< January 19 January 21 >

Purge server cache

January 20[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 MERGE to somewhere. But as Penya points out, this is not an AfD issue; AfD is for discussing deletion, and merges/redirects can be more usefully discussed on the respective talk pages. I will add a merge tag to the article, but will not bother to note this debate on talk. -Splashtalk 21:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suvadiva atoll[edit]

Suvadiva atoll , United Suvadive Republic, History of Suvadives and Suvadiva should all be merged into one article. All the other titles should be redirected. Also this article is somewhat misleading because it uses the map of current Gaafu Alif Atoll and Gaafu Dhaalu Atoll, or Huvadhu atoll and refer to it as Suvadiva atoll. Suvadiva atoll no longer exists and even if it did, it wasnt a one geographic atoll rather three geographic atolls. --Oblivious 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Merge. If merger is your goal, then AfD is not the place for this. Peyna 15:42, 20 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 pending investigation of the unsupported allegation of copyright infringement. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of the Ming Dynasty[edit]

This article has a Copyright Violation notice on it that has not been fixed in almost two months. NicAgent 18:13, 18 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. —WikiFanatic 02:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Dowling[edit]

Delete non-notable vanity about member of non-notable band Ruby 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under CSD A7 by Lucky 6.9

The Tipplin' Weigh[edit]

Delete this band has zero albums to its credit Ruby 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Amazon10x 00:12, 20 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. This is a tough one. There are good arguments made on both the keep and delete side (exactly one each, actually) and neither seems to overwhelm the other. I fear that WP:BIO may miss its mark on this kind of article, dealing with an author publishing before the advent of the mass media, althought it seems undeniable that the person hasn't made a widely recognized contribution to their field. A combination of facts tips me away from delete: that we are only barely over the two-thirds level that is oft-used (although there are an unusually high number of deleters) and that, on the assumption the article is not a work of fiction, the presence of the address as of 1909 (!) is a strong indicator that, somewhere out there, is a source from which The CA Birthday Book has taken its material. (Incidentally, the copyright for the Birthday book says that it is public domain in the US, so that's ok.) -Splashtalk 22:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Archer[edit]

This article seems to be just copied out of "The California Birthday Book" of 1906. No references in the standard Gale databases, Chadwick's Literature Online, no NY Times obit, no relevant google hits as far as I could tell. Not sure if this person is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry and I certainly don't think this single reference is enough to sustain one. Delete. Gamaliel 00:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --King of All the Franks 00:20, 20 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 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shesca[edit]

Delete - Article asserts its own non-notability Ruby 00:09, 20 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. Punkmorten 13:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krawutschke Tower[edit]

Not too notable tower, and machine-translated anyway. Suggest deletion. Kusma (討論) 00:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After repair of the article I still want it to be deleted because it looks like somebody's tree fort. Ruby 19:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can certainly empathise with that :-) Dlyons493 Talk 21:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Kansas is so flat you'd be able to see the Sears Tower in Chicago from the dang thing. Ruby 00:38, 21 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 (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George and the Pirates[edit]

nn band, changed to speedy by original nominator Ruby 00:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete based on vanity, non-notable. KrazyCaley 03:27, 20 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 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tereza Kulata[edit]

Possible vanity, certainly nn. 11 Google hits of which only 2 are definitely related to the subject. Everyone loves a teenage eastern European artist but... Delete --Deiz 00:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, she was born at the time of Bloc collapse. And even older people do not identify themselves with political regime. Pavel Vozenilek 00:47, 21 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 by User:Alabamaboy (who forgot to close) as copyright violation —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:33Z


Canadian Eagle Outfitters[edit]

Delete because it is advertising for a non-notable entity. A quick visit to their free website informs the reader that they "may not become a business as it was planned" and they do not even have a shop available Fightindaman 00:21, 20 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. Done. Ifnord 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soundclick.com[edit]

Delete and merge with SoundClick. Kenneth Nishimoto 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the SoundClick article (and the Soundclick redirect) without realizing that there was already a Soundclick.com article. I apologize for the duplication. However you choose to merge the articles is fine by me. (BTW, the company's official name is SoundClick, Inc.) archola 12:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (I am also Vanilla Shadoe on SoundClick)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I would choose "SoundClick" as the article title since that is how the website (and presumably others) refers to use for itself. Contrast mp3.com, which is primarily known as "mp3.com" and not "mp3", and amazon.com, whose official company name includes the ".com". I wouldn't choose "SoundClick, Inc", as both articles are about the website, only mentioning the company. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-22 20:28Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted. - Mike Rosoft 01:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ess (test page) (originally titles Ess)[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. -Splashtalk 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WarioWare, Inc. Revolution[edit]

Pure speculation. There is no proof that this game exists, or is being planned, or is even being considered. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 00:35, 20 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 deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terence Laheney[edit]

Delete as a biography of a non-notable person. Deadsalmon 00:40, 20 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 with John Rogers and Jacobus van Meteren, then redirect to John Rogers. --Deathphoenix 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana of Antwerp[edit]

The wife of a very minor historical figure. Doesn't appear to have any individual notability. Delete. Gamaliel 00:45, 20 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 22:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Munya 'David' Jumo[edit]

Not notable - played a little schools rugby. 2Ghits.

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

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J. Otis Ledbetter[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A man with a "PhD" from an unaccredited "university", article created by User:Jason Gastrich, prolific creator of articles on alumni of that university all of whom have, despite vital importance to the world of education, managed to escape the notice of other editors. Oh, that's not quite true: one or two were apparently created by a sockpuppet of Gastrich's. Anyway, this article is about a pastor. And, er, that's about it. On the plus side, we do now know that he has eight grandchildren, so the bytes consumed were not entirely wasted. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no need to pepper your nomination with personal attacks and sarcasm. Furthermore, I didn't create all of the LBU alumni entries. Many were created long before I even came to Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no personal attacks in that sentence. The word "many" is also misleading: most were created by you or a suspected sockpuppet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least 5 out of the 11 alumni on the LBU page were not written by me. --Jason Gastrich 10:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldnt that mean the article be edited to say that rather than being deleted? -- Astrokey44|talk 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. And I also don't see that he really claims to be an educator. The article says he has a Ph.D. in education but the claim is that he is an author and "pastor." It doesn't seem to depend on the Ph.D. for that. More importantly, I don't think it's our role to delete an article because we feel that his education is inferior for the position he claims to hold. Can't that be addressed by the article editors? Crunch 07:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some values of author. One or two of his books make it into the top half million in Amazon's sales rank, but others fail to break the million mark. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually all the ones I checked seem to be established users. Couldn't find a sockpuppet in the lot of 'em. --Spondoolicks 21:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
Thats insinuating bullshit. There is nothing wrong with alerting users to the fact that a bunch of delete-wannabies are attacking articles and demanding they get deleted without having any good reasons at all for the delete except the POV rantings of a guy that for some reason got to be an admin. Itake 01:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that you are addressing those remarks to me, here is the "some reason". - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think his publishing passes the test? He gets a measly 10k hits in google. I don't see any circulation numbers for the books, so I don't see how you can say that he passes the test. --Pierremenard
Based on his contributions to Focus on the Family which is a very notable organization, like them or not. Cumulativel, the circ figures of books may squeek by, but it's his affiliation with Focus on the Family that put me over the edge on this guy. Crunch 13:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Do you think every person employed by Focus on the Family is notable? --Pierremenard 21:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are two reasons why your comment above is wrong. The first is, I am a Christian. Much as you might have been told that this is a vendetta against articles on Christians, that is the POV of one man - which brings me to my second point: Wiggins2 is a probable sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (and has been blocked as such). In my experience the number of genuinely notable people whose articles rely on padding like the number of grandchildren is very limited. I checked out the books, they have Amazon sales ranks in the hundreds of thousands or, in some cases millions, none of them are by major imprints. This is just another pastor, just like all the rest, I see nothing special about him at all. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggins2[edit]

Click the link and learn [9] Jim62sch 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And? Arbustoo 00:26, 23 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 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon systems[edit]

Advertisement. Probably doesn't meet WP:CORP but that's unverifiable as it doesn't release figures it is believed to be one of the largest full service EDI providers is asserted.

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Pack[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Director of a redlinked institution, editor of a redlinked magazine, graduate of an unaccredited university, reported to have broadcast to an audience of 250,000 (which is too small to sustain a programme on a British terrestrial network, and does not even indicate if it was the network or the programme's viewing figures - this could be garden-shed cable). One of a numebr of vastly important people whose existence had not been doucmented prior to the creation of a list of alumni for Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited colege with which the article's creator is associated. Article resorts to high school trivia. Oh, just read it, you'll see what I mean. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very Stong Delete. Unnotable does not meet Wikipedia standards of notabilty for article. Arbustoo 00:28, 23 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 22:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ThunderCS[edit]

Delete. Not notable, as per WP:WEB; article confirms this by defining the series as "not-so popular". Grandfather Clock 01:16, 20 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. This is split pretty evenly between keep/merge with almost no support for outright deletion. Keeping/merging can be thrashed out elsewhere. -Splashtalk 22:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islam in Iceland[edit]

The article itself claims non-notablility by saying that Iceland has the world's lowest number of Muslims. Also, it doesn't really give any real content or even a dicdef. In comparison, even Islam in Iraq doesn't have an article. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I read it's mostly like some construction workers and engineers from Turkey and Pakistan or the Mideast. I'm not sure they are even citizens. (I read an article about immigrants to Iceland during the Bobby Fischer deal. I did not create this article though)--T. Anthony 02:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I need to use my powers for good instead of just silliness:) This article was just a sentence, and an inaccurate one at that, then I decided what the hey. Still how can this be justified as an article in its own right when there are so many more important "Islam in" articles to do? I think it'd make more sense to have a Religion in Iceland article and put this in. If you're worried it'd be lost until then, don't be. I did much of the work here and I can copy this to my talk page until a Religion in Iceland article is ready.--T. Anthony 11:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm missing one of my books on Iceland that could really fill in the stuff on Pietism and all. Oh well, maybe later.--T. Anthony 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think so. I have a hunch Tuvalu also has less Muslims. They are listed as a nation of 11,468 people that's 98.4% Protestant and 1% Bahai. So if I did the math right they can't have more than 70 Muslims.--T. Anthony 13:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few history and other books on Iceland. The Reformation part is still pretty scant and I think a few other sections need improvement.--T. Anthony 01:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I copied most of information in this, most of which was by me, to the Religion in Iceland article.(Also by me) Although I can cut that out if it survives. The point though is that it won't be lost either way.--T. Anthony 05:55, 25 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy DeYoung[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it's good to know that the subject's webmaster approves his bio to appear here, it woudl be better if there were some evidence of actual notability per WP:BLP. As it stands what we have here is: he's an evangelist. He evangelises. Here are some of the places he's evangelised. Did we mention he's an evangelist? Seriously, I can't understand what this is doing on the 'pedia. Oh, wait - he's an alumnus of... yes, you guessed it! Louisiana Baptist University. Creator and (save for the odd bot and various tags) pretty much sole editor is an anon with little other history. In the end I read this biography in some detail and still don't know what he's supposed to be notable for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:26, 20 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. To produce any other result would require discounting of raw votes on such a massive scale that I can't possibly countenance it. -Splashtalk 22:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Gothard[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy seems mainly notable because he is leader of the Institute in Basic Life Principles. Which, it turns out, is mainly notable because it's run by... well, you can see where this is headed. I would say merge to the IBLP article but I have a suspicion that both should be merged to the bitbucket. No, just for a change, this one was not created by Jason Gastrich, just one of a number of poeple with tenuous claims to notability from the Louisiana Baptist University alumni list. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion? Well, I think Bill Gothard is more the "founder" of IBLP than anything, though you're right about it being his foremost, um, "item of achievement," so to speak. But while the Institute in Basic Life Principles is unofficially aka the "Bill Gothard thing," it's something that has reached millions of people (over 2.5 million have attended IBLP's various Seminars alone) and is still an important thing to many on a daily basis. The Institute is relatively huge, all things considered. But even if the main thing about Gothard is IBLP and vice versa, does that by itself warrant deletion (yea, newbie here)? True that both articles do overlap significantly though, particularly in the many areas that stress the "highly controversial" aspects of Bill Gothard and IBLP.

On another topic, maybe both articles should just be left alive solely because of how much work various Wikipedians have put into them already? Or is there another reason for deletion that I'm missing? Thanks for any clarification-- Weien 04:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this entry (just like the nominator said). Besides your word, what makes Gothard non-notable? --Jason Gastrich 07:46, 21 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, so keep. Looking at the arguments without trying to perform a strict "vote count", I see that the arguments and consensus to keep or delete is roughly 50-50. The allegations of meatpuppetry and solicitation are serious, so I wouldn't be against a re-AfD, but only after taking a breather first. --Deathphoenix 14:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bible teacher. And he wrote some books, published by a missionary press, one or two of which break the half million in Amazon's sales rank, but not by much it seems. In this article we find out that he turned to God after a business deal went tits-up, he held un-named "prominent positions" with some big firms and got a PhD from an unaccredited university (bet you can't guess which one). So now he combines a background in cryptanalysis with 30 years of Biblical teaching. Which would be really handy if the Bible weren't printed in clear... OK, he might be notable. It's possible that those "prominent positions" are indeed prominent. In which case some citations and actual details would not go amiss. Otherwise this is just a garden-variety minister with added resumé padding. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's more than one person nominating them, and actually the bias is against the use of wikipedia as a way of boosting the profile of Southern "fundamentalists" (who are not "conservative Christians", that would be the Catholics). You'll note that I have given a fairly extensive rationale above, I did take the trouble to go out and try to verify the significance of this person (and the others). It's a walled garden: these people are "notable" by reference to others (people and institutions) who are "notable" by reference back to them. They all seem to come with a full set of minor books published by fundamentalist Christian presses, studio photographs, and a resume which includes degrees from (and teaching in) unaccredited universities. It looks to me very much as if the 'pedia is being used to promote something. And there is some evidence to support that idea, see [12]. So I apologise for the interruption to your encyclopaeding pleasure, but I think it's time we reviewed the whole lot, pruned the dead wood and stamped out what looks a lot like an infestation of fundamentalist ground elder. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Roman Catholic, but I have friends in Real Life and on USENET who are in the Calvary Chapel, and this guy is as notable among them as Chuck Smith or Greg Laurie. Even the Bible Answer Man is ordained in the C.C. Your suggestion that we go on a rat hunt to root out leaders who happen to ascribe to the Five Fundamentals is disturbing to say the least. Ruby 12:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall saying any such thing. What I said was, we have an apparent invasion of cruft. A walled garden of people who are important only to each other. I absolutely do not discount (including in this nomination, explicitly) the possibility that some of them may be notable outside that community, on the other hand there is good evidence that several of them are not, and this is no different to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam rooting out linkspam: the idea that just because someone is a Christian they won't abuse Wikipedia to push a POV or "sell" the product is naive. I am a Christian and if you see my user page you will see that I am quite open about my strong opinions. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One of your objections is the low Amazon sales rank of Missler's books. Surely this method of determining notability only applies to recent books, since books written in, say, 1994, long before Amazon stated selling books, would only experience back-catalog sales on Amazon, introducing a bias into the test. Ruby 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that comment at the time. See this [13] book published in 1985 and still hovering round the 100,000 mark on Amazon. I read it as a set text at school shortly after it was published, I remember it still. That is one of my personal benchmarks for a notable book (of any sort). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29 "Something very funny happened today. I got two identical emails from Jason Gastrich through Wikipedia. You can make up your own mind as to whether this qualifies for meat-puppetry or stacking the vote. Here's the email. --Cyde Weys 16:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Hello,
I noticed that you were listed as a Christian Wikipedian. I am, too. I wanted to let you know that in the last 24 hours, someone has nominated 12 Christian biography entries for deletion. Not only does this seem like bad faith and an affront to a lot of hard work, but I'd like you to come and vote on the entries. These nominations seem peculiar because some people are even presidents of universities and well known authors.
Below are some of the links that need attention. Thanks for your consideration.
By the way, I recently started an organization called Wiki4Christ (see http://wiki4christ.com). If you’d like to join a network of Christians with a purpose on Wikipedia, please see our site!
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Louisiana_Baptist_University_people_%28second_nomination%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._Otis_Ledbetter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Moseley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Randall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Ice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Combs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neal_Weaver
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daniel_Dorim_Kim
You just picked the wrong fundie this time. Ruby 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just been reading the guidelines (I'm a relative newbie) and tried the Google test - Google gives 106000 pages for "chuck missler" in quotes - but I'd rather read an unbiased account about him in Wikipedia! Euchiasmus 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The reason they were nominated together was that Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs) created an article with a list of "notable" alumni from Louisiana Baptist University, an unaccredited university with which he is associated. Some of these articles already existed, some were created by Gastrich or known or suspected sockpuppets of Gastrich (see the RfC above). A.J.A. went through them all and nominated those which, in his view, were not notable per WP criteria. I checked Gastrich's contribution history and found a couple more, including this one. If you read some of the comments above,. and the nomination, you will note that I tried to verify the claims of notability (e.g. "prominent" positions) but did not find any reliable sources for them. I also checked the Amazon entries and sales ranks for his books, and found them to be way off the radar. Another editor has tracked them through to their publisher and found that they are self-published, which means that as far as WP is concerned they don't count (unless they prove to have unique authority, like Robert Gunther's self-published history of early science in Oxford). Gastrich called in the meatpuppets. We also have on here the usual smattering of inclusionists (nothing wrong with that) and tactical deletionists (remove-all-Godcruft), which more or less balance out in most cases. Does that answer your question? Or have I misunderstood what you are asking? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this does answer my question. If I didn't have inclusionist leanings, I would probably have voted to delete most of these. As it was, I voted to include this one since it seems more serious, and ignored the others. Lawrence King 00:06, 26 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 This is in conclusion after looking at some of the behavior, and because of a 62% vote to delete (even without discounted votes). --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Morey[edit]

This AfD process has been further disrupted by a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs), Wiggins2 (talk · contribs). See his contributions: they consist almost solely of soliciting others to come to these AfDs and vote keep.

As a result of the serial disruption of AfD and other questionable behaviour, I have raised a user RfC on Jason Gastrich, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jason Gastrich. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted by an anon via Articles for Creation. Serious problems with NPOV, several dubious claims and rebuttals, but no actual indication of why the hell we should care who this guy is. The section arguing about the legitimacy of his claimed doctorates is far and away the most interesting part ofg the article,and that only to see just how POV it can get before someone steps in and speedies it as an attack. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 01:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. I haven't said lol in some time. Nonetheless, I find your criteria for inclusion quite amusing! --Jason Gastrich 07:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right . . . because you're the Christian who wants to get rid of Christian entries on Wikipedia; even obvious keepers like Thomas Ice and Grant Jeffrey. Makes sense to people from outer space. --Jason Gastrich 10:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He wants to keep relevant and notable Christian entries. The debate is the relevance and notability of the subject, not whether or not the A.J.A. is attacking "christian articles". -Harvestdancer 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, if I were more concerned with promoting Christianity I would've voted to delete the Gothard article. A.J.A. 20:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, someone nominated Gothard for deletion. They must have been sniffing the same glue that the guy was sniffing who nominated Grant Jeffrey and Thomas Ice for deletion . . . just kidding. Kinda. --Jason Gastrich 07:48, 21 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 by User:Alabamaboy —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:15Z


Unelfy[edit]

Dictionary definition of a neologism. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 01:52, 20 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 22:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lanfil Entertainment[edit]

Non-notable label. I refrained from speedying it because it did appear to assert notability. Google gave me nothing and it seems that an endeavor so new would be on the internet. Not a definitive test but, we do need evidence to the contrary. Remember to remove from List of independent record labels if deleted. gren グレン ? 02:10, 20 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 22:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fry Mumia[edit]

No evidence of widespread usage presented, and in any case this can be dealt with in a single line in the Mumia article. Gamaliel 02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman argument -- didn't allege sockpuppetry based on similar point of view. Allegation is based on instantaneous syncophantic support on each other's talk pages, and the ganging-up without giving the article a chance to mature. Rather than delete it, edit it. That's the Wikipedia Way. Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not newly coined as alleged -- see the McCullagh photo cited above. Morton devonshire 16:35, 20 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 22:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populationx[edit]

1400 members in five years is pretty good, I guess. Not sure if it's Wikipedia-worthy. What say you, fellow wiki workers? - Lucky 6.9 02:28, 20 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 about to be speedy deleted as an attack page, per User:Quarl. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iadipaoliphobia[edit]

Hoax/nonsense "condition" Drdisque 02:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Iadipaoligize (AfD discussion) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 05:08Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 14:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faces (software)[edit]

Speedy delete. Already deleted. Sleepyhead 11:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alhazi Invasion[edit]

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 02:47, 20 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 I'm gonna speedy delete this nonsense. It's a blatant attack page. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy muney[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PaulStintzi[edit]

Not notable autobiography. Delete or move to user page. --Dual Freq 02:55, 20 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 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiner[edit]

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 02:59, 20 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 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drus[edit]

Delete. It's one of three stubs about an obscure game, entered four months ago by an unlogged user who have since not done any Wiki work. Thomas Blomberg 03:02, 20 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. This is one of those where it doens't really matter how I read it (or, horror, count the votes) there just isn't enough agreement here to produce a mandate for anythin from this debate, other than that the material should probably not stay as it is. I suppose it should probably be merged or something. -Splashtalk 23:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Prower[edit]

Only claim to notabliy is dying during the voygage of the Mayflower as a baby but still nn, no sources nither Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Quarl. --Terence Ong 05:20, 21 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 no consensus to delete. Ifnord 00:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperOffice[edit]

Company with Eur30m turnover, wholly owned subsidiaries in several European countries, produces CRM software and is listed on the Oslo Stock Exchange. I undeleted this a few days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SuperOffice. Apparently the feeling was that it didn't have enough google hits! Since there is some concern about my unusual action in undeleting I've decided to relist.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goughism[edit]

nn Neoleigsm or dic-def, 332 goggle hits, from mostly wiki mirrors [26], what's worst is this page survived more than a year without being discovered Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:18, 20 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 23:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sportsdot[edit]

Purely non-notable weblog, no alexa rank [27] for a site that been running for more than a year. Fails WP:WEB Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:25, 20 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. Ifnord 00:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally Solutions Ltd[edit]

Bangalore-based Accounting software company that is one of two or three giants, and probably the leader of those, in its home market. Numbers among its customers half a dozen illustrious names including two auto companies, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Indian software giant Infosys. Fairly well known in the UK market, also sells into the Middle East and Far East.

I undeleted this a couple of days ago after what I regarded as an inadequate AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tally_(accounting). The reason to delete was that it looked like an ad and the company had less than 500 google hits. Well that's silly but the article did need overhauling, which I've done.

I'm relisting this because there seems to be some concern about my unusual action in resurrecting a deleted article.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Bilodeau[edit]

According to the link at the bottom of the page, the primary source for this story is the National Enquirer. No notability asserted besides her alleged relationship to Kennedy. Delete. SarekOfVulcan 03:30, 20 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 23:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual underground[edit]

One line substub on Non-notable message board, not sure if it's a speedy though so I'm placing it here. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:35, 20 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. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS ONLY DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. Johnleemk | Talk 15:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wbjb[edit]

Original Research, Personal Essay on a Small non-notable community college radio station, This is not a article Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:50, 20 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. -Splashtalk 23:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariposa, Rio Rancho, New Mexico[edit]

Looks like crystal ball on some houses that are going to be built in the future, WP:NOT a crystal ball Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:59, 20 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. BJAODN --Madchester 04:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Chuck Norris[edit]

Delete this piece of idiocy. Not funny enough for BJAODN. Dbtfz 04:01, 20 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 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorindokai Karate[edit]

While this claims to be a fighting style, all I can figure out is that it's the name of a karate business in South Carolina [31]. Doesn't really seem to be documented or covered anywhere meaningful. Information is sparse and meeting WP:V (with good sources) seems to be difficult. --W.marsh 04:04, 20 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 23:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our State, The Real Story[edit]

Save Our State is trying to get around the NPOV editing that is going on in the real Save Our State Entry- they want a wikipedia that they alone edit that is "the truth"- aka from their perspective only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elzia (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 Patti Newton, and probably NO CONSENSUS on Lauren. -Splashtalk 23:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Newton and Patti Newton[edit]

All the information I believe to be true, but I do not think that it is sufficient to be notable simply because her father Bert Newton is a TV icon/institution and she is engaged to swimming star Matthew Welsh. As for her mother Patti Newton, there is little claim of notability, aside from being in a lot (unspecified) theatre productions, and that she was on her husband's show (in what role??)Blnguyen 04:20, 20 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. Mushroom 13:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali malik[edit]

High school football players are usually not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. Rhobite 04:24, 20 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 RuneQuest; I'm going to hold on to the redirect as is usual in these cases. -Splashtalk 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broo[edit]

According to the one page that links to it, this is the only species from RuneQuest (RPG) that has its own page. The RuneQuest page is not that long itself. So merge there or just out and out delete. pfctdayelise 04:30, 20 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 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Crabs[edit]

Non-existant as far as I can see. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:30, 20 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 Redirected. Jaranda wat's sup 17:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dayboy[edit]

Dic Def Move to Wikinary if it's not there and Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:35, 20 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. Mushroom 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iadipaoligize[edit]

WP:HOAX. Unverifiable (no Google hits). Possibly construable as attack page. Article creator also created Iadipaoliphobia (AfD discussion) and other already-speedied nonsense/attack pages. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 04:44Z

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Howard[edit]

Suspected nn-bio / vanity. Page was created by User:Johnhoward68. Google results are too littered with other John Thomas Howards to ascertain validity Cnwb 05:05, 20 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.

He exists. Type in 'Finders Seekers ABC' in Google and for pages in Australia. The program was produced and aired for the first time in 1988.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duy Nguyen[edit]

I have grave doubts about the notability of this person, or if he even exists(hoax?). Presuming he was 12 at the audition, then that would be at least 1977 +12 = 1989 when the show happened, not 1988. IMDB shows a 1991 production by the ABC in Australia, which on the credit list does not give this person. Google for "Duy Nguyen" and actor yields some pages in the US, but for Australia only, the hits aren't for this guy.Blnguyen 05:15, 20 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 00:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Mazzella Jr.[edit]

Although I just wikified this a bit, I'm still nominating it. Dying in a famous event does not in and of itself make one notable. pfctdayelise 05:25, 20 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. I'll move it as suggested, though. -Splashtalk 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nasir Bin Olu Dara[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this LP doesn't even have a label to release it yet. Nas is my favorite rapper and all, but this should probably be deleted until the record's existence becomes a little more concrete. FuriousFreddy 05:28, 20 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 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amman Model Arab League[edit]

An article about Model Arab League would be notable (if it existed). However, a standalone MAL event is probably not. Punkmorten 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:23, 20 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 23:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Hunter[edit]

Delete: Apparently self-written vanity page for not-yet-noteworthy film production assistant/self-published novelist. Tverbeek 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:24, 20 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 23:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FlashGet (second nomination)[edit]

non-notable download manager, also give advices to getting rid of advertisements without paying the shareware software --Melaen 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FlashGet —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:20Z
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:29, 20 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. Yeah, I see it's a copyvio, but the debate here is obvious enough, and it shows no sign of gettng permission during the CV process. -Splashtalk 23:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital management[edit]

I proposed moving this article to Wikibooks on January 8. No feedback since then, so I moved it there. It's original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. Tim Pierce 05:35, 20 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. The diff in which Quarl merges is [33], but I can't see that material having come from this article in any revision before Quarl's edit. (Also, very small fragments of text are not generally copyrightable anyway.) -Splashtalk 23:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proprietary open source[edit]

Neologism/original research.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EyeSore Angels[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page for a band. Not quite speedy deletion material I think. Nothing links to it besides this AFD discussion. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:43, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home Wrestling Federation[edit]

Does not assert notability, poorly organized. Well-nigh indecipherable in parts. --zenohockey 05:53, 20 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. An unusually clear debate for this kind of topic. -Splashtalk 23:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews[edit]

See reasons on Talk:Ancient persecution of non-Jews by Jews that reflect a consensus that this article is a POV attempt at "blame the victim" racism. It is also full of shoddy original research, citing "examples" from vaguely "Jewish" groups in Yemen and Africa. In sum, this short sorry excuse for an article is pathetic and should never have been allowed to exist this long. IZAK 05:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) IZAK 05:58, 20 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 as useless after it was added to the main article. JIP | Talk 09:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization IV/Civilizations and Leaders Chart[edit]

This was a subpage that was transcluded into the Civilization IV article, which seems to be a silly and generally discouraged thing to do in the article namespace. I've substituted the table into the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:04, 20 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 23:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews[edit]

See Talk:Contemporary persecution of non-Jews by Jews for arguments regarding the unsuitability of this topic that seems to aim to accomplish a POV cynical goal more suited to the Anti-Zionism article. There is already an article about Zionism and racism in any case, so this article seems suspiciously placed to portray Jews as "villains" -- more of a "blame the victim" syndrome routine, than a work of unbiased scholarship. What a shame that it has been here so long. IZAK 06:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if I want to read about Muslim, Christian, or Jewish persecution of other people, where would I go? --Candide, or Optimism 19:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kafir (Islam), Islamism, Category:Inquisition, Category:Religious persecution, Witch trial, Amalekites, etc should all indicate who's doing the persecution in least in the article.--T. Anthony 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to go for deleting all these "persecution by" articles I could go for that too. I created the one on atheists as there were all these others already, but all of them gone is okay by me too.--T. Anthony 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that these "Religious persecution" articles have been brought up for deletion before. I'd be more than happy to vote to keep them again, because the topic is an important subject in human history. :) — RJH 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A group can be both persecutor and persecuted in different times or circumstances. I voted delete, but I don't think being victimized in the Holocaust makes a group incapable of being victimizers. Serbs were slaughtered by the Croat Ustase, but Serbs also slaughtered people in the civil war decades later.--T. Anthony 16:12, 24 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 BOTH. -Splashtalk 23:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrealistic and Minisculate[edit]

Words made up by a not-very-notable person. Kappa 06:26, 20 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. Mushroom 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Svelglistigor band[edit]

Band vanity, zero search results for +Svelglistigor +band. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:40, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stream TV[edit]

Clearly Commerical Advertising, is absolutely not a "notable product" per Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) -- also worth mentioning that the article was put up by the person who wrote the software, not by a neutral 3rd party. the stream to file forum should give some idea of the level of activity around this product. AdamJacobMuller 06:42, 20 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, I don't see much point in relisting this. -Splashtalk 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolli aPOPalypse[edit]

Has nothing to do with the aPOCALYPSE pRODUCTION cREW, rather, it's a non-notable or hoax art movement with zero (0) google hits. Delete as bollocks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:24, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vemiesiire[edit]

Delete. The contents of this article are non-verifiable, original research, and obviously a case of vanity. No sign of notability either: 0 ghits for the name of the conlang, 13 for the name of the author. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI know someone that speaks it (they know the woman that wrote it somehow). I think it's kind of interesting. I say don't delete it, people where I live know about it. I don't or I would edit.

KeepYou probably didn't find any hits on it because the title was just decided. The working title was Kokopelli.

Comment The previous unsigned comments were by 206.106.97.98 Makemi 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that "Kokopelli" generates a lot of ghits, most of them apparently related to some kind of flute. A google for "kokopelli+heidewald" gives only three hits, obviously not related to the language either. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also search:Kokopelli and "constructed language" gives absolutely no relevant hits. Makemi 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because it isn't interesting to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the people that speak it. It seems like a useful article, has an example of the language and everything. IJzeren Jan seems a bit of a hypocrite to me, seeing he has his own constructed language and he fought so bitterly over that site not being deleted. It's a language some people obviously speak, if this one goes then many others need to be cleaned out, including IJzeren Jan's language, where the outside link attached is his website! Wikipedia is all about have people use their specialized knowledge to inform other people! --Menner8 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may be verifiable, just not published all over the internet. Looks fine to me, doesn't hurt you any. Keep.

The preceding two comments are both by User:Menner8 (1 edit, to this page), who also added the word "Keep" to the other two unsigned comments by User:206.106.97.98. Please don't use Sockpuppets. Makemi 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting personal, Menner8? Well then, let me explain a few things:
  1. Indeed, I dó have a constructed language. Several even. What's the difference? I'm very interested in conlangs and I do care for them. If you don't believe me, just look at the Portal:Constructed languages that I've co-created.
  2. I didn't start the article about Wenedyk myself. It was started by someone else. What I did do was making a few edits later on. Besides, I have never claimed my language is notable, but others apparently do. And honestly, I don't care much if the article is there or not; it is not supposed to be learned by anybody anyway.
  3. I didn't fight bitterly over that article in particular. At the time, there was a massive attack against a whole series of conlangs, mine included, and the reason for these attacks was pretty moot. So I stood up for all of them. If the vote had been about Wenedyk only, I would have abstained from voting.
  4. The outside link points to my website. So what? At least, there is something on that website!
  5. I know that Google hits are not the only measure for significance, but for fairly recent phenomena like young conlangs it is about the only source we have. The problem with V. is simply that there's nothing that would even confirm that the language exists at all. No grammar, no dictionary, no info about its creator, nothing! If there's a book about it, then please mention the title and the ISBN number. It the press has been writing about it, ditto. But the way it looks now, the whole thing might very well be a hoax. My point is: there's nothing to substantiate the article.
  6. Saying that there are several people who speak it is easy. So, where are these people? Who are they? Can you prove it?
Regards, —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the language is not only a beautiful sounding language, it also is a well-constructed language with simplified grammar. I am glad to hear that it has some speakers already and hope to read more words in Vemiesiire when the dictionary goes on-line. From Wikipedia user, Jeanette Neher

In the meanwhile, I stand by its authenticity and will always delight to share my specific knowledge with the world, and hope others feel the same determination. Keep. --Erika00177 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion regarding policy regarding conlangs has been, and in a way still is, going on. See WP:CONLANG. Look, this is not about constructed languages in general, not even about yours. And this has nothing to do with any personal vendettas. To be frank, I even like your language, and I would certainly like to hear the soundbytes. It's about the question whether or not an article here in WP is warranted. And the arguments I used (lack of verifiability, original research, vanity, no sign of notability) would make one suspect that it isn't for now. You saying that it's all true doesn't change those facts. I agree with you this information is interesting to a specific audience, but that's really not enough for inclusion! Like I told you on your user page, there are several more specialised places for that. I even took the liberty to transwiki your article to the Conlang Wiki (here it is; feel free to do with it as you please). —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:09, 20 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 23:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epoxy resin band[edit]

Delete. I don't think this band exists, no AMG entry, 0 Google hits tying "Epoxy resin" to the band members or the album, plus it talks about "30 minutes" of fame and "parallel universes". Bruce1ee 07:28, 20 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. Mushroom 13:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kite Flying Society[edit]

Google count: 783 From the results: term is also used by some actual kite flying societies. No amazon product listing. Fails to meet Wikipedia's music group standard. delete Lotsofissues 07:33, 20 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 to Wikisource. -Splashtalk 23:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton's Letter to ROTC Instructor[edit]

The article is almost entirely made up of unaltered source texts with a bit of personal editorializing mixed in. The substantive issues belong in Bill Clinton. The rest of the content might be an outside candidate for a transwiki to Wikisource, but.... that's not for me to decide. Tom Lillis 10:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) (I failed to sign this the first time.)[reply]


Nonsense. The letters are far too long to place in the Clinton bio. Keep. Just looked at the bio of the person who recommended this article for deletion and recommend everyone considering this AfD do the same. No one, from the right or the left, should accept or promote censorship here. That type of "editing" has no place in Wikipedia. Shame on you if that is your motivation. --DaveThomas 07:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The substantive issues belong in Bill Clinton." I said. You're right, the letters don't belong in Bill Clinton. A discussion of the matter which is illustrated by the letters belong in the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of source documents. As for the documents themselves, I again state that the material belongs on Wikisource if anywhere, but I am not an expert on how that works. This is a matter of following our own internal rules on what goes where. Censorship has blip-all to do with it, and I'd ask you to use more care before casting shame upon others in the future. Tom Lillis 10:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Letters are protected by copyright, but I think these actually came out of the Congressional Record, which is public domain. Tricky, which is why I'm not sure. Tom Lillis 06:36, 21 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 23:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Names of God (antagonist, deductive definitions)[edit]

Rather confused, unencyclopedic OR. Not much there to be salvaged by merging, as far as I can see. Delete. Lukas 07:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Post-note addition: And...How can you complain when YOU are not supposed to Know, or Speak the name of 'g o d' as proscribed by some cultures?..(and today's comments are written post the addition of the A - Z section)Mmcannis 14:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just told someone I would try to use 'humor' (on this revisit). Besides the Law of superposition and the Law of faunal succession which were required to get smart brainiacs to deal better, to cope better with evolution and Anti-/Evolution, there should be some laws for nascent and newly created articles (that are nascent, and or 'young' articles). Like: Law of ,Reading' a ,Delete' article, or Law of visiting 3-times a delete article. Since no one else (at this time) would dare write my approach to this "Name of" article, (or even offer an alternate re-titleing(....theoretically You've read the article and could re-title it?.... ), I can make conclusions about the Voters themselves, (whether (as with a 'god"), whether a He, She, or It)(I'll look and see what the above 5 voters cat is....hmmmmmm..hhhmmm...hmmmm 5 He-category. 5 guys. (As if I didn't already know.) End of humor. I knew it would be only 5 guys.)Sorry now my feelings are hurt. Maybe that's why this was my first vote in Wikipedia. It is too bad none of you 'persons of unknown, knowns,' couldn't/ or wouldn't offer an alternate title for the article-- (In the same vein of The 'god' who must be obeyed (see the Rumpole of the Bailey entry under S)..,,(And if even one She makes a vote, I will be truly surprised-Sorry again for a Pre-opinion, that old POV again)(I would love to say "I apologize" to an incorrect categorization)...Michael(with good intentions, believe me.)Mmcannis 14:44, 22 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 23:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin James Stewart[edit]

Delete I believe this article to be a hoax. He's not in www.imdb.com and google returns no hits Asa01 07:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Stewart —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:17Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE BOTH. Don't see the need to relist give the referenced AfD. -Splashtalk 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Stewart and Echoes Of Grace[edit]

Created by In_Name_And_Blood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Neither the filmmaker nor his films are verifiable via Google nor IMDB, possible hoaxes esp. in light of Benjamin James Stewart (AfD discussion). Even if they were verifiable they wouldn't be notable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:04Z

In_Name_And_Blood (talk · contribs) has been methodically adding unverifiable references to the Stewarts to many Australian pop-culture-related articles which Asa01 has been patiently reverting. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 08:14Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (anything useful) and redirect to Hatf-I/IA. --Deathphoenix 14:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatf, Shaheen 1, Shaheen 2[edit]

Delete - this article is a stub of info already included in the Hatf-I/IA article. Kralizec! 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have bundled the AFDs for Shaheen 1, Shaheen 2 at this point. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 10:16Z


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 13:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dane Smith[edit]

Non notable vanity page Ben W Bell 08:49, 20 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 00:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco pina[edit]

not notable. vanity article Jgritz 08:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was also responsible for this deleted article --Jgritz 08:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians--it is time... I can't believe you're not "speed-deleting" this article, considering you know who was the one who had written it. Isn't it obvious that if it's from an un-trusting person like me--you self-centered, mind controlling fuck-hole, good for nothing pieces of shit. You can block my IP but that's not going to stop me from conducting some serious page blanking if this article gets deleted. Sincerely, Your Mother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.182.198 (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 (no consensus). Wisewaif pointed out a fairly high ranking among the Yahoo! podcast list, although 75 minutes had fallen to 61st place when I checked the link out. I am concerned with sockpuppeteering and/or meatpuppeteering here, but ultimately some of the "keep" voters have presented reasonable arguments for this podcast's notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

75 minutes[edit]

Podcast with no apparent notability. Stifle 08:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What? If podcasting is notable (clearly, given the size of the article) then the "small pond" is notable, therefore being a "big fish" in it is more than adequate justification for an article. I think wisewaif has given sufficient evidence that 75 Minutes is among the top English-language podcasts, as far as it can be determined. --Bk0 (Talk) 12:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa?! You're kidding, right? --Bk0 (Talk) 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa is used as a metric for popularity in nearly every AfD. There's no need to stop using it now just because you disagree with it. --dj28 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa isn't too useful for podcasts -- podcasts use different distribution mechanisms from webpages, so a different metric has to be used. I don't think that metric exists yet, so some more ad hoc intermediate metric needs to be created. In the meantime, I would think Yahoo Top 100 is as good a system as there is at the moment. Like I said above, I think a centralized discussion on the issue is in order. Haikupoet 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe this podcast is important? Do you actually use it? Or you just find out about its existence after it reached the articles for deletion? --blackman 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point me to the policy page that states that 50,000 is the accepted standard for notability? Thanks. --Bk0 (Talk) 00:17, 26 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. Mushroom 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Viereck[edit]

it is an article about a real person that does not assert (Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles) the importance or significance (WP:BIO) of the subject. (CSD A7). I added Template:nn-bio, which was removed by User:69.253.210.185 --Austrian 08:59, 20 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 00:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy till[edit]

Doubtful notability (WP:MUSIC), unverifiable outside of his own website. Geogre's law applies. Stifle 09:00, 20 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 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan MacPherson[edit]

Vanity bio of someone who is notable only for being in some sort of improvisation group. I'm not asserting that the group is non-notable, not yet anyway. Userfication is possible. Stifle 09:07, 20 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 00:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antifrost[edit]

List of releases from a non-notable record label Stifle 09:21, 20 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 waskeep. Ifnord 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Loeb[edit]

No verifiable notability, musician, possible vanity. Stifle 09:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, but the article seems to be a copyvio. - squibix 17:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, that's a different matter. -- GWO
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-2000s Rock Movement[edit]

Looks like original research and/or POV forkage that somebody forgot about. Maybe this exists, but nobody calls it that, nothing links to it, and nobody edits it. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:36, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jovonn alexander[edit]

This might be verifiable (170 google hits), but the page reads mostly like a vanity page, promoting his own music. Poulsen 09:37, 20 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 Mitigation. -Splashtalk 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigate[edit]

disambiguates between two redlink dictdefs. BL kiss the lizard 09:39, 20 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 00:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Nineties[edit]

Non-notable neologism for the 2001-2010 decade, delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:42, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None Left Standing[edit]

This orphaned article appears to be a band vanity page. Their "official website" is at Myspace.com, the parking garage of garage bands. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:54, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cabana forums[edit]

Seems to be nn forum vanity. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 10:00, 20 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 00:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptless In Seattle[edit]

Improvisational acting troupe, see Results 1 - 1 of about 2 for +"Scriptless In Seattle" +improv. A less refined search yields false positives, as this seems to be a pejorative term for a certain sappy romantic comedy film. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:24, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grimmy Moonflower[edit]

Non-notable/vanity created by Grimmy Moonflower. Only one sentence and multiple quotes. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content added. Was stub, previously. Character is notable within confines of virtual world Grimmymoonflower

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Freakofnurture —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:45Z


Elliott durham school[edit]

No meaningful content, just some POV remark. Might even qualify for db-nonsense (I'm not sure, but feel free to add the tag if you think so). –Sommers (Talk) 10:40, 20 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 and REDIRECT. -Splashtalk 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super8[edit]

Non-notable band. Seven google hits for +Super8 +"Ernesto Vidal", the latter being the frontman. Simpler searches return a multitude of false positives. Delete and redirect to the disambiguation page Super 8. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:41, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Sorry, but the article itself is just so poor that keepers don't make nearly enough of a case. -Splashtalk 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Physics envy[edit]

Article apparently about one person's POV. We already have articles about "hard science" vs. "soft science".

BTW, mathematician response to physics envy:
  • The biologist wants to be a chemist.
  • The chemist wants to be a physicist.
  • The physicist wants to be God.
  • God wants to be a mathematician.
—Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:42Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Ambi —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:40Z

Rose and the Jacksonettes[edit]

Delete:Unverifiable. Anyone want to ring up Rose Jackson and ask her what NOLS' new name is? Fifelfoo 11:17, 20 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 00:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batragchaa Ragchaa[edit]

28 year old lawyer? No google hits of course, but no statement as to why this 'new lawyer' group is influential either. It's theoretically possible for 20-something lawyers to be important in countries undergoing rapid change, but I feel there is no sufficient claim for notability above the average lawyer established here, and no citations to enable verification. Average Earthman 11:29, 20 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. This has nominal two-thirds to delete, and WP:MUSIC will ensure it hasn't a prayer if I relist it. -Splashtalk 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portable folk band[edit]

Neglected article about a band that self-released one album. No evidence of notability. No AMG entry. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-20 11:36Z

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom 13:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God free youth[edit]

Delete. This is a statement, not an article. Bruce1ee 11:41, 20 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 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sullivan Learning Academy[edit]

Advertisement for a bookstore. I couldn\'t find info on where the store is. No google hits and 54 on the web counter of the site. Actually I thought mistakenly this would fit under speedy, so here it is. Garion96 (talk) 11:54, 20 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 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comaudio[edit]

un-notability Melaen 16:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 20 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 Manchester Grammar School, which as already been done. I'll activate the redirect. -Splashtalk 00:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Owl's nest[edit]

Article about a barn sometimes visited for school field trips. No claim of notability, and no references or sources provided.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that if it is to be merged, it needs considerable improvement. For a start (unless something has changed considerably since my time), it's not a barn, it's a hut. Also, where did this 'Sons of the Owl' thing come from? I've never heard it before. Guy Hatton 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 20 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 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pjrpg[edit]

Advocating a non-notable website jmd 12:12, 20 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 as patent nonsense. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:09, Jan. 20, 2006

DAN STYLE[edit]

neologism. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:34, 20 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 00:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Rich[edit]

Vanity, hoax, or combination thereof. Appears to be five unique google hits for the guy's alleged real name, "Richard Bougere" which don't appear relevant, except one (which is from — guess where — Myspace.com). Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 13:07, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. It is, as pointed out, already in the main article without having been merged there. -Splashtalk 00:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Destinations served from Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport[edit]

Delete - Redundant with "Airlines & Destinations" list already in airport article. Dbinder 13:23, 20 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. Mushroom 14:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stoner poker[edit]

NN game, and possibly OR. Delete. Kusma (討論) 14:25, 20 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 00:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Hsu[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, and judging from the comments on User talk:Jack71483, this article appears to be part of an ongoing problem of non-notable autobiographies. –Sommers (Talk) 14:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 11:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[36] but whats that one show? Defunkier 13:27, 24 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. This was probably a speedy A7, so I'm not going to relist. -Splashtalk 00:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endless mic[edit]

Orphaned for seven months and only edited 3 times since its creation. Doesn't seem notable or something would have linked to it by now. search results don't seem relevant or useful, and myspace.com is unsurprisingly among them. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:54, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Midi Surfing[edit]

Delete as unverifiable neologism. -- Krash 15:08, 20 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, it's been rewritten. -Splashtalk 00:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crypto-pagans[edit]

I changed my mind, this could stay if the article was written a lot better. Cuñado - Talk 22:38, 20 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 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death glam[edit]

Neologism. - Deathrocker 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up genre, to represent and advertise a neoglism of Death Rock and Glam Rock bands from various genres. Leyasu 07:33, 25 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 00:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gateway anykey[edit]

Delete: I (the original author) intend for this page to be deleted as it is original work and frankly now that I've been notified of some of your asinine and elitist policies I'd rather not have anything to do with it. Zero DgZ 21:02, 19 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 polyvinylidene fluoride, although I'm not sure that's such a hot idea. -Splashtalk 00:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kynar[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 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 as a ((db-a6)) attack page of a ((db-a7)) non-notable person. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:53, Jan. 20, 2006

Lee Hotti[edit]

Definitely a keep. There's precedence with all manner of other internet "memes" already listed in Wikipedia, and this one is certainly no small or 'forgettable' one.

How can you say it is a 'waste of Wikipedia space', hmm? There are plenty of articles that would be defined as 'waste of space' by you, but they don't deserve deletion. Cleanup maybe. User:theDingbat 07:53, 20 January 2006 (GMT)

  • The hamster dance song has A. Been around for 4 years, B. Inspired two songs, C. Been ranked as the number 1 web something or other by cnet. What has this picture done?--God of War 03:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. --King of All the Franks 00:55, 20 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 00:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longformacus[edit]

This page was created by a user who later turned out to be a vandal. As such, it is being nominated for Afd as a possible hoax. However, I haven't had time to research it and it may possibly be a valid article. -- Curps 16:05, 19 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 redirect, like libtard, to List of pejorative political puns. howcheng {chat} 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repug[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. POV and attack. Should be removed. - Mistrmind 01/19/2006

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Mushroom 21:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nedim Hadrovich[edit]

I nearly speedied this but when I looked at the page history it's been around since September and has been edited by more than one user. Google brings up nothing interesting though. -- Francs2000 15:30, 20 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 00:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gazeebow Unit[edit]

Non-notable rap group [39], even when spelled a different way. Only article linking to this is the wonderful Skeet (slang). Also mentions the word "blog"... delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:44, Jan. 20, 2006

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Pirate Alphabet[edit]

Not notable, original work/research, copyvio, and so on. Mikeblas 16:04, 20 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 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shane (slang)[edit]

Is this nonsense, or is this an actual insult? It's difficult to search for. I abstain until further information is obtained. Delete per Mikeblas. Fang Aili 16:05, 20 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. --Deathphoenix 15:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Malenzi[edit]

Vanity entry on non-notable poker player. Just 6 Google hits (some from Wikipedia and mirrors) and no hits in Hendon Mob poker database Delete Essexmutant 16:36, 20 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 09:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previtera's Theorem[edit]

Delete. Another page bordering on grotesque. Apparently some math undergrad using Wikipedia as a "pre-print" repository for his "research" (which turns out to be a sub-trivial math statement with little practical use). See this page where the author mentions the Wikipedia article in question, and asks for comments on his new self-named "theorem" on a math forum. Original research, useless vanity, whatever you like. Phils 16:36, 20 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. --Deathphoenix 15:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intonako[edit]

Article says they're famous, but i'm not finding any useful search results for +Intonako +band. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 16:39, Jan. 20, 2006


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Deathphoenix 15:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bua Loi[edit]

Bua Loi is also on wikibooks Melaen 16:42, 20 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. --Deathphoenix 15:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historical persecution by atheists[edit]

Delete. Point-making and insubstantial. Part of a series of "Persection by..." articles which are unsuitable for an encycolpedia. -Unsigned by Vjam Here it is: --Vjam 16:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's about atheists who did persecute non-atheists. It's not really about atheists as a whole joining in, it's about atheist philosophies that did persecute. Historical persecution by Christians is also limited to the Christian denominations that did persecute. Various Christian denominations were isolationalist, apolitical, or opposed to religious persecution in all forms. Added to this Persecution of atheists establishes treating atheists as a group that is presumably persecuted by various theists. This is simply the corollary of that.--T. Anthony 14:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insofar as atheism is a statement of faith on a subject where evidentiary support is impossible, I can't agree that Atheism constitututes a "lack of belief" - on the contrary, many atheists that I have met have been more devoted to their religious beliefs (viz., "there is no God") than some Christians I have met have been in theirs (viz., "there is a God"). What you're describing is not atheism, but [[agnoticism]. Simon Dodd 23:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original nominator's statement that these persecution by articles are unencyclopedic. The "atheism doesn't relate" here thing has some merit, but not as much as it's made out. Hoxha declared his state an atheist-state in a way that is different than other Communists and somewhat noteworthy. Other Communists, including Stalin, were occasionally willing to use religions to service some other agenda or pit churches against each other. Hoxha, and the Cultural Revolution, were unusual in the way they went after religion for atheistic aims. The Cultural Revolution article is currently large, but doesn't deal that well with the anti-religion issue. If you prefer "Religious persecution by Communists" though I could maybe see that. I'm going to move it to that if this is tolerated.--T. Anthony 14:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that atheism isn't a unifying belief system and it's not logical to lump together things done by atheists and link that to their atheism. It's comparable to, say, Historical persecution by people with blue eyes: having blue eyes is not a way people group together, because it's not a common belief. Secularism is an ideology which is often confused with atheism, and Historical persecution by secular ideologies might be possible. However, I can't think of a secular ideology which persecuted religion and wasn't also Communist. David | Talk 14:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't move it to "Religious persecution by Communists" if it gets deleted. In fact I can't do that as long as it's on delete. And I'm aware atheists isn't a unifying belief system. However the article is not called "Historical persecution by Atheism" and deals with the fact these are philosophies with atheism as a component. The naming was sloppy, but so is the naming of all these. It can be easily argued that pretty much all Persecution of atheists occurs because of specific political-religion mergers in different nations. This is simply concerning the merger of atheist philosophies with political systems.--T. Anthony 14:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having Abrahamic faiths as the only "persecution by" is already essentially a kind of pointmaking. Also I actually moved this to "persecution by Communists", but moved it back as that screwed up the connection to the delete page.--T. Anthony 03:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I did a "Religious persecution in Communist nations" article after this gets deleted, and it uses some of this, would that be acceptable or a violation of the rules?--T. Anthony 14:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know about the rules, but would suggest that an article entitled "Religion in Communist nations" (as far as I can see this doesn't exist yet) might be welcome and less likely to be criticised under WP:POINT. --Vjam 15:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Religion in Communist nations I don't think exists. Although there is Religion in the Soviet Union which comes closest to being such an article. The related Society of the Godless is maybe the closest to being in purpose similar to this article itself, although it's describing an organization within the former USSR. Still nothing on Communist nations in general as far as I can tell.--T. Anthony 16:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting all the "persecution by" articles would be good by me. Persecution by secularist ideologies seems as historical as the ones that survived and in retrospect I should've named it that. However now that the Jewish ones have died possibly the others are on the ropes too.--T. Anthony 04:29, 26 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 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Spaghetti Monster: Spaghettigram Divination[edit]

Not notable and possible spam. Appears to be advertising for book by creator, who has also attempted to insert related linkspam on other articles. Loren 16:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we saved the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but this is just neologism and possiby spam. -- Egil 19:18, 20 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 09:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CJCJ-FM[edit]

Advertizing, fails to establish notability.

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Property insurance and add a link to Casualty insurance. --Deathphoenix 15:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Property & casualty insurance[edit]

Already exist separate Property and Casualty pages Avi 17:00, 20 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. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Episodes of 12 oz. Mouse. Johnleemk | Talk 15:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

This is FAQ territory, and not is suitable for Wikipedia. This page is a car wreck, and attracts a lot of confused anonymous users to add information which isn't formatted in a way that is appropriate on Wikipedia. Put simply, we don't need this much 12 oz. Mouse information on Wikipedia. WMarsh 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be the correct action to take in most cases, but sane upkeep of this page is impossible. Suggestions of large edits are met with resistance (see discussion page), and the show fan-base doesn't intersect much with the set of experienced Wikipedians. If this page was re-written there would be very little content left, and it would be a nightmare to maintain. I should also point out that all of this content originally was part of the main article which was later split into episode/character articles when it became unwieldy - merging is just going to bring us back to square one. I came to the main article after the split and made large edits in an attempt to "save" it - I don't think the same will work for the episode/character articles. WMarsh 12:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the AfD vote is pointless due most of the votes coming from 12 oz Mouse fans. It would be good if some experienced Wikipedians would join in. WMarsh 02:43, 25 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Episodes of 12 oz. Mouse[edit]

This is FAQ territory, and not is suitable for Wikipedia. This page is a car wreck, and attracts a lot of confused anonymous users to add information which isn't formatted in a way that is appropriate on Wikipedia. Put simply, we don't need this much 12 oz. Mouse information on Wikipedia. WMarsh 17:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be the correct action to take in most cases, but sane upkeep of this page is impossible. Suggestions of large edits are met with resistance (see discussion page), and the show fan-base doesn't intersect much with the set of experienced Wikipedians. If this page was re-written there would be very little content left, and it would be a nightmare to maintain. I should also point out that all of this content originally was part of the main article which was later split into episode/character articles when it became unwieldy - merging is just going to bring us back to square one. I came to the main article after the split and made large edits in an attempt to "save" it - I don't think the same will work for the episode/character articles. WMarsh 12:28, 21 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 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dah-ve Chodan[edit]

copy/pasted from IMDB.com Melaen 17:21, 20 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. --Deathphoenix 15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalek/m3u[edit]

links to 3 ogg files uploaded on wikipedia Melaen 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the reasons of the article's existence are [[40]]. it should be the list contained on a .m3u file, I don't know if the page is really needed but itcould stay --Melaen 17:50, 20 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 speedily deleted as a hoax. Good catch, Sjorford. FCYTravis 05:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Resistance of Calvin Hobbs, Richard Barnstrom[edit]

I call bluff on this one — an unpublished novel that doesn't Google, by an author who doesn't Google, with the rights lost in a fire, and a title suspiciously similar to a popular long-running comic strip. I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong with actual references, but I won't hold my breath. — sjorford (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Barnstrom Does not Google. Does not appear in an author search in Georgetown University Library. Appears to be fictitious author of fictitious book The Resistance of Calvin Hobbs which is up for deletion Fightindaman 20:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merged debate follows

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

The result of the debate was userfied as creator's is User:Cadmaniak. howcheng {chat} 18:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Cadman[edit]

Delete - this person is not famous GriffenMac 17:40, 20 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 09:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriella_scale[edit]

I nominated this because I cannot find a single reference for this on google or any other service...cannot find any connection between person mentioned and Cadbury...either pure nonsense or HIGHLY insignificant. User who created article is a first time editor, whose only contribution has been this article and mention of the "gabriella scale" on the chocolate page. Suggest deletion unless creator can come up with significant references. Phantasmo 17:56, 20 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pepsi Moon Glasses[edit]

unencyclopedic merchandising item Melaen 18:00, 20 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sententia[edit]

made in school Melaen 18:16, 20 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 09:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trumpo[edit]

Non-notable search engine. Reads like an ad. Was written by Trumpo tattona. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:18, 20 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.
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was speedy rediect and merge. —Geni 00:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nosairi[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion but does not qualify. Reason below is copied from Talk:Nosairi. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article should be deleted, since the subject is already covered (and better so) in the article "alawite". also, the page name is considered pejorative by alawis. Arre 18:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, I have seperated the alawis and nosairi needlessly. It looks like the nosairi have become much more insisten upon their islamness. Most descriptions I have read about the nosairi have been from older sources, and this has made it seem as if the two are entirely different sects. So, yes, this entry should be deleted.Nygdan1-20-2006


This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot (likely outcome: delete). The article was speedy deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Free George Jackson[edit]

Nonsense page. Delete. Pentasyllabic 18:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Above user, creator of the Free George Jackson article and likely the same person as John locke, has created Chris Caunce Scandal twice and it was deleted both times. Even if it was a real event, as Ruby said, there's no article to merge it into. --Pentasyllabic 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This blog entry was copied into the Brookside article under the heading 'The Brookside Story', but the two edits by 82.12.31.253 that introduced this have since been reverted because it's a straight copy/paste, and is not in keeping with the encyclopaedic entry. -TonyW 13:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise, this is a reference to a UK soap opera promotion, not a real world, nor encyclopedically significant entry, hence this article should be deleted.—LeFlyman 19:25, 22 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 09:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rapuncula[edit]

made in school see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sententia Melaen 19:09, 20 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 speedily deleted. Mushroom 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wbsa[edit]

Seems like a non-notable student organization. Nothing links here, and the article says: WBSA members are invited to share their views and edit the page accordingly. Which sounds like the article is intended to be something the 'pedia is not. -- Egil 19:13, 20 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 exemplary delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exemplary[edit]

An exemplary example of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Transwiki to Wiktionary if possible Lukas 19:19, 20 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. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will McWhinney, Jr.[edit]

An article about a single member of a local chapter of the Sierra Club. Nowhere near notable enough for an encyclopedia article, and just barely not a candidate to speedy. Delete. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 19:25, 20 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 09:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mofunzone (second nomination)[edit]

This article was deleted by a previous AFD, but has been recreated by User:Jasonblake69. I am re-listing it because only two people weighed in on the previous AFD, and one of the reasons to delete was "not a vanity page but an attack on the web site's business practices". I think this page should be deleted because it has no claim to notability or importance other than "ranked 23rd of the Top 50 Favourite Sites among wired youth in Canada", which is not exactly convincing. silsor 19:28, 20 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 09:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Halo[edit]

Delete A Halo fansite run by a 13 year old? Completely non noteable. It doesn't even get on the first page of google when you search it. Differentgravy 19:38, 20 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. -Doc ask? 00:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin (magician)[edit]

The Aladin article was nominated for deletion on 01/01/06 and January 11 2006. The result of the discussions were keep and No consensus, respectively. An archived record of these discussions can be found here and here.

The first "keep" vote was based on this version of the article, which turned out to be full of nonverifiable facts (a wikipedically correct way to say it was full of lies).

After the artcle was stripped down to what is verifiable, the second "no consensus" vote was the result of some people thinking it would be smart not to delete the article, but make it into a redirect to Aladdin. Since I am insisting on a real deletion of the article , after a small revert war and an exchange of insults (I am sorry I got myself dragged into it) I moved aladin to aladin (magician) and now initiating a new vote.

Note to closing admin: The voting section below is filled with sockpuppets, meatpuppets and strawman sockpuppets. Close at your own risk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Besides two new users voting delete, I see only experienced editors here. Your alarmist comment is unwarranted and should be removed. -- JJay 15:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're correct. My comment should read as it now stands. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever makes you happy. I doubt that an admin needs your help though. -- JJay 15:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that I do not need yours. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: User account created 2 January 2006, and entered the Aladin discussion within ~36 hours. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Phantasmo account created 3 January 2006, entered deletion discussions (Saugeen Stripper) immediately. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. User's second edit. -- JJay 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: account created 2 January 2006, entered deletion discussions (Cindy the Dolphin) immediately. Elonka 02:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes ur right. Without the sockpuppets in the last vote, the out come would have 15-5 in favour of keep rather than 19-5. Englishrose 21:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The information is sourced from National Geographic Channel [50]. May I ask why you believe that National Geographic is not a reputable source? Elonka 22:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was not "National Geographic", which was source; it was aladin's braggadoccio: "works as a global management strategist". sheesh! I called myself something like that when I was jobless. Mukadderat 22:57, 23 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Brown[edit]

This was previously nominated, and closed as keep, though I think it deserves revisiting. Most of the keep votes last time seem to be centered on him being in the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame. What wasn't made clear to everyone is that the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame is little more than a website; it has no physical presence, and cannot in any way be compared to halls of fame along the lines of the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame or the Baseball Hall of Fame (all of whose inductees would certainly qualify for an article). The real kicker is that I can only find one relevent google when I searched for "lauren Brown" "lawrence welk" -wikipedia (the first two hits are the only ones that seem to be him, and they're both from the same site, the Nebraska Music Hall of Fame). "Lauren brown" trombone got me 234 hits, but I didn't see any other ones that seemed to be him. Perhaps a redirect would work for this guy, but I'm not sure where to. Hundreds of people must have played with Lawrence Welk; maybe they can all be listed in an article somewhere. -R. fiend 19:37, 20 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 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Lippman[edit]

This page appears to be a bio of a not so notable photographer. However, it has been here since May so perhaps it is better to put it here rather than mark it for a speedy delete. James084 19:56, 20 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. Punkmorten 13:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel James Malik[edit]

Empty after being created last night. I went with this over speedy in case he does decide to make some attempt to justify it today. Fightindaman 20:10, 20 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 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Kim Edmonds"[edit]

Notability in question. I did a google search of the name with words like "British Columbia" and "Canadian" and "political" and got scant results, some of which didn't seem to refer to the Edmonds is question. Article doesn't justify her fame. Esprit15d 20:14, 20 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 09:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks ' n Chicks[edit]

Not notable, google throws up nothing about this event, plus wikipedia isn't for something you made up at school one day. Grandwazir 20:15, 20 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sox Pride[edit]

Commentary which can be summed up with this line:Sox rule, Yankees suck. A definite POV-heavy piece here. ErikNY 20:18, 20 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. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: THIS ONLY DEFAULTS TO KEEP. DO NOT CITE THIS ALONE AS A REASON TO SUPPORT/OPPOSE A MERGE/REDIRECT/WHATEVER. On another note, I think the delete votes here appear to be pretty borderline -- guidelines are guidelines, not policy. Johnleemk | Talk 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cassettes Won't Listen[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:Music Esprit15d 20:27, 20 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 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Mello[edit]

Self-promotion, vanity Lukasz.w 20:34, 20 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 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks 'n Chicks[edit]

It's not nonsense, but it's not notable. Deb 20:36, 20 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 09:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BoastMachine[edit]

The BoastMachine article was apparently created by its sole programmer. Only edits are to this article and to add a link to it from PHP. When assessing notability please keep in mind that software can easily get very many Google hits without being notable, especially if its creator is so keen on free advertising. Delete. — Rory ☺ 00:15, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

  • I have rephrased it now. Do you still dispute POV? --Rrjanbiah 14:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Hiding talk 20:52, 20 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 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of political musicians[edit]

No criteria for why a "musician" would be on this list. Unmaintainable as it is overly broad. Currently lists only two musical groups. And, if nothing else, is improperly named, as a band is not a musician. --Wrathchild (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~Delete. "Political Musicians" is not well-defined, and so cannot be used as a category.Cdcon 21:21, 20 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. It would be good to transwiki to Commons, too. :) - Mailer Diablo 09:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riverboat (images)[edit]

Wikipedia isn't an image gallery. These images are all in Riverboat. dbenbenn | talk 21:09, 20 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 09:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2005 World Championships in Athletics - Men's Javelin[edit]

This article contains similar information as the article 2005 World Championships in Athletics. I'm not sure why the Javelin throw would require it's own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James084 (talk • contribs) After reading the Keep votes here I find myself in agreement for the reasons behind keeping the article. I would withdraw my nomination to delete. James084 02:38, 21 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 09:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coto (comic books artist)[edit]

I haven't been able to find any information to expand, nor verify, the information already here. Any other offers? Hiding talk 21:23, 20 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 and move to Badmash.org. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 01:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badmash[edit]

Appears to be non-notable, fails the guidelines at WP:WEB, I can turn up 117 google hits, nothing jumps out as being a reliable source. Hiding talk 21:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, non-notable webcomic. Fails WP:WEB -- coverage by an extremely minor, likely unreliable online zine does not mean "has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works." -- Dragonfiend 17:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Ganeshk and his verifiable, reliable sources cited below. The article still needs some expansion based on those sources, of course. -- Dragonfiend 01:45, 25 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 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daggrr[edit]

Non-notable indie musician's vanity page. The only information in the article was added by "Daggrr" himself. I'd suggest Army Of Robots for deletion, too, but I think musical groups are at least slightly more encyclopedic than their frontmen. Of course, this one falls very close to the threshold of notability, if not below it. --Quuxplusone 21:45, 20 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rude Mechanicals[edit]

This is a theatre company out of Washington D.C.; however, the article fails to show any notability. James084 21:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the Washington, D.C. area (specifically, Laurel, Maryland, which is also noted); their official website is listed at the bottom of the page (http://www.rudemechanicals.com) and their listing at PotomacStages.com is also noted. What other notation is needed?Scarletsmith 21:58, 20 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Air asterisks[edit]

The subject is a neologism, with little evidence of any widespread usage. Delete Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:53, 20 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 since AfD is a debate, I'm glad to pronounce this a keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. Deutsch[edit]

Pointless DAB page. We dont have B. Deutsch, or M. Smith, etc. Delete :: Supergolden 21:58, 20 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 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jsquery[edit]

software ad . Melaen 22:00, 20 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 nuked from orbit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 22:39, Jan. 20, 2006

Robert Collings[edit]

Non-notable person, as per WP:Bio  (aeropagitica)  22:08, 20 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 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cain[edit]

Non-notable person, as per WP:Bio. Text can live on user's own page, if required. Not necessary for WP article.  (aeropagitica)  22:27, 20 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben schenk[edit]

Non-notable actor. Imdb has him listed as having only one role, Tiger #3, in a tv show called Tiger Cruise. See [52] NoIdeaNick 22:32, 20 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 09:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert D. Cain[edit]

Delete non-notable bio. This user also created Robert Cain and Rob Cain. There apparently is a famous Robert Cain according to the article Cains but its a different person Bill 22:36, 20 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 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

American College of Medical Technology[edit]

Minor diploma mill. Notable only for being a "problem school", and even then, just barely. Another non-notable from our most prolific creator of articles on non-notables. FeloniousMonk 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence that this is a diploma mill? --Jason Gastrich 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I don't think they are going to be very happy with their profile - I just found out that the founder was not head of the reaosnably substantial American X-Ray Corporation, the company cited (American X-Ray) is most likely to be a small business in Jackson, CA called American X-Ray Supplies - a supplies distributor. Someone with Dun & Bradstreet access could perhaps verify this. There is no website for any American X-Ray Company which lists Donald Harrison as having been owner at any time. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The government doesn't accredit anybody. A.J.A. 05:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Government doesn't accredit schools. Try reading up on it next time: School_accreditation. FeloniousMonk 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Holds national accreditation from the government" and is "a notable university?" Neither of those things is true, which shows once again that someone around here has no idea what he's "talking" about. - WarriorScribe 06:20, 24 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 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cain[edit]

Delete non-notable bio. This user also created Robert Cain and Robert D. Cain. There apparently is a famous Robert Cain according to the article Cains but its a different person. Bill 22:40, 20 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 09:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing (tentantive title)[edit]

videogame non notability also tentantive title Melaen 22:43, 20 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 per creator's request. - Mailer Diablo 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Star[edit]

A non-notable message board that I'm having a hard time finding on Google.--Shanel 22:43, 20 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 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Pole Vault[edit]

Created from clicking on a redlink at Athletics, but I can find no independent verification that such an event exists. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:45, 20 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. Ifnord 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ringmail[edit]

Delete. "Ringmail" is a Victorian-era misconception based on bad research of artwork and effigies. There are no textual references nor surviving examples of "ringmail". Sethwoodworth 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an authentic variety of ancient armour, being a variation on Scale armour. The only wrong bit is the lack of reference (I would help but all my quotable ones are French) and let's be clear, the Knights of William the Conqueror, as seen on the Bayeux Tapestry did not wear chainmail haubergeons, but indeed ring and scale brognes, as did their forebears in Merovingian and Carolingian times. --Svartalf 00:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While references in English are preferred on en: Wikipedia, references in other languages are quite acceptable if you can't find English-language ones. They're certainly better than a lack of references. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 03:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(and I'm displacing my earlier bit so as not to be accused of voting twice) --Svartalf 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Keep. I see no reason why even misconceptions cannot find a place in Wikipedia as long as they are notable enough (and properly identified). And I do know that ringmail is widely used in Dungeons and Dragons and other such games e.g. [54]. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also first knew ringmail through D&D, but several college professors of medieval history have told me it existed. Article could definitely use a little cleanup though. Draeco 23:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

""Additional information:"" Ringmail was at one point thought to be an authentic variety of armor, but only in pre-1950's literature. Here's an article with documentation to my point, and I can cite Blair's book specifically if need be. Sethwoodworth 04:37, 21 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 User:Zoe. Punkmorten 12:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. West Coast Team[edit]

not-wikimaterial; friends playing tennis Gopple 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 06:03, 21 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 09:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sreyaas[edit]

Was listed as copyvio, but it seems the original author rewrote it enough to disqualify it. However, it's just advertising. howcheng {chat} 22:56, 20 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 if it's already in the article, there's no point in merging, and the keep rationale is amazingly ludicrous - delete. If anyone wants to make this a redirect, feel free to. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templemore Sports Complex[edit]

Not notable. Seems to a kind of vanity creation advertising a local sports complex. (Was also added to the Derry article FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:14, 20 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pantura-umporn[edit]

Vanity/self-promotion. Editor's name is, well, Pantura-umporn and his user page is a mirror of this article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 23:25, 20 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOD Walk[edit]

Dictdef. Actually, second-order dictdef because it derives from "FOD". Wikipedia is not a dictionary of US Navy slang. FreplySpang (talk) 23:26, 20 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Dichter[edit]

vanity Melaen 23:31, 20 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl crush[edit]

not a notable social science term Ginar 23:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment This is a non-notable popular term. Its content can be included in wiktionary. leaving it in wikipedia will just encourage people to stub it innappropriately.Ginar 23:38, 20 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mobstar[edit]

non notable, npov Melaen 23:38, 20 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 09:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No-Scope[edit]

neologism Melaen 23:39, 20 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