< January 1 January 3 >

Purge server cache

January 2[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Bank of Cuba[edit]

There's no such thing as the "Bank of Cuba". It's actually called the Central Bank of Cuba. Alr 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Videogame List[edit]

Non-notable website, sort of an ad but more of a speech. but Alexa rank is about 560,000. Delete. CastAStone 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The J&P Sports Network[edit]

I bring you a site with a whopping grand total of

36

Members!!!! (Does not meet WP:WEB for the pedantic) WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Native Guns[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable rap group. They have no listing on allmusic, and the small number of links returned by Google are mostly either geocities or myspace pages. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The second half of this article is a copyvio of their MySpace webpage, http://www.myspace.com/kiwi Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badagnani 00:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Native Guns featured in Canada's Vancouver Georgia Straight Weekly-[[2]] Named one of L.A.'s "Top Ten Most Intriguing Bands"-[[3]] Featured in asianweek.com- [[4]] Fil-Arts Fest- [[5]] sfweekly.com- [[6]]

The duo was also featured in Jointz Mag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.251.125.85 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 30 December 2005 User:Wikipedian13

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city
  2. Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture.
Information is verifiable under multiple sources (specifically within the APIA music and activism scene), including:
  • Locus Arts- [[8]] Vancouver's Under the Volcano- [[9]]
  • APAture- [[10]]
  • UCLA's Ethnomusic archives (call #200305_0005)- [[11]]
  • Festival of Phillipines ART & Culture- [[12]]
  • East Bay Express- [[13]]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bankuei (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 00:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takis Fotopoulos[edit]

Like the things he links to at the bottom of this page, which reads like a resume with a legal threat at the end, with links to other nn articles related to him that were deleted. Let's get rid of this vanity page as well. Delete karmafist 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(legal threat from anon article creator deleted). karmafist 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM

Since yesterday’s announcement some of the main points we made in it have already been confirmed! Thanks to the technical work of some administrators who showed that they function without any political agendas against us but instead attempted to find out the truth, Paul Cardan (the disgruntled ex-member of the journal with a vendetta against us who was the main cause of the first AfD against Democracy & Nature through his repeated vandalising attacks against it) and User:DisposableAccount (who proposed the deletion of the successor journal to D&N and with the support of two (2) administrators managed to have it deleted), Llbb and Bbll (who persuaded other administrators to keep the page deleted) are all the same editor! [15] Meanwhile, other administrators still doubt whether the present announcement is a genuine Editorial Board announcement. Here is the proof: [16]

The Editorial Committee of The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy 10:30 (UTC) January 2, 2006

User:Narap43

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Ichiro 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softness[edit]

Can this ever be any more than a dictdef? Grutness...wha? 00:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Loughin's Restaurant[edit]

Non-Notable restaurant. No claim to notability, Google search revealed that article creator spelled the restaurant name wrong. Wrong spelling gets 18 hits, correct spelling gets 99 hits. VegaDark 00:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wish it could have been. However, article 7 only allows for people with no claim to notability to be speedied, not places. VegaDark 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7 has been expanded to cover groups and bands. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still does not cover locations, such as this.VegaDark 04:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't implying that A7 covered establishments. I was only pointing out that it had been expanded to cover more than people, i.e. biograhpical articles. PJM 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As well as groups and bands. PJM 02:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ranvir Bassi[edit]

Unverified (and unverifiable) and poorly formatted. It looks for all the world like a hoax. I was half-inclined to put it up for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure it fits comfortably into those guidelines.... – Seancdaug 00:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenger skulls of triton[edit]

Non-notable, perhaps mythological, band whose name gets a whopping zero google hits, despite three albums (?) listed in 2002 (allmusic hasn't heard of them either). I am marking parallel article Revengers skull of triton as CSD (empty). Delete. bikeable (talk) 00:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep, because merging requires keeping and the consensus is to merge this someplace. Merging isn't the job of AFD, though, so any interested party can feel free. —Cleared as filed. 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque metal[edit]

This article repeats both Power Metal and Symphonic Metal. It is well worded as such, but essentially is still a stub repeating a full length article. It also focuses on only certain bands of the form, coming across highly as somoene advertising their favourite bands. This article as such doesnt warrent an article, and a redirect should be left to the Power Metal article. Leyasu 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the same way that classical music and baroque music are "pretty much the same thing"??? :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment How on Earth does this warrent being merged into Symphonic Metal when, A) Symphonic Metal is nothing alike this, and B)The article nominated for deletion repeats Power Metal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: As a grammar nazi, I have to note that Stratovarius is probably what Leyasu was meaning to link to... - CorbinSimpson 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) All fixed now!!! - CorbinSimpson 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still expect a reason as to why merge into Symphonic Metal and not Power Metal, when the article being merged repeats power metal and is completely unrelated to Symphonic Metal's article. Leyasu 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a derivative of Symphonic Metal, IIRC. Merge WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take from the Baroque Metal article:
Power metal totally differs from 1970s metal styles, since it adds important elements of depth, classical arrangements, complex scores and intrincated melodies. Whereas most genres of metal focus largely on personal experience, historical incidents, social commentary, or other aspects of "real life", baroque metal always treats fantasy, aristocratic, castles, battles and kings themes.
It actually calls itself Power Metal, which shows it is not a form of Symphonic Metal, it is a repeat of the Power Metal article. At best, part of it could be conisdered to reference Symphonic Power Metal. Leyasu 23:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolf Ellis: Founder of the VS[edit]

Seems like unverifiable nonsense..and Google agrees, apparently.SoothingR 00:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Darnell - Male Gigolo Extraordinaire[edit]

Hoax. Google gets 139 hits, none about this supposed person. Contributor's only other article has an AfD pending for the same reasons. VegaDark 01:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwise[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as "non-notable company" (and actually deleted, then listed at WP:DRV), but it's not a candidate. No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magicomm[edit]

Non-notable business vanity. -- Longhair 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaps -- Can I help with this? -- I am the author of this entry and it my first foray into wikipedia. I used this company (I am an employee) to illustrate an example anoto service provider should anyone need to go any further. I was struggling for information after this article was flagged as needing more content??!!?? so I copied some of our sales blurb. I would welcome some guidance. Thanks

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

The result of the debate was delete

GOBI ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTION[edit]

Advertisement. No sources cited, and a cursory Google search fails to establish any notability. – Seancdaug 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of science writers[edit]

Whatever this article tries to do, categories will do better. Subject is also ill defined - are pseudoscientific writers supposed to be included? How technical can an author be? How serious is serious? Finally, just way too general. At least, that's what I think. Fangz 01:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What am I missing? Asimov certainly wrote "serious nonfiction about science aimed at a general audience". And the Dawkins article says he's a "popular science writer". -- JLaTondre 03:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect (User:BenAveling created a redirect to Leichhardt, New South Wales 2 days before I closed this afd, and I'm assuming that is the concensus here) --Ichiro 02:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leichhardt plaza[edit]

The article itself points out that it is a "very small" shopping center, which does not speak highly of its notability. – Seancdaug 01:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there in the article to merge? Ben Aveling 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree there's not much to actually merge, other than mentioning the centre's existence. I've now added some descriptions of the shopping centres to the suburb's article, so nothing else to do. As a generic term Leichhardt plaza could still be turned into a redirect, but deleting it probably wouldn't hurt either.--cjllw | TALK 04:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely done. I've taken the liberty to turn the page into a redirect. I think we're done here folks. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 02:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking Guild[edit]

Admins will take into account if certain editors do not have many edits before voting on this AfD. So creating an account to vote or using multiple IPs will not help. For further info, please read Wikipedia is not a democracy and WP:SOCK

This is a page about a nn group of spammers. It seems similar to GNAA but less notable DeleteCastAStone 01:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have every right to self-promote, but it doesn't follow that you have a right to do it on Wikipedia. You submitted an article, community consensus is tending towards deletion. These things happen. Try again later -- when your Google hits aren't in the lower three digits, you're not bereft of mainstream media coverage, or you're otherwise objectively noteworthy. In the meantime, if you're passionate about free speech and all that, why not improve other Wikipedia articles? Adrian Lamo 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Harmless, non-noteworthy topics are still non-noteworthy. Even if "freedom of speech" guaranteed everyone a Wikipedia article, it's not so much that anyone here is "offended" by your work as it is that it's "not relevant" to the vast majority of users outside GameSpot.
Adrian Lamo 01:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if "bad people" were the criteria for deletion, this wouldn't be an encyclopedia. I'm sure there's a list of [something] groups somewhere on Wikipedia that you can add your name to, eh? G'day.
Adrian Lamo 02:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you're right. My mistake. Adrian Lamo 06:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 02:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monocore[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Music Esprit15d 01:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI, but that doens't prevent expansion in the meantime. I'll add it to the transwiki log. -Splashtalk 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acidophobic[edit]

This is an adjective and could that should be transwiki'd to wiktionary if it were verifiable. I placed a request for verification on the talk page of this article in March 2005 and there has been no response. There do exist articles on the internet that contain information about this term, but they are uniformly mirrors or derivatives of Wikipedia. Therefore, I request that the article be deleted in order to drop false-positive (or self-fulfilling) contamination of the internet with the article title and term definition. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 06:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) (re-signing after revision)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cremator (wrestler)[edit]

Tagged a speedy with the reasoning

"Unsourced, unwikified, non-notable."

No opinion. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wisbech Grammar School[edit]

Non-notable school. —ERcheck @ 02:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, could someone remove the word "now" in the enrollment sentence and replace it with a year? - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just so we stick to the facts here, I'd like to point out that the school is not 700 years old, nearly 700 years old, or over 700 years old. It is approximately 626 years old. -- JJay 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Family Clothing[edit]

Non-notable business vanity. -- Longhair 02:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 02:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Segev[edit]

"largely unsubstantiated or unverified content" (User:Tiksustoo). bumped from speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 02:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied by Zoe. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travis steffens[edit]

Tagged a speedy with the reasoning

vanity article

I think the article says it all

"Young Entrepreneur who made $100,000 in his first 2 years of business, all profit."

Delete as advertising and non-notable. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied, nn-bio. Zero Google hits for "Crime Family Clothing". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ajjan[edit]

Article is an extensive biographical sketch of a candidate who lost a bid for election to the US House of Representatives. Are all congressional candidates encyclopedic? - squibix 02:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes. maybe not in tiny Britannica but in wikipedia. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pear calendar, 1 Vernal[edit]

Nonsense? Hoax? Self-promotion? Vanity? I can't find anything meaningful for the term "Pear calendar". User:Zoe|(talk) 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Probably vanity or some unknown revision of the French Republican Calendar. But it could be legitimate... JRP 02:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly could be, but with zero Google hits, it's not something we should have in the encyclopedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Speedy delete JRP 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virji Corporation[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borislavia[edit]

Hoax? Zero Google hits, no source. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Technobabes & Technobabes (redirect)[edit]

Social and professional networking vanity of some sort. Non-notable community meetup. -- Longhair 03:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy kept. AFD is not required for merges and redirects. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Way of the Peaceful Warrior[edit]

Book non-notable by itself. Makes more sense in context of author's page at Dan Millman Rorybowman 03:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreak_(game)[edit]

The Outbreak website meets none of Wikipedia's website notability criteria - it has a very small user base, ranks below four million on Alexa, and has received no media attention.

Its Wikipedia page is a self-promotional link (User:Nlindstrom created the Wikipedia page, and is also the creator of the Outbreak site) that was made at the same time as a number of blog-comment spams advertising the game. Bub27 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Teen Titans (animated series)[edit]

Several of these locations are actual places for which there is nothing to say about them here, and several of the names ("Underwater") are outright made up. As I mentioned in a previous AfD, this show isn't known for making a big deal about their locales. And, since the show has been cancelled, it's essentially garenteed that this page will either remain in its current contentless form or be padded with pointless fancruft. Delete as a crufty stub with no hope of expansion. --InShaneee 04:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppix[edit]

This article was written by Oppix and is quite clearly a company vanity and an advertisement. Alexa gives it no traffic rank. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. JeremyA 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Essany[edit]

Autobiography. Subject is only 23 or 24, username is "messany" - identical to subject of article. Anabanana459 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

per disscussion below week keep  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable actors and television personalities who have appeared in well-known films or television productions. Notability can be determined by:
    • Multiple features in popular culture publications such as Vogue, GQ, Elle, FHM or national newspapers
    • A large fan base, fan listing or "cult" following
    • An independent biography
    • Name recognition
    • Commercial endorsements
These elements should be discused in the article. I believe it is possible for this to be included. I also believe that this is an example of failing to discuss the issue on the appropriate talk page for the article. (one of the first steps for resolving a bad article) --CylePat 15:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny looking Katie.jpg[edit]

I was simply trying to figure out how to use wikipedia and was trying to upload an image. I picked a random one of my friend and didn't realize I wouldn't be able to delete it. It's pointless to keep here now so I think it'd be better to be deleted.

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broham[edit]

I'm not entirely sure if this deserves a full ((nonsense)) speedy, but it seems a bit nonsensical, and definitely worthy of deletion. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Real Republic[edit]

Fails WP:WEB with an Alexa rank of above 900,000. Anabanana459 04:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mages Guild, The Arena Guild, The Fighters Guild, The Dark Brotherhood, The Thieves Guild[edit]

Guilds for online MMORPG, delete  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    04:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    06:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied under CSD A7. Don't know who did it

Ian Kelly[edit]

Apparent vanity. No relevant Google hits, no linking pages. Dyfsunctional 05:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tusin[edit]

This game, "tusin", appears to be neither notable nor verifiable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just caught this comment left by Curps on the talk page of the person who created this article. Probably nonsense, but I don't believe there is a means to speedy delete this unless it qualifies under WP:CSD G3. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. JeremyA 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business slut[edit]

Oh joy, yet another rant poorly disguised as the explanation of a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary and all the supposed "facts" about what 'business sluts' are like are original research. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pietre-Stones_Review_of_Freemasonry[edit]

because it is an article that is self-referential to itself only, and is therefore advertising MSJapan 05:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. Ichiro's relisting is not quite right, since we don't relist until consensus or we'd never get anywhere. -Splashtalk 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dreambox[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 55 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the word extremely. That would surely mean a Bono, a John Lydon or a Paul McCartney. --kingboyk 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firre[edit]

Delete. Non-notable, appears made up - zero google hits. Tufflaw 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. I don't think you'll get away with a speedy for that! -Splashtalk 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's How[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries. Google search is not feasible due to the fact that Here's How is a common term. Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. I'm starting to think this is getting a bit silly. -Splashtalk 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantonement Jazz Band[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 29 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS on all pending further work. -Splashtalk 01:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel R. Anderson, Rachel Barr, Lori A. Custodero, Claire Lerner, Claudia A. Saad[edit]

I speedied these articles for being nn-bio (no claim of notability) but they were restored by Zanimum (original author), so bringing to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 06:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change vote to Keep as I fully agree with u p p l a n d's comments above (added after my vote), and the original editor can merge later if needed. Or perhaps I aim for the low side when it comes to academics and board members. -- JJay 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put top amazon sales figures in soon, brenneman(t)(c) 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What difference do sales figures make to academic psychologists? What matters is whether they have made anything regarded as important by their peers, i.e. other people in their field. You can't tell that from book sales. Many things today are in any case published in academic journals, which few people buy, as they are available through electronic subscriptions at every university. u p p l a n d 10:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was simply trying to find a criterion under WP:BIO that any of these people could pass. So, how do you propose that we determine if they are notable? - brenneman(t)(c) 13:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest returning to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, trying to agree on what the notability criteria should be for academics. Meanwhile, let's have a moratorium on the nomination of all these "nn professors", who very frequently turn out to be kept in the end anyway. I have made my personal view clear in many of these debates already and I'm not sure if this is the right place to have a more genreal discussion of the issue. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, trying to get a moratorium on nominations until some way can be worked out for things to be kept doesn't sound to good to me. WP:BIO represents the consensus view of lots and lots of wikipedians. - brenneman(t)(c) 14:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, forget the moratorium. The point is in any case not to get a moratorium "until some way can be worked out for things to be kept" (my italics). I'm not sure why you assume that. The point is to get a guideline reflecting the actual consensus of deletion discussions, which has been to keep in a large number of cases where the nominator has had nothing more to say than "nn professor". As should be obvious by now, WP:BIO doesn't say anything practically useful on the notability of academics. WTF is an "average college professor"? u p p l a n d 15:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My superficial reading of your contribution amounted to the words "moratorium, kept". I do apologise for any slight I rendered. Yes, the guidelines should reflect the results of AfDs, although there is some dynamic tension between the micro-level discussions here and the macro-level ones on guideline talk pages. If we could have some examples of other academics who fail the current BIO test but were kept, that would be good. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is not that academics are kept despite failing WP:BIO, but that WP:BIO is too vague in this case to be useful. We need some set of criteria comparable to WP:MUSIC and other similar guidelines. u p p l a n d 12:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they wrote any books that sold well, it aids their notability. - Mgm|(talk) 13:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it may aid notability, but not having published a bestseller does not detract from academic notability. u p p l a n d 13:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obina, are you aware these people are not just random PhDs working at Universities, but also on the advisory board of a major international brand? -- user:zanimum
Comment Firstly, I can agree to 'weak keep' for Anderson - but the article should list just his notable achievements and not every boring academic publication. (I was mislead by the blanket AFD, my mistake). The others seem like great people, but so are 99% of the academics worldwide. Being on an advisory board of a brand such as Seasame Beginnings is not notable. Nor does "being involved with" things. Brands have lots of advisors, year after year. And academics are all on lots of panels and committees, and make lots of publications. I think the idea to discuss outside this AFD is wise. Obina 10:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broader discussion[edit]

I've made a placeholder at Wikipedia_talk:Notability (people)#Academics. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Burn Hoodia[edit]


Looks like a non-notable diet pill. Passes the google test with flying colours (10,000 hits)[33] but I'm not sure if it's just ad spam. Anyhow, it's poorly formatted, so it's up for AFD. If I knew more about it, I might have not, but then again, the original author didn't give us any context. Weak delete. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 03:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartwright band[edit]

Non-notable band vanity. -- Longhair 07:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preceding unsigned comment from User:Zlclark -- Longhair 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Vandalising user pages, on a wiki even, isn't cool either. -- Longhair 22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ohhh, did I hurt your feelings? -Seanation 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Cry me a river. -Seanation 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not at all. We don't mean to hurt yours either. -- Longhair 00:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
but by your deletionist comments you do so. You hurt people. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warnings against vandalism hurt people feelings? You know what my thought is on that? Tough. Vandals don't have any feelings, or they wouldn't try to destroy things that people work to build up. Your choice of the word "deletionism" hurts my feelings. Care to retract that? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here's a free tip. You're probably hurting your band more by refusing to accept your band isn't notable enough for an article and bringing all this unwanted attention to your immaturity. Spend more time rehearsing perhaps. Who knows, all that practice might make us want to change our minds one day, and maybe, a fan might just pop an article in on your behalf, once you've earned it. -- Longhair 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: yo momma aint notable -penile disease
Comment: At risk of being redundant, my momma ain't got no Wikipedia article. - CorbinSimpson 03:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Babajobu 19:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snipsville, New York[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but doesn't qualify. Speedy rationale is used below as the AfD nomination. howcheng {chat} 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no reference to a Snipsville cartoon on google. The article was created by a new user with a single edit to a single article (this article) - called snipsville. I suspect it's either so nn that it doesn't show up on google or bollocks. Megapixie 07:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greyseason Research[edit]

More deletion patrol - this time tagged with the speedy

non-notable, 8 google hits

No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 04:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSA eavesdropping[edit]

Not really something that belongs in an encyclopedia. As the writer even admits, it's purly speculative. Judging from the lack of wikilinks, it may even be a copyvio. --Spring Rubber 08:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AmiciPhone[edit]

Non-notable project, every google hit seems to be a very widely distributed press release. Article written by developer self. Haakon 08:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was The result of the AfD was SPEEDY DELETE because it had been deleted earlier in the week. it was deleted by CLW, not myself, I am merely closing the AfD. CastAStone 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wehatetech[edit]

fixing orphaned afd, no vote -- MisterHand 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho sense[edit]

I nominate Kancho sense because

StarTrekkie 09:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment What's an "NN Neologism" and how's it differ from a regular neologism? StarTrekkie 13:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP, but move to California cheeseburger. I'll do this by moving California Sandwich since it is wikified better and slightly longer, and then redirecting the other one. -Splashtalk 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

California Hamburger and California Sandwich[edit]

POV original research and Simpsons-cruft offering a unique interpretation of one obscure joke. There are just 106 Google hits for "california hamburger" simpsons and 192 for "california sandwich" simpsons. Both articles are virtually identical. In the unlikely event that these articles are kept, a better title would be "California cheeseburger", which is what the actual Simpsons joke referred to. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 09:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then it should be under the original reference along with (Simpsons) as per my note above, in case somebody decides to come along and make an article on that. Search4Lancer 01:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chief Wiggum: " Now, what I am about to show you next may shock and educate you. Hold onto your values as we step through the looking glass into a hippie pot party. [flicks a switch, lighting a mannequin with a joint crudely stuck to his mouth] While Johnny Welfare plays acid rock on a stolen guitar, his old lady has a better idea. [lights up another mannequin, of a woman opening wide to eat a baby sandwich. (That's a sandwich with a baby in it, not a really tiny sandwich.) The crowd gasps] That's right, she's got the munchies for a California Cheeseburger."
The author of the transcript comments:
"Not to trod on Haynes Lee's territory, but I think I spotted an urban legend when Chief Wiggum pointed out the "California Cheeseburger." According to legend, a couple leave their infant child in the care of a teen-aged babysitter and enjoy a night on the town. When they return, the obviously stoned babysitter reports that the baby is fine, and the turkey is in the oven. "What turkey?" the parents ask themselves - until the horrible truth about what's <really> cooking hits them..."
Tom Foolery 22:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Snopes page referencing this legend can be found here.-Colin Kimbrell 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE. -Splashtalk 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper chromatography of amino acids[edit]

Unsourced, not encyclopedic, unlikely to be expanded, not a likely search term, not required as a redirect. I reccomend delete. brenneman(t)(c) 04:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 09:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Commodore Comeback[edit]

Speculation about a possible comeback of the Commodore 64, interspersed with something about sucking orange pies. — Gwalla | Talk 09:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move to Criticisms of Microsoft and keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common criticisms of Microsoft[edit]

We don't have "Common Criticisms of General Motors", "Common Criticisms of Apple" or "Common Criticisms of Thimbles" so why should we have this page? This is a general encyclopedia, not a technology encyclopedia. This page is an absolute bias magnet. It does not weigh the criticisms with the common positive attributions, and does not even lead to a page listing Microsoft's positive attributes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theone3 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, before things are put up for deletion they should be seconded by someone else who can emotionally step back and consider it purely from a practical point of view. The reason given for deletion is a bit of a non sequitur.
Maybe also, it [the article] should be also categorised with coercive monopolies but I am not too clear on the policy regarding this.--Aspro 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Rogue[edit]

This appears to be either a vanity page or fancruft, or both. Mike Leaver 09:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timekeeper[edit]

Delete. "Timekeeper" is self-explanatory. A person/thing who keeps time. That's the gist of this page. Do we really need an article on it? Other options are merging it with a sports (or whatever) page or moving it to Wiktionary. -- Simpatico 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Please note that Simpatico has been a member of Wikipedia for about one week and he has already posted approximatly five (({AFD))} tags ! SirIsaacBrock 03:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've been here a long time, but I only recently registered. Am I doing something wrong? Also, I'm a she. -- Simpatico 07:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
well, yes, a timekeeper is someone who keeps time, but different rules govern timekeepers in different occupations. This has faint potential to give some details of how a timekeeper in, say, basketball, differs from one in soccer; the history of the changeover from manual to automatic timekeeping in different industries and sports. Note also that there is a specific type of watch called a "timekeeper watch", which could easily become the subject of this article (see [36]). As such, I'd give this a weak keep. Grutness...wha? 11:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take the "he" thing personally; SirIsaac probably just went with "he" because in traditional usage, that's the default English pronoun for a person of unknown or indeterminate gender. -Colin Kimbrell 16:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't, I was just clarifying. :) -- Simpatico 20:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Brown[edit]

Mostly nonsense. Subject is adequately covered in article Sea of No Cares Gimboid13 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Body-[edit]

Created by User:Kelvin Martinez - I've speedy deleted 35 or so of his articles today (none of which had any content and almost all of which ended in a dash). This one does include some content, but this song isn't included in the discography at The Jackson 5 so I'm not convinced. There's a link to an external site which claims to be somewhere you can see this video, but I can't see it there (maybe I'm being stoopid?), so again I'm not convinced. Delete CLW 11:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Randall[edit]

This entry is very vague, only one sentence long, and is of an inadequate subject for its own entry. CelticJobber 11:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimpjaw[edit]

A livejournal blog about celebs, scoring 3 google hits. 4 months old, unrated on alexa. Delete Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theswamp[edit]

Not notable website - Alexa page rank about 806,000 , no information value, not NPOV ==> Delete kernoz 11:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. wangi 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriels Fallen[edit]

Tagged as ((db-band)) but claims to have 3 albums. Forwarded to AFD and let others decide. Abstain. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:51, Jan. 2, 2006

Comment: Below, User:maxcap has pointed out (and I did not previously notice) that two of the 3 albums listed are actually compilations that happen to contain the same song by this band, thus my position on this matter has changed from neutral to delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:16, Jan. 3, 2006
Added our label to the page, as far as "local scene" it is important to our history to include where we came from, a great number of bands have come from our area including "The Beach Boys", and "Pennywise". The logo has been removed, but as far as the picture goes, I feel it is important to our site, plus I've seen it on a number of other band pages, ie Atreyu. Also we don't claim to have 3 albums, we state very clearly that we have one studio album, one compilation, and are featured on one dvd. Please do not delete our page, I've fixed what needed to be fixed, if there is anything else that needs fixing, please let me know. Thank you, Chris - Gabriels Fallen 12:42, 2 January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.80.136 (talk • contribs) 3 January 2006
From the guidelines:
"Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network." BNRX FM did a 45 minute interview with us
"Has been prominently featured in any major music media." The DVD we're featured on pushes aprox. 2 thousand copies a week (aprox. 100 thou. a year) from Best Buy, plus we do the theme song on the next volume, have a music video and feature 4 songs on it.
"Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country" We're in talks to go out on this years Vans Warped Tour.
In fact just two days ago we preformed with The Violent Femmes and Reel Big Fish.
Chris - Gabriels Fallen.Fiend1138 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BNRX is an internet radio station, I'm not sure if that counts. If it does, keep.
The DVD you are featured on is a DVD of street fights..as in http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=7575732&type=product&id=1483749. ::(That's Vol.3 I couldn't find Volume 4, has it been released yet?) That's not major music media.
When the Warped Tour line-up is finalized and you're on it OK. But "In talks" is not "Has gone on an international concert tour, or a national concert tour ::over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country". That's cool that you played with the Violent Femmes and Reel Big Fish, but there are alot of bands that have opened for alot of notable bands. I don't see how that's relevant. maxcap 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Felony Fights vol. 4 is being released in about a week, if BNRX doesn't count, then very shortly we are going to be featured on on of the XM radio stations.

Personally I just don't want to see my page go down, We've had it up for a little while, and we all really enjoy being part of the wiki community, and frankly we don't want to lose it. Honestly I don't think our page is hurting anyone, it's a valuable resourse for people to get more information about us if they choose to do so. I loved the idea of wiki when I first started to use it a long time ago, I wanted to share the information about my band for anyone who is interested. And isn't that the mission of wiki, to have an open encyclopedia where anyone can add information they believe to be relivent others? Wiki is very precious to us, so please let our page stay. - Chris Gabriels Fallen Fiend1138 02:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing personal Chris. I feel the same way about Wikipedia as you. But it's got to have guidelines. maxcap 03:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well then technically, in about week when Felony Fights 4 comes out we meet the guide line for "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable", and the XM Radio kicks in for "Has been placed in rotation nationally" can't we just let it stay?Fiend1138 03:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up for a more neutral view point, if not neutral enough, please let me know. Thanks - Chris Gabriels Fallen Fiend1138 15:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satan Sam[edit]

Not a notable company by the guidelines at WP:CORP. Tim Pierce 12:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary defense[edit]

This is a speculative original essay with no sources for its main content. Delete. Melchoir 13:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goddess Moon, Father Sky, Hollow Soul[edit]

A joke. Promotion about a made-up film in which "directions were given telekinetically" since the director was elsewhere. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew R. Liddle[edit]

How notable is this astrophysicist that he requires a page on WP? This looks like a rehash of his homepage, which doesn't sell his notable status either. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Wands[edit]

How notable is this cosmologist that he requires a page on WP? This looks like a rehash of his homepage, which doesn't sell his notable status either. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Carr[edit]

How notable is this academic that he requires his own WP article? Justification required. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East Ukraine[edit]

The articles is an OR. Frankly to define a geographical category by the results of one particular election is an absurd. The article seems to be offensive to many Ukrainians as it somehow imply that this is a separate country (bordering with Russia, Moldova, etc.}

Be that as it may, the point you're making is subterfuge at best. What caused the sparse Ukrainian population was a combination of the Holodomor and Stalinist purges, not a persistent state of low population density dating back to the 16th and 17th centuries. Tomertalk 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? You're inferring something from my comments which I don't understand. My only point is simply to try to characterize the territory which this article refers to. The best I can do is to say that it was land that was not traditionally populated by Ukrainians, or simply underpopulated, until it was colonized by the Russian Empire (also, that such lands were not a unified territory, and weren't restricted to modern Ukrainian boundaries—i.e. not "East Ukraine"). I did not mean to imply that it was sparsely populated at any time since then. —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 15:54 Z
Delete or redirect to SEUAR (South-Eastern Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, for some reason that almost reads like sewer); or redirect to PiSUAR (Pivdeno-Shidna Ukrajins'ka Avtonomna Respublika) --Berkut 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

this article has potential but needs 2 be expanded — Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)

Unsigned trollistic note. Ban this user. Ukrained 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why ban a user just because they disagree with you? Maybe the only did register to make this comment, but either way, I think they make a good point. It appears you are the troll judging by your comments on the talk page (taking any comment against you as being a provocation). You have also explicitly said you have changed the article so it is suitable to be speedy deleted, realising the article in it's old form was not suitable for that. To me that doesn't seem honest, nor in the spirit of wikipedia. Evil Eye 12:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:El fil is a definite troll already warned by admin. As for you, I regard every user pushing an evident non-sense over a politically-sensitive issue a provocateur. That is definitely not in the spirit of wikipedia. As you can see, this is not about agreement/disagreement, not even about promoting separatism in Ukraine. It's about your editing approach. If you can't see that eastern Ukraine article is a non-sense, are you ready for being a Wikipedian? Did I answer your question? Ukrained 13:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the following comment on Ukrained's user page in regards to this articles deletion vote:

What is your problem with people who support this article? Maybe you see no relevance with it, other people do also agree with you, but it is also clear others do not.
Please stop calling anyone who supports this article a troll and please stop calling for people to be banned just because they disagree with you (and because you don't like their user names). You claim supporting the above article is provocation, but no one is being more provocaive in regards to this article than you.
I'm hear to ask you to stop trying to cause an argument in respct to the deletion notice placed on this article and show some respect for the deletion process of wikipedia. Let it take it's course with regards to this article. It my well be deleted, it might not be, but that decision is not one for either of us to make on our own, but instead for the wikipedian community to make togehter. Evil Eye 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ukrained" Evil Eye 13:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish a fight, shouldn't I cite my answer too?:

A provocation is always designed as "another POV" :). I hope this is clear for everybody despite the denials of provocateurs. BTW, may be you have a POV on renaming the planet or a mankind in English? If you would, should we treat such an opinion of yours with respect? Ukrained 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Ukrained 13:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Ban ukrained he can't even spell kiev correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by El fil (talk • contribs)

El fil,

  1. please sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~);
  2. please avoid inflammatory outburtst which is a universal rule.

What's your problem with discussing the issue in a single article, like I proposed? Actually, you can't introduce the reader to the concept of Eastern Ukraine without constantly referring to what in its history and demographics makes it different from Western Ukraine. One article, where the issue is discussed seems like the most convinient solution. What do you say? --Irpen 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SportsNet Radio[edit]

non notable high-school radio show. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep'. enochlau (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SFCG Co., Ltd.[edit]

advertisement WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 13:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn as Tom has adopted page and is fixing it. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 08:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I put a link to a Japanese version here. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFCG

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-G)[edit]

This page is about a theoretical starship in a fictional universe. It is clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 14:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin[edit]

Rob (lilo on IRC) says that he isn't really notable enough for here (he's a modest guy). I don't agree, but out of respect I am submitting this to AfD. Unusually for the submitter of an AfD, I'm voting keep, but I'll let the community decide on his notability. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cutler[edit]

Non-notable bio; possible vanity. OntarioQuizzer 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per request of creator as a misspelling.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Azman Khan[edit]

Delete. I created this page by mistake. The title is a misspelling. It should be "Azam Khan". Zaxem 14:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep after withdrawal of nomination.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Pearce[edit]

This article is about a soccer player who has never scored a goal because he has never played a match. Google search turns up one page (Lincoln City F.C. unofficial page) on the search list. But when you browse through it,there is no mention of him. I'm sure it is qualified to be deleted as nn-bio. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn in light of comment below by Jcuk.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Saint Patrick's Day Four[edit]

Vanity page. Non-notable group. Google shows <50 unique hits. Madman 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk page for a list of newspapers that mention the protesters. 12 newspapers and 37 articles, including the NYT three times and the Washington Post.
If it is good enough to mention in the New York Times three times, it is good enough for wikipedia.
If Madman would have typed variations of The Saint Patrick's Day Four, the following results occur:
UPDATE:
Maybe Madman didn't know much about the protest in the first place to know the varitations of spelling?
If users delete this entry, they will also delete Catonsville Nine and other notable protests. Travb 18:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I was not aware of this group and didn't go thru all the variant spellings. My mistake. Even if I had been aware, I am still reluctant to have articles on every set of arrested protesters. From what I see, there were no overriding &/or notable issues (e.g. constitutional issues), just some vandalism and a stand against the war. As bige1977 notes below, this happens many times a year. Would you "Keepers" feel the same if this were an anti-abortion group? I too think this war was a mistake, but that doesn't make the protest notable even with mention in the NYT. Madman 01:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two reasons you gave to delete this page was:
First: Vanity page. As per: Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines "Vanity information is considered to be any information that was placed in any Wikipedia article that might create an apparent conflict of interest, meaning any material that presents the appearance of being intended to in any way promote the personal notoriety of the author, or one of the close family members or associates of the author." Please explain the conflict of interest that I have, and what relationship I have with the Saint Patrick's Four.
Second reason:Non-notable group, Please read over the guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability the guidelines for being non-notable are: original research, unverifiable, a vanity page, or articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people. Since the first three are obviously not applicable, that leaves the last reason: articles should be relevant to a reasonable number of people This is notable. "St. Patrick's Four" on google retrieves 21,900 hits and 768 articles found on Lexis Nexis when a user types: "St. Patrick's Four"
  • "This will be the first federal conspiracy trial arising out of civil resistance to the invasion of Iraq".[51]
  • "It will also be the first federal conspiracy trial of anti-war protesters since Vietnam."[52]Travb 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Without addressing any of your specific points, I feel obliged to point out that Wikipedia:Notability is a proposal and not at all policy. In fact, judging from its talk page, it's pretty unlikely ever to be adopted. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 articles in the NYT, and one in the Washington Post.Travb 23:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saraia[edit]

NN fanfic. Neither Lego Quest Saraia or Saraia Leon Morttenson have any google hits. JLaTondre 15:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS — there's too much bickering to make much sense of it, but it sounds like work for talk pages and, if necessary, a redirect or a revisit to AfD. -Splashtalk 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic redshift[edit]

This article represents the original research and a POV fork of the redshift article by User:Iantresman. There are a very small number of layman and an even smaller number of fringe scientists who use the term "intrinsic redshift" as a general term to mean "a redshift mechanism not yet modeled" in order for them to object to standard models in cosmology. This article claims a slew of mechanisms that are advocated by these small band of non-standard cosmology proponents and Ian has included them here as a clearinghouse for this partcular POV-fork. You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else -- it is a totally original research approach. The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing of an advocate who was upset by the outcome of the editting of the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. Article rewritten to conform to a description of intrinsic redshifts:

The rationale for deleting this article is still here. However, I have decided to abandon this page as it is clear that the discussion has become too cumbersome to continue. Instead I will try being bold and editting the article to conform to Wikipedia standards. --ScienceApologist 17:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(Please see the article talkpage for unrelated objections to this AfD erroneously included here.) --ScienceApologist

  • Claiming that the article is original research is false; Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
However, this article is about categorizing a number of different ideas which have their own pages and explanations as novel representations of redshift mechanisms. That is what is original research. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Wikipedia says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts.
The subject is already treated on the redshift page. It was agreed in discussion there that a list such as this was not only unnecessary, it represented an inappropriate POV endorsement. As it is, your decision to write this article is the very definition of a POV-fork. You opted out of the redshift discussion and created a new article to deflect criticism. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Claiming that "You cannot find an amalgamation such as this anywhere else" is also false; see for example, the Wiki article on Non-standard cosmology.
Anything worth salvaging in this article could easily be merged to Non-standard cosmology. However, I was talking about sources. --ScienceApologist
  • Claiming that "The statements made on the page simply represent POV-pushing..." suggest that the articles does not adhere to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy which "represents all views fairly and without bias". Not one example was provided showing failure of this policy.
The creation of this page as a POV-fork is technically a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by my criticisms, which are also based on your comment on the Talk:Intrinsic_redshift#Article_for_deletion Talk page where you wrote "This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s"
  • I have answered all your previous points elsewhere.
  • --Iantresman 17:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree with ScienceApologist that it's apparently a POV fork. However, the cause of a POV fork is often insufficient accounting for that POV in the main article, and a quick look shows that the redshift article is lacking on a number of points, especially as the article he/she apparently refers to is titled "redshift" and not "cosmological redshift". I repeat here my earlier comments on the Talk page: this article certainly fills a gap (I learned something today thanks to it!) but to make it general and NPOV, it should be called "List of redshift mechanisms", and be linked from the redshift article, containing all notable past and current cosmological as well as non-cosmological redshift hypotheses. Such a page will be very useful as general reference, and free from any POV. Harald88 18:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Claimed redshift mechanisms" could be adequately addressed on the non-standard cosmology page where a lot of these things come from. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me aware of that page, I didn't know it existed! A link from redshift is lacking, I'll add it now. But cosmology differs from mechanisms; I don't see how the limited subject of cosmology can include all redshift mechanisms. Harald88 16:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 16:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to confirm that nothing in the discussion up to now has changed my mind. The topic of this article is ill-defined and the content is best covered in other articles or not at all. This applies, in particular, to all the items in Ian's list. --Art Carlson 20:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following are not mentioned in the main redshift article (and I can find reference to only a few of them anywhere on Wikipedia), so it would seem appropriate to mention them here (I haven't double checked them all, and some may be very similar, or I may have misunderstood):
Terms (please see the talkpage for the list -- attempting to reduce the clutter on the main page so people can discuss the matter --ScienceApologist 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
--Iantresman 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above list represents a ridiculous amount of original research amalgamation. Your list contains redundancies and points of view that are only relevant because you "say so". This kind of POV-pushing needs to be elimintaed from Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done. In fact the Wiki original research page says that "research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." (my emphasis)
Poorly citing sources out of context as you have done is not indicative of following Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there may be redundancies, and similar theories that can be combined. However they are not listed because "I say so", but because other people have said so I (hence the citations). This is not point of viewing since I have presented the information in an unbiased manner; it would be POV-ing if I put my own spin on the information.
As stated above, you are the one who made the clearinghouse not the cited articles. This is plainly original research. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua, with your expertise in astronomy, you might even be aware of some redshift theories that I have not included, and you are of course welcome to include them. And also correct others that I have misunderstood.
--Iantresman 15:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Beside the point of the AfD. --ScienceApologist 22:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was deleted. Things were moved to the talkpage so that this page wasn't so cluttered. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for the claim that this topic represents original research - that is flat out false. According to Wikipedia acceptable sources include: "Reputable publications include peer-reviewed journals, books published by a known academic publishing house or university press, and divisions of a general publisher which have a good reputation for scholarly publications." Ian has provided an extensive list of references from peer-reviewed journals on the topic of non-cosmological/intrinsic redshifts.
You will note that the issue isn't with Ian's references but the nature of the article itself -- claiming that these references are to "intrinsic redshifts" is somehow article-worthy is a definite case of original research according to Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So fix the article!!!!! The first thing you do because you don't like the writing is submit it for deletion? Only 24 hours after its posted? The topic of the article is a valid topic for wikipedia. Give people a chance to improve it. --DavidRussell 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing behavior is found in those that consistently try to expunge all mention of this topic from Wikipedia even in the face of legitimate peer reviewed references. As for deletion of comments supporting this article - such behavior is dishonest and I'd suggest that someone who knows the process should file a complaint against the guilty party. --DavidRussell 02:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing was deleted. I'm merely trying to keep this area clear so as to encourage commments. When it gets filled up like this, people don't bother to vote or comment because they don't want to read everything. --ScienceApologist 02:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, two comments were removed (your description) from this page [53] [54], and my list of referenced relevant facts was also removed [55]. I note from the Wiki Guide to Deletion page that you have ignored the following guidelines:
  • "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith"
Remove as in delete which I did not do. I merely moved irrelevant comments and clutter to the talkpage. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mixing of bullets and other forms of indentation is discouraged because it makes the discussion much harder for subsequent readers to follow."
  • "...relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone..."
Key word being "relevant". --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Iantresman 11:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Comment -- Ian, can you let us know how many of these people you contacted regarding this AfD? The last two users just showed up to comment without having added anything to Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 15:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joshua, how about I just tell you which ones of us are known members of the Communist Party? [56]. It looks like DavidRussell has been contributing to Wikipedia since last November [57]. I don't know about Ari, but he does appear to have over 5 years of experience in this area [58]. I did specifically ask Art Carlson and Harald88 to look at the original article, and neither have lent their full support (although I'd ask them both again); you're not suggesting that we should discount their contributions because I asked them to take a look? --Iantresman 16:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting out-of-control. It seems apparent to me that discussions of this sort are only going to lead to a stalemate since people are going to be intimidated by the shear amount of text generated by this AfD. I will withdrawl the AfD if only to rewrite the article as an article about intrinsic redshifts. Would that suffice? --ScienceApologist 17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- ScienceApologist, I request you to demonstrate your WP:good faith by correcting this mess that you apparently made by deleting against the Wikipedia rules. Harald88 16:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't delete anything. --ScienceApologist 16:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why should obvious problems with the prevailing theory of redshift in general be handled not in the main article but in a new article about a specific aspect of redshift? --Art Carlson 19:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A separate article can discuss the issues in more detail. But it's probably a question best asked of Joshua, who considers Non-cosmological, Non-velocity, Anomalous, Intrinsic, and quantized redshifts to be either neologisms [59], or nonexistent [60], who won't let the terms, or any other alternative theory, included in the main redshift article. --Iantresman 20:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Shepherd[edit]

This arcticle needs to be merged, expanded, or deleted. Bmenrigh 10:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Putfile forums[edit]

This article doesn't really seem relevant to an encyclopedia. Delete? --jp3z 19:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode 7: Rebirth Of The Jedi[edit]

This page appears to be fan fiction and does not belong on wikipedia, it has no correlation to any relevant piece of information that should be allowed The Filmaker 22:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect. enochlau (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tahirih Thealogy[edit]

This article looks not notable, poorly written, put categories in, maybe someone knows more about the topic. Paul foord 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the situation. Tahirih is revered by two religious sects (Baha'i Faith and Bayani) which basically hate each other. Starr is a former Baha'i from Australia, who gravitated to a number of New Age and esoteric interests. One of her contacts is Nima Hazini, an Iranian-Australian Baha'i-by-birth who converted to Bayanism, which he understands in light of various gnostic esoteric traditions. Hazini encouraged her to write a book on Tahirih, but was far from pleased with the finished work.

What to do with it? One good solution would be to give Starr her own entry, put all this there, and link from there to Tahirih and back. Another possibility would be to make an entry for their Bayanic Gnostic Society, or whatever Hazini's group is called. (Have to check.) This assuming that Starr and Hazini still wish to be associated with one another. 218.167.179.63 07:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Nerds Life[edit]

The Nerds Life doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Bmenrigh 05:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caferu[edit]

Was tagged ((db|Unverified, not significant, nothing links here.)) by User:Hu. That's not a CSD, so moving here for a vote. Recommend delete, as dictdef. Jamie 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitães do mato[edit]

Was tagged ((db|empty, since it doesn't even define the subject. I would've moved some to the article of the person named, but there's no article on him and he doesn't exist on google.)) bt User:Bobet. Not WP:CSD so moving here for a vote. Jamie 05:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something odd about this article. It reads like a little chunk copyvio'd from somewhere -- no hits on Google but could be from a book. Literate but inconsequential and context-free, like a fragment ripped from Palmares (quilombo), Capitão do mato or Jürgens Reijmbach (should be Jürgens Reijmbach not "Jürgen" apparently). What little info is there certainly doesn't belong under that title, presumably the plural of his job title -- and just possibly a chapter heading in some book? Flapdragon 13:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Nu-Jazz. — JIP | Talk 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phusion[edit]

Neologism? I've ran a google search, most results pertain to Designing, and those left regard the two genres as different Sceptre (Talk) 15:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Stifle 02:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KCC[edit]

Advertising or vandalism. I don't know which but I'll assume good faith and ask for deletion. --Chazz88 15:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) *Nome votes Strong Delete --Chazz88 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake wrong article --Chazz88 16:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pigeon[edit]

A badly spelled article which probably seems to deal with a novel or short-story. There is absolutely no context to aid in understanding. I'm hoping somebody else will have heard of this and will expand on it. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delectable pate[edit]

Non-notable band; broken link, no google hits. Tom Harrison Talk 15:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most royal candidate theory[edit]

As the changes to the article made by User:Nunh-huh show, the theory is false. Wikipedia is not a respository for absurd, debunked rumor-theories. Additionally, a search for "most royal candidate theory" on Google (0 results) indicates that this is a neologism as well. Not worth merging with any other article. —Cleared as filed. 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as for the ridiculous "zero google" nonsense: harold brooks-baker "most royal" I can come up with a dozen other keyword combos which also produce at least hundreds of hits typically related to the "most royal" theory. Kaz 04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith and don't make attacks on AfD nominators. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I get tired of coming across one editor after another who doesn't grasp the concept of wikipedia being an "inclusive source", and wanting to delete...not fix...anything that doesn't fit in precisely with their worldview. After a while I get a bit pissy with the most blatant ones. Kaz 04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very well said. Thanks for your honesty. -- JJay 07:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

contribs) 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rice hulls[edit]

I think the page is an ad for rice hulls or something to process them. It looks like it is copied from here. Michael Slone 15:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep as nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pirate Party[edit]

Non notable, non registered frivolous party, founded yesterday. / Ezeu 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will take up the dropped nomination. This is the "slow news" time of year, they'll publish anything. I can not assign notability to a day-old political party/website. Ifnord 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete --Durin 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Elman[edit]

This is not a bio, but a placeholder to expound on views. Benjamin Elman doesn't seem very notable either and appears to be a college professor. Esprit15d 16:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied (and I wish people wouldn't afd these things and make me close thme) r3m0t talk 18:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal Snipers[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usounds[edit]

Alexa page rank of 1,239,952; no evidence of notability. Tom Harrison Talk 16:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete r3m0t talk 18:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ginger Fashions[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC in every respect. No albums, no tours, no media, etc. Just formed three months ago. --Durin 16:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdool Hamid Ramjeet[edit]

Not notable vanity. Esprit15d 16:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Mauritius National Library Catalogue now back online, nothing listed by this individual. Humansdorpie 12:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peppermint tea[edit]

This article is not required for research purposes - how to make a cup of tea is already covered in Tea. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

I disagree, the article is informative. And researchers can see that it helps lessen the effects of digestory tract problems. And when it comes to how it is made, I only included it because it differs from normal tea making procedures. Regards.

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

The result of the debate was 1, 2, 3...Ummmm, (15 delete/17 keep) no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 02:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A wife confused for a sister[edit]

Appears to be pure original research, and title gets no Google hits. Jayjg (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the subject matter, see, for example, the relevant JewishEncyclopedia articles you want section 3 of Abimelech (google cache) (notice also how that shows that the theme IS discussed by classic Jewish commentaries - the midrash)Beersheba, you can also find it in Finkelstien "The Bible Unearthed" (this is a large book about archaeology by a major archaeological scholar), and in the works of Friedmann, Noth, etc. such as "Who wrote the Bible", "The Bible with sources revealed".
--User talk:FDuffy 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to go through the article, and carefully cite all your references if you want people to reconsider their votes. -- MisterHand 20:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that isn't how votes are supposed to work. If you can see how the article is legitimate then you should vote to keep it, whether or not the references are discussed in the article or here. To do otherwise is petty minded. --User talk:FDuffy 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citations CAN be provided as above, so that's a vote to keep, right?
Votes are supposed to be based on whether an article could ever possibly exist here that was in accordance with wikipedia policy. If you CAN see how it is possible, then you should vote to keep, whether or not the current state of the article matches up with that. --User talk:FDuffy 21:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So why not just bring the article up to WP:CITE standard, then I could change my vote to keep... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't justification to delete. The fact that it CAN be brought up to standard is enough for it to exist. Please read the deletion policy. --User talk:FDuffy 21:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if I'm not mistaken, a consensus vote alone is justification to delete, and explanations for votes are not always required... I see you have added some sources though I was hoping to see them referenced with footnote citations within the text; so I guess I'll switch to keep provided you allow the article to be reasonably edited. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He listed some titles in the reference secton, however has not shown where in those books he gets his info from. Furthermore the title is nn as can be seen from the 0 google hits. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Title is nn? That isn't a deletion criteria. Try considering the content?
"Authorship of the Johannine works" won't be found on Google either, excepting wikipedia mirrors, but that doesn't mean the subject, Authorship of the Johannine works is not notable, as it certainly is. --User talk:FDuffy 21:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is this non-notable? Major evidence for the documentary hypothesis, a treaty between the Israelites and Philistines, something classical jewish scholars (Midrash) believed was the reason for God's decision to cause/let the 1st and 2nd temple be destroyed. That's hardly nothing.
Google hits are not an indicator of fact. They are only an indicator of how many websites discuss the subject under exactly that wording. Not whether the subject is discussed.
I have given 4 sources, that isn't original research, that's 4 sources. --User talk:FDuffy 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You listed some titles in the reference secton, however you have not shown where in those books you get your info from. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop being ridiculous. They say one of the creationist tactics is to ask for ever more detailed evidence. I have given you the references. If you get the books the locations are easy to find - try using the index and putting in obvious words, e.g. Abimelech and Beer-Sheba.
How about a version of the bible itself, the New American Bible, whose footnotes clearly point out that they are the same story (it calls it the "wife-sister episode"), that the yahwist and elohist own the versions I state they do, and that Genesis 26:15, and 18 are later redactions. --User talk:FDuffy 22:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote this article and you are saying that you used these books as a reference, it's not unreasonable for me to ask of you to show me where in those books does it say what you say it said. I would assume that you have these books if you are using them as a reference. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable for you to pretend to be so incompetant as to be unable to use an index. --User talk:FDuffy 23:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are the author of the article, you have the obligation to show from where you have taken your sources. Since you have recently written this article I'm sure that if these are really your sources you would remember where you got them from. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do. I also know how easy it is to look a word up in an index and go to the page it mentions. You are being unreasonable. --User talk:FDuffy 23:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right. The entire debate below Eliezer's vote is exceedingly silly. Thomas Ash 23:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A wife confused with a sister" might be less ambiguous, for starters... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"A wife confused for or with a sister" still puts the action on the viewer, i.e. Pharoah and Abimelech, not on the ones who deliberately claimed their wife was their sister, i.e. Abraham and Isaac. Classic Jewish scholarship therefore examines the reasons why Abraham and Isaac made this claim, not the "thematic" similarities between the Egyptians' and the Philistines' response. As I wrote on the Talk page, the main point of this article could easily be stated in a paragraph on the Sarah and Rebeccah pages. Yoninah 13:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin This is this user's 3rd edit. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 18:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a provocative assertion. Are you trying to say jgf wilks uses sockpuppets? Because I checked the history, and I only see one edit by them... Geo Swan 22:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SOCK#Meatpuppets "A related issue occurs when non-Wikipedians create new accounts specifically to influence a particular vote or discussion. This is especially common in deletion discussions. These newly created accounts (or anonymous edits) may be friends of a Wikipedian, or may be related in some way to the subject of an article under discussion.
Note to closing admin The user in question started editing before the article even existed, and Eliezer has elsewhere advocated allowing users who obviously exist prior to such votes, even if new, to cast votes. --User talk:FDuffy 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
These accounts are not actually sockpuppets, but they are difficult to distinguish from real sockpuppets and are treated similarly. Neither a sockpuppet nor a brand-new, single-purpose account holder is a member of the Wikipedia community." --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be said that the user created their account before the article even existed, so Meatpuppet doesn't really apply here. --User talk:FDuffy 02:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
HOWEVER, having said that, according to these diffs, Eliezer, IZAK, Jayjg, Jfdwolff, MPerel, Tshilo12, and Dovi were all brought here by Meatpuppet like-tactics, and they voted delete, so if there is any vote-rigging and underhand behaviour going on, maybe we should consider these as well. --User talk:FDuffy 02:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
This is very common and not prohibited by any Wikipedia policy. Some AFDs are conducted with very heavy recruitment from all sides of the debate, and this makes AFD more of reflection of community opinion than if only a few people with no knowledge of the subject matter vote delete Biblecruft. JFW | T@lk 10:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, gauging community opinion involves going out and asking people to comment when you have absolutely no idea which side they will vote on. Going around finding people whose names and/or previous editing behaviour makes it fairly obvious they will support your own side is called Gerrymandering.
this is biblecruft as is this, this, and this (etc.), all of it blatent and totally unencyclopedic. The article up for deletion here is not, it covers the material in approximately 3 chapters of Genesis rather than flooding wikipedia with the same information in multiple articles such as Gerar, History of Beersheba (now a redirect), Sarah, Abraham, Isaac, Rebekah, and Abimelech (as was). Such reduction of Bible spam, and coverage of a notable and encyclopedic topic, is something that people vote to Keep.
--User talk:FDuffy 13:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Note to closing admin: It appears that FDuffy has also done a bit of Gerrymandering by alerting his buddies on their Talk pages to join this discussion (I found out by checking "What Links Here" on the article page, A wife confused for a sister). I agree with JFW—the more editors involved, the more of a real consensus we will gain. Yoninah 22:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read above where the sources are given repeatedly. --User talk:FDuffy 02:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Israel Finkelstein (2002). The Bible Unearthed. Free Press. ISBN 0684869136.
  • Robin Lane Fox (1992). The Unauthorized Version. Knopf. pp 409f
  • Richard Elliott Friedman (1987). Who Wrote The Bible?. Harper and Row, NY, USA. ISBN 0060630353.
  • Richard Elliott Friedman (2003). The Bible with sources revealed. HarperSanFransisco. ISBN 0060530693.
As far as I'm aware 1987-2003 didn't suddenly become late 19th century, early 20th century. --User talk:FDuffy 02:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You missed the word "rehashed". Kuratowski's Ghost 09:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those are major and well respected modern day scholars, one is even the professor of ancient history at Oxford. Claiming they are just people who produce "rehashed" arguments is like claiming Fundamentalist Christians and Jews are just rehashing centuries old outdated arguments for their faith. --User talk:FDuffy 14:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Which they are. All the arguments about whose biblical interpretations are correct were already argued and summarized far more succinctly by the Rabbis of the Talmud (see the Aggadah of Rabbi bar bar Chana) and by Maimonides in his debates with the Church than they are today on Wikipedia. Yoninah 16:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS The title of the article may or may not be the greatest, but that can be decided by the active contributers to the article on the talk page. There is no reason to do it with one of these horrible AFD votes.Dovi 12:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter 2: Blackrock n' Roll[edit]

This sort of thing would be a nice addition to Warcraft III, but does not really warrant it's own article. So, I would recommend it for merging, but the only problem is that this might be the only one of these mini-synopses in existence at the moment, and as such would look out of place in that article. I have listed this on AfD because I'm unsure of it's suitability for merging, and because I am of the opinion that if it is unsuitable it should definitely go. Dan 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was MERGE to University of Tennessee. -Splashtalk 01:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alumni Memorial Gym[edit]

This doesn't appear to be a notable instutition. Metion of it can be made on the University article page, if required. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WHY? WillC 18:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- or Merge if the author considers it important enough. This gym is certainly not notable enough to require its own article, but if it's famous enough within the University of Tennessee then it would be acceptable to include it in that article.Dan 18:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DO ANY OF YOU REALIZE HOW MANY SIMILAR ARTICLES ON COLLEGE FACILITIES THERE ARE ON WIKIPEDIA? THIS BUILDING IS STILL IN USE!WillC 21:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then Wikipedia-ites better great on the ball merging every last sports facility entry here because they all have their own pages...arenas, stadiums new and old, there are literally hundreds on Wikipedia with their own articles, and for no other reason than a college team once played there. this entry is not the only one by far....why target THIS one? WillC 21:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we are not robots and cannot see every page on Wikipedia and immediately check it like this. However, if I came across another such venue, I would nominate it for deletion too, and if you find one, then please let me know and I will support any effort to delete it. Stifle 14:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SOCK/MEAT PUPPETS? People that know sports chime in so they must be fake? You should be listening to the people who know! WillC 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor, heal thyself! You accused me of inventing supporters! Furthermore, there is a Wiki category just for defunct sports venues! WillC 14:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I Had Changed My Mind[edit]

Many albums are not notable enough for their own article, but this article is only for a single released only on 7". Delete. Evil Eye 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kittem[edit]

Unverified term - possibly neologism. Google search indicates 383 unique hits. Hurricane111 18:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Almås[edit]

This isn't even in english. I don't know if it is notable or not. --Chazz88 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom votes to STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolokk[edit]

This isn't even in english. I don't know if it is notable or not. --Chazz88 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom votes to STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is in English is irrelevant to AfD, as it can be translated....that being said, it appears to be an article about a toilet cleaner called Dolokk Delete Jcuk 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tono Rosario[edit]

Significance not asserted in article. Nom, exclusionist votes for STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete is it a vanity article or what? Still, it might as well be the POTUS for all the use that article is. Dan 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did read the article before nominating, thank you very much, and am slightly put off by your acerbic attitude. When I, and no doubt those before me, read the article it consisted of nothing more than a date. You might be better served yourself by reading the page history. Dan 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Margaret. enochlau (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margrete[edit]

This isn't even in english. I don't know if it is notable or not. --Chazz88 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nom votes to STRONG DELETE --Chazz88 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry it seemed to be one guy going around creating a load of articles in another language. Many of which were full of nonsense. Therefore after translation and as this article seems reasonable. I change to Strong Keep. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not paper --Chazz88 16:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew "p0rk" Munn[edit]

It appears to be near to vandalism. How I will assume good faith and say it is just a noob testing --Chazz88 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) - Nom votes to strong delete --Chazz88 15:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Please note that the article starter keeps removing the AFD tag. --Chazz88 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alikreukel Apartment Block[edit]

This nomination pains me as I am an inclusionist. However, this one is too far it is just a random apartment block. --Chazz88 12:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. →FireFox 19:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Lack[edit]

Non notable bio... borderline on WP:CSD A7, I thought I'd AfD it do be sure. It was deleted twice today. →FireFox 18:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Stifle 02:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hughes[edit]

From speedy as "reposted content", but the deleted content is about somebody else. No vote. r3m0t talk 18:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gotcha. Thanks for the response. Seems logical in this case to skip the AfD. -- JJay 00:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Chimbel[edit]

nn-bio however makes a claim to notability saying he co-produced Soldier of God(2005) however IMDB does not support this claim Pboyd04 18:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis (disambiguation)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep. (No consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening credits of Guiding Light[edit]

An in-depth chronicle of the opening sequence of a soap opera. More appropriate for a Guiding LIght fan site than an encyclopedia. tregoweth 19:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 08:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HD 28185 b[edit]

Information about this extrasolar planet candidate is already available in the HD 28185 article. This article contains virtually no information, and uses inaccurate terminology (Doppler spectrovision) and total speculation (11% chance of moon?). The text also switches between referring to the planet and the star with no clue to the reader. Chaos syndrome 19:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Silver Stone Series[edit]

Bumped from speedy (supposedly "no content") but not a candidate. Not notable books, crystal ball, etc. Delete. r3m0t talk 19:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Kohen[edit]

Pretty much confirmed to be a hoax on the creator's LiveJournal here. The Pulitzer-winning novel appears not to exist and the name can't be matched with the supposed achievements. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tra-Ling's Oriental Cafe[edit]

I'm uncertain if this entry is notable enough to be encyclopedic. Note: I am not experienced in Wikipedia notability criteria, I am asking folks who are more experienced to consider the question. I found this entry via "Random Pages", and am unfamiliar with the cafe in question. Joe Decker 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stepto, Stephen Toulouse[edit]

Vanity--the article was created by the person it's about — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockero (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kuroki[edit]

Deleted under CSD A7 (no claim of notability). There seems a clear claim of notability to me here, although i am not at all sure that there is enough notability to avoid deletion. Therefore I undeleted and am placing this on AfD. If this is kept, it needs to be cleaned up to proper wikipedia style. I have no current opnion on whether this should be deleted. Abstain. DES (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Gravity[edit]

obscure game, no real content Hirudo 19:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Trans-wiki to Wiktionary, delete. Rx StrangeLove 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acrophilia[edit]

No corroborating evidence that this word exists in the English language Scrappy36 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Moving it to Actinomorphous flower. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinomorphous[edit]

This is nothing more than an attempt to define the word Actinomorphous. It is not a candidate to be included at Wiktionary, however, because the definition is, in fact, incorrect.

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was BJAODN, no need to have this suffering here for 5 days... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaginal fungus[edit]

Tagged as patent nonsense, but sadly although this is utter nonsense it isn't patent nonsense and hence isn't speedyable. Delete all the same. CLW 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Illaman[edit]

animorphs-cruft. minor, minor character from the book series. Delete CastAStone 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pentamnemonic[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. I could not find any references to the term in Google. Tim Pierce 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry-new to Wikipedia and should have read the qualifications more carefuly. If I knew how to delete this entry myself I would.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English cider oranges[edit]

More from the same contributor behind Vaginal fungus. Delete CLW 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Deathphoenix 07:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gift of Monroe[edit]

Non-notable high school band. Tim Pierce 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unemite[edit]

minor species from book series The Animorphs. Delete CastAStone 19:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diphosphorous trioxide

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Stuff Crazy[edit]

Vanity Advert for nn webpage. Alexa pagerank is 1.9 million. CastAStone 19:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to HyperText Transfer Protocol. Rx StrangeLove 05:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Port 80[edit]

Has no wikilinks, has no pages linking to it, and topic is already covered in the HTTP article. It further sites no source, has no real valuable information. Nominate and Delete --Vidarlo 19:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newcomer's first and only edit. Whatever the decision here, let's appreciate him, OK? -- Perfecto 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, the comment on the users discussion seemed out of order and should have been more appropiatley phrased. Englishrose 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I'll quote a significant bit of it for you:
typically initiates a request by establishing a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) connection to a particular port on a remote host (port 80 by default; see List of well-known ports (computing)). An HTTP server listening on that port waits for the client to send a request string
I'd say this covers the topic fairly well, and parts of the article is about TCP in general, which the TCP/IP article handles, and covers in fair more detail. So the article is redunant, and port 80 is ambigious at best. --vidarlo 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. This will help people lookig for port 80, and avoids duplicating efforts. --vidarlo 10:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Naruto Episode List[edit]

Article is duplicated content of the more complete List of Naruto episodes so a merge is unnecessary. Delete. Pentasyllabic 19:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Government of Svalbard[edit]

Poorly written page that just repeats information found on the main page. I also nominate the redirect page: Svalbard/Government. Tskoge 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. enochlau (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greek Secondary School of london[edit]

Wiki is not a web portal, neither it is a website for the listing of every non-notable school. No valid reason why this establiishment is notable. Just linking an external website is not accepted for other articles. doktorb | words 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is anyone else getting a hoax vibe off this one? The "official" website looks VERY suspect (ie:Doesn't look like a real school site and is very amaturish).Gateman1997 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not a hoax. The site may look amaturish, but it is using a .sch.uk domain name, which are only available to schools. Also, see this table which shows the school's exam pass rate. -- AJR | Talk 12:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem is that tagging an article after one minute or five minutes shuts down editing. It is not the best approach when the topic is or could be valid. A message could just as easily be left on the article or user talk page. I once got a warning from an admin for speedy tagging an article on a game forum after 24 minutes. The general rule is to allow editors 30 minutes for editing before tagging. Frankly, I am far more concerned about biting newbies than biting noms. -- JJay 00:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was merely checking the new page log to help out for a short while, and at the time of nomination I didn't think this article was strong enough. "High School - nuff said" is not enough for me! doktorb | words 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a high school, the agreed policy is we keep articles on high schools...what more is there to say?. Apart from maybe "Tidy" or "Wikify". But as far as voting is concerned........ Jcuk 16:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wiki does not automatically allow all articles on all schools, there still has to be a weighing of the notability argument 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I've never seen a general rule as to how long you have to wait to tag anything, whether it's as a Speedy or as an AfD. If something's tagged as an AfD, either the article will come out in the wash (especially with a wait of a week) or it'll be deleted (again after a week). Only stuff that meets WP:CSD gets deleted before that, and this article isn't a candidate for it. In my own opinion it's silly to AfD schools of any sort because of the cabal of editors that get up in arms about including all schools, but this school is clearly notable in its own right after doing external research. Biting the newbies can be a problem (and possibly could be, in this case) but we have no way of knowing because there's a huge number of one-off accounts since the Sigenthaler episode. This comment's getting a little lengthy. If we want to suss this out a little more, drop me a line on my talk page.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.40.99 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FMGamer[edit]

Not a notable web site; Alexa rank is 584,929. Tim Pierce 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war[edit]

Article not encyclopedic, has already been transwikied to Wiktionary Spiritllama 18:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete because it'll just be a subset of the information on non-Italian popes. DS 19:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch popes[edit]

Delete There has only been Dutch pope, and this is unlikely to change in the near future. The person on the list already has an article. Perhaps just a redirect to Pope Adrian VI. -- Cooksey 20:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of fascism[edit]

Article contains no factual arguments, rather is literally full of selective quotes. Cited single POV arguments are based on the biased and innacurate assumption that Fascists had their own economic ideology distinct from both "capitalism" and "socialism and communism." This assumption is used like a straw man to attack the New Deal and government intervention as "fascist." Article does not address correlations between Fascist economic policies, it is simply a tool for ideological smearing. In the interest of accuracy and NPOV, Economics of Fascism needs to be deleted.--sansvoix 20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RJII has compleatly changed the article since the last AfD. See the December 2nd version: [71]
  • Comment: Noam Chomsky- "Just as I'm opposed to political fascism, I'm opposed to economic fascism." Business Today, May 1973 [72] -- JJay 21:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Benito Mussolini: "fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics." So, yes, there is a distinction between political fascism and economic fascism according to the father of fascism himself. RJII 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Economist Lawrence Dennis claimed the adoption of economic fascism would intensify "national spirit" and put it behind "the enterprises of public welfare and social control."--sansvoix 22:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC) Maybe we should take this side conversation elsewhere?[reply]
Comment: What "term"? "Economics of fascism"? That's a slur? Nonsense. That's just a generic phrase. Call the article whatever you like --use whatever terminology you like (political economy of fascism, economic fascism, fascist political economy, fascist economics, etc) But, there is no sensible reason to be opposed to a Wikipedia article devoted to discussing economic policy in fascist regimes. RJII 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yes there is. Since fascism refers to a specific kind of political regime, an article on the "economics of fascism" makes as much sense as articles on the economics of monarchy, economics of republics or economics of federal states. Given the vague nature of the term "fascism", I might even add economics of countries whose names end in -ia. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:If any of those are notable and seriously discussed, start an article on them. The fact is, discussion of the economic practices under fascism is very widespread --definitely notable. RJII 01:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's only widespread because of the stigma associated with the word "fascism". In popular culture, "fascist" is a synonym for "evil". I agree with Orwell that the word has become largely meaningless. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: So what are you saying? You think fascism is not evil? (not that the article makes such a value judgement) RJII 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not believe there is such a thing as "fascism" (in the sense of a distinct political or economic system, or even a coherent ideology). Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany did not have a unique political or economic system - they were just your average nationalist dictatorships. The fact that Hitler happened to kill more people than your average dictator doesn't change anything. And fascist ideology was never clear and coherent, not even to the fascists themselves. But this is off-topic... The point is not what I think, the point is what the majority of people think and the stigma they associate with fascism. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 10:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I think you're misguided on that. "Economic fascism" is just another way of saying "fascist economics." You see a few libertarians using the term "economic fascism" in their articles and it's throwing you off (note that socialists also use the term). It's a commnon phrasing, as in "economic individualism," "economic nationalism," and a term that is not used much anymore "economic socialism." There is no need for a seperate article. Everyone is talking about the same thing ...the economic practices in fascism. Also, it certainly does need a seperate article from corporativism, as there is more to the economics of fascism than corporativism. RJII 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot agree that "Economic fascism" is just another way of saying "fascist economics.". Look at the people who mostly use the former term: it's primarily designed to allow "fascism" to be used to describe economic policy in democratic states, by driving a notional wedge between fascism and the political sphere (which contradicts the essence of fascism, which is political). There's also the linguistic issue: economic fascism is no more the same as fascist economics than lemon coke is the same as a coke lemon. Rd232 talk 11:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the article doesn't even tell you why the New Deal is "fascist!" That section, like the rest of the article is simply a collaberation of quotes agreeing with the authors premise (that fascism is the distinct area between socialism and capitalism)! I would be fine with this article if it was what the name suggested, a discription of common fascist economic policies. But this article is not even academic, it is only a pov concept tied togeather with quotes from a select group of people.--sansvoix 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there are a lot of quotes but that's just the initial stages of the article --the research. Also, note that there has been text amidst the quotes, but someone has been deleting all of it with the claim that it's "editorializing." RJII 21:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am offended by your accusation! I discoverd this article via a RFC.--sansvoix 21:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting me to care where you discovered this article might be a challenge. --Christofurio 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is this you trying to tell me that that night ment nothing to you!??--sansvoix 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Article is based on a non-notable Neologism (that also isn't at all coherent) (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms). RJII has a big history of creating POV articles to get his political messages across. In fact I consider him to be a paid Agent provocateur (employed by U.S Gov or a right-wing 'think tank'): "BFD. Can't Wikipedia for 24 hours. Who cares! I'm still getting paid. You sure are making productive use of that petty power aren't you? RJII 17:46, 29 December 2005" <From RJII's talkpage. Another reason I suspect this is because RJII is on 8hrs a day every day since about May time (and then only to create articles like this and POVing the Anarchism article). This article was created to push the ridiculous far-right hypothesis that National Socialism and Socialism and the USA during the depression are essentially the same. If this article was about Capitalist economies under Fascist governance I would dive in and contribute. It is not. -max rspct leave a message 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my delete nomination since the AFD nomination has attracted more editors to the article. - max rspct leave a message 12:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm glad you have come around. My vision behind the creation of this this article was to expose the economics in fascist countries, for my own learning and everyone else's. Whatever POV the reality supports or opposes, I couldn't care less. RJII 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very funny, to say the least. Anyway, "economics of fascism" is not a "neologism." It's not even a term, really. What else are you going to call the article? Call it by any name you wish, as long as it denotes that the article is about the economics in fascist regimes. RJII 21:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think these two edits show [73] and [74] show how inaccurate and POV RJII can really get (besides his uncivilness and abusive behaviour) - max rspct leave a message 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLooks like decent edits to me. But, enough about me. This vote is about the article. So, drop it. RJII 22:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep, there is a lot that can be done with this article beyond just cleaning it up. (Gibby 16:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC))


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

The result of the debate was Merge/redirect with...you know, Testicle. Rx StrangeLove 06:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anorchidism[edit]

This article is no more than a very small stub. It contains one line and one 'see also', which seems to link to a word that is exactly the same as Anorchidism. Delete?SoothingR 21:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Walansky[edit]

None notable bio --MONGO 21:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied. r3m0t talk 22:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondsmile[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria Sneftel 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Richmond Park Babajobu 09:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bone Copse[edit]

A copse of 18 trees in a large park is not notable (sorry, Bone family). The content should go to the Richmond Park page, and the article be removed. Imc 21:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, a redirect always accompanies a merge, for the purpose of preserving the edit history. -Colin Kimbrell 19:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merged and redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel College Students' Union[edit]

We generally don't list student organizations at individual universities unless they really have something going for them. I don't think organizing "Funk da Bar" cuts it. Pilatus 21:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudmakers[edit]

A7: Unremarkable persons - very esoteric. Also conflict of names with the WWII bomb 'Cloudmaker' NJ 22:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was there's some things money can't buy. For everything else just delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free Ringtones[edit]

Bumped from speedy: "Absolutely pointless." No vote. r3m0t talk 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slough Trading Estate[edit]

Another hoax from 1kirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not sure if this qualifies for speedy... Joe D (t) 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointy-spike[edit]

Another hoax from 1kirk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), not sure if this qualifies for speedy... Joe D (t) 22:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Italian Pizza[edit]

With such a generic name, it's hard to prove it with Google. But this restaurant chain isn't explained as being notable in the article itself for any reason. Mikeblas 22:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weird things in the Bible[edit]

The word wierd makes this article inherently non-NPOV ike9898 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Palm Civet[edit]

A more informative page regarding this topic exists at Palm civets Trey 22:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, I NPOV'd it a little more. Rx StrangeLove 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aten Technology, Inc.[edit]

Part of me tends towards wikify, but my main instinct is delete. To be honest, this whole page reads like a giant commercial. I don't really think that it belongs here, especially considering that the editor's sole contributions to Wikipedia have been to big up Aten. Maybe that's because of my line of thought that making KVM switches, as important as that may be, isn't exactly something that I would call contributing to public consciousness.iinag 22:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me understand then the difference between the way this article reads and the way the Belkin article reads?--Aten 00:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Made some edits to the article in order to wikify and reduce POV. Please advise on any further edits. Thanks--Aten 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gojin Motors[edit]

The original AfD was overturned at Deletion Review since it had failed to take full account of the information that became available. Relisting was sought by at least several of the participants in the DRV, so here it is. -Splashtalk 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wirral Pubs[edit]

This article just lists some pubs. Maybe this could grow into an interesting article, but as it stands it is unencyclopedic and is barely withing the scope of wikipedia—delete or move to wikitravel. JeremyA 23:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save this City[edit]

Non-notable band. Does not meet criteria on WP:MUSIC. ~MDD4696 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoz[edit]

nn neo. WP:NOT for things you made up in class. Delete  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 23:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Varus Online[edit]

This article is both vanity (created by a user with same name as creator of the community), and is non-notable (per WP:WEB) since its forum has only 1900 members and its Alexa ranking is an abysmal 3,579,995. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 23:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, because I closed it incorrectly the first time. I apologize for the hassle I caused.--Sean|Black 01:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Netflix distribution centers[edit]

This article was previously put up for deletion on December 23, 2005. I'm relisting because the previous deletion discussion resulted in no consensus, and was plagued by an overwhelming number of brand new and anonymous users voting 'Do Not Delete' after the AfD was linked to by a couple of Netflix fan sites[76][77].

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The addresses listed are unverifiable (the fact that Netflix doesn't provide the information to its users is the reason cited by many people who vote to Keep), and the only way this article can possibly expand is via original research with users transcribing the return address labels on their Netflix envelopes into Wikipedia. Delete. -Vastango 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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