< February 7	February 9 >

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

The result of the debate was gone. DS 14:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

اب سیاه[edit]

Been at WP:PNT for over 2 weeks, listing here since it hasn't been translated. Discussion from there:

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Don't know which language. Kusma (討論) 01:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a wild guess... It's using the arabic alphabet, so I'll guess... arabic? It could also be Farsi, I think, but it's probably arabic. There's also the english word Glaucoma in it, which doesn't have an equivalent article in arabic wiki; my hypothesis is that this is an article meant for the arabic wiki, and we should move it. СПУТНИК^{ССС Р} 02:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not Arabic - it uses a number of letters found only further east; but I'm not sure which language it is. ColinFine 00:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is Farsi and it means Glaucoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.99.234.199 (talk • contribs)

• Delete since no one even knows what language it is. - Bobet 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is English Wikipedia. --Ezeu 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. I don't understand Arabic and I don't see how this is useful for an English Wikipedia. Georgia guy 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if nobody is going to translate it. Royboycrashfan 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless someone translates it (even then it would probably need merging with Glaucoma, if it had anything useful). -- Mithent 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Je ne parle pas Arabic, et je ne veux pas parler Arabic, et je ne veux pas pouvoir comprendre Arabic. (A vrai dire, c'est le wiki d'anglais - donc, pourquoi parle-je francais?) --M@thwiz2020 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La langue est "arabe" en francaise, merci beaucoup. Daniel Case 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• del a sole contribution by a colourful name user:Ardy dude . mikka (t) 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seeing as this in en.Wiki -- Krash (Talk) 02:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You can't translate the untranslatable. --Aaron 03:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wrong wiki --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of a good reason to keep here. Hard to tell if it's Arabic or not ... there is one letter not used in Arabic, but only that one, and there are some recognizable Arabic words in there and the morphology generally follows Arabic patterns. Daniel Case 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'll take people's word that it's Arabic, to me it looks like Gibberish. Note that this is the author's only contribution, and it's almost a month old. JIP | Talk 06:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My guess is it's Persian rather than Arabic, and I'd have said "transwiki" to fa.wikipedia, if it wasn't also a likely copyvio from here: [1]. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to ask you if you can actually read Arabic script or just spotted the word "Glaucoma" in Latin script. JIP | Talk 08:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can read the script (with a bit of effort) but don't understand the language. As for finding that source page, Google is your friend. Lukas ^(T.|@) 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wrong site.--Jusjih 09:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everything above. Essexmutant 10:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since it's a likely copyvio and we can barely even tell which language it is, let alone translate it... Grandmasterka 10:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wrong place to write an article here. This is English Wikipedia not a Persian or Arabic Wikipedia. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wrong language, if no one translated it in 2 weeks it should go. Elfguy 13:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note It was speedied. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 20:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was sppeedy: copyvio dump from http://www.fenerbahcegazetesi.com/ . mikka (t) 01:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahce Gazetesi[edit]

Been at WP:PNT for over 2 weeks, listing here since it hasn't been translated. Discussion from there:

Found loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Turkish. Kusma (討論) 02:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline advertisement. It's about a special magazine for Fenerbahce. Not notable, speedy. MonsterOfTheLake 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, since that's what the only guy who so far has known what the page is about says. - Bobet 00:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all above. --Kinu 00:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --M@thwiz2020 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Fenerbahçe SK. As MonsterOfTheLake says, it appears to be Turkish football team house magazine - website here. Tearlach 01:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Almost unanimous concensus amongst people not the subject of this article. W.marsh 22:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon Winer[edit]

Notice - - I have revised the page. This renders all of the comments irrelevant. Like beating a dead horse, you know. Leon Winer, Feb. 12, '06

Notability only marginally established through mention of "book" authorship, which turns out to be a 12-page university publication. However, my main concern is that the article is self-authored and therefore probable vanity. See Wikipedia:Vanity_page for more information. --Alan Au 00:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. That article is a thinly veiled advertisment, Mr. Winer fails our notability requirements by a wide margin. Mstroeck 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. Royboycrashfan 00:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity, and too many external links. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files Royboycrashfan 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete How do you know it is "self-authored" - there is no proof? Nevertheless, it is still vanity, so delete. --M@thwiz2020 01:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non noteable person, and also and advertisment. Section9 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Last Avenue & Royboycrashfan. -- Krash (Talk) 02:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Keep. Plainly not a vanity article; original author contributed to many related articles and did not insert references to Winer, as would be expected of vanity author. Subject is considered notable for professional activities as reported by external media [2][3] [4] , particularly for role in promoting greater employee influence on 401K plan investments (a subject of great interest to many who are familiar with such enterprises as Enron). Also presented papers/led discussions at international professional conferences [5]. Another AfD nomination without appropriate checking. Monicasdude 02:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, if you check the other edits, you should realize that they are almost universally linkspam to Lwiner's personal site. However, if you would like to rewrite the article as a non-vanity piece, feel free to do so. --Alan Au 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. You're right about Winer being the principal author of the article, and I failed to catch that a few of the edits in the author's history went to the user page rather than the article. But none of the vanity aspects of the article outweigh Winer's lead role in a newsworthy event -- the 401(k) control controversy, which was treated as notable by several external sources. Bad behavior by the subject of an article on Wikipedia doesn't justify the deletion of an article on a notable subject, even though his notability may be in a very narrow field. Monicasdude 05:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Monicasdude, if this guy was of any importance, surely more than 100 websites would mention him. EdGl 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Section9. --Aaron 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Certainly appears to be self-authored, compare User:Lwiner. The history of that user page is primarily by Lwiner (talk · contribs) and 68.173.184.201 (talk · contribs), the latter being the primary editor of Leon Winer (history of article). Their contribs are fairly similar, and seem primarily to be reasonably good edits though with a propensity towards advertising-ish links. User space is appropriate for what appears in the article, which essentially duplicates the user page already. Lacrimosus (talk · contribs) has already spoken to Lwiner (talk · contribs) about the appearance of vanity; encouraging Winer to continue editing while keeping those guidelines in mind would be helpful. -- Jonel | Speak 04:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for including the user links; I neglected to put those in the original nomination, but the edit histories are indeed what I used to infer authorship. --Alan Au 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I figured you probably had, but Monicasdude (talk · contribs) thought the checking was inadequate so I figured I'd make the checking obvious. I've seen plenty of really poorly researched nominations, and this wasn't even close to being part of that category in my opinion. -- Jonel | Speak 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fathering notable children does not make one notable in and of itself. Daniel Case 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - Don't waste our time with this nonsense.--God of War 06:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- per all the excellent arguments above. Reyk 09:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable vanity ad. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an obvious case of vanispamcruftisement. Count the links, friends. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Maustrauser 12:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, 284 google hits, this article being #2, does not seem important enough for an article. Elfguy 13:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity & external links galore. Death Eater Dan 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). AndyZ 01:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Note related articles created by Winer (using at least two usernames, Lwiner and Lwiner9), include Strategic Creative Analysis, Strategic Creative Analysis (SCAN) and Objectives in Strategic Planning. Also Lwiner9, which I already speedied. Rd232 ^talk 12:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Continues to fail notability test. --Maxamegalon2000 04:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please Note. I have revised my page. It now includes the fact that I have published 100 articles and papers that were peer-reviewed in the double-blind process. Also, about all the excitement displayed above about my linking to my website: If I have a done a lot of important original work, who am I supposed to link to, the ignorant hacks who keep quoting each other and have not had a new idea in their entire lives?? See Leon Winer. Lwiner 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazuli[edit]

Hoax? In any case he is not notable. Ezeu 00:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Lapis lazuli, as it seems like a legitimate search term for that. As for the current subject, even if he is real, non-notable and probably fails WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 00:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC horribly. Royboycrashfan 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:MUSIC - redirect would not be proper in this case. --M@thwiz2020 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a noteable notable artist. Section9 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per the above. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kinu MLA 10:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable musician. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Kinu. And good luck being a complete isolationist. It wont get you on Wikipedia, or anywhere else for that matter. Grandmasterka 12:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per Kinu. The number of genuinely notable artists with myspace pages is, by common consent, negligible. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, people could search for the search term so it should exist, but simply redirect it to the proper article. Elfguy 13:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:MUSIC Death Eater Dan 19:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet WP notable FloNight 03:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 22:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Done. Ifnord 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enronomics[edit]

This article contains no content that isn't already at Creative accounting, a much more thorough article. The term is also not widespread; there are under 1000 google hits including Wikipedia. The term also falsely implies that there is an economic theory behind what happened, as opposed to fraud. --Bletch 00:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Creative accounting per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above; it's on shaky ground with under 1000 hits, but there's no harm in a redirect. -- Mithent 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. --M@thwiz2020 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. A few things link to it and there's no harm in redirecting. Maaaaybe throw in a reference to the word on Creative accounting, but not a full merge. Snurks ^{T C} 01:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologistic. -- Krash (Talk) 02:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete per Krash. All "Enronomics" may be Creative accounting, but not all Creative accounting is "Enronomics". That makes it clearly unsuitable for a redirect. --Aaron 03:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Fine. Let me put it another way, see below. --Aaron 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Umm... A is a subset of B makes A perfectly suitable for a redirect to B if A isn't article-worthy. That B is not also a subset of A simply means that a redirect from B to A would be clearly unsuitable. -- Jonel | Speak 04:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. We have lots of redirects that address one small part of a greater article. Daniel Case 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Creative accounting. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Redirects are cheap. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects are indeed cheap. Elfguy 13:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per Krash. Ginned-up neologism that violates WP:NPOV and thus does not belong in Creative accounting. --Aaron 14:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nomination. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:26Z
• Redirect to Creative accounting FloNight 03:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The Enron info should be added to Creative accounting Fosnez 12:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EasyObjects.NET[edit]

Non-notable website, spamvertisement. —Last Avenue (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Only one hit on Google, 1,000,000+ Alexa rank. Royboycrashfan 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spamvertisement? That's new to my hears. I like that term - spamvertisement! Ha! --M@thwiz2020 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I see 183 Google hits, but still very non-notable. User's only edits are in relation to this site. -- Mithent 01:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What search term did you use? I entered EasyObjects.NET and it only returned one result. [6] Royboycrashfan 01:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for EasyObjects.NET then asked for pages that contain the term, giving [7]. -- Mithent 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said 183, but I see only 181. ;) In addition, it only lists 43 unique results. Royboycrashfan 01:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I still see 183! I do get 43 unique though. -- Mithent 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. FreeGNUspamvertisment. Dr Debug (Talk) 01:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. OR mappers are dime a dozen and this article doesn't provide any valuable information beyond announcing existence of a tool. 01:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Death Eater Dan 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn spam. Billbrock 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. spam --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam.Blnguyen 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 06:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like an ad blurb... the only thing missing? "But wait! There's more! If you call within the next 10 minutes..." -Kinu 08:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator ComputerJoe 08:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanispamcruftisement. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispamcruftisment. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Elfguy 13:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:28Z
• Explanation Yes, I agree it is spamvertisement, but so are all the others on the list that have a page. I tried to trim out as much marketing text as I could, and stick to just the features. I will make any additional changes you suggest. But if you let the other guys have a page, it seems unfair to pick on mine simply because of my Alexa rank. -mgnoonan
  • Comment: What "other guys"? I'll gladly nominate any other pages for deletion if they merit it, because I'm a deletionist. Also, please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments to add your username and the current time and date. Stifle 13:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Krashlandon (e) 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A6, attack page; content of talk page was, "Seriously, if you knew the guy, you would not want the article deleted."). howcheng {chat} 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fistel[edit]

Neologism, and I couldn't find any reasonable or relevant google hits [8] that would confirm it is what it actually says it is. Since ((PROD)) was removed, it has to come here. Delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete, nn neologism. Royboycrashfan 01:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NEO. Why was ((prod)) removed, though? --M@thwiz2020 01:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator removed it. Oh and delete as the proder. BrokenSegue 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not only per WP:NEO but also as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Mithent 01:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or at least move to wikitionary. --AySz88^-^ 02:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NEO. Billbrock 02:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. -- Krash (Talk) 02:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. --Aaron 03:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inacurate, can't find in on search engines or dictionary. Elfguy 13:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:29Z
• Speedy delete as an attack page. See talk page. Pilatus 18:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. Discounting unqualified editors, the score is del:16, keep/redir: 7 (or 5, if to discount Mmirabello and Thatcher131, who have insufficient edit history). mikka (t) 03:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Odin Brotherhood[edit]

del nonverifiable, It looks like only Mark Mirabello who wrote a book with the same title can say something about it. Since the article was created by a user:Mmirabello, I smell original research, too. mikka (t) 01:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Do not Delete. Yes, Professor Mirabello wrote the book. University of Glasgow (Ph.D.),University of Virgina (MA), University of Toledo (B.A.). Writing the book qualifies me to write an article. Please feel free to e-mail at mmirabello@shawnee.edu.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmirabello (talk • contribs)

Sure, to boost the sales of the book; it would be a good idea. Are there any independent confirmations of rich fantasy of Professor? Please read the policy wikipedia:Verifiability. mikka (t) 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm voting to delete unless it can cite sources Ruby 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. Billbrock 02:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete reads like utter FictionCruft. I mean, sources?? Who is this important to? Hilarious WP:NOR, verifiability and blatant self-promotion issues too... Writing a book qualifies you to do exactly SQUAT on WP. The existence of a notable subject qualifies anybody to write an article about it, PhD or not... 173 unique Googles, nearly all of which are commercial listings for the book rather than any verification of the subject, [9] while the comments on the book's Amazon page (sales rank: #2,970,920) [10] could not stink more strongly of Sockpuppetry. Mirabello has been very clever with his linkscattering, especially the various legit sounding google references which eventually end up here. Nice try. ++Deiz 02:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and attempted WP:VSCA. When attempts to verify end up back at GeoCities... well, that pretty much settles it. --Kinu 03:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete idem. User has page here [11] Checked content at Amazone (in so far it was available), and contains factual problems, consistent with the lack of knowledge of 15 century, utter fantasies about traditions in Nordic religeon etc. Pure disgusting how a religeon is mutilated. I have removed all links to this page from other wikipedia articles. Online page of the brotherhood is only for the promotion of the book. KimvdLinde 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect to Odinism. It appears to be about a book, and that book may be quoted there if notable. Note that if you publish a book first and then quote your book on WP, it does not qualify as "OR" (after all you may edit WP anonymously and would not have to reveal that you are the book's author). Treat like any other piece of fringe literature. dab (ᛏ) 07:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per dab -- Simon Cursitor 09:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, original research and vanitycruft. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It does exist [12] but it seems a completely non notable, online community. Elfguy 13:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Germanic Neopaganism or Mark Mirabello. I think the content of the book is interesting as a cultural phenomenon within the milieu of Germanic Neopaganism rather than as documentation of a historically accurate secret society. HroptR 16:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:29Z
• Delete falls below the threshhold of notability and smacks of vanity.--Isotope23 17:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Isotope23. Death Eater Dan 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - The article seems, by virtue of its content, to not be subject to WP:V or WP:CITE. If this holds true, then it has no place here. However, a few caveats are worth mentioning:

• • We have the Oera Linda book with its own article at Wikipedia. The Odin Brotherhood and the Oera Linda book appear to be equal to each other in terms of factual content (id est, they are both fiction), according to the nature of their sources. I would not mind having The Odin Brotherhood here with its own article if WP:V or WP:CITE can be satisfied. I doubt that will happen, as Dr. Mirabello's book seems about as verifiable as Guido Karl Anton List's personal gnosis concerning the Armanen runes.

• • Additionally, I must respectfully disagree with HroptR, Dieter, and any other folk who wish to redirect the article in question to any Germanic neopaganism article here at Wikipedia, as that would lend a false credibility to Dr. Mirabello's book which it does not deserve. I base that judgement on having read the book itself, my education in relevant subjects, and finally on the rules governing Wikipedia articles. Odinism is, to my POV, a valid variant of Germanic neopaganism in our time, and to grant The Odin Brotherhood the status of being a valid academic reference, or even a commonly used spiritual source text for that religion would be quite inaccurate.

• → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note about this AfD[edit]

Tracking all mentions of an entry or link across wikipedia and deleting them before the AfD is even completed is a form of harassment. I also perceive users placing 7 warning templates on the entry as a form of malicious harassment. There seems to be a total lack of assuming good faith and civility by many here, as well as the most severe violations of attacking new comers which I have ever seen. The editor has less than 25 edits, and has only been a member of wikipedia for three days. He doesn't even know how to sign his name with four tildes (look at the top of this page). This entry was not even 10 minutes old, before it was submitted for AfD. I think we need to wait and see if he is going to add further content, verifiable sources and clean up the entry - or whether it should be merged into another article. Contrary to what has been stated here, I have heard about this alleged secret society elsewhere in print and even on a radio show. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Dab and myself are in fact the only editors who have voted in this AfD who have edited or contributed content at wikipedia about Germanic Neopaganism, Ásatrú, Odinism, Odinic Rite, Polytheistic Reconstructionsim, etc. and I feel that those who have not contributed to these subjects do not know if it is relevant or not because they don't know the subject matter whatsoever. Relax everyone. HroptR 16:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have knowledge about the topic. That I do not edit on these topics does not matter. --KimvdLinde 17:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point; just because someone doesn't have anything to add to an article is no basis to automatically assume they have no knowledge of the subject matter.--Isotope23 17:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most earlier contributions went through 146.85.84.60 contributions. Just for completness sake. --KimvdLinde 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So he has been editing since the 3rd of February? How does this justify harassment? Regardless, of your expertise on the subject matter, NPOV dictates even more discretion if you find it personally disagreeable. HroptR 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but Wikipedia is not a list of links to all possible (fantasy) books written on a certain topic. --KimvdLinde 17:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Some well made points HroptR and I apologise to Mr Mirabello for biting... Still, as the creator of the page is clearly monitoring the debate one might reasonably expect any changes to happen quickly. We all appreciate very few among us have knowledge of this, perhaps because it is an inherently niche topic. We all want to promote our own interests (and commercial publications) but don't lose sight of whether this is really a topic for WP... It's a promo for a book, and would need to be completely rewritten to become some kind of objective article about the society, a society which you state is "alleged" to exist, and therefore doesn't sound extremely verifiable. ++Deiz 18:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

I have gone through and done a quick wikification of the article, so it is a book entry and not an advertisement. I ask editors to consider whether this should be redirected to Mark Mirabello (which also needs clean up) or elsewhere, and whether it is NPOV at this point. HroptR 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The cleanup is better, but I still have a few reservations about this article. The excerpt section is overly long, and in my opinion unecessary. See The Jesus Mysteries for a better example of how this article could be done. Also, the controversy section is POV, basically attempting to defend the lack of sources by casting aspersions on the sourcing of unrelated works. Most importantly, I'm still not convinced this book has reached the threshold of notability. There are no set standards for books that I'm aware of like WP:MUSIC, so it's a judgement call.--Isotope23 19:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am planning to nominate the Mark Mirabello page for deletion this evening as it is an autobiography of a non-notable person. The book remains non-notable, it claims to be non-fictional, but without any verification and consequently not a usefull contribution to wikipedia. There is no indication that the website is from someone else than Mark Mirabello, or that any of the advertisments, or radio interviews were with anybody else than Mark Mirabello himself (there is documentation of a radio interview with him). Neither have I gotten any verification from within the Asatru or Odinist community that this group exists (some responses still pending). If he, or others provide verification for the non-fictional aspect of the book (or I get word from others within the community), I would reconsider whether there is potential of a seperate article on the brotherhood themselves. If not, it appear to be fictional work sold as non-fiction. Until then, I remain for deletion of the page as nom. --KimvdLinde 20:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Edited error on my site --KimvdLinde 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are advocating purging all reference to him on wikipedia? You stated: Neither have I gotten any verification from within the Asatru or Odinist community that this group exists which community would this be? I don't think the argument is whether the group exists or not, but whether mention of a book should be purged because the content is questionable. Deleting the biography just seems like sheer malice. HroptR 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about deleting an AUTObiography Wikipedia:Auto-biography, in clear conflict with the policies of Wikipedia. And to answer your question, the Asatru/Odinist community in Europe and the USA where I am part off. --KimvdLinde 20:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC) It was an error on my site. --KimvdLinde 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to revise that - the person who authored the Mark Mirabello entry Stege1 has commented at the talk page. To wit: Mark Mirabello did not write the entry as stated in the nomination for deletion. HroptR 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are talking about deleting an autobiography in clear conflict with the GUIDLINES of Wikipedia. Strongly discouraged, but NOT absolutely forbidden. And if HroptR is correct, not an autobiography in the first place. Jcuk 09:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now: No opinion. Mandrake of Oxford is a vanity press, as such its publications are not inherently notable and likely to be inherently non-notable. Ikkyu2 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Monicasdude asserts Mandrake is not in fact a vanity press. I have no way to verify this, so I've changed my opinion to No opinion. I note that [Mandrake's own web page], while maintaining a pretense of editorial standards, requests that books be submitted in ready-to-print CRC format, and can require authors to pre-order a quantity of books; a reputable publishing house would never permit either of these practices. Ikkyu2 02:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is still a vanity article about a seriously unnotable vanity book, written about a seriously sketchy, unencyclopedic topic. Even after efforts by someone acquainted with the subject to shed some light on things, the article has proved impossible to wikify. Vote remains: strong delete. I would also support nomination of the AutobioVanityCruft article Mark Mirabello. Said page (particularly the external links to a self-made profile page at "Shawnee State University" (which in turn is the least wikified article I have yet seen on a university) and a so called "radio" interview (click to see the term "radio" stretched to breaking point)) is as VanityCruftlicious as they come. ++Deiz 23:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read what you just responded to?  :) Ikkyu2 23:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ik, if you mean was I responding you then I wasn't (we seem to be in agreement here) and have reformatted.. otherwise...? ++Deiz 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Now that it's cleaned up it's clearly nn. Comparing one's lack of sourcing to biblical prophets just proves the point: when the book sells as many copies as theirs has, re-submit the article. Carlossuarez46 23:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Amazon.com sales rank of 546,286, the publisher seems like a vanity press. [13]. Peyna 00:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Minimally notable book by minimally notable author. Current publisher doesn't seem to a be a vanity press, doesn't show up on any author alert lists I've seen. Book is actually in-stock at Amazon (as are several others from the publisher) which isn't the norm for vanity presses. [14] I have little doubt that the book itself is of little intrinsic merit, but the same applies to Pokemon, Celine Dion music, and the collected works of Jackie Collins. Monicasdude 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If Wikipedia adopted a Limbo namespace, this article could be moved to Limbo during the discussion on deletion. Moving an article to Limbo would remove it from the article namespace and prevent search engines from delivering suspicious content while the community decides whether to keep or delete it. For more information, see the discussion on establishing the Limbo namespace. Fg2 01:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like a real (if obscure and un-authoritative) book from a legit publisher. The article has come a long way from its beginnings, and with further improvement (such as a reduction of the "Manifesto" section and NPOV work on the "Criticism" section) it'll be worth having on the server. -Colin Kimbrell 17:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Informative book and article. Good reference source. butterflyblues 20:20, 9 February 2006

• Keep. Interesting work. I think the author is well-researched and knows what he is talking about. dogbytes12 21:19 9 February 2006

• Keep. As a practicing Odinist, I use the book. The original article was flawed, but updates improved same. Good work HroptR! warhammer 21:25 9 February 2006

Nice try User: butterflyblues or should I say , User: dogbytes12 or should I say User: warhammer, but faking votes does not help you out, see for the trace that you just left here: [15] See also history for attempt to hide the fake voting by removing my and the fake entries. --KimvdLinde 04:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Desperate newbie / sock-meatpuppet scramble eh?? Nothing lends more credibility to a page than that... Been making some new friends HroptR?? ++Deiz 04:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not think it was HroptR, but some students from the university that like the professor very much (nothingb wrong with that). One of them made the page about him. When one of them got hold of the deletion request, things started. HroptR is sincere as far as I can tell, strong in his arguments, but not deceptive or anything bad. --KimvdLinde 04:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and please nobody think I'm accusing HroptR of anything, just remarking that the new postings mention him. ++Deiz 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In this bizare play that is curently at stage, I just wanted to clarify things. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Sockpuppetry and stacking votes is not my modus operandi. I know plenty of established wikipedia users I could encourage to vote or comment, but I have not. Mob rule is still mob rule. For me personally, not citing sources and verifiable research has undone this book entry, not group consensus or lack of notability. However, I think there is a fine line between fanatical deletionism and revisionism. People are being way too emotional about this on both sides of the issue. HroptR 16:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to OCLC FirstSearch-WorldCat, the FBI sees fit to keep this book in their academic library. The book has been published now by several publishers, Mandrake of Oxford is the most recent.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.85.124.121 (talk • contribs)

• That's interesting, a link to sources which verify that claim would be useful. ++Deiz 02:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• It can be verified at an obscure and little-used site, www.amazon.com. Here's a link to the previous, fourth, edition [16]. Monicasdude 02:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FBI library. I have found that as well. But that is not surprising as some Asatruer/Odinists are neonazi in line with the misuse of our symbols during Nazi Germany, so I can imagine that the FBI would indeed get everything available. But I think we are digging very deep at the moment, and yes, we will find some stuff..... --KimvdLinde 02:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, we'll discover that the previous edition of the book was published by Holmes Publishing (who seem to have no website) and has a sales rank of #1,509,755. Far from being "little-used" and "obscure", Amazon is actually quite popular and well-known. Probably because it does more than sell books about the occult and Norse secret societies... ++Deiz 08:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • I am the student who created the article on Mark Mirabello. I did not create the article for The Odin Brotherhood and I have not encouraged any students or anyone else to create excess log ins to influence a vote. I find that accusation by KimvdLinde to be a bit upsetting. While I have only been a member at Wikipedia for a short while, I have used it for years and have never tried to add anything false or engage in any unethical practice. Stege1

I am not accusing you of adding the fake stuff. I am only saying that as soon as the word came out at the university, it started to rain anonymuous and new people at this page. I will change the wording to take away the confusion. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --KimvdLinde 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite There are only about 10 University libraries worldwide that own this book. That's 10 more than any book I ever wrote, but its not a ringing endorsement either. Would it be acceptable to rewrite the article so it wasn't about the book but about the "Odin Brotherhood" as a possibly imaginery movement, listing the book as the source. That way it's not just a book advert any more. If somebody does hear about the Odin Brotherhood somewhere and tries to investigate at WP they would find an entry explaining where the term originated and why it is highly suspect. WP must have an article on Bigfoot, which probably doesn't exist either, right?Thatcher131 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can point me to either A) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the historical claims made in this book by someone with academic qualifications, or B) a critical (not necessarily negative!) appraisal of the book by a member of the polytheistic reconstructionist community and an indication that this is considered an essential text by some segment of the community. Until then, there just isn't enough information for us to write an NPOV article on this book. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey AdelaMae. I don't think any recons would subscribe to the Odin Brotherhood just because of the occult elements and secret society bit. For what it's worth, it is on the reading list of several neo-heathen Asatru /Odinist groups like the AFA with a blurb: "a fascinating, poetic, visionary, and many suspect, metaphorical, look at Odinic religion" and is mentioned on several Asatru webistes and forums briefly like this one. The radio show from Odin Lives linked in the article goes into the works impact as well as the veracity of the order. I just think it is a poor precedent to delete fringe authors because their works or beliefs aren't seen as valuable to the mainstream. Many subcultures are not highly represented on the internet. HroptR 20:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a secret society. Perhaps it will be hard to find a critical historical study of it. In answer to AdelaMae's criteria "B" the Asatru Alliance considers this work to be important enought to include in in their suggested reading list of contemporary works. Click this to see.[[17]]stege1

• • Daughters of Frya also reportedly respect the teachings of the Oera Linda Book. ::shrug:: And the point is? Recommended reading lists from the Asatru Alliance are not particularly relevant to whether the article on The Odin Brotherhood is worth retaining here at Wikipedia. If the AA decides to laud Dr. Mirabello's work as sacred scripture/divinely inspired/whatever (which I doubt they would ever decide to do), then it would be a different matter entirely. A very small religious organisation recommending a book as being 'interesting' and 'possibly useful' does not give a book inherent credibility or verifiability. The book, and its respective article here, must stand on its own merit and on the rules found at WP:V and WP:CITE. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 04:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to new editors:[edit]

There appears to be many editors who have edited anonymously or have created a username solely to vote on this issue. While we appreciate your concern and passion about this issue, unfortunately the input of new users does not have much weight in these matters, because you are not yet a contributing member of Wikipedia.

Also, it is expressly against Wikipedia policy to create more than one user account to affect the outcomes of deletion discussion or AfD. This is called sock puppetry. This practice is highly frowned upon by your fellow Wikipedia editors and is expressly discouraged by Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.

Furthermore, every computer on the internet has a unique IP address, which in most instances, can identify the specific computer and the physical location used to make edits. If numerous editors in a vote all have the same IP address, this is evidence of sock puppetry, and your votes will not be counted. You could also be blocked from editing in the future. You are not completely anonymous!

From Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that, for the purpose of dispute resolution, when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets.

I encourage you to stick around Wikipedia and contribute to the project, regardless of the outcome of this vote. - HroptR 22:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Wild debate. Note that the book has a sales rank of 9,395 at Buy.com [[18]] Maybe its rank is lower at amazon because smart people look for deals--it is cheaper at buy.com! --146.85.84.60 01:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Different retailers calculate their ranks based on completely different formulae. Amazon.com is an often used standard, so when an Amazon.com sales rank is quoted, it is being compared to other products with Amazon sales ranks, not the same product's sales rank on a completely different site. As you will see if you become a more experienced WP user, Buy.com ranks are not considered any kind of standard measure by Wikipedia editors. Your post also sounds like an advertising jingle. On those two counts you might want to strike that one. ++Deiz 02:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. The Oera Linda reference above is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oera_Linda The book has its name from the Linden family. Is it coincidence that Mirabello's middle name is "Linden"? --146.85.84.60 03:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a favourable coincidence to you since you have been adding (and been reverted in each case) links to The Odin Brotherhood in numerous articles here at Wikipedia. Please stop doing so. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Here is the link to the FBI Library Collection. Type "Odin Brotherhood" or "Mirabello" to find it. http://fbilibrary.fbiacademy.edu/webopac/cgi/swebmnu.exe?act=3&ini=splusweb So, if the Odin Brotherhood does not exist, why is the FBI reading about it? Do you think they have titles on the "Fantastic Four"? "The Justice League"? What do you think, Mulder? Scully? --146.85.84.60 20:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple reason is that the FBI does research on neonazi and white supremacist groups, some of whom are Odinist oriented. Just remember Nazi germany and the misuse of our symbols by them. So, they want to have the background knowlegde and make a library. Simple enough. --KimvdLinde 20:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the link above to go directly to the FBI library. In a quick search, I cannot find any other Odinist/Asatru titles there.... --146.85.84.60 21:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT. Here is an interesting Portuguese-language site. http://paginas.terra.com.br/arte/sfv/Asatru.html Note they believe the Odin Brotherhood is ancient and is real. --146.85.84.60 22:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not of an Odinist group. Furthermore, all my sources within the Asatru and Odinist community report back that they think the book is a fantasy (or they never heard anything about it at all). --KimvdLinde 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Comment. Here is an Argentine site of Odinists. Note they believe in the antiquity of the Brotherhood. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3290/ --146.85.127.124 23:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT The Odin Brotherhood in Spanish! I found this through the Argentine site. see their links. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3290/odinhood.html --146.85.127.124 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove here 146.85.127.124. If you're suggesting that new sources have come to light which will enable you (you're clearly some kind of expert) to write an encyclopedic, verifiable, unbiased and objective article on this topic then maybe you should stop piling stuff onto this AfD page and DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE ARTICLE WHICH HAS BEEN NOMINATED FOR DELETION. The majority of editors on this page know nothing and care even less about Odinism. What we do want to see are submissions which belong in Wikipedia. As it stands the article flies in the face of several of WP's criteria for inclusion and if you tot up the opinions of experienced editors (per the warning at the top of the page and the "Notes to new editors" piece by HroptR, several "editors" opinions will be discounted due to the evidence of sockpuppetry) you'll see the article could do with less hot air and more hard work. ++Deiz 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

COMMENT. I have been systematically demolishing the uninformed with facts. As for the article, it is already a murder victim, killed by people for emotional reasons.... --146.85.127.124 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 08:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide University Engineering Society[edit]

I'm wondering if this meets the notability criteria. It is mainly a social club at a university, which is typically concerned with the consumption of alcohol?? I go to this university, and so am abstaining. It is very well written though. Blnguyen 01:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep
  • Thankyou for the compliment Blnguyen. Kino, if you had examined the logs, you would see that the edits such as contact us and our website were done by a different user to the main editor of the page (that is, me). To those who say most of the socities activities relate to pub crawls, this is partly true - they hold a single pubcrawl which is quite large, however, that is by no means the limit of the scope of this page. As the page is still being written, I ask everyone to give it a chance. This is my first major contribution to the wiki, so any guidance would be greatly appricated over straight out deletion. Shenki 23:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After closely re-reading all of the relevant documentation on deletion, I believe this article does not qualify for deletion as those below have mentioned. I agree with Blnguyen that the article must not become just a advertisment for some student club which just drinks alcohol (infact, I was concious of this when creating the article in the first place).Shenki 23:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to University of Adelaide. -- Jonel | Speak 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of its activities relate to pub crawls. Could possibly get a sentence in the Uni of Adelaide article under social life. Keep and cleanup. Shenki's rewrite is improving the article greatly especially the emphasis on famous members and publications. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Delete. Smells of WP:VSCA (at least as of this writing. It says it's currently undergoing major changes). Royboycrashfan 03:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete... not very notable, as social clubs like this, "official" or otherwise, are dime-a-dozen at every university. Also, this is reasonably close to fitting WP:VSCA in my book (i.e., the section "Contact Us" stating to "goto our website"), and I don't see how revisions would help that, even if those ubiquitous first person pronouns were removed. --Kinu 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Longhair 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --cj | talk 09:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Despite the VSCA references, if those were removed I would recommend a keep. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cruft. It does not appear to do anythign whihc distinguishes it from any other student club (see the prominence of "pubcrawl" i there?). We had two societies at uni that might scrape notability, one was the film club whihc won BFFS Best Film Society and Best Student Film Society several times, the other was the engineering society which ran a 1929 Dennis toastrack bus and took it to Russia with an aid convoy. This article doesn't even include that kind of minor notoriety. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It does seem to exist and has a web site [19] altho the name is slightly different, and seems to be more than just a drinking club. Plus someone seems to be rewriting the article, so it could be worth keeping. Elfguy 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Death Eater Dan 19:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per capitalistroadster. --Roisterer 08:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I'm a former University of Adelaide student from another faculty, but this is one of the best-known clubs there. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to the university. Stifle 13:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is much more notable than you nerds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.123.147 (talk • contribs)

• Really? It scores 59 Google hits and zero inbound links per Yahoo, I score 1600 on the web and a few tens of thousands in Groups, and around 7000 inbound links to my private website. You may be wrong here! - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 09:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable. --Karnesky 22:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every university has lots and lots of of societies...why is this one notable? -- Pierremenard 22:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• if you had read the page, the discussion here, or any comments posted by myself to admins who have experience in this area, you would know that the society is considered noteable as a number of famous students were members of the society, and it is on this basis that I belived the society notable. There are plenty of societies that I know of at the uni who could not be considered notable, but this one is. Shenki 08:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stellar Pictures[edit]

Vanity interview with the founder of a non-notable video production outfit; doesn't even come close to WP:CORP. Claims "production" work on a few unnamed projects. No sources. Delete. Melchoir 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, looks like an advertisement. --AySz88^-^ 02:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable Avi 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as almost certain copyvio (re: obvious cut-and-paste feel of article and see last line: " --Susan D. Simmons www.theHilltoponline.com 09/28/04"), no assertion of notability that I can see either. Also VanityAdCruft-o-licious into the bargain. ++Deiz 02:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It certainly feels like a copyvio, but I couldn't find the original text. Melchoir 04:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 03:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable production corp. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. Elfguy 13:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable ComputerJoe 19:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -- Death Eater Dan 19:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not notable corp FloNight 03:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable 64.192.107.242 03:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Shanel 02:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Evans[edit]

Asserts global reputation but I doubt it Ruby 02:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Asserts notability, but gives no evidence. --Allen 02:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete.Blnguyen 02:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. Billbrock 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nn-bio --lightdarkness 02:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD^e✉ 02:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha College of English[edit]

The article is spam! It is a commercial project, is not a university. DELETE. -- Tim User:Tim54

• Delete Non-encyclopedic. Advertising. Ruby 02:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article needs to be cleaned up, but it there are 12,900 google hits and it seems to be an established college even though it is commercial.Delete per "wikipedia spams google" Dr Debug (Talk) 02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 12.900 hits? Spam (e.g. 106 hits alphacollege.com) or advertisement (e.g. http://www.studytoday.com/xx/general.asp?lang=cz&cities=100&id=335 etc.). Tim 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no one seems to want to clean it up. -- Krash (Talk) 02:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've cleaned it up (probably a waste of my 2 minutes, but hey). Poor quality writing isn't really a deletion criterion. -- Jonel | Speak 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain -- Krash (Talk) 03:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic spam. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 02:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 02:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --HasNoClue 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Linked to from Dublin's official tourist site ([20]), member of the EAQUALS consortium ([21]), ISO 9001:2000-certified, not sure what search terms others are using, but this search: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=%22alpha+college+of+english%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search gave me about 800 hits. -- Jonel | Speak 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wow, 12,104 (!!!) google hits with wikipedia! without Wikipedia: 796 google hits only. is big spam. Tim 03:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please put "Comment" not "Delete" in front of your comments once you've declared your initial delete. Turnstep 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tim54. Royboycrashfan 03:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby and Tim54. It reads like an advertisement. Notwithstanding, looking at their site, it sounds no more notable than the typical for-profit "educational institute" that advertises repeatedly during every commercial break during The Jerry Springer Show and Judge Hatchett. --Kinu 03:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - a german newspaper http://www.manager-magazin.de/koepfe/artikel/0,2828,263361,00.html writes o.alpha college and Haim Saban, many news in press, radio and television about alpha college: http://www.fremdsprachen.tv/17965.html or http://www.alpha4lingua.de Tim 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC) different companies with same name. Tim 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn advert.Blnguyen 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and cue the vikings. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can rewrite it and provide sources as to why this place is notable, and credible. Elfguy 13:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems harmless and non-spammish as currently written. Turnstep 14:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Nominator's account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of setting up this AfD. No other edits in WP at all. Turnstep 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam. -- Death Eater Dan 19:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The current version does not read like ad copy, the existence of the institution seems to be confirmed; see Wikipedia:Schools. Smerdis of Tlön 19:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Djegan 20:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad. Gateman1997 06:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this is not a spam now Yuckfoo 19:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Universities and colleges in Ireland? it is a joke, yes. Why is a commercial language school a university? that is a private school. The entry is a disadvantage of all other 1,000 language schools in dublin. Krestin 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad./per "wikipedia spams google" Krestin 23:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - does Wikipedia spam the Dublin tourist bureau as well? Visitdublin.com, 4th entry is this school. The school could hardly be called a university, but the city's tourist bureau found reason to list Alpha College of English as an educational institution in the city. -- Jonel | Speak 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Alpha College of English like others language schools in Dublin as well linked. It is a reason? Entry please: Centre of English Studies http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=208, Horner School Of English http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=567, Liffey Linguistics http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1716, American College http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=34, Aspect ILA Dublin http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=62, Dorset College http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1411, Dublin School of English http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=359, English in Dublin http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1437, Griffith College Dublin http://www.visitdublin.com/study/detail.asp?ID=1559,...... and 200 others language schools in dublin, Entry please. Each company in dublin linked to from Dublin's official site. It is self-advertisement. Fact: 12.104 google hits with wikipedia and without wikipedia 796 only Krestin 15:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I respect the opinions of those who say the place isn't notable. However, it is easily verifiable and is no longer spam or advertising. That it's a "commercial project" does not make it unworthy of an article. That it has mention by independent sources is enough to convince me of the notability of the place. Also, the seeming creation of two accounts (Tim54 (talk · contribs) and Krestin (talk · contribs)) solely for the purpose of this AfD is troubling. -- Jonel | Speak 00:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please put "Comment" not "Keep" in front of your comments. yes, my name is Tim Krestin, I've forgot my password Tim/Krestin Tim or Krestin 16:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn, advertising, as per many above Pete.Hurd 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as attack page. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidd Chris[edit]

pov/vanity-laden rant about a local radio show, not notable and nothing in this article is salvageable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepBut clean it up!
• DeleteUltramarine 02:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per ((Db-attack)) -- Krash (Talk) 02:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is an attack page Avi 02:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very informative --HasNoClue 03:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Funny, and can't decide if this is an attack or vanity by a bunch of crackheads... anyway, let's go with the former and say Speedy Delete per attack page. ++Deiz 03:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A6. I need not explain. Royboycrashfan 03:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A6 per above. Would be a delete regardless, since, being someone who has listened to the subject in the past, believe me, he is no more notable than your average morning DJ. --Kinu 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity nn and per above --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD^e✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Utilitarianism[edit]

Delete Original research. 20 Google hits[22], none showing the existence of the concept Ultramarine 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and WP:NOR. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 02:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --HasNoClue 03:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - severe verifiability problems. Appears to be original research based primarily on a shaky understanding of utility (said concept being ridiculously slippery, this certainly can't be held against anyone). Redirecting to Utilitarianism would probably be best outcome, though I wouldn't argue with deletion per WP:V and WP:NOR if verification of outside use is not forthcoming. -- Jonel | Speak 03:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as or.Blnguyen 05:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOR. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or. Elfguy 13:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1) It's a recent article, and certain obvious elements (References page, Links page) are not yet included - still under construction, so unfair to criticize it for lacking elements. This violates the "assume good faith" part in the Wikipedia AfD Page. Also, I'm a new user, so I'd appreciate some more time to get used to Wikipedia and clean up the article before everyone decides to demolish it. 2) First two references on the page demonstrate the validity of the basic claims of the article. The references aren't well documented yet, but the pre-existence of the concepts is, if you read the first two links. 3) User who nominated this page for deletion, Ultramarine, seems to have both a personal problem with the article, and a history of being an extremely biased Wikipedia user in general (see his profile for more info). After a brief discussion, he refused to commmunicate further and immediately opted for deletion. See Talk:Quality Utilitarianism. 4) Concept by name isn't more than 5 years old, and not very strongly spread by name into most Utilitarian talks. Just like the esoteric topic "Set-Theoretic Models of Disjunctive Operators", not getting what you look for in 20 Google hits doesn't at all provide a good argument that it isn't a pre-established topic. Twiffy 18:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles need to adhere to Wikipedia policy from the very beginning. In particular, you need to cite verifiable proof that "Quality Utilitarianism" is a current term, and not something you made up. Relax - you have 5 days. And if you can't do it in 5 days, copy the page to your user space before then - maybe at User talk:Twiffy/Quality Utilitarianism and keep working on it there until it meets Wikipedia policy. Ikkyu2 02:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, unverified Avi 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates WP:V, possibly WP:NOR as well. Iff multiple independent peer-reviewed references which specifically refer to the term "Quality Utilitarianism" appear before the end of this AfD, consider this vote changed to Keep. Ikkyu2 02:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Angelo 04:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 16:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skanks[edit]

Non-notable band. Only about 1,140 hits on Google, and I'm not even sure if all of those are for the band itself.[23] Kross^Talk 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.--Kross^Talk 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VAIN and WP:MUSIC. If they had passed the latter, their webpage would not be at MySpace with a self-aggrandizing nickname. --Kinu 03:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanispamcruftisement. They left the URL for their MySpace profile. Isn't that cute? BUT IT'S WRONG! Royboycrashfan 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as article doesn't even assert notability. EdGl 03:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete C'mon a link to their myspace profile? Delete with a passion. NN --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing here but vanity! VirtualSteve 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, A7, tagged. PJM 13:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, and poorly written too. Elfguy 13:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:31Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 23:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Kelly (ecologist)[edit]

I believe this to be a non-notable bio, although the article does attempt to assert some notability. I've had some discussions on the talk page with the article's creator regarding sources, but those that were provided (such as the "very exasperated person in the White House who reads his letters then hands them to the president") don't really fit the criteria at WP:V. Joyous | Talk 03:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable, no sources cited, and a few other problems. Royboycrashfan 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The discourse on the talk page was good for a brief chuckle. And I do mean very brief. --Kinu 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this may be genuine attempt but failure to answer questions or show valid notability as previously posed on discussion page and thus inability to verify, leads to my current vote.VirtualSteve 05:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again.

• 03:04, January 31, 2006 Golbez deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (either vanity or nn; no links, no notability attempted, and a quarter of the article is an attack on yours truly)
• 00:24, December 12, 2005 Eugene van der Pijll deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (content was: '{db|nonsense / not-notable}Paul Kelly is a ecologist. He is currently writing a story called "Quarantine Zone" and is in the process of publishing ...')
• 02:47, May 18, 2005 Golbez deleted "Paul Kelly (ecologist)" (vanity)

Creator has no history outside this article, except for one piece of trivial vandalism. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is just recreation of a previously deleted article. Elfguy 13:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks self written. Krashlandon (e) 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, possible vanity. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per verifiability policy mentioned under every edit box. Can be re-created at any time if proper source citations, as described in WP:V and WP:CITE are provided that correspond to the key facts mentioned in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom --KimvdLinde 22:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Revolution[edit]

Entry on a webbased turn game that does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 03:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I am sorry I did not know you could not post content like this here. It is a game that has been around for 3 years now. Maybe there is some other way I can add it without flaging for deletion? First every page, I should have read all before posting it I just was thought I could post it and keep on editing it.. A simular game has one, please let me fix this to the setup that it should be set at before it is removed. - c4smok

• Delete. Yay WP:VSCA! --Kinu 03:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was flagging this for AfD myself but somebody else beat me to it. It's textbook spam/advertisement. --Wingsandsword 03:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no Alexa rank, forum has less than 300 members! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy for creator user:C4smok to work on, or delete as lacking any evidence of importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Elfguy 13:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:VSCA -- Death Eater Dan 19:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moink 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VanHalentines Day[edit]

• Delete - this day does not exist (except on the Van Halen internet forums) Zelmerszoetrop 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - this day should never exist. No Guru 03:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - forumcruft --lightdarkness 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too many problems with article to name. Royboycrashfan 03:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 04:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "It is a special day for Van Halen fans, and whoever wishes to celebrate it. If you chose not to, then it is up to you to ignore it." Wikipedia chooses the latter. Daniel Case 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bullocks Ruby 04:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Is it just me, or is this listed twice on the list of articles for deletion? --Rory096 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a glitch or something, I didn't see the AfD banner in this article and sent it down, but I fixed it in due course. Ruby 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why can this not exist when something like "Winter-Een-Mas" can? --DJ 04:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "Winter-Een-Mas" is recognized by EB Games. Who has recognized VanHalentines Day? --Rory096 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence presented that this day is of any significance to the wider community. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school in one day. JIP | Talk 06:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with Winter-Een-Mas. Unencyclopaedic fancruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non sense. (actually Winter-Een-Mas has a web site, and several references from various game related forums, so its at least semi notable) Elfguy 13:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable and could possibly lead to Van Hagar day. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:33Z
• Delete as forumcruft, before someone creates an article on Hansonukkah or Hall&Oatesween. --Kinu 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. Winter-Een-Mas should go too. Next thing you know people will be making an article for the Edgar Winter Soltice. BTW, that was a good one Kinu.--Isotope23 18:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if only because it is being continually lumped in with Winter-Een-Mas. That is most certainly an established bit of pop culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.239.183.218 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete Utter nonsense - get rid of crap like this cluttering up an encyclopedia, keep it to the fan forums! -- Death Eater Dan 19:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Sceptre ^(Talk) 23:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Alphax ^τεχ 02:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although, straight from the heart, whoa-oa, why can't this be love? Ikkyu2 18:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Where to begin is right. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD^e✉ 02:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Crocker[edit]

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO; a couple of minor human-interest profiles hardly meets the "100-year test". Also has zero internal wikilinks. Aaron 03:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I originally put a ((PROD)) tag on this; it was removed without any improvements being made to the article, so I'm listing it here per WP:PROD. --Aaron 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep With the whole controversy surrounding intelligent design and evolution, she seems to be making a mark on the debate. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One article in the *W* section of The Washington Post and a *callout box inside another article* in Nature don't seem too notable yet. (If she does reach that point, no prejudice against recreating.) --Kinu 06:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable minor creationist. Fails the 100 second test, let alone the 100 year test. I've forgotten her name already, in fact. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Most google hits for that name have nothing to do with this person. Elfguy 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, gets attention within the controversy. Kappa 15:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't seem to have had any more press coverage than I've ever had, and I know I don't merit an article. Google hits are few and far between. —Whouk (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, notability is too minor to meric an article under WP:BIO in my opinion. Maybe a mention under Intelligent Design would be appropriate.--Isotope23 18:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. -- Death Eater Dan 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is she a leader in the debate or just one of many who has taken sides? Is the fact that she has taken what some would consider the less likely side notable? As to the 100-year test, we have not followed that in any real way. 100 years from now, nearly every person whose biography appears in Wikipedia will be forgotten by nearly all except real trivia hounds and at least half even by such hounds. Carlossuarez46 23:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. FloNight 03:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Angelo 04:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted after userfying. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh saklani[edit]

Vanity/Advertisement page. Only claimed notability is publishing a book with only 5 unique Google hits. Or, to use the new term: WP:VSCA Wingsandsword 03:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as WP:VSCA and WP:VAIN. --Kinu 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just clicked in my head that the author of this page is very likely the subject. Maybe userfy instead? --Kinu 03:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not userfy. Userfying is pointless when the author only contributes to their own vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy is what I would have done. Andrew, consider this: person comes along and creates article on themself. Maybe cluelessly, maybe deliberate vanity. Scenario 1: delete, chomp. Scenario 2: Move to user space, subst template:nn-userfy and leave a welcome message. I would say that the trivial effort in doing 2 is justified if as many as 1 in 100 people go on to contribute properly instead of just walking away. I haven't userfied my 100th yet so I don't know if that is going to happen, I am a notorious idealist. But anyway, userfy is what I would do here, the user page is redlinked. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. The point of a user page is to describe a Wikipedia contributor. Someone who comes here just to write a vanity page wants the page as an article, and would not have written it in a user page no one would ever find. Elfguy 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as copyvio of [24] (and others) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Ghrelin[edit]

Blatant advertisement, possible copyvio too. Wingsandsword 04:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (Doesn't seem to be copyvio, though, unless the source is not online) Daniel Case 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:Copyvio. I found a large chunk of it; the page it's on 404s (maybe temporarily or just for me?), but Google cache has it. --Kinu 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ads.Blnguyen 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy-delete It's a copyvio from [25] Elfguy 13:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I'll be right on it in a moment, just goign through the creator's other edits, all of which - amazingly - are related to this. Only googles a couple of hundred anyway, so almost certainly snake oil. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and redirect to stoner film moink 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner-comedy[edit]

Author inhaled and created a genre on the spot Ruby 04:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but move to Stoner comedy. I've heard the phrase before, and it gets 13,800 hits on Google. --Allen 04:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stoner film per Kinu. --Allen 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (if appropriate) to Stoner film. --Kinu 04:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete to Stoner film per Kinu (if there's anything in there that can be salvaged, which doesn't appear likely), as this is actually a genre. --Rory096 04:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete straight up per Ruby. Stoner film already covers all material in this article, and nobody is likely to search for the phrase 'Stoner-comedy'. --Lockley 05:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to stoner film. The creator of this article changed the links to stoner film on the Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle page to point to stoner-comedy, then filled in the resulting redlink. Stoner film is an accurate and more widely recognized term for such movies (which, unless I'm missing something, are pretty much always comedies, so distinguishing "stoner comedy" from "stoner film" would be kind of pointless). Don't think there's anything useful to merge, but redirects are cheap, fun, and easy. -- Jonel | Speak 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete implausible redirect and not worth keeping. Adrian Lamo ·· 07:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirects are cheap. Elfguy 14:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Stoner film —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:22Z
• Redirect per consensus.--Isotope23 18:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Redirects are cheap, and this is plausible. youngamerican (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect -- to Stoner film - Longhair 19:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per all of the above. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Mier[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Esprit15d as nn-bio, but that was contested by Colin Kimbrell. Colin's reasoning is pasted below. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:Martha Mier: Seems fairly well-known and prolific as a producer (writer?) of sheet music for piano/organ. 31 author credits on Amazon [26] for various sheet music collections. Not entirely convinced of notability, but at a minimum should go to AFD rather than speedy. -Colin Kimbrell 14:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep seems notable in her field Jcuk 20:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all this for 2 lines of text... nn. Elfguy 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable for composed song. Krashlandon (e) 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looks reasonably notable, but I'm not sure what guidelines would apply to a writer of sheet music. Ergot 18:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep and stub. This is one of those situations that falls outside the criteria WP:MUSIC was designed for. She seems fairly notable within the realm of sheet music publication, working on the Alfred series of piano tutorial books.--Isotope23 18:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - questionable notability and hardly worth keeping as an article, it's too short to even claim to be a stub. Get rid -- Death Eater Dan 20:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I even have several doubts about her notability --Angelo 04:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Fairly notable in her field, even if completely nn outside of it. Maybe in the future, the folks at WP:MUSIC might want to look into amending their stuff to cover situations like this.--み使い Mitsukai 06:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't establish notability, two-line substub with no reasonable prospect of expansion. Delete without prejudice, i.e. don't slap a G4 speedy tag on a recreation of the article which includes proper assertions and verifiable details. Stifle 13:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, for the reasons I had stated earlier. -Colin Kimbrell 17:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is possible, but has not been established. -- Pierremenard 22:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete DS 22:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancom[edit]

NN Internet cafe. Daniel Case 04:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable despite that "the organization is constantly growing as of now." --Fuhghettaboutit 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As non-notable as most other internet cafes. --Kinu 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. should be listed in an article listing internet caffes in that region, if anything. Elfguy 14:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn. -- Death Eater Dan 20:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nn. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 00:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secrets and glitches in Battlefield 2[edit]

Almost exclusively original research, with no attempt at verifiability. A previous article on the same topic, Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits was deleted for the same reason. Remy B 04:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:NOR. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR -gamingology.Blnguyen 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR, and even if it can be verified, it's still gamecruft. JIP | Talk 06:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if those are valid tips, they should be added to the various existing Battlefield 2 articles. Elfguy 14:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of this material previously existed in the Battlefield 2 article but was moved into the Battlefield 2 Bugs and Exploits article (see my opening line) after I noted that it should be removed for being original research with no sources. I dont think it would be a good outcome for the material to end up back in the Battlefield 2 article without being strictly verifiable. Otherwise, the section will (as it previously did) turn into informal commentary and personal accounts. Remy B 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 15:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NOT. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same reasons as above. Picking up SF weapons doesn't sound like an exploit, either. TaintedMustard 08:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep don't delete just because you are not interested. Lapinmies 13:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Powell[edit]

The article claims he has a "small but dedicated following" but there is no listing on allmusic.com. A Google search of his first album and his last name turns up one hit - his own web site. This doesn't seem to quite satisfy WP:MUSIC -- DS1953 ^talk 04:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failure of WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; he can go promote himself on MySpace if he wants. Daniel Case 05:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Standard vanity page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Creator only did this one article. Elfguy 14:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:35Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn vanity page. —Whouk (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn/vanity/WP:MUSIC take your pick-- Death Eater Dan 20:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is nn/vanity, WP:MUSIC. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by User:UninvitedCompany.--Alhutch 06:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosplayfucks[edit]

Has nothing.

• Delete immediately
• Speedy Delete per CSD A1. NatusRoma 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A1 as above. --Kinu 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A1. Royboycrashfan 05:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A1. --Allen 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A1.Blnguyen 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British democracy 1919 until 1939[edit]

It's clearly original thought, as the article itself says that it's an essay by Julian Malt. --Rory096 04:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not to be used to display essays. Royboycrashfan 05:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Essay.Blnguyen 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete there surely should be an article on Britain in the inter-war period but I can't find one. This article header would possibly be a part of it though the content wouldn't make the cut. MLA 10:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, although an article on the inter-war period would be useful if not existing, as above. -- Mithent 13:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now Julian Malt has stated on the article's talk page that he will attempt to improve the article and make it encyclopaedic. I'd like to give him the chance to do so and see what the article can become. I've seen articles with far less merits get kept before. James084 13:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or. If the user wants to write this he should do so on his own web site or at least user space. Elfguy 14:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research; it does not belong in an encyclopedia. Sliggy 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete essay per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Relectant Delete per MLA. It was an interesting article at least. Carlossuarez46 23:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and replace with a non-original researched article.--Kross^Talk 00:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and Delete from article space, without prejudice against creation of article on subject. Put it on the author's user page or subpage thereof and let him try to turn it into an encyclopedia article rather than an essay. -- Jonel | Speak 02:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reason Julian Malt 20:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Please delete this and I shall try to re-write it as non-original thought and produce an article to fill the gap that is Britain's economic history and the inter-war years. thanks[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pway[edit]

WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 04:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a neologism. --Rory096 04:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism and made up in school one day. Daniel Case 04:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NEO and WP:NFT. Royboycrashfan 05:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism. No verifiability says this is likely to have been invented one day during gym class. --Kinu 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a slang dictionary. --Walter Görlitz 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:NEO. Elfguy 14:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nnuuneo. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:37Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Annihilate the garbage. Krashlandon (e) 17:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn neologism. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable group (CSD A7).--Alhutch 06:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latus Rectum and the Asymptotes[edit]

Delete. not notable according to WP:MUSIC adavidw 04:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete because as the article itself says, "nobody outside their high school had heard their name. In fact, most people in the school had never heard of them either." Ruby 04:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, doesn't assert or demonstrate notability. --Allen 05:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A7 per Ruby and Allen. --Kinu 05:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Music not met VirtualSteve 05:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy A7. I need not explain. Royboycrashfan 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN, where it was probably always intended in the first place. Daniel Case 05:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete!¡!¡!¡! Don't wait, Eliminate!--God of War 06:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Vandenberg[edit]

At the center of a school-finance scandal, but not notable as 43 Google hits demonstrate. Daniel Case 04:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 227 hits for "wes vandenburg". Still not a large number, but it made local news so it might qualify. Snurks ^{T C} 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep,I'm showing 77 Google hits and notable as he has been accused of misuse of school funds in now 3 differnt school districts. Two in Michigan and 1 in Arizona.

77 Google hits is more than I got, but still doesn't begin to break the threshold. Nor does being accused of a crime in two different states ... if that established notability (notoriety?), we'd have tons of articles on two-bit crooks. Daniel Case 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, blatant vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sufficient notoriety for inclusion. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment... but rename to Wes Vandenburg, which seems to be the correct spelling. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Are you kidding? he stole some money from a couple of schools? Completely unremarkable individual. Zunaid 09:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, multi-state fraud is sufficient notoriety. Suydam 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment,Correct Spelling should be Vandenburg. 543 hitswhen spelled correctly.
• Delete no source, only notable because it's in the news, all that should go on a news page. Elfguy 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it. We need more current news in Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs)
• Delete, just another boring piece of semi-news. Fraud is not inherently notable. Lord Bob 16:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Does this pass the 100-year test? The 10-year test? The one? If it turns out this is the iceberg tip of some fantastic scheme to rip off the world, then yes it belongs here. But only then. Daniel Case 17:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete So he's accused in a 2-count charge of stealing up to $21,000 of school funds. nn. By the way: the delete debate is using the "-burg" spelling and the edit tag misdirects. Carlossuarez46 00:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 22:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lo-mein code[edit]

Has exactly one google hit for "Lo-mein code" in a short story archived here [27] Ruby 04:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fightindaman 04:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable neologism. I was thinking of AfDing this myself, but I wasn't sure if it was necessary, and I didn't feel like doing all that work. --Rory096 04:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rory. --Kinu 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable neologism. Royboycrashfan 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn .Blnguyen 05:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn per nom. Essexmutant 10:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Elfguy 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:38Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Spaghetti code (or Delete -- one hit is really pathetic). Ewlyahoocom 19:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 22:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

On a free web host, so its Alexa rank of 683 would be misleading. Seems to be pretty new, thus article is promotional. Daniel Case 04:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -Drdisque 04:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 370 members is not notable. --Rory096 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 370 members? Really. Non-notable. --Kinu 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above - does not meet wiki guidelines at all VirtualSteve 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ad for a low-traffic forum. Snurks ^{T C} 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You should have seen how bad it was written before I changed it up :P Teabagged 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per member count. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Elfguy 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:38Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:N. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Yanksox as G4/A7. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New nsider[edit]

Article is about a non-notable website, and the subject is similar to another article that was recently deleted. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 18:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete and protect after deletion. I don't know what the old page looked like, but as this is the second time this article has been listed under AfD, it should be protected so it won't have to go through this process again. AgentPeppermint 19:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as a recreated deleted article. --PresN 20:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and for goodness sakes Protect it this time! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per above, and looking at the creator's contributions, it's a clear case of using Wikipedia for vandalism. Ban. Danny Lilithborne 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4. Some of the content could be consolidated into Nintendo NSider Forums. Being a former member myself, the removal of the RP board turned a lot of people off, including me. I left two months earlier for Simtropolis and then WP on 12 November 2005. TrackerTV 23:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete and protect from re-creation, absolute textbook G4 - the editor forgot to remove "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" from the article! --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by User:Woohookitty Adrian Lamo ·· 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Speak Like A German Day[edit]

0 google hits, not an established holiday, despite this "declaration" [28]. I suspect we might get a lot of new users showing up to tell us how important it is, I'd like to remind them that we need verifiable evidence from third-party sources, personal assertions are not sufficient. Kappa 05:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. --Allen 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. No external verifiability; all "references" provided are self-referential, and even searching for the broader "speak like a German" yields nothing relevant. Also calling WP:VAIN and WP:POINT on statement and first person pronoun use: "This is an established thing. WikiPedia can't delete it, because I delcare it established. - Kez". Not even close to being Pirate Day, of which even I've heard. --Kinu 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dont delete. ZGeek.com is a Third Party Source. As I have created this new "holiday" as you would like to call it, I will call your attention to http://forum.zgeek.com/showthread.php?t=46967. That thread has a number of "third party sources", that will verify that people have actually partaken in this "holiday". Wikipedia being the first party, myself being the second party, and ZGeek.com being the third party, thus justifiably making any form of "personal assertions" a valid confirmation. I see that this is all about a "majority", and how can you critisise this if you've never heard of it? You've all heard of Talk like a Pirate day, because people got the word out. We are trying to get the word out, so in effect, you're generating a nice big slab of hyprocracy and supression on the internet. Non-notable? You're not even giving it a change to be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: An item generally belongs on Wikipedia after its notability is established, as Wikipedia is not a cart-before-the-horse means for establishing this notability, nor is it for "advertising" to that end. I doubt anyone is criticizing it for never having heard of it; not trying to bite, but I feel they are simply stating that it does not gel with why wikipedia exists. As for Pirate Day, that page was first created, per its revision history, in 2003, certainly well after its inception and popularity grew per the article's references; thus the comparison here is fallacious. --Kinu 05:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity and spamvertising. Royboycrashfan 05:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Perhaps even speedy delete. Improper, self-serving, unencyclopaedic. VirtualSteve 05:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up on other websites a little while ago. Daniel Case 05:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Notwithstanding Herr Kez's compelling defense of his creation, I added a nonsense speedy on RCP, then a prod and will now vote delete here on AfD to remain consistent. -- JJay 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn vanity.Blnguyen 05:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --Khoikhoi 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. Gazpacho 05:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Schnell, bitte. Zgeek.com doesn't really cut the mustard according to Wikipedia:Verifiable as a reliable published source. Capitalistroadster 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax or non-notable neologism. And to think 160 million people celebrate this every day of the year! JIP | Talk 06:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete I don't even need to explain this one, do I? Geez ... Adrian Lamo ·· 06:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, Kinu, et al. –Sommers ^(Talk) 09:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. (The fact that someone apparently involved in the article has come here and essentially stated it is not yet notable makes this even clearer.) Essexmutant 10:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Give us 5 days to actually gain notoriety about this holiday. If I fail, then delete the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.44.182.149 (talk • contribs)

That's not how we do things here. Gazpacho

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

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

The result of the debate was gone DS 23:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Parsnip[edit]

Delete. This is an obvious hoax. A bit of Googling found a page in which a Dave Briggs admits it's concocted: http://davebriggs.net/?p=389 . Lockley 05:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Sandstein 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Essexmutant 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent hoax. Elfguy 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:39Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Death Eater Dan 20:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, hoax. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Allen 22:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. moink 00:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric gersham[edit]

8 hits on Google. nn/vanity Amcfreely 05:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Funny how the title and body don't match... is it "Gersham" or "Gershman" anyway? Slightly greater number results for the latter, but still non-notable. --Kinu 07:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen 07:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Essexmutant 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and the title is incorrectly capitalised to make matters worse. -- Mithent 13:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. Elfguy 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:40Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO.--Isotope23 17:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per WP:BIO. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle 13:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egocomplacency[edit]

neologism Amcfreely 05:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Amcfreely as dicdef (at best). --Lockley 06:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism.Blnguyen 07:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 19 google hits. Elfguy 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:41Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, 19 hits. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete moink 00:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echolance[edit]

Only wp hits on Google/original research/nn Amcfreely 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "little else is available on the subject"... that pretty much sums it up. --Kinu 07:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism .Blnguyen 07:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 5 google hits. Elfguy 14:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination, Google hits. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 22:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 even creator has now voted to delete it

Salt with Meat[edit]

An obvious hoax. Funny, though. I've already BJAODN'ed it. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 05:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteVirtualSteve 08:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *yawn* PJM 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. BJAODN works. -- Mithent 13:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, eat helping of Salt with Meat. -Kuzaar 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non sense. Elfguy 14:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-02-08 15:42Z
• Delete per nom. Avi 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD A6, personal attack. I doubt Lai Xue would appreciate learning that he was featured as the chef responsible for "salt with meat." Also agree with above, take with grain of salt. Ikkyu2 21:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete very big hoax --Angelo 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Optichan 18:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Lesgles 23:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pure nonsense, per nom 3H 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Yea take it out, sorryGlebster 05:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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