many of those Google hits can be summed up as "foo was fatherless", nothing more, nothing less. At the moment, this article is a dictdef, with three sources which appear to be extraneous to the material in the article. I don't know how 'worthy' an article on the subject would be, but when the sources section contains far more information than the article itself, I have to question what the heck is going on. -- Saberwyn 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. To single parent. Fatherless is such a broad, relative term, and as a sociological study, the term "single-parent" is much better defined and widely-used.--Esprit15d 21:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe some of this material could be incorporated into an article about family stability and the disagreements over whether or not traditionally families are more effective. JoshuaZ 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Esprit15d or else Delete Ryanjunk 21:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Esprit15d --Dcfleck 16:22, 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 Speedily deleted by Xaosflux with the reason "unsalvlageble". Possibly an application of WP:SNOW. Stifle 13:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal tournament 2004 cheats[edit]

Wikipedia is not a gamer's guide. Punkmorten 19:37, 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 (after filtering out the voice of everybody who sounded like a fanatic) no consensus. But I will be moving the article to a better title and re-listing. — Feb. 28, '06 [11:52] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Jonathan Williams (Anti-semitic Christian Identity preacher)[edit]

I tried to tidy this page up but it still reads very much as a POV essay - and it's possibly a vanity article, too. I honestly don't see how this guy is notable, and in the unlikely event that there is an article to be written about him, this isn't it. XYaAsehShalomX 19:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete... even the title is POV... This guy doesn't meet WP:BIO. I'd say merge to Christian Identity if anyone cares about the content, but don't even bother with a redirect on this page name.--Isotope23 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is accurate, as it is written by a concerned resident of the state of Georgia. Myself. I am only trying to make people aware of these wolves in sheep's clothing!

The info is derived for the most part from their own website! www.twelvearyannations.com Every time I have ever tried to share knowledge on this site concerning haters in the world, it is deleted. I follow all of the guidelines. I don't understand? All of what is being said can be proven by all resources available.

    • The reason it keeps getting deleted is that there is nothing in the article that asserts that he is notable. Church of Jesus Christ-Christian is just barely notable enough for an article since it seems they are an extreme minority group with very little large-scale influence. But the individual pastors aren't notable enough for their own articles. And the fact that you admittedly wrote the article with an objective ("to make ppl aware of these wolves in sheep's clothing) means it is POV. Your anti-racist objectives are wonderful, and I hope you continue that fight, because God knows we need it, but this is not the forum for this particular battle. You might considering mentioning consider mentioning him in the church article. --Esprit15d 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep your personal vendettas to your blog. Encyclopedias are meant to hold objective, impartial and worthy information. It isn't the job of any encyclopedia to serve as a vehicle to shamefull vendettas and persecutions. And let me inform you that if you keep creating articles like this one, then wikipedia's users will keep on deleting them. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not biting any newbie. The alledged author of that article said himself that he wrote that article and is maintaining it because he wants to attack the said person and drag his name through the mud. People who try to use an open encyclopedia to slander someone need to be warned about their actions, newbie or not. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hiya :) Don't take this too badly - it's not you.

Exposing fascists is a great thing to do and I thoughroughly approve, but since this is meant to be an encyclopedia, written in a neutral style, it's better to simply describe the subject of the article rather than write your own opinions - and I've made this mistake before in the past so it's nothing worry about.

In addition, he simply isn't well, important enough to the public, to write an article about, or at least I can't see any evidence of it, even if the article is accurate (which it probably is). Should this change in the future (G-d forbid) then we can rewrite the article. :) XYaAsehShalomX 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, POV, pet project, personal vendetta. It's a shame that wikipedia holds such articles. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Author, what XYaAsehShalomX has said is right on the money. This is an encyclopedia and it is not the correct place to "make people aware of these wolves in sheep's clothing" even if your intentions are good. I suggest maybe you get a blog, or some free webspace to post your material and any arguments against Mr. Williams. Hopefully XYaAsehShalomX is right and Williams will continue to be such an unimportant fringe element that he will never qualify for an article. I applaud the sentiment behind what you are doing, but this just isn't the right place for it. I hope you understand.--Isotope23 20:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no difference in what I have posted, and the other stuff posted about White supremacists! This Williams individual is local for me, and he makes the news nationally all of the time. I understand, but then again I don't. It seems to me EVERY article is biased in some sort of fashion, and mine just tells precisely what is widely known around the southeast. The public deserves to be able to read about figures of all backgrounds for research, including these unwanted ones. Clean it up if you wish, but I don't see how deletion is absolutely necessary. But I am sure it will get deleted anyway...
    • Can you cite an example of what you are stating? Perhaps a link to national news article about Williams?--Isotope23 21:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. For wikipedia, the most important fact for people is notablity. If he is a national figure with national (even world) impact, that needs to be put in the article to survive. Like you refer to his radio show. What show? Is it big? This would be an example of notability.--Esprit15d 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV --Esprit15d 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some new articles to back this up : http://www.rickross.com/reference/aryan/aryan77.html

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002053676_webaryan04.html http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/12/1723229_comment.php http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4186/is_20041003/ai_n11707824 Now tell me it is not worth creating a page!!!

  • two repeated articles from a newspaper, an article from an obscure hate group site and an article from a news site which publishes anyone's articles . That isn't exactly strong proof, is it? --Mecanismo | Talk 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone provide documentation of his radio show's existence? Then we at least could consider whether to keep him based on notability as a radio host, rather than arguing whether enough media mentions are found to make the anonymous poster's controversy notable. Currently the only source (before addition of the above links during an edit conflict, so I haven't checked them) is the website of one hategroup, which doesn't really do anything to substantiate claims of notoriety for this individual. See WP:RS. Barno 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per media mention, but move to a NPOV title. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete individual churches are not per se notable and neither are their pastors no matter how outré their beliefs may be. Carlossuarez46 00:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable church leader/superior, but move to a NPOV title. Stifle 13:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retitle and clean up. The fact that this guy is "Communications Director" of Aryan Nations (or at least he was in 2004) makes him just notable enough for inclusion, IMO. But the article is still highly POV, un-encyclopedic in tone, and lacking in sourced statements. --Dcfleck 16:56, 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 Keep. Remember, this is a discussion, not a vote. People don't get an automatic vote simply for showing up. Deathphoenix 05:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Quinn (Actor)[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.

  • Delete. Ongoing revert wars, Quinn is pissed, and no one should have to put up with this as a private person, regardless of public background. Sorry I got involved, but another student couldn't figure out how to do this page, so they IMed me. EW-Warrior 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question What is Quinn having to put up with? I see nothing objectionable on any of the edits, there is nothing demeaning nor can any of the material be construed as an attack. I'm very curious.TheRingess 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer It's bad enough the guy has to deal with IB teenagers on his ass all day long, does he really need a revert war? Yes, he is beloved by students (past and present), but the man didn't ask for this, doesn't want it, and has even taken down his own site -- davidquinn.com -- because his fool students don't want to allow him a life outside of the classroom (jumping all over his old message board, at least one DOS attack). Ringess, I don't understand your take in all of this. I think you are a little obsessed with reverting, judging from the history here. Olympic Flame 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Answer to Answer Please read Wikipedia's guidelines to citing sources, then we can talk further. BTW, you did not answer my question. Again I ask, what is so objectionable about the material on the article as it stood when I was editing it. Basically, there is nothing in the article that is not readily available on the internet. Believe me, I agree that the article should be deleted. Not for your reasons though. As I said, previous editors are claiming that the material they added is copyright. Keeping a spirit of good faith and respect for other people's opinions, I believe that on those grounds alone, it's reasonable to delete the article. As no copyright material, whatsoever, belongs on Wikipedia. Just let it go. TheRingess 08:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC) TheRingess 07:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was a part of the revert wars and I agree that Quinn is a marginal public figure, at best.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) .
  • Strong Keep Quinn is notable enough as an actor to warrant inclusion in Encyclopedia. And edit wars are not enough to justify deletion. The problem seems to be that some of the original contributors to the article, did not understand Wikipedia's policies and made edits in good faith with material that they claim should not be edited by anyone but themselves, noting that Quinn himself does not wish the material edited. This is tantamount to claiming copyrights for the material included. Not understanding that no material on Wikipedia can be copyrighted and not familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines for nominating articles for deletion, they then took it upon themselves to try to preserve their material by automatically reverting any changes made. They did not understand that a better solution is exactly what we are doing here, discussing whether or not the material as is, should remain on Wikipedia. If the article does not survive, then the copyrighted material is safe, and if someone feels he is notable enough to warrant an article, they can always recreate with fresh non-copyrighted material.If it survives, well I think we all ought to sit down and have a cup of tea, to decide how best to write the article so that it does not use copyrighted material, yet remains an Encyclopedic article. TheRingess 00:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nobody owns Wikipedia articles. If a user is persistently reverting to avoid consensus, raise an RFC or use WP:AN/I. You don't get the choice as to whether you have a Wikipedia article about you or not. Stifle 13:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up about requests for comments. I went ahead and created one. I should have done it before. TheRingess 02:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to change my vote. It won't matter anyway. He deserves an honest, neutral bio article as much as any other actor, and as long as the material cites readily available, credible sources then it's a keeper. TheRingess 07:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Ringess is right and owes me tea. I disagree that someone should rewrite this after it is deleted. Too many Quinn students with too much time = revert wars. Godmann 00:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Love the Edmonds Library on a Tuesday with friends. We all say delete, and aren't going to log in anymore about it. Let it go, Ringlady.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by KillChessCookie (talk • contribs) .
    • Actually, am a male. Does that make a difference? TheRingess 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Revert wars are no fun, especially when non-Quinn students like to mess with it after having been inspired by idiotic Quinn students. The discussion page now contains a bunch of undesirable, offensive content generated from the wars, and because TheRingess refuses to remove most of it, the entire article along with the discussion should be gone. Mr. Quinn can always create his own website, or I can help him create one (that obviously cannot be edited by the public). --67.183.56.51 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make my point exactly (except the part where you classify fellow editors as idiotic). Wikipedia should never contain copyrightable material in any form. To say that no one should be allowed to edit an article, is the same as claiming copyright. As far as I can tell, looking at the article, it contains no obvious copyrighted material, with most of the material easily available from verifiable sources. TheRingess 04:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a member of the revert war, I would like Quinn to go back to being anonymous, particularly because I like him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.166.79 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 February 2006 UTC
  • Delete Please delete this article. Or at least clear the discussion page because it's a mess. Since "business partners and/or reporters actually LOOK at this site," Quinn wouldn't like it if they actually see a discussion page full of battling words. Unfortunately, TheRingess stubbornly doesn't want to clear the discussion page because talk pages "provide interesting perspectives." --GregoryKnapp 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Yes I am stubborn. I archived the material. One of the pillars of wikipedia is respect for each other and differing opinions. We should be very careful about what we say on talk pages and not just say whatever we want and then later try to hide our messes. Archiving is an accepted method for keeping discussion pages readable and is preferrable to simply deleting. Also the readability of an article's discussion page or lack thereof, is not sufficient grounds for deleting the article itself (if it were there would be a whole lot of articles in trouble).TheRingess 16:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KeepThis article should be deleted because it seems no one can agree on the material it presents. I wish it to be deleted, but the David Quinn follows Wikipedia's guidelines for noteworthy people to be on wikipedia. Because of that, this article should be remade by someone who knows what Quinn has done, and most importantly, MUST let other people edit the article, and not simply claim Quinn likes it the way it is. We should keep the article as long as people are allowed to edit the article, and that the information is not copywritten and is factual. Sonic3KMaster 00:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. WP revert wars don't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment no, they don't. But if you read the wikipedia guide to articles that are wikipedia-worthy, you'd know that David Quinn falls within the guidelines 168.99.166.2 01:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Come on, if the man doesn't want his article, let it go. I also agree with everyone else that the discussion page is full of stupid things. --TreyGreenawalt 01:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "if the man doesn't want his article, let it go" I disagree. ;) - Jersyko·talk 01:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And enough of this conditional nonsense or else Ringess is going to repost her version of the Quinn entry after this one is deleted. Notable? Hello -- he formed one of Seattles first web companies and has turned it into a megasite. But let it go. This is the nuttiest wiki thread I have ever seen.... Olympic Flame 07:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, he seems to meet WP:BIO. A page being under edit wars or revert wars doesn't make it deletion-worthy, just protect it for a week. Stifle 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has been protected for a week, and hasn't been reverted as much since then, except between TheRingess and a few of Quinn's self-proclaimed minions. Sonic3KMaster 01:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you still find the content questionable, then why not delete it? How can you really trust anyone, even from the original source? What if Quinn said his page needs to be removed because of privacy issues? Is Wikipedia really crappy for destroying this man's reputation if somehow the undesired revision gets protected for a month? --RedGlobeWalkerHim 14:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems to me, that the point you bring up about privacy and reputation is one of the big reasons why the Wikipedia community places great emphasis on citing credible reliable sources. An encyclopedia should contain no information that isn't already in the public domain. Also, by respecting copyrights, disallowing original research, and establishing standards for notability and maintaining neutral points of view; the community further ensures that no one is slandered or libeled. TheRingess 08:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Really people. Has anyone ever seen this much madness that isn't about a political figure. Wikipedia isn't about revert wars, it's about significant content. Keeping this page is tantamount to declaring permanent revert war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.166.79 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 February 2006 UTC
    • Comment it is not true that it is tantamount to permanent war, we can reach concensus and respect each other's opinions. TheRingess 07:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Let me be clear, Ringess. By continuing your endless and pointless revisions, you have declared war on the growing number of Quinn students who think you are a nut. We will use every IP in the building, every IP in our area, and every machine in every college we attend. W-A-R. Leave our man alone until this delete is done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) .
        • Comment Do you truly believe this is preferable to having a discussion with me? TheRingess 00:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I've only seen a threat from someone on wikipedia once, 72.49.52.246 Has threatened me before. Notice that he has been blocked from wikipedia several times. We can find all of your sock puppets you make them and stop you from continually vandalizing wikipedia and threatening us. Sonic3KMaster 00:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment No, you can't. It is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia's premise. And, Sonic, I'm not threatening "you" or even "Ringess." We've asked that this page be deleted, and patiently await that deletion. While we wait, we will ensure that this material is correct. Not the Ringesses' version of correct, but ours. Thank you for your comments.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs)
        • Comment As per your request, I have documented every single one of my changes. I have provided sources for the material in the article, I have provided dates, I have requested help from other editors in finding sources for some of the material, I apologized for reverting the material about the "40 under 40" award, I deleted the material about his roommates at a camp, because I could find no source for the material. I have added nothing that is pov and have made no attacks. One of the users of your ip address requested that I document any change I made, I did. I will continue to listen and respond with respect to any request you make. When I am wrong, I will apologize. I will not delete any more material on my talk page. I have requested more than once, help from fellow users. I have not, nor will I ever, make personal comments about anyone who disagrees with my edits. TheRingess 02:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it somewhat important to note here that a number of contributors are claiming to know what Mr. Quinn thinks about the article. Yet no one has provided a source for his thoughts, and no one has stepped forward claiming to be him and expressin those thoughts. I think it would create a dangerous precedent if Wikipedia allowed people claiming to represent a person (who don't provide a verifiable source), to determine the fate of an article, based solely on their claims. But then again, I'm just a fellow editor, not even an admin, and it's important to understand that I in no way represent the MediaWiki foundation. The opinions I express are mine, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Board of Directors or their representatives. I only know, that if I were notable enough to warrant an article, I would not want someone else claiming they know me, to determine the fate of my article. Ce la vie. I'm just a little guy with a big TV. Furthermore, this comment was not intended as an attack on any user but more of an observation about the verifiability of conversations that not everyone is privy to.TheRingess 08:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Had a "multi-year stint as the host of 3-2-1 Contact" - so he was one of the lead characters of a very notable 1980s educational TV program. Also nominated for an Emmy, and is a Peabody Award-winner. Clearly notable and encyclopedic, and meets WP:BIO. FCYTravis 09:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Nuthouse
  • Speedy keep the article as it is now, check and source facts and improve as necessary. If there are any revisions in the history which provide too many personal details, please point them out so that they can be deleted. The info that is presented now hardly goes beyond matters of public record, like the name, awards, public appearances and academic career. The legal threats are therefore entirely hollow, and I very much doubt that the actual David Quinn has made them. I'm assuming some of his students are running a little prank on him and us here. It would probably be better if they come clean before we contact Mr. Quinn and the techies at their uni to find out what's behind this. Zocky | picture popups 19:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; seems to be reasonably notable for his TV career, and has had enough of a public life that he can't just go and say "No, I'm just a private person now" and withdraw everything public. His legal threats are ridiculous and we shouldn't cave in to them. *Dan T.* 20:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep; I came here fairly randomly. There seems no reason why this article should not exist just because the subject of the article wants it deleted. To make legal threats against Wikipedia editors apparently shows that this man has too much money and time himself (despite his comments about others), but he has been a public figure, and he doesn't have any rights over people writing about him unless they legally libel him. Remove anything that might be libellous, and he hasn't got a leg to stand on, no matter how good his law firm. In fact, it would now be dangerous to remove this article as it might set a precedent, and we might have people like David Irving and even Osama Bin Laden (OK, I'm not entirely serious) complaining about being listed and threatening legal action. He makes a lot of noise, of course, but it seems to be hot air, and as long as Wikipedia are happy to retain this article, it should remain. He has publically admitted that at least one version of the article is essentially correct, and that in itself would prevent legal action. Personally I don't have any interest in this entry, and I won't be watching this talkpage, but for Wikipedia to continue to exist in the form that it does, it should resist pointless bullying. ThomasL 21:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Thomas, but I think you've got it wrong. The version of the article that should stay is the bio that relates to the acting career (and frankly I don't think that THAT is even worthy). This isn't about a rich guy or about time: It is about a right to privacy. Just because one part of someone's life conforms to certain aspects of WP:BIO, doesn't give anyone the right about every other aspect. --67.160.17.29 00:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But some of the stuff you deleted was pertaining to your acting career, like the link to your IMDB entry. And none of it seemed to particularly relate to your private life; it was all reporting on publicly-known things like an award you received. The most "private" thing there was mentioning what school you currently teach at; I wouldn't object if that were removed if you think it violates your privacy (by getting lots of screaming fans to mob the school looking for you?), but it's already published on other sites, as linked in the article. I'm sure your great lawyers will advise you that you have no valid basis for any sort of complaint. *Dan T.* 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article as it stands at the moment seems gloriously unoffensive. Boring even. Certainly on the borderlines of notability. How about a redirect to 3-2-1 Contact? Physchim62 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have posted a reply to this message on my personal talk page, since this anonymous user publicly claims to have some sort of knowledge of what I do in my spare time, I felt it necessary to respond. I did not put it here, since most of what I had to say, was not relevant to this discussion. If you feel compelled to respond, I respectfully request that you do so on my discussion page. I will endeavor to respectfully respond to any questions/concerns you raise. Believe it or not, what started off as a minor effort to provide sources has now turned into a 2+ week affair.TheRingess 22:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any substantial reason to delete this article. Removing any unsourced information from the article and insuring that only information from legitimate publications is included should be enough to satisfy any privacy concerns. Gamaliel 02:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If the person is notable, it doesn't matter that he doesn't want an article on himself here. Encyclopedias are not opt-in. This is not a vanity website where you can post only a positive biography or none at all, at your discretion. NoSeptember talk 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see any substantial reason to delete this article. Removing any unsourced information from the article and insuring that only information from legitimate publications is included should be enough to satisfy any privacy concerns. WAS 4.250 02:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I spent the better part of the last month editing this to shreds. Quinn made me see the light today, and I want to apologize to him for harming the WIKIPEDIA community by trying to change his bio and for being an idiotic pest/jerk. I think that this bio represents him correctly. NOW, all that said, I agree with NoSeptember and WAS4.250: I don't think its about whether Quinn is happy with it that matters. I think that a whole bunch of people have jumped on the bandwagon of "he can't tell us what to do!" without looking at the actual issue: I don't think that Quinn's important enough for this entry. I can't seem to find other entries for people who were famous for a little while 20 years ago. So I vote to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.148.37 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Subject wants article to be deleted" is not, and never has been, a deletion criterion. If irrelevant, unverifiable, or non-notable information is being inserted into the article, then remove it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 06:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lets not set a precident here... as Crotalus says ... "subject wants deletion" doesnt fly here without some serious grounding.  ALKIVAR™ 09:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FCYTravis. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to meet WP:BIO. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more than notable enough as per established WP:BIO guidelines. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn Speaks[edit]

  • DELETE: YOU ASKED, I'M ANSWERING I have been involved with online communities since 1991, and I deeply respect the premise of wikipedia. That said, I have to question why so many strangers (Ringess, FCYTravis, RedGlobe, Trey, OlympicFlame) would care at all about my biography or this entry. I would hope that there is a more valuable use of your lives than the endless reverting of this entry (or the many hours some of you appear to have spent researching and documenting elements of my life). Here's a shout-out to Ringess: You have too much time on your hands.

I returned from a brief trip to California this morning (BTW, the Image Awards are a lot of fun, and I urge you all to donate to the NAACP). I came back to school to get some paperwork done and found more than a few emails in my box. Most are from students, but at least one is from a resourceful wikipedian who very simply searched the Edmonds School District website for our directory, then sent me an email, directing me to this page. Anyone who wishes to email me may, of course, do this as well. You can even get my phone number from the directory and call and leave me a message. I'm happy to verify myself.

That said, I really could (mostly) care less about what you all are doing here. I didn't create this entry, I think that it is a complete waste of space, and I find the behavior of some of you to be completely anti-intellectual and downright childish. I don't suppose that anyone had my privacy rights in mind when they created the first Quinn entry, but now that I'm here, I think you should all just stop it. I'm voting for a delete, mostly because I think that you should all spend more time reading and seeing theatre.

The protected version of my entry is mostly correct, but I still fail to see why an entry for me exists in the first place. I am a private citizen, albeit one who once had a career on television and who has a career as an entrepreneur. My life is private, which is why davidquinn.com doesn't exist anymore. The biographical information that is found on my corporate sites exists for a simple reason: it answers basic questions for investors and media folks. If I wasn't required to put it up, I wouldn't have it up. My life is primarily dedicated to education. Anyone who has read my bio knows why: I made a promise to someone, and I'm keeping my side of the bargain.

If you want to continue to waste parts of your life on me or this entry, I cannot stop you. But rather than continue this wiki-farce, I urge you to delete this meaningless entry and concentrate your time and karmic energy making the world a better place to live in. Rather than spend all night reverting my bio, why don't you spend all night sending emails to political figures so they hear your voice? Or to relatives, so that they know that they are loved? Or how about just get in your car and go volunteer at a soup kitchen or an AIDS charity? I'm sure that you all have favorite causes. They need your help. Go.

Me? I'm "peace out" of here. Peace out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 19:14, February 26, 2006

You should be aware of the No Legal Threats policy here. *Dan T.* 20:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be a wikipedia policy, it has no legal standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 21:28, February 26, 2006
The policy doesn't say "You can't sue WP editors". It says "Don't threaten to sue WP editors, or we'll ban you from editing WP." It doesn't require legal standing. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 13:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is EXACTLY why Ringess has been making sure only information verified is on the article, and nothing "self-verified" by the anonymous IP trying to raise havoc. I do not agree that the article should be deleted, you fall within the guidelines to have an article. We are doing our hardest to only have truthful information. I think some information still needs to be taken out of the article, too. Sonic3KMaster 21:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry David, I've desired for this article to be deleted a long time ago. You're right, I didn't want to be involved. I have better things to do, such as exercising instead. I think my points didn't help for the deletion of the article. If you wish, I will no longer intervene. --TreyGreenawalt 22:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just had a lovely phone chat with FCYTravis. He's really great, and explained much about various wiki policies that I knew nothing about. I had no idea that asserting my legal right to privacy would be considered a threat, so I've withdrawn those statements and I'll deal with JWales and the foundation's legal team on future matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.17.29 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 27 February 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smat[edit]

Delete Uncommonly used internet abbreviation - no thank you. The external link doesn't mention the abbreviation and not used in MMORPGS I've played. If it is just IRC slang then we don't have articles on individual pieces of slang. Secretlondon 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Secretlondon 20:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix 05:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Salatin[edit]

Tagged speedy but contains assertion of notability. Listing here. My instinct says delete but I haven't researched it. Chick Bowen 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Keep. Article needs to meet criteria in WP:BIO which would require "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Amazon and google searches show author appears to have met this criteria. Monkeyman(talk) 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Amazon [33] and Google [34] searches do satisfy WP:BIO. bcasterlinetalk 21:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as above. When an Amazon check shows that Amazon physically stocks an author's books, you should presume that the author's ales meet the notability requirements. And if your instinct says delete, take the 5 minutes required to actually to the research. Monicasdude 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be civil. As I said, I listed this because it was tagged as CSD and I did not think it met the criteria (and I did not delete it, I would point out). If you think it should be kept, you may vote keep, as you've done. Chick Bowen 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if he has some books on amazon. However, it is not the responsibility of AFD contributors to show that an article is notable or should be kept. That falls on the page creator or the person or persons saying that the article should be kept. Stifle 13:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If other entries already made links to an article/bio on this individual, a bio is needed.


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

Note: This page was moved from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society; that page was then erroneously used as the new debate page. This second debate has since been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swansea University Computer Society (second nomination). Hairy Dude 14:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, even after discounting the new editors. Please note that this is a discussion, not a vote. You don't get an automatic vote just for showing up. Deathphoenix 05:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea University Computer Society[edit]

only have 180 members, making it non-notable. Plus, its in Swansea, which is never a good place to be! Dangherous 20:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that membership size of a society is spurious for consideration large or small. There are small notably societies and large irrelevant ones AlanCox

Please can I remind everyone that this is a discussion, not a vote - make clear arguments, just saying "as per others" is stupid. FireFury 11:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: No it is not. If what you've to say has already been said by someone else, you're entitled to make that point. It's useful to determine consensus. Stifle 13:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe SUCS is well worth a footnote in history due to their involvement in the development of Linux, a fact that Eric S. Raymond acknowledges. Talyn256 19:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC) (user's first edit --Telsa (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
I cannot find any mention of ESR referring to SUCS at all. Can you provide a source for this, please? --Telsa (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The society can be considered to be one of particular importance as it has close tyings in with some of the notable names of Linux and is a close knit and friendly one. The individual who started this AFD request does not provide a valid excuse as such, the age old Cardiff Vs Swansea debate should not be brought into context for this page. Seymansey 13:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC) User's first edit --Telsa (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 180 members is pretty big for a student society -- I would guess it is one of the biggest student compsocs in the country. How big does it have to be to be notable? Nom appears to be from Cardiff Uni making them somewhat biased :) (On which note it might be worth pointing out that I'm a life member of this society.) Hairy Dude 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's two biases cancelled each other out then. May the discussion commence. --Dangherous 20:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting an article because you don't like the location is not reasonable. It'd also argue that the society is notable because it has long been linked with Linux (SUCS was name-checked up until the 2.4.19 kernel for the work Alan Cox did on the network drivers while he was at the university). I also note that the nominator's discussion page has a number of complaints from people about his other edits. FireFury User has 26 edits, mostly to the article in question. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the longest running socs (without break) in Swansea Uni and I like it (but I'm biased because I'm a life member too! :) 82.21.163.125 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think anyone who uses "I don't like the place" as an argument can be taken seriously. --Akyan 21:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)User's first edit --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If this was a serious AFD, the nominator would have gone through all of the similar articles in the same categories as the SUCS one, found out how many members each society had and then given them the same treatment, depending upon whether he found their physical locations to his taste, of course. As it is, the nominator did not take this action. The location of the society is no justification for the deletion of the article. As FireFury mentioned, the society plays a part in the history of the Linux operating system and for this reason it is just as, if not more, noteable than other university society articles on wikipedia. welshbyte 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)User has 24 edits, mostly to the article in question.　--Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a question of how many members the society currently has - it's its historical significance that makes it notable and worthy of a Wikipedia article. Deniswalker 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)User's first edit --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The society warrants an entry for its size and its role in the history of the Linux operating system. PKLong 21:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)User's second edit --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Student-society-cruft. A whole lot of essentially worthless information on a non-notable group. --Calton | Talk 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being nowhere near as notable as the other entries in Category:Computer Clubs. Turnstep 04:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge into main Swansea University article. If kept it could do with a comprehensive prune as much of the information in it is not encyclopedia relevant and is linked to on the society page anyway. It's still far more relevant than half of wikipedia. Also I'd note that the proposers comments about Swansea are inappropriate (even if meant to just be funny) and we don't need a Swansea v Cardiff minor article deletion war. AlanCox 11:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Suspicious timing considering "Varsity", a large amount of sporting events between Swansea and Cardiff Universities, is imminent. [Elsmorian - SUCS member] 15:11, 22 Febuary 2006
  • Keep. Notability is firmly established through its association with the early Linux work, and the resultant namecheck. Its also oen of the most prominent (if not the most prominent) society at Swansea uni, providing webspace, email and mailing lists for other societies for example. Full disclosure: Like at least half the others voting here I am a member. Thryduulf 15:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to their contribution to Linux. RicDod 21:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn club. If we keep this then everyone who has written something whether it be a fanzine, the student newspaper, or some computer code is then notable. Ugh! If as Talyn256 suggests it deserves a footnote in history, a footnote should be dropped in either the Linux article or the Swansea University one, not every noun deserves a link and article. Carlossuarez46 00:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC) I note that the Linux article makes no mention of the supposed contributions of the society and the Swansea University article has an "external link" to the society's web page but I could not find any text why such a link would be relevant or notable. Carlossuarez46 00:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Linux article makes no mention of many other contributions too. I don't believe the article should (or indeed could) mention or link to all people and organisations that have made significant contributions - that would make it a very long article. In any case - the contributions are not "supposed" - they are well documented elsewhere, including in the kernels themselves (yes, the article needs some more references - this is something that's being worked on). FireFury 10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Calton. Massive flood of meat/sockpuppet votes. Stifle 13:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a member of SUCS I recognise a high proportion of the names here. If there is any puppetry going on then it is not sockpuppetry. Thryduulf 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would also like to note that SUCS members have been adding their views to this page out of choice and not because we (the main contributors to the article) have been telling/asking them to or broadcasting to them about it. The grapevine just happens to work like that. --welshbyte 16:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep sockpuppets or not, SUCS is one of the UKs most important computer societies. What harm can there be it having a page on Wikipedia? user:evonews


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1992-93[edit]

I have merged the information in this article with the article 1992-93 in English football. The problem is that the title of this article is too ambiguous to do a simple Redirect to the appropriate article. I think this article should be deleted in favor of the merged article; however, since I am not entirely sure what to do with this article I am throwing in here. James084 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The info was merged you say? Why not delete this article then? The title doesn't make sense anyway. This goes for articles: 1993-94, 1994-95, etc. Monkeyman(talk) 20:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Yes, indeed I did merge the information. I want to stress this point because I know it is going to become an issue in this debate. James084 20:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article name is a nonsense. --Jan Smolik 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Qwghlm 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect if text has been merged then we need to keep the edit history for copyright reasons. - Nzd (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:24, 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 Merge page histories to 1993-94 in English football. This is the first time I'm attempting a page history graft. Deathphoenix 05:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1993-94[edit]

I have merged the information in this article with the article 1993-94 in English football. The problem is that the title of this article is too ambiguous to do a simple Redirect to the appropriate article. I think this article should be deleted in favor of the merged article; however, since I am not entirely sure what to do with this article I am throwing in here. James084 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article name is nonsense. --Jan Smolik 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Qwghlm 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of these badly-titled football season articles. We don't want anything with such names hanging about, now that the information has been merged. -- Mithent 01:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 1993-94 in English football. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've merged, it must remain as a redirect unless you preserve the history somehow. Stifle 11:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Stifle. - Nzd (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge page histories, then delete the redirect (bad name). Kusma (討論) 14:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Adams[edit]

Non-notable Rklawton 20:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Delete looks like a college student's personal page. Rklawton 20:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete get a blog if you wanna tell the world you love your girlfriend! Camillus (talk) 23:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Get rid of it! ric 23:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poster boy for WP:PROD. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Surprised that this article is in Wikipedia. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Ikkui alluded to this above. Deco 23:23, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Ultimate Frisbee Organization[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.

Remember, this is NOT a vote, this is a discussion place. Outcome will depend on arguments, not sheer number of "votes" -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable sports club Dangherous 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete A7 (non-notable people or groups). According to the article alone, the team has apparently not won any national-level competitions (although they have qualified for the national level college competitions). This is little more than a list of people associated with the club (better suited for their own webpage), and I personally have to question any article that has two sections dedicated to the "best parties around" and "kick-ass Saturday Night Party" respectively. -- Saberwyn 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italic text siva1979 you write this off as nonnotable yet you express your desire that "I strongly believe that an online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should include ALL the soccer clubs in the world. Smaller clubs such as Wembley F.C. should also be given attention in this mammoth work of information. No club should be excluded." and that the wikipedia contain all possible information and human achievements. how do you justify? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.212.185 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 February 2006.

another ip from williams college with only one edit prior this afd -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase "is consistantly one of the Top 5 division III college teams in the country" protects it from speedy deletion, but it's pretty much the definition of non-notability. This information belongs on the group's own website, not Wikipedia. Additionally, it's unverifiable. Stifle 11:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete WUFO is among the most active, vibrant and popular student organizations at Williams College, akin to Harvard's Hasting Pudding in its high regard and importance. This entry should not be deleted, nor should the article about Unksta Pennybags have been deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.210.39 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 24 February 2006.
This IP had only 2 edits prior this AFD from the previous day -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP is registered to Williams College Campus. Williamstown, MA. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete While the team has not won many titles, the team is well known within the college ultimate frisbee league for not just their athleticism and skill, but for their "spirit." Frisbee is one of the rare sports that still allows for games to be played without the aid of outside judges, thus maintaining the spirit of the creation of the game. On the field and off Williams Ultimate Frisbee Organization has been recognized for upholding the spirit of the game and was recognized nationally when they won the Spirit Award at nationals. Therefore this wiki does deserve to remain on Wikipedia and does not deserve to be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.209.38 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 February 2006.
This is the only edit from that IP (which is on the same network as previous comment -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP is registered to Williams College Campus. Williamstown, MA. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteWUFO is well known to all Williams College students, many of whom wield a great deal of power in today's world —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.208.11 (talk • contribs) .
Another great wielding power sockpuppet coming from Williams college campus -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteWUFO won the the Best Spirit Award at the 2003 Ultimate College Nationals tournament, and is widely regarded for embodying the values of sportsmanship and fair play. On top of that, they regularly field a nationally competitive team, as well as multiple "B" Teams, making them one of the largest and most influential organizations at Williams College. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.243.4.157 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 24 February 2006.
The above ip also comes from Massachussets. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not DeleteWUFO is a very well known and well respected NE ultimate program, in addition they host either the oldest or second oldest fall college tournament in the country (Purple Valley). While they do not hold any national titles, they have a had a few players nominated for the Calahan award (Collegiate MVP) and are competitive against large D1 schools that have 20X or more students (they defeated Michigan State in the semi's on their way to victory at the Atlantis tournament last early spring. If people feel that the page needs more historic information I can contact people and change the overall feel of the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.209.188 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 24 February 2006.
The above ip has only editd articles related to the one in discussion -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above IP is registered to Williams College Campus -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Not only is this college team's competitiveness verifiable through the ultimate players association (www.upa.org), its considerable size (80-90 undergrads at a school of 2000) as well as its extremely active alumni (former UPA presidents and board members, players on top tier club teams) make it notable and merit its inclusion on the wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.212.185 (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 February 2006.
Yet another ip from Williams College with only one edit prior this afd. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete While it may not necessarily be a worthy item in Student Culture due to its local importance (although no less so than Eusoff Hall, which is also in this category), as just a link from Williams College the WUFO article is a perfectly reasonable article. If updates on the importance of the organization or more information are desired, a simple tag saying so should suffice. There's enough support for the article to prevent deletion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.165.216.194 (talk • contribs) .
Wee! another ip coming from williams college, this one with zero edits other than this. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete The WUFO tournament, Purple Valley, has also been mentioned in such books as, 'Fundamentals of Ultimate: The Complete Guide to Ultimate Frisbee', as being one of the top Ultimate tournaments in the country. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.52.1.89 (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 11:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Campbell[edit]

Originally tagged prod. Another editor noticed the slight unlikeliness of this person being an appreciated political operator at 14. The funny thing is--this subject is non-notable even if what's in the article were real!. - Liberatore(T) 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BIO. Monkeyman(talk) 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I'd guess that the facts in the article are pretty much true. 14 year old political activists getting minor plaudits are not unknown: e.g., myself, decades ago. But it's not encyclopedic in my case or his. Kestenbaum 22:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable. ric 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. --Aaron 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. --Ardenn 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inaccurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.11.4 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 25 February 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 11:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JAM Computers[edit]

Plug for non notable website, portions copyrighted -Mulder416 20:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Where is the wikipedia policy on groups, clubs, societies? Monkeyman(talk) 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The main one is that an article about a club or group of people that doesn't claim any notability can be speedily deleted (just tag it with ((nn-club))). Other than that, there isn't much. Stifle 11:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Virutally unknown website. Barely over 100 users, on average of 1 new user per week. Hosted on InvisionFree, largely a place for fly-by-night sites that dont last long. Most posts are made on average by only 5 or 6 semi-active users. Responsible for spamming other sites with ads as well. There is no place for activity like this on Wikipedia.WissNX-01
  • Comment. What portions are copyrighted and how can i fix this to make correct for wiki.
  • Comment. Its not the fact that they are copyrighted, its the fact that this is basically an ad for an unknown site. There is no reference to any contribution to anything that is of note. Okay, so its a Help forum. Check out Google for once for a Help Forum, you will find at least 10,000 results. Your site is like being a needle in a pile of needles. You can take this personal all you want, but this is the second time you have done this; and its wrong. Wikipedia is useful for the masses as a great reference. Your site doesnt add to that. No other forum for anything gets a free plug, yours shouldnt either. WissNX-01
  • Delete per Wiss-NX-01. Stifle 11:53, 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. Mailer Diablo 11:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Modern Courtesan[edit]

Non-notable book. This book is self-published (published by Lulu press, who will publish anything if you pay them to) and its Amazon sales rank leads me to seriously question whether 5000 people have read it, let alone 100. I previously prod'ed the article, but it was removed, and I agree with that removal: we should probably debate this at least. Beyond notability: there's really nothing to write about this book: it's never been reviewed, it has no historical context, and there's nothing worthwhile to say about its author -- essentially, all that can be there is a plot summary. There's a significant lack of verifiable information here. If this page is deleted, A Modern courtesan and "A Modern Courtesan" should also be deleted. Mangojuice 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn. Google shows 104 hits for the author "Natasha Alatyreva". Low Amazon rank. Monkeyman(talk) 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there a notability guideline for books, separate from authors? (Full disclosure; I removed the PROD because I wasn't sure what guideline was being applied to determine notability.) -ikkyu2 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Guess I have to agree, this one's a vanity press, plain and simple. -ikkyu2 (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fully agree with Mangojuice, the book is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riczan (talk • contribs)
  • Delete non-notable book. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:53, 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. Deathphoenix 06:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bomb-site[edit]

This looks like a dictdef. This claim is strengthened by the fact that Wiktionary has an entry for bomb site. I gave this article a chance with the ((expert)) tag but it is still a dictdef. And I'm not sure it is a very accurate one at that. James084 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • del dicdef, and incorrect, too. mikka (t) 22:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. with some article on expression or british slang. or else delete. A bomb site is exactly what we would imagine it is, and isn't really a "real" thing. It's totally figurative in this article. it doesn't need explaining. I would say merge or delete.--Esprit15d 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Monkeyman(talk) 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:52, 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 Keep. Deathphoenix 06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dork (word)[edit]

del nothing beyond dicdef and etymology. mikka (t) 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Few things: first it should be under dork, since this is actually a serious article on the word and not a vandalism. Also, keep since boffin, geek and nerd all have their own entries. Dork isn't as well defined though, so maybe it could be merged with perjoratives or some similar article.--Esprit15d 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • boffin/geek/nerd are stereotypes and subcultures, while dorks are just dorks. mikka (t) 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Monkeyman(talk) 22:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep geek and nerd have their own entries, so should dork.64.192.107.242 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per preceding discussion. Kestenbaum 22:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe move to Wiktionary? ric 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and move to Dork). I think there is somewhat of a dork stereotype as distinct from the others mentioned, although it is much less well-defined. This article could be expanded into a reasonable entry.--ragesoss 02:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to dork. StarTrek 03:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all dweebs, geeks and nerds. ;-) — RJH 16:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to dork per StarTrek; why has dork been deleted? We keep etymological articles of dirty words, like shit and fuck and crap. Carlossuarez46 00:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to dork. CarLot 03:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder why Dork is deleted and protected? Might it be because someone kept recreating this? Stifle 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to dork. We have shit, fuck and crap and so we should this article too. Science3456 20:51, 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. W.marsh 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Roddie[edit]

Article on an eccentric Computer Science student. No notability is asserted - except being an original member of UAE Underground (a web forum). Proposed page to be userfy but original author removed tag. Hurricane111 21:57, 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. Deathphoenix 06:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Evolution Experience[edit]

Run of the mill promotion company. All edits by Special:Contributions/Evonews promoting self/company/event ∴ here…♠ 22:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above -- max rspct leave a message 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CORP Monkeyman(talk) 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not delete... Evonews team are working on independent evidence as per WP:CORP I know this looks a bit sketchy at the moment, but well intentioned and all will become clear. -- <evo>news leave a message
  • Added information on important court cases as reported in THE TIMES, and added links to reports on BBC NEWS website. We are not self promoting simply adding something certainly of interest to many clubbers. <evo>news leave a message 03:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A concise article. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Mercury News Club of the month, source added to Talk:Rave; also Mercury News promotional story at Talk:The_Evolution_Experience (even though it reads like it was written by the promoter). BBC sources are focused on other subjects but mention evolution experience. Article has improved, with attempted sources, since it was nominated for AfD. My main concern here is that User:Evonews appears to be writing articles about himself and his own company. I think all of this may be better suited at wikinews, as Evonews's username even suggests. ∴ here…♠ 17:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A concise article and important development in clubbing in Wales. Sources now include Ministry Magazine, at the time a leading club mag in the UK. user:eddieloco
  • About Evonews We are a group of 14 people who are interested in the development of dance music culture in Wales, and feel that there is an important story to be told. The main problem is that since the events were most popular in the very early 2000's its going to be hard to get online references, but we are adding and strengthening the article all the time. The reason our tag is called Evonews, is because we used to produce an unofficial magazine about the Evolution events and therefore have some interesting knowledge to share about the events. There are probably over 100 newspaper articles, national music press cuttings, radio recordings and court transcripts directly relating to The Evolution Experience all as independent sources which we will endevour to add to the article. In answer to the user who is wanting this article listed as news, this is certainly not news it is of historical interest. WE HAVE ALSO SORTED OUT THE DISCUSSION AREA PLEASE SEE NEWSPAPER REPORTS THERE, HERE MAY HAVE GOT MIXED UP, OUR FAULT WE DIDNT FORMAT User:Evonews
  • Delete, self-promotion, sockpuppet concerns. Stifle 11:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please expand on why you have sockpuppet concerns. Show us where. Reference self promotion...this page is of historical interest, and meets paragraph 1 of WP:CORP user:evonews
  • Strong Keep! Important information about a notable clubbing event, good sources, nice article.
  • Delete The tenor of the article is to promote the company which is, according to its website, trying to open international markets. Having news included on Wiki about an alleged fix-up conviction can add extra credibility to the promoter's personal reputation among potential customers. There are cited BBC pages for the conviction. I find it surprising that there are no comparable pages for the Court of Appeal quashing the convictions. If something was newsworthy enough for the BBC to report at first instance, it would be even more interesting to Welsh readers to find that the conviction was unsafe. There are no Google entries for the appeal. The reference to Smith Bernal Reporting (part of WordWave International) is also not a verifiable source. Smith Bernal do supply professional transcriptions for use by the legal profession but the price reflects their expertise (i.e. depending on the length, we could be talking several hundred pounds per copy). Without an accessible citation for the appeal, I am inclined to the view that this section in particular and the article as a whole are not encyclopaedic. David91 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment* We have added the accessible citation, as requested by David 91.. please see source section of main article. evonews 28 February 2006
Actually, having just gone back to the article, I now realise that I had misread it and conflated the two cases together. However, if the Court of Appeal quashed the drugs conviction, a reference "The Milford & West Wales Mercury, Feburary 25 2000 - "Club owner's drugs conviction overturned by Law Lords" referring to the House of Lords is not encouraging and does not cause me to change the vote (it simply confirms how badly written the article is to a casual reader). David91 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I honestly do appreciate that User:evonews has (have?) worked hard on it, but I don't think that it is neutral and I don't think that it can become neutral. It reads in every version of the page history I have checked as a sort of defence (or promotion, but this is the weirdest promo article I've seen, full of claims of victimisation and suggestions of hidden agendas) of this Evolution Experience and people associated with it. The court case section is a prime example. There are lots of other problems with the article which could be fixed (editorialising; WP:V; WP:MoS), but as long as the article reads as a defence of the thing and its members I don't think it should stay. The talk page should definitely not stay in its current form: fair use is one thing, but surely wholesale reproduction of complete newspaper articles without permission is close to copyright violation? --Telsa (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Redirect is necessary to meet the attribution requirement in GFDL. "Merge and delete" and "merge then delete" are opinions incompatible with the attribution requirement in GFDL. The "unlikely search term" argument is irrelevant. (Yes, there are complicated, cumbersome and error-prone workarounds that still preserve the attribution history but I see no justification to go to that extraordinary effort for this article. Redirects are cheap.)

Having said that, I personally found little worth merging. Perhaps the good content had already been moved. Anyone interested in merging more content may do so by reviewing the article's history. Rossami (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must have done a simultaneous vote close with Rossami. Anyways, I came to the exact same conclusion, result and the fact that I found little worth merging as well. Deathphoenix 06:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain[edit]

The article is meaningless and all its detail could simply be merged with Brokeback Mountain. However, seeing as how a portion of the information is already dealt with in the article suggested, this article should be deleted. "Cultural impact of Brokeback Mountain" is an unlikely search item. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this article. The main article on the movie is a mainstream article, and there is no need to mention (gay or straight) hard-core porn like Bareback Mountain there. The existence of such porn and the importance attached thereto might convince otherwise neutral readers of the Brokeback Mountain article that gay men are obsessed with porn. I for one would be against any mention of the porn movie in the main article. Modus Vivendi 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant info then delete. We don't have an article titled Cultural impact of The Great Gatsby either. Monkeyman(talk) 22:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your vote. I bolded "then delete" so that administrators do not immediately take to "merge" and ignore the rest of your decision. I hope you don't mind! Thanks! —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brokeback Mountain. --Ardenn 22:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Brokeback Mountain, but first convince editors in that article of not deleting the information about Bareback mountain. Diego 22:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take any useful information and then delete, although I doubt very much there is anything worth taking that is not already in the Brokeback Mountain article. Batmanand | Talk 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom and Monkeyman. —ERcheck @ 00:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete as per suggested above. Folkor 04:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- as there is so little useful information it is not worth bothering.--Deglr6328 06:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Ardenn. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 01:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Brokeback Mountain. Unfortunately, we cannot merge and delete as page history must be recorded for GFDL purposes. Stifle 11:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per above. If there's an issue about listing a porn film parody, then that can be hashed out on the main article's discussion page. 23skidoo 15:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Most of the info in this article is already (or could be) intergrated into the main BBM article a proper. As for the Bareback Mountain gay porn issue. That can be filed under the see also section or wherever necessary. --CharlieHuang 15:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not every joke or parody or porn film connection is encylopediac enough to be in the main article. This article isn't even about "cultural impact," it's just stuff that wasn't mentioned in the BM article. eaolson 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for already mentioned reasons. Jabencarsey 03:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Her Pegship 04:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nom states: this article should be deleted. The information should be merged and then the article should be deleted as it is an impausable search term. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. AfD is often inconsistant, and we should attempt to correct that by coherently applying agreed upon standards. This is a discussion, not a vote, and there have not been presented compelling reasons to disregard both the previous afd result and a widely agreed upon guideline.

Re:Speedy deletion - Looking back at the previous nomination, it was expressed that it failed at that time to satisfy the website inclusion guideline. Noting that it then mentioned Alexa ranking [35], the change in ranking can be seen as "new information" and thus barely avoids deletion as a recreation.
Re:Current Alexa - As it still fails to meet the 10,000 mark of the guideline at the time of the pervious afd all of the first nomination editors' concerns are still valid. The use by newer editors' of the wp:web guideline that has no alexa ranking re-enforces this.
Re:Other articles - A few editors made comparisons to other existing wikipedia articles, or to mention in the TV Tome article. There appears to be a gross imbalance between this article's subject and tv.com, for example, and the mentions in TV tome could easily be removed... which is why we don't use other wikipedia articles as references.

brenneman{T}{L} 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TVRage.com[edit]

This should be a CSD G4, as it's a recreation of deleted material (see the original AfD for details). However, a number of users with unusually low edit counts and few to no edits of anything unrelated to the TVRage.com article are making obnoxious and rude demands all over the place ([36] [37], [38]) and have convinced an admin to pull the speedy delete tags. So I'm listing it here. I know nothing of the original article (I'm not an admin so I can't see it), and am only nominating it here because I put the G4 notice on it and was told to follow through with a full AfD, so I am doing so. My vote is abstain, although I have to admit I don't see where this recreated article is any less of a "blatant spamvertisement", as the original nominator put it, than the first version. (Striking comment per discussion below with 84.91.30.2. Forget I said it. Judge the article as is.) Aaron 22:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: the speedy tag was removed by an anon, not an admin. Renata 14:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was originally removed by an anon, then reinserted by Aaron and then removed again by me. I came upon this while doing speedy deletion patrol and saw that the article's proponents were complaining. I checked the Alexa rank, saw that it had very substantially improved since the last AfD and decided that this was enough new information to make speedy deletion as a recreation inappropriate and recommended a new AfD if someone still wanted this deleted. But you didn't really have to defer to me just because I'm an admin, if any user in good standing objects to a speedy deletion in circumstances like this that's probably grounds for a new debate.
If you decide to keep this we should also undelete the history of the original incarnation (now at a redirect). Haukur 14:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The site now ranks 75,899 on alexa, which is higher than TV IV for example, and the site is viable competition for TV.com, which also has an article. However it should be checked by an experienced editor for POV. --Cooksey 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment. Article must meet guidelines set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (websites). It must meet at least one of the following: Subject of multiple non-trivial published works, Has won a well known and independent award, Content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators. I don't see any of these here. Monkeyman(talk) 22:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: That's your POV, isn't it?
  • Keep-The article is good. If it sounds like its an opinion, somebody could easily modify it to sound neutral. It is a good website, by what I've seen, and I see no reason why Tv IV gets to be here, and not tvrage. Like Cooksey said, its 75,900 on alexa, and just two weeks ago it was in the 99,000s. As you can see, its ever growing, and many believe it will surpass the original tvtome in a years time. Andrew120 22:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- and i can't have an opinion? plus, i stopped using my old account, and created a new one, because my old one was corrupted. Andrew120 23:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Of course you can have an opinion, but it's less likely to count to the closing admin unless you want to point out what your old account name was. See the box above. --Aaron 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Aaron, I have edited other stuff prior to this article (but since I don’t use an account and use different computers from different stations, I don’t have a steady IP) and I personally rearranged it and removed every statement that according to some might be considered POV, bashing or "promotional mumbo-jumbo." Now this article is an impartial encyclopedic account of what TVRage is and stands for – pretty much like TV.com's article. If you feel that this article is a "blatant spamvertisement" then please go to the TV.com article and put an AfD over there too, because both articles are very alike. The differences between this and the older article are blatantly obvious! And since when only people with many edits can voice their opinions over here? Isn’t that elitism? 84.91.30.2 23:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I can't put an AfD on TV.com, because for me to do so would be to violate WP:POINT. I sure wouldn't complain if someone else did, though; it doesn't look like a particularly useful entry. But let me make it clear: I'm not anti-TVRage and pro-TV.com. I don't use either site. I only put this AfD up because an admin said to do so. If the TVRage.com entry survives this vote legitimately, that's fine by me. --Aaron 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I understand you're trying to be neutral, but you still called it a "blatant spamvertisement" (that's POV), which it may have been true originally (the article that was deleted the first time) but now is simply stating what TVRage is. We don't make comparisons with other active fansites alike nor do we use affirmative adjectives like "good," "better," "fast," -- so it's not promotional in any sense of the word...84.91.30.2 23:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Fair enough; my comment was probably a bit strong. I'll strike it. --Aaron 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, tv.com has alexa rank less than 500... Renata 14:27, 22 February 2006 UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't get your point, Renata...84.91.30.2 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've argued up and down this website as to why we should stay, so repeating old arguments does no good. I'll simply point out that we definately qualify under #3 of the new terms. Aside from Google recently making us one of the top 10 sites you see when referencing shows, Newzbin.com, EpGuides.com, and even Wikipedia.com (through television shows on here listing us as a reference) are three websites we get heavy traffic from. I think it's obvious that we're not affiliated with either Google or WP. And you can definiately check the other two. I do find it disheartening to know you've removed the Alexa rule, especially since that was the big reason we were deleted last time. To be blunt, we're a television catalog and information website. Any show that airs on television around the world, we catalog it's airdate, guests, notes, quotes, etc. Think of us as a more detailed version of IMDb. We're not looking for a billboard to advertise on, but we do want to be cataloged in Wikipedia as a source for entertainment information. If you haven't looked at our website, I suggest you do. Go find your favorite shows and see what we've got. That's as simple as I can make it. JohnQ.Public 17:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I feel that this site deserves a stop here. And if you purely want my opinion about this situation, I think it's not wise to even consider to remove the article. I do not see the article as "blatant spamvertisement" in any type or form. As JohnQ.Public has stated, we're not looking for a billboard to advertise on, but we want to be cataloged in Wikipedia as a source for entertainment information.Scouxx 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article is referenced by the TV Tome article, and the Alexa rank (and especially the degree to which it has improved over the last few months) indicate that if this site isn't clearly notable now, it will be soon. I do not condone the behavior of the editors of this article, however: but I'm not going to make a WP:POINT by voting for deletion because of it. Mangojuice 01:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Seems like the POV has been removed and the article made more neutral. Still reads a little like an advert, but most of the web page articles (and a lot of the corporate articles) do too. Doesn't seem any more or less notable than a lot of the other kept web related articles..
    — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  February 22, 2006, 02:00 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is a great article on the TVRage website. It has almost the same information for TVRage as there is for TV Tome. And that, by my standards, is useful. Green lantern40 06:06 (Californian Time), February 21, 2006
  • Keep per Mangojuice. Turnstep 04:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mangojuice. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Statement by an involved party. It was me who tagged the artcile as speedy the first time following on TeleGuides discussions. Then the tag was removed, I got contacted by User:JohnQ.Public (see my and his talk page). My belief is that the website is not notable, (I know a bunch of websites with a better alexa rank and I still think they are not notable, for example, testmagic.com - 30,000, site that I credit for my good TOEFL score). Also, Wikipedia is not place for TV website wars. Take it to your own forums. If the popularity is growing, good, but they still have a long way to go. Renata 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per my statement above. Renata 14:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check this out: [39] We have a featured article on Memory Alpha. Haukur 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memory Alpha is a reference site though, which is sourced as a secondary source, and therefore I (at least) argue that the WP:WEB traffic criteria are not the only (or primary) way to judge notability. Is the site in question a reference site? I haven't looked to see if other sources cite from it or not. ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, Memory Alpha has been site of the week at sci-fi.com, which is non-trivial coverage. Hiding talk 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Haukurth I can't seem to confirm what you said. A featured article in Memory alpha?? Where? --Perfecto 01:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read my comment again :) Wikipedia's article on Memory Alpha is a featured article. Memory Alpha is a reference site with an Alexa rank in the same ballpark as TVRage.com There may, of course, well be reasons to keep one and not the other as some are arguing here, I just thought it was a comparison worth making, simplistic though it is. Haukur 17:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment AARON!!! Here is my other account. Happy. Good. Well we sure did improve on the alexa thing.Amaas120 04:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. FWIW, I checked again and, except the "alexa boost", all my reasons to delete then still hold true. --Perfecto 07:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD:G4, or failing that delete per WP:WEB. Stifle 11:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's B.S. Stifle and you know it. The Speedy delete was removed twice by other modirators so we could get a fair chance to stay. And now that you see more Keep votes than Delete votes, you want to try again? Not to mention you didn't bother to say anything specific, you just did what half the other modirators here do and that was post a link to a description page that doesn't explain our specific situation. That way you don't have to explain anything, and make yourself feel justifyed in your action. How about posting a GOOD reason that hasn't already beed address and dismissed above, or in the Speedy page. JohnQ.Public 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You want a good reason? Here you go: It fails the criteria for notability given in WP:WEB and is not a reference site widely enough cited to waive those criteria. You guys aren't helping your case when you use terms like "moderators" (we don't have any, we have editors and some of the editors are admins, arbitrators or bureacrats) or "argued up and down the site" (just cite the pages where you discussed things), because it shows that you're not as conversant with the ways of wikipedia as some, meaning that the closing admin is more likely to discount your opinions as not as clearly understanding how things are done here as some commentators. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 22:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well your information of who runs this place isn't exactly easy to locate, so what better term did I have? If you bothered to post a link to the list of Admin's or people in charge of deciding what gets the axe or not, I'm sure it would be more user friendly. Now, the following is just my opinion and should hold no basis on this argument. I am just responding to what was posted by Lar As far as the topic of being versed in the ways of the big W, have you bothered checking the net and on television on what people think of this place? I have, it's actually part of my real job. Wikipedia is widely considered a joke. You rely on people to come here and add information on anything and everything. That leads to false info and biased opinions, making your webpages unreliable. And since you like to site sources, go check out pages like Hitler, Abortion, and President Bush (and about 100+ other U.S. officials) just to name a few. Locked down and frequently edited because of those very arguments. If you were truly aiming to be an encyclopedia to the world, you would have joined up with the Library Of Congress and several other information sources across the globe. As opposed to relying on people with no lives who know everything about a single topic to find this place and post. I'm sorry, but when CNN goes on air and once an hour for two days straight says your website is a piece of garbage... do I really need to say more. I don't bother to become versed or get involved because my experience with this place is that most of my material gets edited and deleted frequently on a whim. Both on my other user name, and anonymously. And because of that, I honestly don't think a lot of the "Editors" here are the best people to judge what belongs and what doesn't. You're not professors, you're not experts, and I doubt any of you were dumb enough to claim you know all there is to know about everything. Unless someone can step up and claim they research daily every single topic that comes to this webpage on a daily basis, I don't think it's too much to say that this place is due for a management overhaul. So seriously, stop dictating to me that you know what should stay and what should go. Especially when I know for a fact that only a few of you who are "in charge" here have come to check out the website and explore the info it has to offer. To quote one of the people who started the Encyclopædia Britannica "We may document it, but we sure as hell don't study it. We could be wrong." JohnQ.Public 17:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, summarising that, then... "WP is crap, all the articles here are crap, and no one here knows what they are doing" but you want your article kept anyway... (see also: I don't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member --Groucho Marx) Is that about right? ++Lar: t/c 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • JohnQ.Public, are you here to improve Wikipedia or just so that your site has an article here? Please reply. --Perfecto 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --James 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Lar & Perfecto: To Lar, no, that isn't right. You came to the defense of this website and your decision. I pointed out why I think that decision was wrong and why I (based around the attitude of the staff, and the non-simplistic rule system) defended my stance using sources such as your own webpages and CNN to back that statement up. Sorry to be a smartass, but I thought that's what you wanted? Non-trivial published works and recognition through broadcast. I would have added external links, but MSNBC's article was erased last week. You act like ridding WP of our website is like killing a disease, or to a lesser extent, popping a pimple. And a number (not all) of the editors I've dealt with on here act as if they're the all curing doctors of information and they're the only people whose medicine matters. When in reality very few of you bother reading the right medical books to look for the proper cure. As if this one medicine can cure all. Well, it doesn't. I urge you to take a look at our website with fresh eyes and judge it on the content, not on the manner of which it's posted on here. Text can be fixed a corrected, a delete cannot. And to Perfecto, no, you know better. In fact if you recall, you complimented me on my skills at the last discussion and said I would be perfect here. I registered a name to use in these forums so that you can see an actual Admin from the website was here to defend it's existence here, and that our staff wasn't just sending people in waves (like so many other websites do) to defend the article. I take an active role when it comes to our website, I don't hire lackeys to do my speaking for me. While I haven't done much under this username (which wasn't registered long ago), I am here to improve Wikipedia. But you will excuse me if I come to the defense of the place I call home and assure that it stays before I go adding more info for your staff to post for deletion. You want a lot more from me? I'd like more from you. A list of Editors and Admins for new people to turn to, especially in matters such as this where I feel we're being unfairly treated. And how about guide of how to properly do things at Wikipedia that doesn't read like IKEA guide to building an entertainment system? And that goes for every page you have here for rules and regulations. You demand your users to make pages simplistic, yet you've made the very codes for this site about as easy to understand music sung by Kurt Cobain. As far as adding more info, anyone who has seen my guides at TvTome, Tv.com, and TvRage knows I'm dedicated and detailed. (Again, you need to come look at our website.) I'd be happy to add information to a number of other topics, especially in television history, broadcasting, filming, news, networks, unions, and anything else involving entertainment. But seeing how dedicated much of the staff here is into removing a website that catalogs television information, I really question whether or not my info would just be monitored and deleted anyway under the guise of it not meeting the standards of another set of unreadable rules. You really can't deny the actions you and I take speak louder than the words we type. I have a proven track record for all to see of doing my job and doing it right. All I've seen from you is to frequently delete material you deem as obsolete or useless. I'll be happy to add more when I see that everyone gets the same fair treatment. So far, we're still sitting on the fence here. We've met the requirements of the last delete, and at least one of the new system (if you'll look back to another discussion, someone else mentioned our website in in an article or two). I'm sorry if Time Magazine and the Nobel Prize judges haven't gotten around to us yet. (Which I might add, if you're saying a website must have all three to stay, you might want to start deleting every website on this encyclopeda.) Not to mention the large amount of Keep votes from both users and staff members. Yet your still pushing for a delete using the same rule over and over despite explanations and defense from your own members. I think I'll wait to add more until after the final decision. That's not to say I'll leave if we're deleted. But it's not too encouraging to get a two sentence response from you Perfecto, that comes off like you're looking for a reason to get rid of me. JohnQ.Public 22:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alright, I'm sorry. I'm also sorry I asked. As I said before I do hope you contribute in other ways than writing about your site. I always believe, "If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will create an article about you sooner or later." Why not see what's going on? --Perfecto 18:35, 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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 11:07, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beatty Buck[edit]

A big deer that got shot, extreme trivia Delete -Doc ask? 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Monkeyman(talk) 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm the one who deprodded this. I think it's pretty cool, and it's the second biggest ever, according to the article. That's notable within the context of hunting. It's not like we're overwhelmed with hunting trivia. Let's not delete this just because some people don't care about hunting. If it was second biggest in something nerdier, we'd consider that notable. NickelShoe 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Did you notice it was 39 point? 12 point is huge! It was a world record at the time, people. NickelShoe 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc, Monkeyman, and Blinguyen. And for the record I'm the one that originally prodded this article. James084 00:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NickleShoe. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Hunting records seem encyclopedic to me, just as we keep lists of the oldest humans, &c. But perhaps such information should be merged on to the Trophy hunting page? — RJH 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. (I found nothing to merge.) Rossami (talk) 06:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cookie[edit]

No articles link to it and it's not notable. 日本 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with this. Any objection to just merging and redirecting it now? Since nothing links to it, and it has no categories, I don't know that anyone is around to object. --日本 23:34, 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 Transferred to RFD. Stifle 11:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breakaway (song) (kelly clarkson)[edit]

One user decided to create a redirect (Breakaway (Kelly Clarkson song)), and considering this article contains four brackets, I doubt that it is a likely search item. Therefore, I nominate and vote delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:37, 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 ambiguous. The straight vote count is 2-1 for keeping. However, when reviewing the article myself, I agree that this is more essay than encyclopedia article. Furthermore, I believe that the current text is a violation of Wikipedia:No original research. While there are groups that call themselves various names including variants of "independent business alliance", I am unconvinced that this is a significant social phenomenon about which there has been any significant independent press. Moreover, I do not believe that the many organizations using this name would all agree with the set of goals and/or aspirations which the article attributes to them.

However, even with my own opinion, that merely reaches 2-2. I am closing this as a "no consensus" decision. As an ordinary editor, I am also tagging it as a possible WP:NOR violation and a possible WP:V violation. If the article is not cleaned up in a reasonable period of time, it may be appropriate to renominate it for deletion. Rossami (talk) 06:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent business alliance[edit]

Some sort of advert? Or essay? Anyway I think it shouldn't be here -Doc ask? 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Google shows[40] these groups exist in many cities. They are "member-supported, non-profit organization dedicated to furthering the locally-owned independent business community"[41]. The article needs cleanup but this is notable. Monkeyman(talk) 23:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monkeyman. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:46, 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.

Page was modified and made NPOV, but it's really just a stub now. Eross8 19:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Rossami (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National No Oral Quiz Day[edit]

del, although I love this holiday. BJAODN, unfortunately. mikka (t) 22:43, 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. W.marsh 03:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Smith Day[edit]

del. joke . mikka (t) 22:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. But oh it's all too real[42]. Monkeyman(talk) 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article's use of "designated" to describe the holiday makes it sound like an official government holiday. According to second source provided by Monkeyman, it is one of "12,000 large and small holidays." It is not notable. —ERcheck @ 00:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:20, 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 no consensus (defaults to keep for now). Rossami (talk) 05:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unity Factory Day[edit]

del BJAODN. Someone created a stub

"It's from Yemen and it's simply the tits as far as holidays go. Go celebrate Unity Factory Day every July 7!"

subsequently witlessly wikifed intoa pseudoarticle. mikka (t) 23:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete an nn. It's real though[43]. Monkeyman(talk) 23:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is notable in Yemen. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge and redirect to Yemen. Nothing against the country or its holidays, but it's a one-line substub. Don't delete it, unless WP:CSB doesn't strike fear into your heart. Stifle 11:37, 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. W.marsh 03:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Headcase imaging & design and Hcid[edit]

Spam Delete -Doc ask? 22:43, 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. W.marsh 03:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasehpoor[edit]

Delete this page because it is a biography written by the person himself. Mahanchian 22:50, 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. W.marsh 03:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburger stand[edit]

Pointless article, just written to fill up space. Deb 22:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonsense. Though I will gladly pay you Tuesday ... Monkeyman(talk) 23:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-referential dictdef? Pointless. Perhaps a history of hamburger stands might have some sociological relevance but not this.  (aeropagitica)  23:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't see the point. Gazpacho 07:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Deb. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, pointless and nonsense. --Terence Ong 12:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Not really needed, but hold no prejudice to recreation of a good article or a stub that indicates notability. youngamerican (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. — Indi [ talk ] 17:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I think we should keep this article, but not by much. Knowitall 17:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ASR and WP:WINAD. Stifle 11:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hamburger stands exist, even though they are less common than hotdog stands. 64.192.107.242 23:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN I find this perversely humourous, for some reason. squell 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hotdogs stands? Sure. Falafel stands? Right on. But we don't need an article for every foodstuff imaginable stand - especially when they're a rarity if they exist at all. Ifnord 15:22, 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 keep. Ifnord 15:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hotdog stand[edit]

  • del dicdef. mikka (t) 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Monkeyman(talk) 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As pointless as Hamburger stand above.  (aeropagitica)  23:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or move to Hot dog stand and redirect). The hot dog stand seems like a major American cultural icon to me, much more so than the hamburger stand. A history of hot dog stands could be a great article, and it would be more likely to get created if this stub exists. --Allen 01:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these are familiar terms to North Americans perhaps, but not necessarily to other English countries where such things are not in the cultural norm. --HappyCamper 02:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as a valid, if nearly content-free, stub. That first sentence is a doozy ("A hot dog stand is a stand that sells hot dogs." Who'd have guessed? :) - Turnstep 04:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Mobile catering and expand about taco trucks and other such businesses around the world. Doesn't London still have fish & chip stands? Gazpacho 06:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure that all "hotdog stands" are "mobil catering"? Anyway, Gazpacho, since you wrote all this by yourself, you may forget about move and cut and paste the text into Mobile catering page. mikka (t) 08:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Allen. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable. --Terence Ong 12:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Allen. youngamerican (talk) 16:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Allen Knowitall 17:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popsicle stick[edit]

del dicdef. mikka (t) 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to 30 Second Bunny Theater. Mailer Diablo 10:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Alien[edit]

Delete. The page is an advert for the company. See Wikipedia:Notability guidelines ric 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn WP:CORP. Monkeyman(talk) 23:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 30 Second Bunny Theater - Definitely a notable company, as their work appears on national televsion, and has been included on major DVD releases, such as Titanic. Doesn't need a separate article, tho, as all this information is at the existing Bunny Theater page. MikeWazowski 03:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MikeWazowski. Thatcher131 03:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MikeWazowski. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MikeWazowski. --Canley 12:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per MikeWazowski. The Filmaker 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was moot since already deleted by an administrator. Ifnord 02:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zegovia[edit]

I deleted this article as it had already been nominated for deletion by someone several days ago in the new informal way, but it was recreated by the author. It is a fictional country in eastern Europe, but the author has not published the book File Éireann 22:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they arise directly from the Zegovia article and if it is deleted they also must go:
  • Yoannhes III
  • Yoannhes VII
  • Royal Federated Republic of Zegovia
  • Holy Catholic Kingdom of Zegovia
  • Vluzjâbn
  • Govara
  • Antesecobean Highlands
  • Ilta bon Kregor
  • Zegov
  • Kuneš

--File Éireann 23:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)--File Éireann 23:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


And I am nominating the associated article

  • Zegovian

regarding the fictional language of the above. I laced a ((prod)) tag on that and requested the author to explain what he was doing with no success; the tag was removed with no explanation Tonywalton  | Talk 23:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, per nom. Fake country made up by some guy, who also wrote the article (see user name of creator). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. We do have Tatooine but Star Wars has proven notability. Monkeyman(talk) 23:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as nn. mikka (t) 23:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete. Who has ever heard of David Hunt, or his constructed language anyway?? ric 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Totally fictional and non-notable THB 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm the one who prodded half of those articles. As I recall from the original version of the parent article, this is not only unpublished, the book is unfinished. NickelShoe 00:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 14:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE I realize that this topic is under debate and fictional, but Zegovia is relevant. The language for the country has been created and is used in its place names. If anything else is required to prove its validity please contact me. The country was created solely for the purpose of creating the language, the books were a side-thought and no longer planned at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwhunt (talk • contribs)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. How is it relevant? Respectfully, it's made-up and unheard of. Have you read What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Verifiability? This isn't an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia. (Much appreciate you putting in your 2 cents, though. Also remember to sign your posts in discussions with ~~~~. NickelShoe 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sindarin and Quenya have articles on here but their "relevance" is not due to the fact of their being constructed languages in itself; they have a "relevance" (which is what I assume you mean when notability is discussed) due to the works in which they appear. Wikipedia is not a medium for disseminating neologisms (however well-constructed); it documents what already exists and is of note. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. I can't decide whether it's "original research," "not notable," or "nonsense." I do feel for the author. Is there a place within wikimedia where stuff such as this belongs? ... aa:talk 02:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not feel for the author, and no, there is nowhere in Wikipedia for it. Perhaps he could look into Wikicities. --Golbez 02:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note I said Wikimedia, not Wikipedia. If we have place for vespene gas, I am sure the foundation has somewhere for material such as this. Disk space is cheap. If we can keep the author on board and happy somewhere, I can think of at least a few places they could be useful. ... aa:talk 05:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did note that after I posted it, but it did not alter my comment. We have a place for vespene gas because it's an aspect of a major published work. This work is neither major nor published. I can think of nowhere in Wikimedia where such a thing can be, at least until it becomes major and published. --Golbez 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing personal against the creator of these things, but it's established Wikipedia policy that this site is not a place to put stuff you just made up yourself. Things that exist in the real world are fine, as well as things from notable fiction, but not things you invented and haven't yet published; that's known as original research. If your invented country, and its language and other fictional aspects, ultimately get used in a published work of sufficient notability (book, movie, TV show, computer game, trading-card series, ...), then it would be a suitable topic here. *Dan T.* 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unverifiable, non-notable, micronations, etc., etc. Stifle 11:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and original research too. Stifle 11:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to say that I'd like to see more of the language and the setting. But 0 relevant Google hits? Delete. On the other hand, there is indeed another please on Wikimedia, namely the Conlang Wiki at Wikicities. Please consider moving all this stuff there. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 00:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Fire Star 07:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wipe them out. All of them. DenisMoskowitz 14:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No google hits, no Langmaker entry, no appearance on Janko Gorenc's list, delete. Wiwaxia 06:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was lack of consensus, defaults to keep. Ifnord 15:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amir_Derakh[edit]

Delete because the artist/band is not notable. Mahanchian 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Artist is member of Orgy (band) which has a Platinum and Gold album. This meets WP:MUSIC. Monkeyman(talk) 23:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, and the reference on the Orgy band page is plenty enough - this pretty much repeats that he is the synth player - not much new info. --Jay(Reply) 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Monkeyman. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Monkeyman. --Craig Stuntz 13:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Orgy (band) without prejudice. If someone wants to create a real article on him, they can feel free. Stifle 11:33, 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. Mailer Diablo 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Burns (political strategist)[edit]

Not nominating this myself, but carrying through for an unregistered user who can't list it. There should hopefully be an argument for deletion in the imminent future from them Shimgray | talk | 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The entry was a prank, contains false and frivolous material. 71.194.162.89 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide verification of your claims of falsehood? —ERcheck @ 00:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The following verifies that an "Eric Burns" is press rep for Louise Slaughter [44]. The following verifies that "Eric Burns" worked as communications director for Chris Bell [45]. Agree with above, there is a lot of frivolous material that is unencyclopedic (driving the Jeep, etc.). —ERcheck @ 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot provide evidence that they are false, but I don't believe that most of the claims demand evidence. I don't see how mustaches are relevant at all, or most of the other information for that matter, and what's more, some of the information is not only unverifiable but also subversive. Read the bit about switching parties because of the money, for example. In addition, if you view the history of the entry's changes, you will see that the information you verified (House Rules Committee, Chris Bell) was entered at the same time as all the other information. For this reason, we cannot trust that the article was written in any sort of good faith. Even if it was, then it would easily amount to a vanity article. I believe it should be deleted for the sake of Wikipedia as well as for the sake of this individual. 71.194.162.89 00:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I boldly removed all frivolous information - Jeep driver, mustache, etc. Remaining information does not meet notability guidelines in WP:BIO. —ERcheck @ 01:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in a nutshell: who, is not relevant, because everyone is a who, but what that person did is. I'm Jay - no article. I invented the term Test Article (disputed) - no article, but you see where this is going now. --Jay(Reply) 01:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, remaining info does not constitute notability under guidelines.
  • Delete. If there's anything noteable about him, the information currently in the article would hardly be difficult for someone in a position to know of said hypothetical noteability to discover and put in on a recreation effort. Michael Ralston 02:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tip to nominator: Consider using the proposed deletion process for uncontroversial deletions, such as this one. Thanks! -- ~~~~
    Deco 23:18, 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 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf party[edit]

Non-notable drinking game. Prod tag removed by User:70.20.251.18 Cnwb 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nn. Monkeyman(talk) 00:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we mustn't give them more ways to get intoxicated. Also, nn. --Jay(Reply) 01:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a golf-party is common knowledge in college campuses around the country. There's no reason to delete this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.140.104 (talk • contribs) - whose only contributions have been to this AfD.
  • How is this non-notable? everybody i know has heard of golf parties. this entry just needs to be polished up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.245.24 (talk • contribs)
  • Golf party is a widely used term, so it deserves an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fancypants77 (talk • contribs) - whose only contributions have been to this AfD.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 10:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mersienne Medieval Fantasy Campaign[edit]

6 Google hits. I don't know what else to say. Melchoir 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Monkeyman(talk) 00:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 00:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it sounds fun. If you go for that sort of thing. LARPing, I mean. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. --Jay(Reply) 01:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 10:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge I feel rather weakest on this, because of the six notable campaigns I made entries for, this is mine, and I feel very lame arguing for my material. It comes down to this. Theatre Style LARP is rather under-represented on the web, because almost all of the discussion of it has taken place in a few specific forums. However it is a meaningful vital art form, and this campaign occupies a significant place in any larger discussion of its evolution and development. I would point out that there are Live Combat groups which have standing references only because they happen to have an active web page themselves, not because they have any particular intrinsic merit other than existing. I hope to expand the body of theoretical and historical information available on Theatre Style LARP, which is in fact a real writing discipline, emanating from Harvard and MIT in the early 80s. But if every supporting reference to it is going to be picked apart, that's difficult. I feel that because some entries may ultimately accrue quite a lot of detail, it would be best to let individual entries stand, however I can also see a valid argument for combining most of the significant examples on a single page of works within the discipline. --Jgodean 01:55,
    • My major concern here is the Wikipedia policy against original research. You say you hope to expand the body of theoretical and historical information available on Theatre Style LARP; that's a great goal, but Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia articles should be based on other, reliable sources. One of those Google hits, thelarper.org, is arguably a reliable source, but it's the only one I'm aware of, and it doesn't say much. Melchoir 06:30, 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.
More