The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCD^e✉ 19:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooley'd[edit]

Nonsense... this isn't urbandictionary! Kareeser|^Talk! 03:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NFT. Utter garbage. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That phenomenon has less to do with Cooley and more to do with quality of service issues. ;-) Ruby 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A6. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unverifiable, non-notable, unstable neologism, i.e. protologism; Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. - Hillel 06:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, utterly non-notable neologism. JIP | Talk 06:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Naconkantari. Only one entry in UrbanDictionary, and even if there are more, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a slang usage guide. SYCTHOS^talk 00:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 an attack page created by user blocked as an impostor. Gamaliel 21:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freespeechstore[edit]

NN website, vanity article... Kareeser|^Talk! 03:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should be deleted, has no real purpose other than tweaking Scoville. Duskglow 03:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Except it's true. Babs Schwartz posts on FSS all the time, unless Scoville is posting as her? Given that he should be at least a footnote under Barbara... Note Bab's is his only real supporter.
  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.196.244.219 (talk • contribs) .

• then make him a footnote under Barbara, and open that can of worms instead. This page has no legitimate purpose, as is obvious by the first cut of the page, which I altered to be a little less inflammatory. Duskglow 03:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alexa 854,212, which is in the gutter by my book. Ruby 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, speedy if possible as non-notable website and partially classifies as an attack page. SYCTHOS^talk 00:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the speedy deletion. And to anonymous commenter above, wikipedia is not a discussion forum. Set up a google group if that's what you want. 71.128.23.212 03:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto. He's even less notable than he is angry and threatening. --maru (talk) contribs 17:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, without shame. -- Andy Saunders 21:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow others affected by a true internet k00k to discuss their experiences. Anyone favoring deletion has no idea what Scoville and the freespeechstore have done to many innocent people. THey should be ashamed of themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rscoville (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kurt Copeland Show[edit]

Delete Vanity ad about a two-month-old podcast. Vslashg 03:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Podcasting is about as notable as my pet rock was in September of '75. Ruby 03:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Nom. Maybe later. – Hillel 06:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  08:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:56, 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 redirect to Asus. - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asus w3[edit]

A single minor computer line is not sufficiently notable for a separate mention. This can easily be merged into Asus. Superm401 - Talk 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect -- and merge anything useful into ASUS - Longhair 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect — Looks like somebody bought a w3 and wants to tell the world. =P Kareeser|^Talk! 03:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect in order to prevent this article from being recreated.  (aeropagitica)  08:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect --Terence Ong 11:58, 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 00:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Bane[edit]

Google has never heard of this person, nothing leads me to believe this is anything but WP:BALLS. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 03:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as hoax. Bunch of nonsense. — TheKMan^talk 03:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It reads like some strange Livejournal entry. ^{Don't fear the Reaper} 03:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even if it's true, being the wife of an athlete is no big deal. Ruby 03:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think that this is WP:BALLS but it does appear to be unverifiable. Can the author not say what the subject's outstanding achievements in track and field were? What sort and how notable is her reportage?  (aeropagitica)  08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. She's 20 years and seven months old. The claim that she is a "journalist and writer for many newspapers such as the New York Times" is far beyond dubious. StarryEyes 09:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity or hoax. --Terence Ong 12:18, 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. -- RHaworth 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todesfaust[edit]

Seems nn, top google his is their myspace. Was listed under WP:CSD, which I felt it didn't fall under, so I'm listing it here. Therefore, I abstain. Greg Asche (talk) 03:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable band. --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete CSD A7, "Only a demo, East of Eden, has been released" Ruby 04:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: I listed under CSD. Doesn't even assert WP:BAND but a quick investigation reveals it doesn't meet it anyway. Only demo releases for this fledgling band. And half the band left anyway. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Ruby, tagging as such -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:15, 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 per A7. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silencer (band)[edit]

• Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one full-length album before breaking up(?). Therefore, this doesn't adhere to two-album rule in WP:BAND. Allmusic.com has some bands named Silencer but I don't think this article matches any of them. Amazon has just the one album. Article attempts to assert its notability or else I would have WP:SD. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only numbers the article gives for sales is 50 copies in one case and 200 in another. Ruby 04:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Terence Ong 12:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete ((nn-band)). Stifle 16:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Mushroom 16:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 02:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter of Apokalypse[edit]

• Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one full-length CD instead of the two required to satisfy to WP:BAND. Allmusic.com and Amazon have only the one album. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Article attempts to assert the band's notability or else I would have speedied. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if former member Lustmord is the one-and-only Lustmord, but delete if its another Lustmord. Ruby 04:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is one of a zillion little black metal bands that got started in 1999. Lustmord has been doing electronic music since the early 80s. I'm guessing the chances of them being related is about 1% (unless Lustmord is one of this band's members' father). Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thy Infernal + Winter of Apokalypse = WP:MUSIC. --Rob 05:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I assume you're referring to Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise extremely notable. Note the phrase "extremely notable". Thy Infernal is extremely notable?! I don't think Thy Infernal would even survive Afd so how can they be extremely notable? They don't even have an article here or else maybe I'd vote to redirect there. Actually, I would vote Weak Delete on Thy Infernal and Winter of Apokalypse combined. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the two together as one topic. I wouldn't make a stand-alone article on either band alone. I think one band name, should redirect to the other (e.g. old band, to this new band name). The phrase "extremely notable", in context, is necessary if you want *separate* artices for each band/group/person (as opposed to a merge). Combined they are a keep. --Rob 05:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So really you don't vote to Keep. Proposal: if you create a decent Thy Infernal page, then we can both change our votes to Merge to Thy Infernal. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would you merge to the older band. I never said Thy Infernal was more notable. I said, that combined, they are collectively sufficiently notable. Given the current name is Winter of Apokalypse, that's probably where info on both belongs. Thy Infernal is now a redirect. Also, I've been able to add a few links, but it will take a person much more knowledgeable of this "music scene" to write substantial content (My next expansion of a musicians article will be for a pop star, not "black metal"). Even though I think the article meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines, I won't mind if it gets deleted. --Rob 14:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm just doing math - Thy Infernal released two full lengths (in fact, I've even heard one of them) and this band has only one. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 05:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete ((nn-band)) Stifle 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a speedy at all. The CD release, plus former members of a prior band, which may together qualify as WP:MUSIC is sufficient to consider this matter, without a speedy. Speedies are for cases where something is likely unconested (outsite of original creator). --Rob 16:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per Rob. Kappa 16:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfsschanze (band)[edit]

• Delete: Non-notable band. Only released one short EP and a couple demos which doesn't adhere to the two-full-length-album rule in WP:BAND. No mentions on allmusic.com or Amazon. Official website is currently down. Article attempts to assert the band's notability or else I would have speedied. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wknight94. Ruby 04:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wknight94 and also per verifiability. - squibix 17:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as ((nn-band)). Stifle 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Mushroom 16:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Punkmorten 17:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheople[edit]

This is just a glossary entry for a slang term. There's already a Wiktionary entry for this. Just not encyclopedic. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC). Redirect per Thesquire, below. Should have done my research.  :) Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Sheeple, which has already withstood an AfD. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Thesquire. Ruby 04:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merged & Redirected I hope that's okay 24.85.83.170 06:16, 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 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capital (magazine)[edit]

This artical should be deleted.
Wikipedia is not a phone book

Delete, completely not notable; a cursory Google reveals only 419 hits for ' "Capital magazine" Dublin ', and none of the first 30 refer to this magazine. --Andy Saunders 04:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP is not a rolodex. Ruby 04:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby. Stifle 16:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. incog 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Chatter[edit]

Dicdef at best Ezeu 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is no different from Broadcast chatter which does not have an article. Ruby 05:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lockley 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete podcruft/dicdef/neologism/etc. no potential for expansion. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:53, Jan. 26, 2006
• Delete - per nom. non-notable, boring -- Femmina 07:59, 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 Keep. - Bobet 16:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mostafa Abdel Moity[edit]

Possible Vanity Page JaManna 04:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Vanity Page JaManna 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Asserts he helped found a "school" of painting called the Experimental Group in 1958, which would be a genre like cubism or pointillism. Ruby 05:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an assertion that is not necessarily true, do a web search to see if such a group exists or not. JaManna 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you're the nominator, you give me something more than "possible vanity page" Ruby 05:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• He is an artist living in Egypt, but there is not such thing as "The Experimental group" and if so, they had no visible effect on Art neither in Egypt nor the World; to make this poerson wikiworthy.

• Speedy keep. Not vanity. Likely bad faith nom as this was nominators first ever wikipedia edit. --Ezeu 05:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is a first edit automatically considered by you to be bad faith? JaManna 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...because it takes a while for most people to master the three-stage AfD process! Ruby 05:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not ture, I was browsing the list of Artists, and I found many names that were on the list that didnt belong there, and I kept the ones that have had a true impact on Art like Gazebeya Serry ... The Three Afds are in place, because the artists in question are possible just promoting themselves. JaManna 05:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bolshevik meter is going off the scale. Most people try their hand at making small changes to articles they know about, then maybe write a stub from scratch to see if they have learned the wiki tags. NO ONE executes a technically flawless AfD as their first edit ever. Ruby 05:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Egyptian born in 1938 is not likely to be writing vanity pages on Wikipedia. He could, but it is not likely – hence my assumption that your motivation for having this article deleted is bad faith. That your first ever edit on wikipedia is to nominate an article for deletion merely stenthened my assumption. And I also spent a few minutes on google. --Ezeu 05:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Ezeu. Wisco 05:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If the article's facts are true/verifiable, he meets the notability guideline criteria as a longtime professor of art. I'd suggest that the nominator review those criteria. -Ikkyu2 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • notability guideline criteria Quote from the page "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." I don't think that just because he was a professor of Art he could be considered wiki-notable. 82.201.212.220 07:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about: Vice Minister of Culture, Director of the Egyptian Academy in Rome, recipient of the State Appreciation Award and more.--Ezeu 07:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was simply asserting that he passes the "professor test" mentioned on that same page. Don't bite. -Ikkyu2 20:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quote from the page you mentioned; "He becomes member of the World Congress of Contemporary Art in Venice, in 1985, and is elected Vice President the same year. He occupied the post of Head of the Egyptian Academy in Rome in 1988." Anyone can be a member of a Congress, by either paying fees or getting his office to pay them for him, I don't know where you got vice-minister of culture from! Also, a government Job for a year, doesn't make you an outstanding international figure. JaManna 07:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look what it did for George W. Bush. Now, sir; you are overly contentious. Pray keep a more civil tongue in your head. Ikkyu2 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Examples of the artist's work are easy to find (here, for instance: http://www.zamalekartgallery.com/en_exhibition.php?exhibitionID=53&artistID=13&availiable=). Let's all play nice, don't forget to assume good faith, don't bite the newbies. --Lockley 06:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Among other things, he was Commissioner for the Egyptian pavilion at the Venice Biennale 2003.[6][7] Clearly an important person in Egyptian art. u p p l a n d 08:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clear evidence multifactorially (Google, links as above) of his contributions to Egyptian art -- Samir Grover 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hideous art, but notable artist. What's the correct spelling of his name, though? --Agamemnon2 13:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I disagree, I like his work, but I don't consider it to be "important" art ... what he does, people like [| Miro] had done before him and with much greater effect
• Keep per Ruby. --Andy Saunders 19:42, 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 Sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Stifle 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rabab Nemr[edit]

Bad Page + Vanity JaManna 05:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Collected works in many exhibitions and museums. Ruby 05:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if keep, then the article must be made wikiworthyJaManna 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are wikiworthy when they are signed Ruby 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we talking about the article or me? JaManna 05:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Not vanity. Likely bad faith nom.--Ezeu 05:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A conspiracy theorist :). JaManna 05:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The advanced degree, list of exhibitions and departmental positions suggest this person is at least as notable as the median professor of art. -Ikkyu2 06:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep but in any case, I have tagged the page as a copyvio MNewnham 23:04, 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. The two keeps were made based on the possible motives of the nominator while the six valid deletes were made based on the merits of the article. --Deathphoenix 02:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragai Karas[edit]

Vanity, non-existant artist JaManna 05:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd like to point out that this artist scores around a hundred hits on Google, so what exactly does the nominator mean by non-existant artist? (That being said, not being listed on Google doesn't mean you don't exist either.) — Hillel 06:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously not Notabl
• Weak keep - not a great article, but the nominator somehow knew how to execute three syntactically perfect AfD's in a row as his or her first edits on Wikipedia, which suggests the nominator has been here before and might be doing this from ulterior motives. Ruby 05:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been here before to understand how wikipedia works, but first time I do any editting and that is why I registered. And by the way, thanks for calling My First attempts "perfect" ... Obviously you are not so objective, you are voting to keep a lousy article based on the fact that for some reason you don't like me JaManna 07:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete CSD A7. The article asserts, in toto: guy has a bachelor's degree and paints in watercolor. This isn't notable. -Ikkyu2 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable.--Ezeu 07:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't judge whether to keep or delete based on the nominator's edit history. Judge on the article's merits. This is obvious vanity. StarryEyes 09:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I suspect a bad-faith nomination. Nominator Jamanna's only activity on Wikipedia has been to nominate several Egyptian artists for deletion today, and some of the other ones seemed entirely unfounded, bordering on the speedy keep. Until shown otherwise, I would recommend to give the benefit of the doubt to the article, not to the nomination. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I am just someone who knows about the Art Scene in Egypt, and this Artist is simply not notable at all. The other two I nominated are more notable, but Mostafa Abdelmoati is not notable enough, and Rabab Nemr, in addition to not being of enough significance to the Art World has a rather weak page. JaManna 07:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bad faith nomination doesn't make Karas any more notable Ncsaint 12:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable. --Terence Ong 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Work does not seem to appear in any reputable collection MNewnham 22:58, 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 01:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economic abortionism[edit]

Orphaned article, no references. All google hits I could find seemed to be derived from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm plugged into what they are saying on Err America and I haven't heard this. Ruby 05:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism rule, recreate it over at Wiktionary if needed. Calwatch 05:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. If there was a verifiable citation that could be added that proved this term had entered debate in a notable way - i.e., in a periodical circulation > 5000, or on a major TV or radio show, or used repeatedly by a notable author, I'd change my vote. But examining the article history makes that seem unlikely. -Ikkyu2 06:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Unless verified, per Ikkyu2. I have heard this point expressed, but not the term. Logophile 09:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tony. Proto t c 11:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologistic, personal essay. Marskell 13:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism. --Terence Ong 14:06, 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 all. *sigh* --Deathphoenix 02:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges[edit]

Seems to be a list of nn locations Wiki is not. Makemi 05:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how to add all the subpages the same user added, so that each doesn't have to be "voted" on separately? Makemi 05:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, there are like a million and one of these, and some of them are pretty old. I've added a bunch, but there are a bunch more. I'm not sure why these have stayed this long. The organisation may be notable, but certainly listing every single lodge in the country isn't appropriate. Here's what else I've nominated under this so far. Makemi 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• List of BSA local councils and districts in Georgia
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Georgia
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Delaware
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Connecticut
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Colorado
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in California
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Arkansas
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Arizona
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Alaska
• List of BSA Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges in Alabama

I've nominated the rest of them. I don't think it's necessary to list them all here -- just use "what links here" or look at List of BSA local Order of the Arrow (OA) lodges. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-26 08:47Z

• Delete per nom. Ruby 05:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (change mine to merge into history-by-state) as we are merging and codifying these as part of ScoutingWikiProject. Chris 05:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the end result supposed to look like? I am happy to change my vote if you can show me that this will produce something that will be okay with WP:NOT a directory. Kusma (討論) 06:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are working at turning the corresponding Council list into histories of Scouting by U.S. State, which will be a long process, as I've heard there are are a lot of states. ;) Chris 08:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you should create articles about History of scouting in California, not directory-style lists. If these lists help you to do the work, they should be in project space, not article space. Kusma (討論) 13:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Kusma makes a good point, the Scouting project can use the info, but I have to admit it'd be better if it weren't a bunch of short lists.Rlevse 20:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am going to take each state list and add to each existing article (e.g., Scouting in Alabama), especially the GA and FL, which are more than just lists. I am new at this, and my only concern is that the authors for GA and FL don't lose where they went. Go ahead and delete, I have copied them so I didn't lose them before I had a chance to merge them. May take me a couple of days. Robhmac 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all these pages. One external link on Order of the Arrow to [8] is sufficient and should be more useful than this massive collection of non-articles. Kusma (討論) 05:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all the list pages - as it currently stands, these lists will never be able to be anything other than directories. If individual lodges are notable enough, they might be worth mentioning as part of their council's articles (assuming the council is notable enough on its own). Possibly creating Area/Section articles may be more appropriate for such grouping attempts, as more can be said about larger groups. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Compare this to the jillions of cricket articles that eventually get incorporated into something more realistic. - Jaysus Chris 06:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Certainly nice to see my old lodge up there, but WP:NOT a directory. -Rebelguys2 06:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to a better category? Sorry, I'm new as this. I just added 40+ states to a pretty stagnant page. Didn't mean to create such a discussion, or make so many edits. Overwrote an AFD when I finished one page. Instead of deleting, could it be turned into a specific category?? Speaking of directories, Wiki is the best place to look up, for example, TV episode guides. Robhmac 06:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm personally inclined to keep all of the OA lodge lists, but I really don't see them becoming more than just giant lists. (and my lodge isn't listed)(found it!) A link to the http://www.oasections.com website on the Order of the Arrow article seems like a better idea. — TheKMan^talk 07:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft, unencyclopedic. External link from OA article should be good enough. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-26 08:34Z
• Delete. I previously voted to keep one of these lists, but on closer look I think its better delete them. They are just too too cluttery. If any of the listed lodges are notable enough to have articles written about them, categorize them instead – that is what categories are for. --Ezeu 09:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ncsaint 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Categorize or delete I agree with Ezeu, and I added most of the pages to the four states that where there at first. Any volunteers to categorize?. Robhmac 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. WP is not a directory. --kingboyk 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOT a data dump. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete all except List of BSA local councils and districts in Georgia (councils should be wikified and deserve artcles e.g. Aloha Council) --Jiang 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete every single one. Wikipedia is not a directory, they're highly unlikely to be searched for, and they are list articles which appear to be of use to only a very limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 08:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wiki is not. --Brian1979 22:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 ratio of valid keeps to deletes is 1:2. --Deathphoenix 02:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godawful fan fiction[edit]

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

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 135,274. [9] 6,160 Google hits. [10] NoIdeaNick 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Who cares? Non-notable. -Ikkyu2 06:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Godawful is the first notable website on the net that elivered negative views and reviews on fanfiction, it even predates the creation of Fanfiction.net.
• Delete per nom. Makemi 06:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while I agree that fanfiction is Godawful, so is their alexa ranking and overall relevancy -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  08:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Knowing the original sources and the reasoning behind some things, such as "snarking" may be useful for people who do not know what a snark is, and also can reduce "chinese wispers". Kopilo 09:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A huge, whopping total of 11 sites link to it! Confusing Manifestation 11:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. You know, I don't think people volunteer their stuff to be made laughing stocks of, so surely that's an attack website? --Agamemnon2 13:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the members of GAFF post their own works and ideas on GAFF "to be laughed at". Kopilo 10:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable website. Also inaccurate, as it implies there's fan-fiction that isn't god-awful. Lord Bob 21:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is Lord Bob's opinion that all fan fiction is God Awful and is not stated in the fan fiction artical on Wikipedia that it is. Kopilo 10:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User:Kopilo does not exist, comment was made by User:203.59.2.35 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The site has been noticed by several news publications. I have added the links to the article. SCharon 22:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • User's second edit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick glance shows that the notice in the Guardian and New York Times articles is just that: a notice. It's a list of webpages related to fan fiction and this site is on the list, neither more nor less important than most of the others. Merely 'being in the paper', in the opinion of many, does not confer notability. Lord Bob 23:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Fan fiction. Radiant_>|< 22:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a notable website within the fanfiction and livejournal community. It predates fanfiction.net itself, is the father of fanfiction snarking (once a niche in the Internet, now a common occurrence), and has been mentioned in numerous publications both on and off the web. Wikipedia has articles on communities that were arguably inspired by, or are outright 'spin-offs' from GAFF. It fully deserves an article of its own. There is no logical reason to delete it - not being personally interested in the subject matter is not a logical reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.168.160 (talk • contribs)
• Keep. It's the oldest, if not the most infamous, website of it's kind. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Godawful Fan Fiction (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • WP:VAIN anyone? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is a notable website and a rather balanced article, and there is no real reason why it should be deleted. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 64.42.105.124 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The "attack" concept is misguided. The point of the site is to allow people healthy release so that when they do give criticism to authors, it's constructive rather than destructive. Telling authors that their work is being attacked on GAFF is frowned upon by the community. In addition, it has moved more into a "general" discussion forum for other things that could be godawful (websites, movies, novels, popular trends, etc.).Spotts1701 03:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Whatever else you think of it, GAFF IS an important piece of the history of 'fan fiction', as it was one of the first places of its kind. It deserves a place here. Ghost 05:29, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's third edit -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you're going after "non-notable" articles, there are far more to start with than this one. Google and Alexa ratings are not the sole determination of whether something is worthy of study, especially when you don't use the right search queries for the job. As per your own guidelines, "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia [...] Lack of fame is not the same as vanity." Aside from that, Squire seems to have a grudge. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 72.139.233.217 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No grudges, I just occasionally like to help out the admins during meatpuppet outbreaks. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note on Meatpuppet Attack: their forums are having a mild discussion on the deletion merits of this article (free registration required), which explains where all these anonymous and new chappies are coming from. While this doesn't seem to be calling out the vote, it is clearly, intentionally or not, acting as a magnet to draw keep votes from members of their forum. Also, I get called an idiot. Hee hee. Lord Bob 18:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You'd be surprised the kind of influence that site has had - both negative and positive - in a large section of the fanfiction subculture, notably and especially on the largest fanfiction archive on the net, FanFiction.Net itself. With thousands of members, though, most of whom have at least a cursory familiarity with fanfiction (if not actively reading and/or writing it on a frequent basis), that should not be surprising. Plus: it was actually reviewed in the New York Times (positively, I might add), as part of an article on fanfiction. A special mention in an article from the New York Times is not "merely being in the paper", I'd say.

Lord Bob: you were labeled by one user as that precisely because you are letting your bias seep in - and rather obviously, at that, as it ("Also inaccurate, as it implies there's fan-fiction that isn't god-awful") was clearly an opinion, not fact. "Non-notable" is certainly up for debate, it seems, but "all fanfiction is godawful" is PURE opinion. Additionally, had you read the entire page in question, you would had noticed that it does not "imply" anything about the quality of fanfiction in general, it merely states that Godawful Fan Fiction was the first site dedicated to mocking badly-written fan fiction, and is a source of controversy in the fanfiction community. As such, I'd say it deserves a mention, if obscure comic books (such as Zodiac P.I.) deserve one. There are plenty of things that are less "notable" than the subject of this entry, and it seems to be quite balanced and neutral. Again - I vote keep, at least for now. Runa27

It was a joke. If I thought that all fanfiction sites should be deleted, I'd have put fanfiction.net up long ago. While stating such an opinion in serious form would be...stating an opinion...this was an obvious opportunity for light-hearted humour. I have in fact written bad Star Wars fan fiction in the past, for what that's worth. For that matter, even if I did hate all fanfiction, I'm not stupid enough to think that's a deletion criteria. I think Scientology is stupid and I wouldn't vote to delete that. Lord Bob 00:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. That Alexa ranking is actually not that bad and there's something to be said for being that old a website on this topic. Article is not horrible. The meatpuppets are also unusually articulate and on topic :) - Haukur 02:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as godawful. Influenced by sock/meatpuppets. Stifle 16:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepas I've seen to many people with personal vendetas against certain Websites (IE: Stardestroyer.net) force articles into deleetion simply on the grounds of not liking either their methodologies, or policies. It is utterly assinine, and is a behavior that is being repeated here. Majin Gojira 21:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that I personally only nominated this page because wikipedia is not a web directory. I certainly don't have any agenda against fan fiction. The only question at hand is whether and internet forum with 3,200 members deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia. If there were a consensus in favor of including such sites, I would not have nominated the article. I wouldn't have any problem with the page being turned into a redirect to fan fiction, as per Radiant. I also wouldn't have a problem with the page being merged into another article, if anything worthy of mention can be found. The problem is that almost all of the information, when sourced, is sourced to godawful fan fiction itself. I think UncleG summed it up pretty well in a recent comment on the talk page of WP:WEB. See Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)#Alexa rankings. NoIdeaNick 21:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As has been noted, the website is well-known and has been around for quite some time. -GG Crono
  • If Cassandra_Claire gets one, then hell, why not "an internet forum with 3,200 members?"
• I've reconsidered this a bit, and while I'm not sure that an article on this subject has a place in Wikipedia, after considering what else is out there in Wikipedia I'd rather take the cautious route and keep the article, at least for now. I know that people want to remove "cruft" from Wikipedia, but if there are enough people who find the article useful, we ought to be careful about our decision. And plus, I'd think that if there can be an article on each and every Pokemon, then we can be pretty liberal about what we let in Wikipedia, as long as the articles are well sourced and not vanity. NoIdeaNick 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most of the reasons given against it are assinine and even goes against Wiki's standards. Last time I checked, googling and checking hits wasn't the sole determining factor of keeping pages, not to mention the senriority and overall influence it's had on large fanfiction communities. Claude 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Gain[edit]

The content of the article appears to be not verifiable. As far as I can tell "Learning Gain" is not a theory (psychological or otherwise) that has been published in an academic source. Nesbit 06:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete Delete — This article claims to be about some so-called Learning Gain Theory that has zero hits on Google. I'm not a fan of the Google test but in this case its really too obvious. — Hillel 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What CSD are you claiming this falls under? As much as I'd like to speedy this, I can't find a justification. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right. 1. I thought at first this qualified as a hoax, but hoaxes are no candidates for speedy deletion, and 2. I now realize this is more probably WP:OR. Changed my vote to Delete. — Hillel 06:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Doesn't quite make sense. Same author as 'Relative Time' which I listed for AfD below --Lockley 06:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sort of a mini-essay. Ruby 03:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forkheads[edit]

Non-notable website. Alexa ranking of 464,635. [11] About 12,000 google hits but the vast majority seem not to refer to this website. NoIdeaNick 06:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vslashg 06:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, website vanity, poor Alexa rank, no significance explained. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article talks about them being kicked off a host for being naughty, so lets kick the article off of this host. Ruby 03:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ruby. Stifle 16:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relative Time[edit]

Delete. This brief explanation of the theory of relativity falls somewhat short of encyclopedic. We could merge to Relativity but better to delete, I think. Lockley 06:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this garbage. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There's nothing here worth merging. Vslashg 06:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Relativity. No point in merging. -Ikkyu2 06:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• And the time is near to Delete this. Nothing here worth merging. Redirect is good. Rewrite (if it must be merged) is good too. Jawz 06:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Relativity. - Ø tVaughn05 ^talk_contribs
• Delete as well-intentioned but useless and inaccurate.Ben Kidwell 16:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As this is not what time dilation in relativity is, please do not merge. I don't think that a redirect would be helpful, since it seems to me that a reader wanting to look up something on relativity would most likely use "relativity" as the search term. Doctor Whom 22:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bad bad article, relatively speaking. Ruby 04:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep / withdrawn by nominator, article is moving in the right direction, initial concerns no longer apply --W.marsh 15:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shallow water blackout[edit]

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. W.marsh 06:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can the author prove it is his own work? This PDF contains the text and says The following article was published by Swim SA in the February/March 2004 “sa swimmer”. The article was originally copied from the internet. But the PDF don't have the pics so it is not a copyvio from the PDF. -- RHaworth 06:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Recreation of deleted article, per WP:CSD G4 See Block Log: Shallow water blackout --Lightdarkness 07:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the speedy delete - W.marsh who did that delete now accepts the repost and has brought the article here. -- RHaworth 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Good enough for me :-) --Lightdarkness 07:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion and weirdness, I should have pointed out in the nomination I decided this should come to AfD (and restored the deleted version, though I don't think there were any differences). --W.marsh 07:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep providing not a copyvio, but rewrite slightly as "what happens and why" rather than "how to avoid". The urge to breathe is triggered by high carbon dioxide levels not low oxygen levels is a very encyclopedic fact. We also need an article on Chain-Stokes breathing which is related but happens to mountaineers. -- RHaworth 07:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Primary author. The pdf article referred to in Swim SA you will note is by Jeremy Watson, I am Jeremy Watson and I wrote it for the Northern Territory branch of the Surf Life Saving Association for teaching purposes after two unexplained drownings in Darwin , I expect it will appear multiple elsewheres, I have no idea where, I know it's in the USA. I wrote it because I have not seen a clear explanation elswhere. I am a divemaster. I have now substanitally rewritten this for a different audience, hoping its closer to Wikispeak. Ex nihil 10:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but ((cleanup)) and ((wikify)) as the page needs to be brought up to the WP standards for articles.  (aeropagitica)  08:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Primary author I have rewritten and wikified about as far as I am able. As the original author I think I've about finished with it. Comment welcome. Ex nihil 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is coming along. It is a very important topic--one of the most important on Wikipedia. I have verified it through Google and added a category and external links (not signed in at the time). Logophile 10:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Impressive progress in the past few hours. KrazyCaley 12:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Verifiable, notable. Nice artwork to boot! Ifnord 14:10, 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. --Deathphoenix 03:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawa_Machines[edit]

band does not meet criteria (i wrote the article) Jawamachines 06:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Would be speedy under CSD G7, except that others edited the article, adding templates questioning the notability of the band. Bravo to User:Jawamachines for learning and respecting WP policy. -Ikkyu2 07:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable, but if we can get confirmation that those albums weren't put out by a major label or notable indie, we can speedy it under CSD A7. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bravo, indeed. StarryEyes 09:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn solo artist. Ruby 04:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STPRI Hysteria[edit]

Non notable phenomenon, 9 unique google hits, ones with context appear to be forums and blogs. Delete as unverifiable, non-notable cruft. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:46, Jan. 26, 2006

• Weak Keep as a verifiable example of mass hysteria comparable to Monkey-man of New Delhi. --Lockley 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparable? On a 1:150 scale, maybe. [12]. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:45, Jan. 26, 2006
• Delete - comparable to something not very encyclopedic -- Femmina 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While something akin to the article's description does appear to have happened, this is a minor incident that hardly deserves its own encyclopedic treatment. Eusebeus 11:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The references are all forums and blogs .8 of the 11 references are from the same blog. A further two are exact copies of one of these stories, but then hosted on a different blog (note the reference on the Farshores.org one). I wouldn't really consider these verifiable, and they are not backed up themselves by anything reputable or verifiable. It's supposedly the true story about a couple of students playing a ouija board game that (cough cough) 'led to the calling up of 43,000 djinns' and 'one student being exorcised'. It's teetering on the edge of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT. If it hasn't been made up for Wikipedia, it's been made up somewhere along the line. Proto t c 16:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Proto you've convinced me, thanks for your opinion. There's a difference between describing an incident of collective hysteria, which is valid and encyclopedic, and buying into the premise, i.e. believing in monkeymen and djinns, which is not. That's what I was trying to convey above. --Lockley 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn crap. incog 18:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn made up junk Cptchipjew 02:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-verifiable local incident. --timecop 06:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not encyclopedic, non-notable. *drew 16:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. — TheKMan^talk 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherokee society[edit]

This article fails verifiability and much of its content is verifiably false. Waya sahoni 06:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP - fails WP:V. Some content may be salvagable but must be reviewed by a native Cherokee or reputable Cherokee historian. Appears to be a mixture of various native beliefs. Waya sahoni 06:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this afd. Waya sahoni 07:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The topic has the potential to become a worthwhile article, but needs to be looked over by an expert in the subject and seriously cleaned up. — TheKMan^talk 07:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clean it up, but most of it's content consitutes a POV fork of other articles. Also, much of it is taken from European mythology published in early Cherokee history which does not reflect the true culture. I can take a stab at it, as I am very familiar with Cherokee culture. Waya sahoni 07:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The nominator's confused about the Wikipedia:Deletion policy; articles with "salvagable content" are not referred for deletion. Instead, they are edited for improvement. This article is well laid out, reasonably well wikified, fairly NPOV and cites some references; it should be improved via consensus editing. -Ikkyu2 07:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain the Novel "Gone with the Wind" is well layed out, Wikified, NPOV, and would also meet such a criteria, but its still a fiction Novel. Factual content is probably preffered about the culture, not cult new age theories". Waya sahoni 07:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have cleaned up and verified the information and corrected the bogus writings of this author. Content now matches and complements content in other Cherokee Articles. Waya sahoni 07:58, 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. --Deathphoenix 03:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]