< January 29	January 31 >

January 30[edit]

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

The result of the debate was keep (bad faith nom). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Non-notable, sources irrelevant, including Google.[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image:T2G.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott-MPAA[edit]

Delete The article title itself violates NPOV, and the article body is essentially an appeal to visit this and related websites Bugturd 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete site doesn't seem to have an Alexa rank yet. I disagree that covering a website with a POV is in itself POV, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much advertising for the website, doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 00:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotional advertising. —ERcheck @ 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, unencyclopedic. Dakota ~ ε 01:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick Catalano (Talk) 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV ad. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Faur use", indeed. StarryEyes 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. boycott-riaa.com is notable - this isn't, but as a new site in the midst of the recent entertainment media controversies, I suspect it will in the future. Not yet though. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In light of Paul Carpenter's edits, and the recent discovery that CodeWarrior seems to be involved with the boycott-riaa site, I change my vote to weak keep. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 07:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've tried to bring this up to NPOV. I wont make a judgement on it's notability. Paul Carpenter 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename to MPAA boycott or merge into MPAA. The link to the boycott site appears as an external link on the MPAA page, but no context is given in the description. Carlossuarez46 20:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as irredeemably POV, advert, etc. Stifle 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DLS[edit]

non-notable Backstreet Boys fansite. Delete. Andy Saunders 00:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above...unless the fact that there is still a Backstreet Boys fansite makes it notable --Bugturd 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)][reply]
Delete - nonnotable - no Alexa rank. —ERcheck @ 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , non-notable fansite. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 06:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 07:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. "The site became live again in December, 2006." Wha? StarryEyes 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable Crapstreet Boys fansite. JIP | Talk 12:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. The Deviant 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --light darkness 14:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rory096 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Common people! The site was hacked and down for 81 days! It's amazing the Boyz were still on the owner's mind by the time he brought it back up! Geesh! ok, ok... delete (this was an ill attempt at humor) —akghetto ^talk 10:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 17:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Cate[edit]

Vanity article (subject and author's name are the same). There are some claims of notability in there, but I doubt he meets WP:BIO standards, and if he does it still needs a major rewrite. Userfication maybe? -R. fiend 00:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Some of the names he claims to have performed with are reasonably notable. If some credible source information is provided, I might be persuaded to keep. Needs some heavy clean-up if its to be kept, though. --Bugturd 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verification is provided. That responsibility rests with the article creator. Durova 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity entry created by subject. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. —ERcheck @ 01:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sourced and cleaned up.--ragesoss 02:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sourced. Google showed few if any results for the band or its music. No lyrics. Also article is written by subject. Wikipedia is not for vanity articles. Brokenfrog 06:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. Verification needed. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 06:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to user namespace. Royboycrashfan 07:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compu te r Jo e 07:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jcbarr 14:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry but autobiographies are tough. If you are deeply notable, someone will write it (im still waiting too)Obina 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete The Land 17:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stock Chat[edit]

Vanity. Sarge Baldy 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. --Bugturd 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable website or portion thereof. Ikkyu2 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ikkyu2. Stifle 23:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense and non-notable —akghetto ^talk 10:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete., nn, vanity. Madchester 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam and andrew[edit]

This was speedied, but WP:DRV concluded that this was out-of-process and sent it here instead. -Splash^talk 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable --Bugturd 00:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet more YTMND-related nonsense. Their official website has No Alexa Rank. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. —ERcheck @ 01:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:DRV's conclusion spotlights a problem with the process, not with the deletion of this article. Ikkyu2 04:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Andrew Lenahan. Royboycrashfan 07:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; consider also delete as vanity -- Simon Cursitor 09:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity, nn, etc. The usual. StarryEyes 11:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Starblind. JIP | Talk 12:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, vanity Addie 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, Could fall under WP:NFT. --light darkness 14:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have stayed deleted, but bureaucracy rules. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Article is not vanity and refers to a notable group of Musicians, recognised widely over the Internet, although adamandandrew.com is their official site, and the Emo Kid song originated on YTMND.com, neither used as frequently as their myspace pages which attract thousands of views a day by fans. As such, neither YTMND nor www.adamandandrew.com are accurate representations of their popularity or notability. WillFirminger 09:19 31st January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Venice Knights[edit]

Unverifiable forward-looking NPOV originally-researched article on a currently non-notable (sub-1000 Google hits) putative media production. Recreatable if it becomes notable, but not appropriate in the meantime. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although it does seem that this movie is legit, I only saw two hits on Google that were related. If the article is kept, it needs some serious attention for grammar, POV, etc. --Bugturd 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as nominator says, recreatable if it becomes notable.--ragesoss 02:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bugturd. Royboycrashfan 07:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even on imdb, remarkable for a film which has been "submitted to Sundance". Only a few hits on Google, remarkably, two of the first are by two of the actors touting the film on their personal myspace pages. The only hit I could find for '"Venice Knights" ligman' says, is expected to drop either onto dvd or into theatres 2007. It's also worth noting that there is no imdb entry for "Daniel Ligman", and he is not listed in the credits for either film he is supposedly in, according to this article. There are also zero Google hits for the "Daniel Ligman" who is an actor. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB relies on user input for their listings. I would be more interesting to see if Sundance mentions it as one of their programmed showings. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Lamo, who are you to make critical statements.. you obviously are unaware of Hollywood A List up and coming stars..you and other critics are very uninformed and have nothing better to do than sit at your computer and critcized anything that is not in your immediate world.. very unsexy...Lauren — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.69.199 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 1 February 2006
Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 04:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, I'm pretty sure anyone can submit to Sundance. Makemi 04:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Music in the 21st Century[edit]

Listcruft. Delete. Andy Saunders 00:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Most critically acclaimed" is going to be very difficult to be NPOV. Furthermore, I don't see this being done for all 100 years in the 21st century; I think by decade is how it's done now. There's probably someplace this can be redirect to though. -R. fiend 00:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only way this is ever going to be objective is if it uses sales lists. And if that, it's just a list to be made sometime in the future. Last Avenue 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless as a list with no prose or explanation.--ragesoss 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The unsourced POV "most critical acclaim" sections obviously should be deleted. But surely there could be a general article on 21st century music? -- Astrokey44|talk 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove "most critical acclaim" section. Dbinder 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as current articles seem to be of the form Timeline of trends in music (1990-1999), and Timeline of trends in music (2000-present) already exists. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Primordial Predators[edit]

Vanity article about unpublished book and game mod, not notable. Apparently written by author of potential book. Sarge Baldy 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Where (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT a crystal ball. Article can be recreated if this becomes notable. Durova 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Royboycrashfan 07:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per durova.Obina 23:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:41, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parasaurolophis muertesensis[edit]

Vanity article about fictional dinosaur in unpublished book and game mod, not notable. Apparently written by author of potential book. Sarge Baldy 00:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOT Crystal Ball/advertisement --Bugturd 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Durova 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 18:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoky's Fine Cigars[edit]

This was speedied whilst on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoky's Fine Cigars. However, WP:DRV decided that was out-of-process and wanted the debate to conclude naturally. Since it's been several days, I'm just starting a new one. Don't speedy it this time, mmmkay? -Splash^talk 00:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has just 36 unique Google hits, nearly all of which are yellow pages listings or mirrors of the last AfD. No website, no media coverage, no suggestion that this is any kind of local landmark or tourist attraction, no nothin'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As-Speedy-As-Delete-Can-Be-Without-Being-Speedy Looks like pure advertisement to me. --Bugturd 00:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as non-notable organisation. No indication that this cigar store meets WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP isn't a Criterion for Speedy Deletion. Ikkyu2 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regular Delete. Not notable. Youngamerican 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not a speedy delete advert, nn --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CORP isn't a Criterion for Speedy Deletion. Ikkyu2 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just one shop, not notable -- Astrokey44|talk 04:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were 'Smoky's Fine Cigar Club', it'd be speediable under CSD A7. -Ikkyu2 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Last time this had 12 delete votes (which should still count IMO) and 0 keeps. If those numbers had been reversed it woul dhave been closed as a speedy keep. Never should have been undeleted. -R. fiend 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't yet have a speedy criterion for advertising and it certainly qualifies as a minimal stub. (ESkog)^(Talk) 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost a textbook example of a non-notable cigar shop. JIP | Talk 12:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete. See no reason this shouldn't be a speedy, as a non-notable company. Robin Johnson 12:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Articles about non-notable companies can't be speedied under the WP:CSD. -Ikkyu2 20:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not even as "unremarkable people or groups" (A7)? Robin Johnson 10:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the consensus is that a company is not the same as a group of people. For instance, in addition to the proprietor(s), there is a building, an address, a business license, tax filings, an inventory, et cetera. Again, I'd argue this points out a flaw with the CSD, not with the deletion of this article. Ikkyu2 17:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising, non-notable. Also at the moment there is no information in this article that is verifiable as no citation of any sort is provided. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete, don't let the bureaucrats win. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and a firm smack to the back of WP:DRV's head for making us jump through this hoop. Lord Bob 19:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought I nominated this for deletion a week ago! Re-delete...nonnotable cigar shop; any reincarnation of the entry would have to include something like a cigar-related Nun Bun (oh! the Nun Bun isn't wikiworthy either?!). --Gopple 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well now we have 16 deletes and no keeps. If someone were to close it early this time, I wonder if anyone would still cry foul, saying it wasn't given a full chance. Probably not worth finding out, though I am curious how much slaves to policy we're going to be forced to be. -R. fiend 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If anyone cares, I think this is completely ridiculous. CSD A7 needs an overhaul. Ikkyu2 05:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, I wonder how much Smoky would pay Jimbo to have a little infobox linking to his shop, at the top of the Cigar article? Ikkyu2 05:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - R. fiend, there's absolutely no urgency about a delete. IMHO there's never any urgency as long as an article is sitting there with a big, bad, brightly colored deletion box that everyone can see. In principle, I support the five-day waiting period, since not everyone logs in every day, and since five days gives people a reasonable chance to raise objections and/or improve the article. In this particular case, I happen to think WP:SNOW applies, but there's no reason or need to give the überinclusionists ammunition for another DRV listing. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're right, and I'm not about to close it as a speedy, nor do I encourage anyone else to. I was just hypothesizing aloud. The whole thing is pretty ridiculous. -R. fiend 17:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dogpile! Delete. Geez. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup Becha weren't expecting that one huh? Common; can't a guy think different?? It's going to be deleted anyway :) —akghetto ^talk 10:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 17:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gfxvoid[edit]

This was previously speedy deleted whilst on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gfxvoid, but WP:DRV decided to reverse that as an out-of-process speedy and send it back here. I've opened this new debate rahter than re-opening the old since it's been several days. Don't speedy this one, huh? -Splash^talk 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not all "communities" can be notable enough for a Wiki article...I'm pretty sure this one isn't. --Bugturd 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like borderline on notability (at least by my standards), but reads like an ad and has no significant content.--ragesoss 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to ping-ing the previous participants? - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 120 or so unique google hits [1] and an alexa rank of 331,849 [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically the same stiry as Smokey's, above. -R. fiend 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It wasn't notable enough the first time, and it's not notable enough now. JIP | Talk 09:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable community. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no convincing evidence of notability has yet been presented. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why is DRV dumping this crud back at us? --Agamemnon2 07:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the article did not meet any speedy criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel privileged to vote for things twice. Though I didn't vote on this the first time around. But you get my drift. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 23:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete, at a gentle andante pace. The Land 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco[edit]

This was previously on AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanchez Raful Sicard & Polanco where it was closed speedily in a manner that WP:DRV found to be out-of-process as it did not meet any of the WP:CSD. Returning here to do the job in a more leisurely manner. -Splash^talk 00:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established. --Bugturd 00:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; looks like advert for non-notable.--ragesoss 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we could actually delete articles that fast without being "out of process," we whouldn't have to nominate the article again. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete possible speedy unless it can be verified that this law firm is notable in some way. Potential speedy as non-notable organisation given that a Google search shows 55 hits [3]. No verifiable third party references as per WP:CORP. Capitalistroadster 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and God Bless Process. Eusebeus 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Law firm which fails WP:CORP guidelines. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete The Land 17:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superior Model Management[edit]

Like uh, at the most, it's 29 days old. Wikipedia is not a company launch announcement service.-- Perfecto 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Perfecto 00:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisement --Bugturd 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
not delete This might be no relevant information for people in all country's but it is for people in Holland. Because of this is an international encyclopedia I think this article is allowed to stay. It is no ad, because there is no text such as "visit this site now" or something. Just the same as for example Elite Model Management. Regards P.S. Sorry for my bad english I hope you all understand my words. Comment pls? DC.
- Elite Model Management is verifiable with a BusinessWeek article. You can come back when you are verifiable and notable. --Perfecto 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This agency has a supermodel Lonneke Engel. I also wanted to make a listing for Premier Model Management who has Naomi Campbell but that is also not allowed? DC.
- Consider adding the information to Lonneke Engel and Naomi Campbell. Also consider signing your comments with four tildes, so it looks like this -> Ikkyu2 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I removed the unverified claims of representation made in the article. Voters may wish to view the old version if they haven't already. If the claims are correct, please cite a reliable source. At the moment, there is no source, not even the company itself (which wouldn't be sufficient, but would help). --Rob 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So when there is a source you will accept. Well in that case i understand but still one advice. Remove the words "the company claims" I think you are not the company so you are not alllowed to speak for them in negative way. ;) And the other question, would you accept premier model management as agency for Naomi? DC.
- If there is verifiable information about the organization, then it will be considered, but by no means assured of acceptance. Personally, I would accept an article with a modest number of models with qualified articles. However, other editors are much stricter, so I don't want to suggest if you spent a lot of time finding sources, you'll be assured of acceptance, as you won't be. Finding verifiable information is merely the starting point of consideration. Generally, when an article is seen as advertising, editors are much stricter in terms of demanding clear proof of notability. But, I can't really speak for other editors. Also, I reworded the article, as best I could, so as to avoid anybody being mislead into thinking Wikipedia is vouching for any claims. We can't state as fact what this organizataion does, because we don't know. We have no knowledge that this company actually represents any models. But, we do know it claims to. All I did is state the facts, as best as is known.--Rob 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, unlikely, unverified. Not the place for free advertising or an egotrip DC, you aint the first and wont be the last. Deiz 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the others. Golfcam 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. StarryEyes 11:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Latinus 23:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-noteable —akghetto ^talk 18:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete, advertising Madchester 01:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W-shop[edit]

Delete - ad for company ChemGardener 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising. —ERcheck @ 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously.--ragesoss 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ads are polluting Wikipedia these days. It takes anywhere from a few seconds to a few minutes to create them, and a full five days to delete them via AfD. Sad.... SYCTHOS ^talk 02:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sycthos makes an excellent point. Royboycrashfan 07:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad Compu te r Jo e 07:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 10:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article wouldn't be any more advertising if it had ADVERTISEMENT written right at the start. JIP | Talk 12:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertisement, as per above --light darkness 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we need a CSD criteria for advertising, otherwise we'll be spammed to death. --Agamemnon2 07:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising and agree with Agamemnon2 above that we need a CSD for spam. James084 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert. Latinus 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete, joke page, nn-bio Madchester 02:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bennett Jr.[edit]

Normally I'd tag this speedy, but something gets me about the death date in the future, and figured I'd AFD it instead. Andy Saunders 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Consider also deleting [[Image:HeroMark.jpg]] which was uploaded by the original author of the article and is ONLY used by this article. Zunaid 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only relevant page about him that comes up on Google is his mini-biography on the website of his college sports team, and even that doesn't say anything of much interest. The picture in the article should probably be deleted, too. Hbackman 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as non-notable (unless a claim to notability is added). He does exist, though: [4] --Austrian 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanity page

Delete as above. --Bugturd 01:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bizarre. Hopefully this isn't a cryptic suicide note.--ragesoss 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a very well-written (and very strange) mostly fictional article. I have no idea why it was created or edited by a few different people. Anyway, it's a nn-bio. Grandmasterka 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ok, I realize this goes against the policy here for articles, but for comic relief, it's original at least! Kmac1036 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You make a good point about the future death date. Royboycrashfan 07:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though it's a decent joke. Author should have saved this for April Fools'. Draeco 10:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not good enough for BJAODN. Zunaid 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And there is worse stuff on BJAODN. -Jcbarr 14:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth BJAODN Compu te r Jo e 19:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete. This is a really well written article and obviously a joke.

Delete per nom. Latinus 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 17:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EFanzines.com[edit]

Another site from the submitters of FanboyPlanet.com that fails WP:WEB. -- Perfecto 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Perfecto 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would also add "speedy if possible," but according to WP:CSD, it is not possible. We should be able to speedy these sites. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. A web-based archive with substantial popular culture-historical content. Material on the site was originally published in ephemeral editions, and this archive is probably the only current means of accessing the content. Some of it deserves to be ephemeral, to be sure, but a significant share of the content is considered notable in the appropriate fields. I've rewritten the article to eliminate its reference to the self-promoter from FanboyPlanet and add references to a few of the more notable writers/editors involved. Monicasdude 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it doesn't pass, it goes. Baby and bathwater. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 05:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it passes WP:WEB criterion 2, including significant content that "has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." The deletion-nominator has edited the article to remove references to that content, and I've restored them. Monicasdude 12:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monicsdude, please cite sources, so we're sure you're not pulling it out of an another Fanzine's hat. --Perfecto 14:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the linked, already well-documented Wikipedia articles (the references you deleted) aren't sufficient to support an assertion of notability? The publications/writers are listed on the front page of the Efanzines site. We're not talking about terribly obscure stuff here, after all. The site has 30,000+ Google hits, as well. Indiscriminately tagging articles for deletion because you think their creator is a self-promoting jackass isn't good practice (even when the creator is a self-promoting jackass). Monicasdude 14:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS ...and what you wrote is, the fanzines it happens to have permission to host won an award, not the site. WP:WEB??

Yes, that's accurate. Under WP:WEB criterion 2, it's sufficient if either "The website or content" has won a recognized award. Since you agree that the site includes award-winning content, what's your argument for deletion? That the site can't be notable because it includes too much content? Monicasdude 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with an article on Energumen (fanzine), with an external link to efanzine. Let's see what others think. --Perfecto 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see what your argument for deletion is, since you aren't disputing that the site meets WP:WEB criterion 2. Energumen is by no means the only relevant content on this point, and, aside from those, quite a few of the fanzines/writers who didn't win Hugos meet the alternative standard that "Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability." Monicasdude 16:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Eusebeus 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is another that I put up, partly because of my close friendship with one of the principals. I think eFanzines.com is the most important site in fandom right now due to the fact that it is one of maybe two that are trying to 1) preserve fanzines from the past by providing a space for the scans to be stored and accessed and is 2) the largest site for current fanzines to be seen by a larger audience. It is an important site, nominated for the Hugo Award for Best Website in 2005 and should be included.
Delete as non-notable and approaching vanity. Looks like a group of folks willing to create articles for each other and vote for each other when AfDs come up (see Christopher J. Garcia). --Bugturd Talk 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I've not no connection with the self-promoting clown who created this batch of articles, and the only AfD I object to is this one. This site has content that's undeniably notable (having won the recognized Hugo Award), and the overall site was nominated for that award last year. Nobody here denies that the site is notable under criterion 2 of WP:WEB. "Created by a self-promoting jackass" is not a sufficient reason for deletion if the subject of the article meets notability criteria. Monicasdude 01:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - regardless of what you think of me or my other posts, if I had never posted anything else, would eFanzines.com be considered? I'd say it would. It does pass WP:WEB Criterion 2, as pointed out, but more importantly, it's a site that hosts zines created by at least five Hugo winners, many nominees (at least ten that I can find) and at least two Hugo-winning fanzines. It also won a FAAn Award in 2004 and is widely regarded in fandom.Mlloyd
Delete as non-notable webcruft. Ifnord 04:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website. —Cleared as filed. 12:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy keep; withdrawn. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~===Apple Springs, Texas=== Is there really enough material for this to be an article? Where (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)~~Article expanded. Withdrew nomination. Where (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep real town. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very small towns get very small articles. :) Hopefully it'll be expanded, but it's a reasonable stub. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Real place --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real towns get articles. Grandmasterka 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yep, it's marked as a stub, so I don't see why it should be deleted. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very efficient article.--ragesoss 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because just like they said, towns get articles. Parts of towns are where we have problems... Deiz 02:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Small town, but real JasonMilder 02:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close as Speedy Keep? Ashibaka tock 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator withdraws, yes. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - verifiable Texas town. —ERcheck @ 02:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That depends on your definition of the word "town". We know that there was a cluster of houses and business at a particular place in the past. We know some people referred to it with the word "town". We don't know if it ever had any legal status. Nor do we know if it exists today. We might want to think about we categorize things, as we're lumping what could be unofficial place, with "real" towns, that have their own government, or are at least counted in the census. --Rob 03:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a quick Google brings up this article on the town's 150-year history, which shows that it is indeed a real place with a post office and a peak population of 285. Would I start a campaign to hold the Olympics there? No. But it's clear we're not talking about two Winnebagos and a hot-dog stand either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I know about that, as I already added that as a reference to the article, before I made the preceding statement. It still doesn't verifiably clear up signficant issues I brought up here, and at Talk:Apple Springs, Texas. The fact nobody's found much beyond that one item in Google, shows the problem. --Rob 03:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article links to a University of Texas online article giving a reasonable history of the place. The Alabama Creek Wildlife Management Area is nearby. This Google Print search outlines other references to the place see [5]. Capitalistroadster 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has a small school district serving pre-kindergarten to 12th grade, with a TEA rating for 2004-2005. I've added information (plus references) to the article. —ERcheck @ 04:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although I think two Winnebagos and a hot-dog stand might be closer to the truth than Andrew Lenahan thinks. Eusebeus 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Real place Royboycrashfan 07:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, reasonably good stub on a real town. Very clear past precedent to keep all real and verifiable towns and villages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely real CDP's are invariably encyclopedic. StarryEyes 11:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know its a real CDP? --Rob 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a sch... Erm, wait. I mean Keep, it's a town. Really, people, all real towns deserve articles. JIP | Talk 12:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep real town. Does need more info, though, but definitely not delete material. The Deviant 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the nominator's defense, I might point out that the content when it was tagged was "Apple Springs is a very small town in Trinity county, Texas.". One might argue that such an article is quite useless, because people interested in reading about the town already know its location and will get nothing from it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this real rural community. All populated places deserve recognition...where do we draw the line between "town that deserves an article" and "town that does not deserve an article"? --Caponer 17:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, real place. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep As per above.--light darkness 21:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: before, when I nominated it, it did not have enough content to be kept. Now, it obviously does. Where (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 17:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oregan Networks[edit]

Delete - page reads like ad for the company ChemGardener 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ugh, it is an ad. We should also be able to speedy company ads, as well. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ideally speedy as vanity - group of people / club. Deiz 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as likely ad. --Lockley 05:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advert Jawz 08:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eurgh, no wikipedia article should be allowed to have the phrase "consumer device interoperability standards". But seriously, seems like a cut and paste nn ad. Makemi 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment can this be speedied as copyvio per this link [6]?
Delete - it's suspiciously like an ad. Latinus 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to oppose/support a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 06:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projectplace (software)[edit]

Previously deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Projectplace (software), WP:DRV overturned the deletion with some concerns over the thoroughness of the debate. To see those concerns, please see this version of DRV. This debate is thus opened to give a more thorough treatment. -Splash^talk 00:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. --Bugturd 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable notability info in article yet.--ragesoss 02:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 14:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How does that apply to this stub? What in it has to do with speculation about future events? --Tsavage 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless properly sourced. No independent evidence has yet been offered that this meets any of our recommended inclusion criteria (see WP:CORP). Some evidence was offered during the DRV debate but it all traced back to the company's own website and press releases. This does not constitute the kind of independent, verifiable sources necessary to support an article. Rossami (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe WP:CORP applies here, because this article is about software, not a company. Would you apply WP:CORP to Microsoft Project? The software exists, was one of the first and is one of the few of its kind, and this is a STUB. What's the big deal? --Tsavage 16:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, because WP:CORP explicitly deals with both companies and products. See the section titled "Criteria for products and services". The existence of the software is not questioned. However, mere existence is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. The claim that this product is either "one of the first" or "one of the few" of anything remains unsourced and unverified through any citation except sources which were traced back to the company itself. I'm going to stick to our policy that the article must be built from and supported by independent sources. As I said during the DRV discussion, this application does not show up in any of the independent journals or reviewers that would be expected to cover such software. For example, neither Gartner Group nor Forrester Research have any listing for them. Rossami (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMO, you're taking that part of WP:CORP out of context, or at least interpreting the guideline in an arbitrary way (which is, of course, your prerogative). First: Do you mean that all products must first appear under their company names, until such time as that company article gets too big? If Projectplace was sold to We Now Own Project Place LLC of Phoenix, Arizona, would that become the primary article title (IOW, in this case, it makes sense to make the software the primary title)? Second: Are you suggesting that all articles containing uncited claims, like "one of the first", be submitted to AfD (isn't developing sources and ironing out routine editoral questions properly part of the basic WP editing process, with Talk page)? (Also, you refer to Gartner Group and Forrester Research. They are big "brands" in online market research, but do they operate equally in Europe where this product's base seems to be, and, how entirely reliable are they as sources? In the 1990s, practically all of their for-hire, research-based dotCom marketing advice was subsequently proven to be absolutely wrong.) It really seems to me, with this second AfD nom, the intent of the objectors so far is to pound this stub into the ground unless it meets WP:FA standards. --Tsavage 19:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Unsourced claims must be substantiated or they must be removed from the article. The question is whether, after removing all the unsourced claims, there will be anything left of the article. So far, no cites have been provided that trace to anything other than company literature. As to Gartner and Forrester, yes, they do have excellent coverage in Europe and yes they are generally reliable sources. (I would dispute your allegation about .com marketing advice but even if true, they were hardly alone in the .com bust.) Regardless, they are independent sources. If you have a different independent source that you prefer, please present it. I used them only as examples. This stub does not have to reach Featured Article standards but it does have to meet minimum WP:V standards. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Seems like a lot of argument over trying to rekill a stub. There should be little doubt now that this is a worthy stub, so what is the point? You may dispute the ASP information, but it's kind of obvious and simply waiting for a source (like many other WP articles) -- on that point of "notability", are you arguing that Projectplace wasn't launched in 1998 (the domain name was registered 12-May-1998), or that there were many, many other commercial ASPs at the time? In any case, I've added a new section, with a reference. Is that still insufficient? --Tsavage 21:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        There's now a citation for "one of the first". Hopefully, Bloor Research meets the research and analysis credibility standard of Gartner and Forrester... --Tsavage 21:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your objections seem to have been satisfied. The "notability claim" of being a pioneer in Web applications is sourced -- is that source not good enough? The software won a European Union best practices award. It was selected as the development environment for a university-level teaching method that has been adopted. All of that is cited. What next? --Tsavage 02:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to abstain. Right now, the article hinges on a single independent cite. Bloor Research does show up as an independent research entity. From the evidence I've found, no, they do not rise to the level of Gartner or Forrester but Bloor is not the topic of this discussion. I still think this company is too small to meet my personal standards for inclusion (total revenues in 2004 of approx $6 million and only 34 employees) and that their product is only marginally innovative but the article no longer violates WP:V. I'll give this the benefit of doubt for a while. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See CNBC documentaries on this company, see official anual results, see advertising in Nordic region (IDG), Benelux (NRC Handelsblad), Germany (Systems, Cebit, print) and the UK. See the actual service if you don't believe the limited information in the article. The features and info is something I experienced myself. It's verifyable because everyone can actually contact this company and use the service! Has any of the above "no evidence" people actaully spent any time on investigating this or are you guys just claiming something for the sake of?
Keep. It is a well known company in Norway and Sweden. --Sleepyhead 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for CNBC Europe. Randomgenius 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked around during the previous DR, and found sufficient material apart from the company web site to indicate that it as notable enough company, and a significant competitor in its field of collaboration software. In addition, the article is software, so I don't see how WP:CORP exactly applies, are we to include only products from companies that meet WP:CORP guidelines? It may be a little uglier than most, but a stub is a stub... To call it advertising and demand references is excessive. (I'll also clean up the stub to make it more stubby.) In fact, looking at their logo just now, I remember I had a demo account way back (1999-2000 or so) along with a couple of other online collaboration services I was trying out. So, unless I'm just plain lying or delusional, yes, I am personally certain that this is a working company that's been around for a while. --Tsavage 20:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete, nothing wrong with the last AFD. Stifle 23:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There was everything wrong with the last AfD. No reasons for deletion (actually, there were reasons for non-deletion) in the nomination, and only two votes, again with no reasons, plus a vote from the would-be speedy-deleter who also had no reasons... --Tsavage 16:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made the stub...a better stub. You should take a look. Projectplace has some place in the bigger online picture, beyond just being another product, because they were one of the first Application Service Providers (ASP) (if you recall, ASP was one of the big buzz concepts in the dotCom days). --Tsavage 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: FYI, the stub now has two new sections, "In education" and "References". --Tsavage 19:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: The "In education" section has been expanded. It's actually quite interesting... --Tsavage 22:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've added a "Software development" section to the stub. My point is, why kill a stub after being given reasonable evidence as in the DRV, when it can so easily be developed...? I don't get it... --Tsavage 23:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam at worst, non-notable at best. Catamorphism 06:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or revise because of purposed or inadvertantly strong bias. I think it should at least have a tag on it noting the questionability of the content. Perhaps this topic could be researched and revised into an unbiased article, but for now, I vote delete this article. Candybars 01:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Article is biased or has lots of POV" is explicitly NOT grounds for deletion per WP:DP. Put a tag on it if you like and take it up in Talk. I don't see what bias you're seeing, but the Talk page would be the place for it, no? --Tsavage 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I agree wholeheartedly with Tsavage. This article has vastly improved over the last few days and is not only extremely interesting it addresses all concerns brought up so far. Randomgenius 09:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The standard formatting of AFD discussions is bulleted entries (indented as necessary using multiple asterisks). Please don't mix in other forms of indentation because it makes the thread much harder to read when reviewing the full list of AFD nominations. It can also make it harder for the closing admin to match your signature to your comment. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because I don't see anything that makes this company notable — it's just an advertisement for the company, even if it sounds relatively NPOV. I could come up with a sourced, neutral article for my lemonade stand too, but there wouldn't be anything notable about it. —Cleared as filed. 13:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete both. —Cleared as filed. 21:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropos Consulting and Corporate Anthropology[edit]

Non-notable company. I am also nominating Corporate Anthropology in with this article as they reference each other and the "corporate anthropology" article seems to be an advert for Anthropos. Andy Saunders - 00:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Delete Attempt to advertise --Bugturd 01:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not true that Anthropos Consulting is a non-notable company. If you visit the site www.anthropos.com.br and look at client list you´ll find most of the 500 Fortune companies with branches in Brazil and Latin America. As the first established company in corporate anthropology it´s natural the link. It will be a loss for Wikipedia to not have corporate anthropology and Anthropos Consulting in file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinsfilho (talk • contribs)

The unsigned entry above was placed by the author (and possibly the subject) of the article. The only contributions by this user are the article creations and the comment above. --Bugturd 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as badvertising, made worse by trying to use WP to provide a legitimacy to their methodology that is otherwise lacking. Eusebeus 07:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO being able ti list notable others as your customers does not make you notable. Consider a sandwich vendor who delivers around the London Stock Exchange. Delete as advertising copy. -- Simon Cursitor 09:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising, and delete unless rewritten. Google seems to indicate that "coporate anthropology" is indeed a real term, but the current article is nothing more than badvertising. Zunaid 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisment. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete, nn-bio Madchester 02:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher J. Garcia[edit]

Bio with little claim to notability. I doubt he is independent from fanboyplanet.net and efanzine.com, and they are nonnotable sites anyway. His film career is summarised by a nn imdb entry. -- Perfecto 01:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Soon notable, maybe, but not today. --Perfecto 01:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was all about to vote "keep" on this one, as he has an IMDB entry listing him as a producer of an upcoming film, but then I noticed that the film in question lists about a trillion different producers, far more than could possibly have had meaningful involvement in the film. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Eusebeus 07:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable producer. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I vote to not delete this article, not because of Mr. Garcia's film credits (which are, as stated below, insignificant), but because of his fanzine writing credits. This fanzine "The Drink Tank" has published an astounding 64 issues in its premiere year. He writes for fanboyplanet, but is independent of them, and efanzines.com (which was nominated for a Hugo award last year) only publishes his fanzine online - he does not write for them per se. http://efanzines.com/DrinkTank/index.htm Frank Wu 10:44 30 January 2006 PST
Keep. I made it and I stand by it. He has produced three films that I know of and another that's coming soon (or so he's said in his writing). As far as mot being notable, I'd say that he's more notable as a fanzine editor and Computer Historian than as a filmmaker anyhow and should remain. IMDB also lists him as the producer and writer of The Chick Magnet under the name Chris Garcia http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1829545/. I also disagree with the deletion of fanboyplanet.com, though it happened while I wasn't watching. His wrestling reports are also significant.

M Lloyd

Delete. Non notable.Obina 23:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per [WP:BIO]], influenced by random unregistered voters. Stifle 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep as rewritten. —Cleared as filed. 21:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sallie Krawcheck[edit]

Delete I suspect this article is a personal attack. It is non-encyclopedic at any rate. The original stub said, "During that time she was admired within the organisation for her fawning entourage and excellent taste in knee-high boots." Ruby 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete probably an attack, and would be an A7-bio at any rate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for AfD because I'm not clear that "formerly a highly respected equities analyst" means she is no longer respected, or no longer an equities analyst, and I also don't know if CFO of Citigroup is notable enough. Ruby 01:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ – looks like a year-old attack (between the boots and formerly highly respected). ×Meegs 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hopefully wiping the history as Thivierr suggests below (or delete & rewrite the two sentences to ensure the edits are credited). She's one of the top people at "the biggest company in the world", Citigroup, and is in the news a lot as one of their mouthpieces. ×Meegs 20:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom as personal attack. --Lockley 05:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete personal attack Addie 14:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as personal attack. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The attack has been removed (an admin may wish to delete history). This woman is very notable, based on Google web and news results. --Rob 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Thivierr's comments. Sauvastika 23:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only Thivierr's 1/30 rewrite; cleanse history of all other revisions. Chick Bowen 00:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as noted above, though the article may have been an attack in the past, I think her article, properly cleaned up, is a fine entry. CFO of one of the world's largest financial companies is of sufficient importance. --JACooks 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable woman executive - thanks to Thiverr for the rewrite and look at options for the history. Capitalistroadster 02:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World correspondence[edit]

Interesting goal, but Wikipedia is not the place to announce it or the site you made for it.-- Perfecto 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:WEB. --Perfecto 01:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per perfecto. A nice, respectful nom, too. ×Meegs 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. OK, I'll remember to be respectful more often. --Perfecto 02:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (although it surely is an interesting idea). Joe 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But I agree, it is a worthwhile and refreshingly unique pursuit for a change. StarryEyes 11:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedied. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slickiput[edit]

Dicdef, possible hoax. Unsuitable for Wiktionary because it is probably a neologism. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. --Bugturd 01:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to speedy it. It's part of a user's (User:Ferbergerl) concerted vandalism campaign to insert hoaxen into our encyclopaedia, and as such should be shot on sight, then dismembered and set fire to. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Related[edit]

Delete Alexa Traffic Rank for : No Data, no googles, links are college newsletter. Dakota ~ ε 01:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator, only link their website direct link from page not found on google, no other hits. Non notable website.--Dakota ~ ε 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Delete ike9898 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly not notable. Strong Delete PeteShanosky 03:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Plea to Keep - Please read the details (recently added to the page). Though low on exposure as a site, there is real history here which I will continue to detail should this page be given a chance to evolve. I bring more to the table (historically speaking) than was obvious when the first deletion notice went up. The site itself may seem "not notable" at this time, but that is quickly changing and the history leading up to it is notable and something I plan to incorporate in greater detail over the next few days. There are real reasons for posting the entry. I have experienced quite a bit of comic history leading up to the creation of this site. - ChuckMoore
Google relevance - Please google search on its previous and now alternate domain www.hydrofest.com to see google relevance. The site was retooled when it relauched and moved to the new, specific domain in September of 2004. - ChuckMoore
Thank you for your consideration I will visit this spot regularly and take your criticism to heart as I expand the entry. I want to be a solid contributor to the community and have all the respect in the world for Wikipedia having used it continually in my daily life for years. - ChuckMoore

You can vote Keep but you need to sign your user name. It didn't [Google[7] and there is no Alexic traffic rank[8] So it doesn't meet the minimum of notability for a website. It is up to the voters.--Dakota ~ ε 05:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yeah, I know we're not suppsoed to go on Alexa and Google hits, but if we can't even find anything about them...to the curb. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 05:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sometimes, as with this, google and alexa are fine for noting that this does not belong. Eusebeus 07:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sorry PageAuthor. Draeco 10:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to understand - So is it simply the level of popularity that makes an entry like Newsarama more relevant for inclusion than Comic Related? Both are comic book websites? More to the point, how about the blog discussed at Comics Curmudgeon, or Nitrozac, or Oddlotsirregulars.com, or Comic Book Universe Battles rate entries? Many of these barley have an entry written and do not present any notable bits of historical fact regarding their relevance yet they meet the standard for includion? I thought Wikipedia was more about building an interlocking history of the world rather than simply covering what generates hits in google. I honestly want to understand. - ChuckMoore
Delete. Nn, ad, vanity. Chuck, Wikipedia is not an "interlocking history of the world", it is an encyclopedia, and entries into an encyclopedia must meet certain standards. It is simply not a well-known enough website at this time to merit inclusion. StarryEyes 11:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to understand - Understood. Build popularity then return. That said, how are the other entires I referenced worthy of inclusion? How do Comics Curmudgeon, or Nitrozac, or Oddlotsirregulars.com, or Comic Book Universe Battles rate entries? - ChuckMoore
- Thanks for understanding. And you know, some of those you mentioned are probably not worthy of inclusion and should also be deleted. StarryEyes 11:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear to meet WP:WEB guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thanks to all who posted. I learned about Wikipedia, will go get myself established and return when my google rank can stand the test of relevancy. Cheers! :-) ChuckMoore
Delete, nerdcruft. incog 04:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chika Sylva-Olejeme[edit]

Non-notable. Only a couple of Google hits. No information further than "peace crusader" - it could mean anything. Eurosong 01:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless a lot more detail is provided. --Bugturd 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as NN. Only 9 Google hits for this name, no indication of notability. --Lockley 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no context, not much content.Obina 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete - sole author's request. --HappyCamper 13:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck's Comics[edit]

Delete More advertisement trying to look like its not Bugturd 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Delete ike9898 01:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Delete per nom Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am the page's author. I misunderstood the nature of Wikipedia. Thought it was more about charting the history of all things rather than those which are simply notable. Please delete as non-relevant with my apology. - ChuckMoore
- In that case, speedy delete as CSD:G7. I have tagged it as such. Zunaid 13:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The IP address does not match the author of the article, but after some looking around here, there seems to be sufficient evidence that it is the case. So, this will be deleted. --HappyCamper 13:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 01:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvan Harvat[edit]

Vanity bio as per WP:BIO. According to Google, this person has no published work. He has written reviews for some books on Amazon and some articles at Kheper.net. Ziggurat 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 Vanity bio, nn etc... Writing a few essays on *some website* doesn't work here.. Deiz 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - informative critic of G. I. Gurdjieff, Ken Wilber, etc M Alan Kazlev 03:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I fully agree that Mr Harvat is not notable if one were to simply use as a standard books published (none) or google hits (about 490, not including wikipedia mirrors), or general newsworthiness. However I suggest he is notable in that his essays and critques provide an interesting perspective on controversial individuals or subjects, especially in the sphere of Esotericism. It is only in the interests of incorporating a diversity of perspectives that I suggest the article should be kept. M Alan Kazlev 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Delete (CSD A7) the diversity of perspectives, because it does not meet Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Ikkyu2 06:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deiz, Ikkyu. Eusebeus 07:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 15:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, possible speedy as ((db-bio)). Stifle 23:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harvat's criticisms of contemporary philosophers at kheper.net are inherently notable. Additionally, article says that Harvat has published a physics thesis. Most published author articles end up being kept. — goethean ॐ 20:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While a thesis published as a book would be an important point, I read the article as indicating that the thesis has been completed and submitted ('published' in only a few copies to be submitted to the supervising university and its library). I don't think they're the same thing. Additionally, I'm not sure what you mean by "inherently notable". Ziggurat 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, forget "inherently". His critiques are notable. — goethean ॐ 21:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that the unique content of the critiques rendered them notable in my opinion, even if they haven't been widely noted. — goethean ॐ 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think he is just short of the threshold of notability, and he's obscure enough that we're not going to be able to get a neutral article on him or his views. —Cleared as filed. 13:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:19, Feb. 5, 2006

Valhalla legends and BNLS[edit]

These were previously AfD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valhalla legends(delete) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNLS(redirect). Taken to WP:DRV there were concerns over the Valhalla legends debate and an observation of the close relation between the two articles. The feeling of the debate was the Valhalla legends should be restored and re-AfD'd, and that BNLS should be considered alongside it. I've reverted BNLS to it's pre-AfD state for this purpose. A split outcome may be necessary. -Splash^talk 01:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify what concerns these were and where the discussion about this can be found? DreamGuy 02:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn gaming clan. Wouls probably be a borderline speedy candidate too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

The concerns were brought by Harrym at WP:DRV, however, the content of the deletion reviews seem to have been purged and updated since, and I am unable to locate an archive for those discussions. If someone more familiar with the system here is able to unearth that discussion, that would be extremely helpful, but in its absence, I'll try to summarize it briefly - anyone else who remembers what was said there is welcome to fill in any blanks I leave behind.

The core of the argument was that Valhalla Legends is a programming and software development organization and not one based on gaming. The problem with the original AfD nomination was that the outcome appears to have been based almost entirely on votes cast which were more or less irrelevant to the issue of whether vL should or should not be deleted; this can be in part blamed on the niche which the organization largely occupies.

I believe the general concensus of the deletion review was to restore the page and give it a chance to be updated to better reflect notability and verifiability, then be relisted for a more informed discussion. The second part of that chain seems to have been skipped over, however.

Finally, I don't want to be overly critical, but the delete vote issued above by is exactly why the original AfD result was challenged and overturned. Valhalla Legends is not a "gaming clan;" attemping to have it deleted based on that reasoning is not going to be productive, in my opinion, and will likely simply to lead to a repetition of the deletion review that caused this relisting if more such votes are filed.

Zakath 04:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel silly - the discussion can be found in the WP:DRV history if you go back to around 1/29/06. Zakath 05:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BNLS: Keep. 350,000 logins per day must surely exceed the nascent Wikipedia: Notability (software) guidelines. -Ikkyu2 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Valhalla.net: Merge and redirect into BNLS. -Ikkyu2 06:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I reviewed the DRV comments and can see the concerns raised insofar as fragged out clancruft doesn't cover BNLS. But the question of notablity still pertains and neither of these meet threshhold, imo. I note Ikkyu's point but since the existence of the software is inseparable from its single-application use, the notability should be considered jointly. Eusebeus 07:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure I understand youur comment on my point. As I understand it, the software lets users play some historical (no-longer supported) Blizzard games in multiplayer mode, without having to use the company's Battle.net servers (which were shut down years ago). Whether or not that's notable, 350,000 logins per day seems to document that the software has well in excess of the 5000 users needed for notability, and that's what I based my opinion on. -Ikkyu2 08:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, and hopefully also we can have the anti-deletionists at WP:DRV cleared out so we don't have to vote on everything multiple times. It's bad enough that the standards for deletion consensus are extremely high and that delete and redirect votes are counted separately instead of realizing one should default to the other in a conflict versus keeping, but then we also have to satisfy some people overturning votes on flimsy reasons. This is getting ridiculous. DreamGuy 18:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when pages stop getting deleted on flimsy rationalization, those decisions will stop getting overturned. Zakath 18:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Valhalla legends. This Gaming clan cruft, plain and simple. BNLS I could go either way on. No opinion.--Isotope23 18:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I find this point of view confusing (and this is not the first time a similar opinion has been posted). If BNLS is a notable achievement (and it seems that you are conceding that it might be), how can it be argued that the creator of that service has not achieved notability? You can't have BNLS without Valhalla legends, but Valhalla legends would be what it is whether or not BNLS had ever been released for public consumption. Essentially I find it difficult to separate the product from the product's creator; perhaps I am misunderstanding how notability applies to different kinds of subjects, but I feel that if a product is a notable achievement, the creator of that product by definition has done something notable. Zakath 19:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholly reject the assertion that creation of a notable product confers notability back to the creator, particularly in respect to Wikipedia. Take the article on Dr. Pepper for example, even though the creator of Dr. Pepper is wikilinked in the article, it is a redirect back to the Dr. Pepper article. The product is of far greater importance than the creator; he is almost a footnote to the product itself. I don't concede that "BNLS is a notable achievement"... I have no strong opinion on that either way. Valhalla legends has no strong claim to notability in my estimation. A mention in the BNLS would suffice if that article survives the AfD. My vote stands.--Isotope23 18:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: People are apparently not even taking the time to READ the comments that people familiar with this topic are making. Valhalla Legends is not a gaming clan. It has no relation to gaming other than that some of its members play games. That is not its goal, nor is it the reason for its foundation, nor is it rational to state otherwise. I believe I laid out a good case at the DRV for keeping both of these articles. I included links to support my argument as far as possible. I feel strongly that people who are considering voting for deletion should at the very least read these arguments and attempt to rebuf them before casting their vote. Harry Metcalfe 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be the case, how about you rewrite the article to state said facts, instead of insulting people. I vote Delete until such a time as the article is rewritten. --Agamemnon2 08:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As Harrym alluded to, people are dismissing this out of hand and it is frustrating. To comment at Agamemnon: we don't have the opportunity to rewrite the article, and when we do, we are told that we are not verifiable because many of us interested in keeping the article are primary sources, which means that the claims are not verifiable.

Further, dismissing this article out of hand as gamercruft is obnoxious. It's not a gaming organization, as stated repeatedly. I understand what the term means.

To correct the factual inaccuracies on this log, BNLS is not a matchmaking service like Bnetd was. It provides the client-side authentication measures to connect and authenticate to Battle.net. This enables third-party clients to connect to the official service and emulate the somewhat odd authentication schemes implemented by Blizzard with ease. As noted in the BNLS article, there are alternative libraries and implementations of this service, each with varying degrees of popularity. However, if the 350,000 users per day is accurate, but there were less than the cut-off of 5,000 users, that would mean each user would need to connect to BNLS 70 times per day. This is clearly (I should say, clear to someone within the niche) improbable, as a Battle.net Chat Service (the community name for the protocol) connection is fairly stable as long as it is not violated, and can last for multiple days if not abused. When one considers that Battle.net even allows up to seven connections from a single IP address, maxed out, that means that every single user would be permitted up to ten connections per day to reach this number. Still, this is highly improbable.

Also, many of these third-party clients do not actually play the games produced by Blizzard, but merely emulate the communications protocol involved in the connection. This protocol is extensively (and originally) documented at BnetDocs, as Harrym pointed out in the deletion review. This collection of information also includes information on multiplayer game information, although very few bot developers target this particlar subset of functionality.

The most particular notable distinction that this community has made is that it has been a sustaining force for Battle.net. There is no question that Starcraft is an immensely popular game. Developers have made bots for a plethora of reasons -- simply to chat, to log channel activity, to moderate meetings, to host tournaments -- the list goes on. Valhalla Legends has been a highly reputable source of information and services for this niche for some time.

Simply because you are not part of a niche does not give you the right to dismiss its members (by which I mean members of this particular niche, not this particular clan) out of a derogatory term. I understand the implied meaning behind "gaming clan cruft, plain and simple." It is unfounded. Robert Paveza 02:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No one is dismissing its members with a derogatory term. They are dismissing the notability of this subject, and I agree with them. —Cleared as filed. 13:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to agree with Rober Paveza here. "gaming clan cruft" is not a complimentary term, and using such terms completely avoids the substance of the argument, which is whether or not the subject meets notability requirements. The nature of the subject is not what is under debate. Valhalla Legends is not a gaming group, and no matter how many people misinterpret it as such, it will not alter the fact that it is not. I have yet to see a single person actually rebuff the arguments that caused an unchallenged reversal of the original deletion vote. While at present I would agree that the article has little to recommend it, Harrym presented a very persuasive defense of the subject, and I think that if the article were rewritten to better reflect the information he provided, it would be a worthwhile addition to WP. That issue has thus far been ignored by every single poster to file a delete vote.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as fanfic. JIP | Talk 12:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wario and Waluigi: saving Daisy[edit]

As much as I want to speedy this, it is non-notable fanfiction. Delete. Andy Saunders 01:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Has an Alexa rank of 250,000, which is not promising. Superm401 - Talk 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Fan fic, if not an official speedy, should fall under WP:SNOW. -R. fiend 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete if possible, delete either way. NN fanfiction. --Lockley 05:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Royboycrashfan 07:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia State Route 10[edit]

not relevant to an encyclopaedia, more relevant on a route-planner Helzagood 22:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State route --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All in 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all state routes. -- Grev 01:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a state route. Carioca 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. For the time being, precendent dictates that all roads that an American state has bothered to number are worthy of inclusion. Youngamerican 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Youngamerican; nominator is unfamiliar with AFD guidelines. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:24Z
This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep can only arise if the nominator withdraws or the nomination was in bad faith or disruptive. Stifle 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment, I do not understand why a road is relevant to an encyclopaedia? Helzagood 01:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC), if interstate roads of the states are worthy of inclusion, does the same rule extend to interstate roads in other countries?Helzagood 01:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it does. Please see Votes for deletion/Precedents. Crypticfirefly 04:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept my apologies, then, this article should remain. I still don't think roads are worthy of entry in an encyclopaedia, but rules are rules. 81.77.158.140 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete line on a map belongs on an atlas, not in an encyclopaedia. --TimPope 22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep numbered highways. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴ 01:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent that we keep all like roads.Gateman1997 05:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, TimPope, but I am afraid that the rules of Wikipedia do clearly state that interstate roads in all countries are valid articlesHelzagood 19:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 19:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignorant stick[edit]

"He has a Masters degree in the ignorant stick". Send to BJAODN. Andy Saunders 01:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't find this article funny, but don't you wish you could speedy normal nonsense, as you can only speedy patent nonsense? SYCTHOS ^talk 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 451 Google hits on "ignorant stick", most of them with punctuation between (e.g. "You're ignorant, stick to the facts"). Some appear to involve a simplified spelling of the Yiddish "shtick". Most of the actual references to "ignorant stick" appear to be as a metaphorical blunt object to punish ignorant people. I didn't look through every single reference, but I didn't find any clear support for the shovel theory. Kestenbaum 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I think it IS patent nonsense. Powers 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism not in widespread use. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete —Brim 05:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Lockley 05:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Patent nonsense, no question. I admit I got a good laugh, though. StarryEyes 11:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obvious reasons. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:32Z
I'd have to be missing half a brain to find this one amusing. Delete. --Agamemnon2 08:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sort of "meta-amusing", I guess. Non-sequiturs amuse me, I admit, but people who take the time to put this stuff up on Wikipedia amuse me even more. StarryEyes 14:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Nonsense. Doesn't contribute anything to Wikipedia. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. Latinus 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BALLS. Possible speedy for ((nonsense)). Stifle 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 19:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stalking butler[edit]

Non-notable website. Delete. Andy Saunders 01:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No Alexa rank. This is one of the types of articles I wish we couls speedy. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website for a non-notable, apparently unpublished, book.--Isotope23 18:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Cool looking web site. Today it is not notable though.Obina 23:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 04:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy keep — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 09:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motorola RAZR V3[edit]

Not noteworthy, the information is outdated. This is just another mobile phone.. Helzagood 22:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged for AFD but not properly listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Adding now so that it may be officially closed by an admin. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But if it becomes so popular that it becomes a part of American culture, it may be worthy after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordeonbleu (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 January 2006
Keep or speedy keep. Google Results 1 - 10 of about 10,400,000 for "Motorola RAZR V3". (0.35 seconds). Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If Wikipedia articles on major mobile phone models are valid (and I see no reason why we should treat mobile phones as any different from, say, Motorcycles), then this is an obvious keep. SP-KP 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moderately informative. I've removed a little of the useless info.--ragesoss 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Youngamerican 02:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very obvious keep, popular and potentially iconic phone. Deiz 02:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above. China is just another country; we don't delete that either. Ikkyu2 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The user here was engaged in a pretty hotly debated VfD over a vanity article. This seems to be spiteful backlash not serious criticism. Fightindaman 07:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Deiz's comment. Royboycrashfan 07:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the List of Motorola products, it seems clear that the very limited descrption of each could fit next to the listing (as is done for several on that page). Others have been carried into their own separate article, but it is not clear (to me at least) why some have embedded descriptions while others warrant separate entries. Frankly, I would suggest merging this to the product list page. But since the standard is unclear, it could certainly be kept as well. Eusebeus 07:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, informative article. I would support merging it to a general (non-list) "motorola mobile phone products" article, once that exists. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:31Z
Keep PeteVerdon 13:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, borderline speedy. Pardon the hyperbole, but this is probably the most notable cell phone of the past five years, if not ever. I am not a shill, nor do I own a RAZR. -- Plutor 17:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is clearly too much information on this phone to merge into a single article with other handsets. 81.153.150.88 17:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment, I think this should be merged, since, a few months from now, nobody will care about this phone. This phone isn't even that popular, here in the UK. There is nothing truly special about this phone, there are now smaller, more sophisticated phones on the market. This is a mid-market fad phone. 81.77.158.140 17:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Calling this phone iconic, or notable is a stretch. It's a mobile phone... it has not changed society at large in any way shape or form. It's not even particularly pervasive. H'd say a merge is probably the best bet for all mobile phone articles, per Eusebeus. There is some precedence for listing out individual articles on items that have a fan base so to speak; motorcycles or locomotives for example. I'm not aware of any cell phone enthusiest communites out there, but if anyone can produce evidence of such a community, I might be persuaded to change my vote.--Isotope23 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why merge? Check out Wiki is not paper. A device that millions of people around the world own and find integral to their daily lives (or did, looking ahead) can be given it's own page. Nobody is asking you to write it. However, if you want to hold to this position then go and merge all the variants of poker (again, Wiki is not paper) into one page to show you're serious then go nuts with Motorola... Deiz 23:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least as notable as anything in Category:Breakfast cereals. --136.182.2.221 23:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have a feeling that as the popularity of this phone increases (it is now the most popular mobile phone in North America), the relevance of keeping this page can only increase as well. It may not be revolutionary or society-changing, but thousands of people use it daily, and that alone warrants its addition. User:Klestrob44
Keep, very popular phone model worldwide. This is one of the most popular phone models of the 21st century. Why delete or merge it? --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This phone is getting quite popular now. I think it deserves a section. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - at least while the phone is still on the market. Then delete... Aron.
Strong keep This phone is one of the most popular in the world, has set numerous sales records and defined the new thin-phone market segment. --Apyule 09:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:28, Feb. 5, 2006

Discount Hotels[edit]

Rather random article... nothing especially notable about the concept, just the musings of the creator. Doesn't really fit in as an encyclopædia article. Eurosong 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain. Yes, it's rather random, but I see no reason to delete this. With a little cleanup, and the removal of the external links, it could become a nice article. Tagged. SYCTHOS ^talk 02:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete This seems to be a reasonable article, but its more an advice column than an encyclopedia entry. --Bugturd | Talk 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup — Rather pooly written but subject seems interesting and is good information on the "behind the scenes" business model of these types of companies. —akghetto ^talk 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Not encyclopedic.--ragesoss 02:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consumer advice rather than an encyclopedia article. Capitalistroadster 02:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a descriptive article (there's nothing tangible to describe), but rather a personal analysis of an indeterminate phenomenon. More specific information could be useful as part of the individual companies' articles. As is, the page would fit well at Everything2. Superm401 - Talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article has merit and is informative. I would definitely keep it as revised. Links seem approriate for referential purposes, but needs to be monitored for potential spamming abuse.

The preceeding unsigned comment was left by user Jluc at 14:50 on 30 January 2006.

Comment - The article may be informative, but it smacks of original research. This article does not reference another known and published source, but rather serves as consumer advice in its own right. Whether the advice is good or bad, it is not suitable to be considered as an article for an eyclopædia. Eurosong 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Eurosong Dbchip 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not for original research WP:NOR.Obina 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Author don't the link references serve as prima facia evidence of verifiable content, since the veracity of the statements can be confirmed from the content of the link referals. I also added authoritative links from experts to help address the concerns raised by Eurosong. Thanks
Delete as per no original research. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to a subsection of Hotel, which doesn't currently include any information at all about rates. -Colin Kimbrell 19:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, appears to be original research. Stifle 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Smerge/Cleanup I don't think the article should be deleted. I think that it could be cleaned up/smerged. As it is I don't think it is stand alone article but I think it is legitimate subject matter with outside references. Hdstubbs 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see any reason why this article should be deleted. There are tons of direct links to other commercial links all over the site. At least this one has information attached to it. I think it can be merged with "Hotels". lkolukisa 07:16, 1 February 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkolukisa (talk • contribs)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a travel guide and is not a place for original research. —Cleared as filed. 13:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dartemis[edit]

Non-notable machine-translated biography. Possible vanity, too. Zarquon 02:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article asserts notability but the assertions are specious at best. I would also say almost definitely vanity. Superm401 - Talk 02:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably advertising for her very nice web site. But in any case, not a notable photographer/artist as of today.Obina 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rough Science Boys[edit]

Delete. 1 Google hit. Entirely non-notable. Powers 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn, possible speedy as vanity. Dangerous red links too. ++Deiz 02:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity page. Ikkyu2 05:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable and probable vanity. I got zero Google hits. Notice also in history page, the sole author blanked the prior AfD message. --Lockley 05:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity, etc. StarryEyes 10:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David G. Dalin[edit]

AfD incomplete, listing now -- Grev 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nn Helzagood 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable published author. -- Grev 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily satisfies WP:BIO. Powers 02:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable author, has published extensively.--Alhutch 02:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep published author JasonMilder 02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Malformed AfD, no reason given, clear consensus per above. -Ikkyu2 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, worthless nomination, nominator's activities need to be watched from here on. Charles Matthews 08:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, judging by the publications, seems notable enough. Nominator, are you using "nn" as an euphemism for "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him"? JIP | Talk 12:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:29Z
Keep, notable author. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, no factual reason to delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. At some point I think we need to have a discussion about whether it makes sense to complete AfD nominations that are botched, bad-faith, and clear keeps. This is not to object to Grev's listing it but merely to point out that it's a question that needs to be asked. Chick Bowen 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good point.--Alhutch 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment, this guy has authored a few books, so does that mean he is worthy of an article on wikipedia? if so, why isn't every university lecturer or professor worthy, because they publish work every few weeks or months?Helzagood 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of Hitler's Pope has sold well, has had a high public profile, and already had a page here. So, not an average academic production. For myself, I would say mapping out academia is a reasonable longer-term aim for WP anyway. Those who write books, rather than papers, are the place to start because people are more likely to want reference information on the author of a book they have. That should be a criterion: do people want to look up this person on WP? In the case of Dalin, the answer is a clear 'yes': a rabbi writes a passionate defence of a pope. Charles Matthews

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Livilou[edit]

Delete this article. It is a hoax, and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelloerTB (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. Information in article lacks citation. A google search of the term "Livilou" reveals no connection to Blackfoot culture/traditions. Ikusawa 02:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable. --Lockley 05:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Zunaid 13:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 05:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (it's a hoax). Latinus 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asia District, Peru[edit]

This is a short article that reads like a Department of Commerce description. The article fails to note what is remarkable or notable about this district other than it is a center of commerce in Peru. I'm not sure it would be prudent to create an article about every center of commerce in every city of every nation. Admittedly, I could be in err about this so I submit to the community. James084 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be a beach district in the Canete province in Peru but much of the information seems to be based on Wikipedia. It would be useful to have input of Peruvian Wikipedians but we don't seem to have a noticeboard for Peruvian Wikipedians or a general South American one. If this is a real district with real community of interest, I would vote to keep but I am not confident. Capitalistroadster 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's a real place where people live and work; that makes it notable unless it's extremely small. I agree in the strongest possible terms that the article could benefit from much improvement via consensus editing. -Ikkyu2 05:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten per nom. Comment: I am uncomfortable in general voting "weak keep" or "keep and rewrite". Too many articles survive AfD on this basis and susbsequently do not get rewritten. Zunaid 13:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions That's a fair point. Do closing admins actually check if votes like Keep if rewritten have had the article rewritten or not? Is it fair to ask them to? I'm just asking the questions, not implying they do or don't. Dlyons493 Talk 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This place really exists, I'm a peruvian wikipedian, and I go there (Asia) frequently. The article should be kept and more information should be added.-nmulder 08:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete both. —Cleared as filed. 21:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Dowling and Work In Progress EP[edit]

Non-notable musician. Delete. Work In Progress EP is being nominated as the musician's equally un-notable debut EP. Andy Saunders 02:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very obvious A7 Speedy Delete as vanity nn bio. "He plans to gig around the city..." Deiz 02:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You may like to re-read the criteria for speedy deletion. Notability is something to be established on AfD; simply failing WP:MUSIC is not a reason for speedying. The article says that he's released an EP, and we have an article on that very EP. I can't just go about speedy deleting any article that you think is non-notable; what if we're wrong? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, fair enough but I know the criteria as well as anyone and the point of AfD is to give opinions based on interpretation of said critera and nominated articles... Having read the articles it is IMO obvious that this is vanity by someone whose music catalogue is theoretical to say the least. I accept there are two articles here, the second of which might not technically be eligible for speedy but contains the words "recorded in his bedroom". I'm not an admin so I don't make final decisions and if my opinions are considered outwith WP guidelines then by all means ignore them... Deiz 03:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - I live around this city and have seen this artists gig advertised, I highly doubt it is sheerly vanity and I fail to see the harm in this page as it is a form of spreading information. Obviously This is only my point of view as a neutral onlooker. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.222.59 (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 January 2006

Nice try, Si... Deiz 12:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an advertising tool. Zunaid 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need to separate Information and Facts. Wikipedia is only concerned with the latter. --Agamemnon2 08:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nom. Zunaid 13:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom and WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 20:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
actually my name is christopher marshall mason so i'd prefer it if you didn't jump to conclusions

I'd prefer it if spods who record experimental music in their bedrooms didn't put themselves forward to be in an encylopedia but you can't have it all, eh? Deiz 20:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey people, if you feel it is non-notable and all your other wiki-lingo terms to say it should be there, feel free to delete it. I may have misunderstood the 'free space' idea behind wikipedia, I have my myspace to promote from. I wasn't in wikipedia for promotion at all, I thought I could just do it. I'm amazed you're all so tight arse, for want of a better term, about it, just delete it. And don't call me a 'spod', whatever it is, name-calling is neither big nor clever. And my music is not experimental, if you look at the influences there is no mention of Pink Floyd, or drug-induced melodies, it is simple acoustic rock/emo. Also, with regards to 'bedroom recordings', you'll notice that Jonah Matranga, Willy Mason, Blink-182 and Foo Fighters have all released records that have been recorded, at least partly, in bedrooms. You people jump to A LOT of conclusions, I mean, aren't you a bunch of geeks that spend all day on the internet, you'd have noticed my ISP or whatever its called is different to that of a 'Christopher Marshall Mason' (Ha, he has the same middle name as Jimi Hendrix, we'll have to meet up for a drink)
Yep It has to be said he has a point, at least he's in some way talented eh?

Simon, respect for your response there which is fair comment. The AfD arena can be a nasty place and once an article ends up here it's open season. The trouble is, it largely comes down to one word - notability. If an article is clearly unnotable (think about what is found in a paper encyclopedia and read the WP guidelines) then there's not a lot that can be done to save it and and when unsigned comments appear saying "Oh, I've heard of him" it looks crap. I apologize for calling you a spod / experimental, the sentiment was directed towards "Christopher" or whoever wrote the unsigned comment. Signing your own comments would also help, we don't all go around detecting IP addresses for fun. I still think that putting "recorded in his bedroom" looked a bit crap on the EP article... Good luck with the music, I look forward to seeing you here in the future - having your vanity article deleted is a right of passage for many WP users (yup, me included) but in the meantime why not stick around and contribute to some pages featuring music and artists you care about. If you're serious about spreading the word I'd be genuinely interested to hear some of your stuff, if you have any mp3's then get in touch via my talk page. Deiz 13:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest Deiz I thought writing my entire name was signing it enough SIGNED CHRIS MASON!!!!

This is possibly just inexperience with Wikipedia then, to sign your name (or IP if you aren't logged in) and the time then hit 4 tildes or in other words ~ ~ ~ ~ with no gaps. That's a WP signature and when dealing with sockpuppets (as you may imagine, this happens a lot with deletion debates, the creator of the article saying "I've heard of him" while claiming to be someone else) opinions signed by WP editors with a track record of edits are taken seriously, unsigned comments or comments by users with very shallow edit histories are not treated with the same respect. But anyway Chris, by now I'm sure you've perused Wikipedia's guidelines about signatures, notability of musicians and lots more besides. ++Deiz 19:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oui oui

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 19:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomimus[edit]

Delete. Found this when I was going through Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification. However, it doesn't seem to exist at all. There were no off-Wikipedia hits on Google or Altavista web search or Google Print. I realize that's not a perfect indication but it's still surprising to find no mentions. Also, Dinoguy2 removed it from Ornithomimidae with the edit summary "Anatomimus...?". I'll ask him to weigh in here. Superm401 - Talk 02:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No ornithomimosaurs are known from the time of Anchisaurus - its a fake. - John.Conway 03:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Might "look like a duck", but this article quacks. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not verifiable. Article says this beast was the size of a ladder, which to me indicates dope-smoking on somebody's part. --Lockley 05:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No such dinosaur. The Thagomizer 14:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:V. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesusism[edit]

Hoax, neologism, whatever, but definitely not an encyclopedia article. Ashibaka tock 02:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Questioned POV in Talk: Jesusism, no response or updates to make improvements. Controversial at best --Bugturd Talk 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term has been used in various ways by several authors. I doubt if there is any one defintive meaning. I was able to download a book from Google Scholar that made one reference to "Jesusism". Various websites I found each seem to use the term in somewhat idiosycratic ways. It is hard to see that there is an encyclopedia article lurking here. It might get a sentence in some existing Wikipedia article if an authoritative reference could be cited. --JWSchmidt 05:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JWSchmidt excellent analysis.--Isotope23 20:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per talk page discussion Copysan 02:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment/Update Author has returned and promised to add sources. I think more time would allow him to update the page without needing to delete it, with the tags until proper documentation is provided. Thus, I am changing my vote to Weak Delete. Copysan 04:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name of article is a word of linguistically incorrect form, content is negligeable. AnonMoos 03:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 514 hits on Google, used in various ways (Jesusism=Christian Fundamentalism), (Jesusism=pejorative for Christianity), (Jesusism=being a good doobie as opposed to Judasism), etc.... Carlossuarez46 21:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crying babyworm[edit]

No google hits and looks like a joke. Also see Speed Worm. That might need attention too. ShadowPuppet 02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is truly the definition of nonsense. Also delete Alban Greengrocer, linked to under Speed Worm. Rory096 02:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - G1 .. Hoax, along with above mentioned articles Speed Worm and Alban Greengrocer. —ERcheck @ 02:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bassil Mikdadi[edit]

Unverifiable [9] vanity... but does make claims to notability. W.marsh 02:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, some page.. Would indeed be notable if this wasn't a total hoax, patent nonsense and great A7 Speedy Delete nn vanity bio candidate. Nice photoshop attempt with the pic... Deiz 02:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. That pic is totally photoshopped. Ha ha boys. --Lockley 05:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, no vote. If this is a hoax it's a first-rate BJAODN article. Zunaid 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, BJAODN needs a subcategory for "Incredibly elaborate hoax / vanity articles complete with doctored photos, claims of international sporting prowess and allegations of affairs with royalty" just to do it justice. Nice try to save it "unsigned" but don't bother... Deiz 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unverifiable and almost certainly a hoax.--Isotope23 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Claims to play for a lesser Madrid side, yet is shown in a photoshopped photo with the head of Roberto Carlos visible. Claims to have been tabbed to play for NUMEROUS national sides? I think wikipedia should add "Tool" for reasons to delete a page.Batman2005 01:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's what Wikipedia needs: CSD:A9 author/subject is a tool.--Isotope23 17:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pic looks legit, I've heard of him before... although I don't think he ever appeared with the first team in a competitive match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.62.193 (talk • contribs)

In a blatant attempt to tone down the article, the above "65.92.62.193" removed some text from the piece which claimed he had been capped for the first team. Unfortunately (as seen from Batman's comment) now people will wonder how you got your pic taken with Roberto Carlos... Still doesn't explain the claims of "fair features" which "have led him to having godlike status", guess you ain't quite a miracle worker with the photoshop yet Basto.. Admins, please put this hoaxer out of his misery Deiz 01:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I get the impression that this is Mr. Mikdadi's attempt to score with the ladies by making himself an "international sex idol"... What a pathetic person. To the Pits with ye. --Agamemnon2 08:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The line: "Although relatively unknown outside of Las Rozas, Mikdadi is famous in the Arab World because of his playboy lifestyle" says it all. HOAX! Carlossuarez46 21:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The IP address that removed a substantial portion of this obvious hoax resolves to Montreal, Canada. Curiously, the only people who support this oulandish claim are the IP Address "65.92.62.193" and the article creator. Most definitely the same person. Perhaps Mr. Mikdadi should spend less time on wikipedia and more time thinking up believeable hoaxes. Batman2005 05:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhakar tomar[edit]

Head of action committees of nn organisation, recipient of nn award, director of nn company. Fails Geogre's Law. Verified only by nn speaking engagements. -- Perfecto 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. --Perfecto 02:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, vanity. Catamorphism 08:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanity is not a speedy deletion criteria. Please read WP:CSD, then read it again, backwards. Then forget about what you read when you read it backwards, because it's forwards that matters, and read it properly another two or three times. Then come back and tell me exactly where it says that vanity is a CSD. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about defending some article that actually deserves it, instead of some dumb schmoe's biography? There's sticking to the rules, and then there's playing by procedure merely for the sake of being a pompous ass. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 08:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - He's apparently an authority on trade, recipient of an international agricultural award, and director of a group of corporations. That's a far cry from "my name is pete and im in the 5th grade and my teacher says im smart". This is not a case of speedy deleting for the thrill of being able to shoot on sight. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must say I agree with MarkGallagher. It took me a while to verify what the bio said. A part of me even expects someone here to post irrefutable evidence of notability -- which may still happen! Mark, though, was uncivil. --Perfecto 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - True. I might have seen a dozen people incorrectly thinking that vanity is a speedy deletion criterion, but the user who says it is isn't responsible for the other eleven or so. I was getting a bit frustrated, and there's no place for that here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bio of a non-notable person.--Isotope23 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 21:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Selio[edit]

Delete, as it appears to be some sort of disambiguation page. However, both articles linked do not exist. Rory096 03:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maybe the links related to the guy named Selio, and if they ever existed, were deleted before now? Jawz 08:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Neither one has an entry in the deletion log. *shrug* Powers 15:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Disambig for 2 pages that don't exist.--Isotope23 20:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteHousekeeping.Obina 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not needed (yet). Latinus 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Libertarian Party[edit]

9/12/2012 Any options to the stagnant, repugnant cesspool that the American political arena has become in the last 25 years or so is far from non-notable. If it's non-notable, it's only because Rebublicrat lackeys do all they can to put a musty lid on a fresh idea. I say "Un Delete" and tell all your friends! .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Delete as non-notable political party. The party 'is' listed on the list of Minor Political Parties on the Florida Div. of Elections site, but no other appreciable notablity. Home page listed in article is invalid, and a second different site listed on the Fla. Div. of Elec. site is inactive Bugturd Talk 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The home page listed in the article is valid for me Rory096 03:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. The site in the article has been updated since my first visit. The page listed points to a section within the personal site of the author of the article, which bolsters my point about the party's non-notability. Therefore, I upgrade my vote to Strong Delete --Bugturd Talk 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does "non-notability" really mean... Like most small independent third parties, it is, by definition, non-notabile compared to major parties, but otherwise it is a valid and valuable edition to the political landscape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.64.171 (talk • contribs)

Delete Non notable. This means not already well known, or not significant in some way. A not well know scientist who made a breakthrough would still be notable. This is a judgement call, but there are many prior examples. See for example WP:NOT and WP:BIo. And this determined in the end by judgement of editors. Mine is as per Bugturd's. Sorry.Obina 23:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By your standard any not descript animal with no real defining charateristics would be deleted as non-notable. However, we list them all as separate things. By its own definition it is notable in that it is a thing different and unusual from others. Your requirement is "well known" which should never be the standard for knowledge. If this was a popularity encyclo, sure, but this is suppose to be the encyclo of all knowledge. keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjposner (talk • contribs)

This is clearly a small - perhaps even miniscule - political party but it is validly registered in the state of Florida and anyone is free to register as a member which to my mind makes it a worthwhile piece of information to include in this encyclopedia. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.20.3.175 (talk • contribs)

Comment Note that one of the three "keeps" is from the article's author, and the other two are from IP users, one of whom has no other contribs aside from this talk page. --Bugturd Talk 21:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If they're noteable for the Flordia Elections officials, why not us? If it is kept, could use some cleanup. —akghetto ^talk 10:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All knowledge is notable. -- Marvin147 00:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7trees[edit]

Even without the layout mistakes this reads like an advert. Not notable? DJ Clayworth 03:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Doesn't actually even assert notability. Fails WP:CORP.-Ikkyu2 05:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, advertisement. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Mcwin[edit]

Non-notable person. One of the links refers to him as chair of a sub-committee. A Google search shows no hits. I search for "Don Mcwin" "Don McWhinney"... nothig came up. Delete Atrian 04:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable Sierra club member. Has a role in a regional branch of a club is all. Obina 23:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not sure about the proper name, but neither possibility seems sufficiently notable.-Colin Kimbrell 19:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Latinus. Stifle 23:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer-to-Peer Streaming Systems and Incentive Mechanisms[edit]

Delete. At a glace, appears to be original research. At the very least, it needs a thorough style cleanup. --ColdFeet 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Belongs in Peer-to-peer, if anywhere, and only after cleanup and making it read more like an encyclopedia entry and less like a "Networking 102" research paper. On the bright side, it's well-formatted and extensively sourced. Hope he got a good grade. Powers 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Peer-to-peer. Looks like there's some potentially valuable info there. -Colin Kimbrell 19:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Peer-to-peer. Stifle 23:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC), Even I believe so Medha 07:28 4 February 2006 (IST)[reply]

The result of the debate was Xxxdelete. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 04:39, Feb. 5, 2006

Xxxchurch[edit]

Article on a porn site. This one happens to be a Christian porn site, which is, to say the least, different. Encyclopedic, though? I doubt it. -R. fiend 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the difference is enough to keep it around for a while to let it evolve and grow.65.189.26.187 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You misread, or haven't visited the site yet. It's a Christian anti-porn site. Delete nonetheless, non-notable. Haha, a porn-free internet, what will they come up with next? - CorbinSimpson 04:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn site. Makemi 06:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Corbin's right, it's anti-porn [10], which makes it pretty unremarkable for a Christian thing; Alexa rank doesn't help it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 06:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some work. I did see on a national news story on this (sorry, don't remember the exact show nor date) sometime during 2005 in the USA about this site. It has been around since Jun 2001.
- Sort of remembering seeing something about something on some sort of news program at some point is not a verifiable source. And even if you could supply specifics, merely being mentioned once on a news program is usually insufficient for inclusion in an encyclopedia, or else I know a few certain puppies that would have their own articles. -R. fiend 06:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote (Comment). Site gets 4 mentions on Google News, although 2 results are from Christian newspapers and 1 is under subscription. I also recall seeing it on some US Christian talk show that for some reason gets shown at about 3am in Australia. Also note that article as it stands does not correctly describe the site - to my knowledge it is meant to look like a porn site to attract "porn addicts", who are then supposed to see the light of God and give up their sinful ways. Confusing Manifestation 11:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per R firned's reasoning. Proto t c 12:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a devious trick. I thought Christians were above such things. I guess not. JIP | Talk 12:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable website. --Ter e nc e Ong (Chinese New Year greetings) 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Vote (Comment) maybe the organization is more notable than its website and the article should be rewritten as such 17:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep and Cleanup It's real and notable, between 87,000 google hits and coverage on The Daily Show, along with a number of print/online news stories. The article needs work but the site is worth an article. Night Gyr 18:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, even if the article is fixed to actually be factual. Now if it really was a christian porn site, that would be a different thing entirely from a notability standpoint. --Isotope23 20:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. I like the "Jesus loves porn stars" t-shirts though! --kingboyk 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the noble campaign to make an anti-porn-free Internet. --Agamemnon2 08:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Xxxchurch.com. Big-time news coverage, for them and their event: the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader[11], the Spokane Spokesman Review [12], the Sacramento News and Review [13], CNN [14], the Toledo Blade [15], the Hartford Advocate [16], WTOL (Toledo's CBS affiliate)[17], the Winston-Salem Journal [18], the Cincinnati Enquirer [19], the Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier[20], the Orange County Register(syndicated from the Christian Science Monitor)[21], etc. There are more, too, but I think the point is made.-Colin Kimbrell 20:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Agamemnon. Carlossuarez46 21:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, evidently people want more. The "Media" page on the "National Porn Sunday" site[22] includes links to clips from segments on not only CNN, but also ABC World News Tonight, A Current Affair, and Geraldo at Large, as well as six local news broadcasts in Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee. It also links to about a half-dozen other newspaper articles, and there are a few more of those on Google that aren't listed if you want to dig. Honestly, this has been covered more extensively than about 90% of the stuff on here. I don't know what else y'all could want. -Colin Kimbrell 23:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Alexa ranking is 67,778. The top-links on Google returned for "xxxchurch" number roughly around 87,000. Most of those are small blogs talking about how XXXChurch is not really a site of notability. Keep also in mind that WP:WEB's criterion for inclusion relating to press requires that "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" be directly linked under the references or external links section of the article. - CorbinSimpson 03:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So we add the CNN transcript and the ABC transcript and a few of the bigger papers like the CSM to the references section and cite them in the article. Then everybody's happy, no?-Colin Kimbrell

Comment: Eh, I don't think this is one of those issues where everybody walks away happy. Nonetheless, the AfD as it stands makes a good case. The article is currently a waste of HD space. If by some miracle the article were to undergo an amazing transformation wherein it was wikified, formatted, neutral, accurate, cited, and squeaky clean, I might consider changing my vote. Mostly, I'm against a site that might not be universally considered notable as having an article. My point of view would likely be drastically different if the article were about the organization rather than the website...anyways, if the article shows marked improvement before the discussion closes, I will reconsider my vote, which I think is about as happy everyone gets. - CorbinSimpson 09:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Porn Sunday[edit]

Non-notable neo-holiday, linked only from today's AfD candidate Xxxchurch. Ikkyu2 06:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep looks like it at least existed this past year, as an opportunity for fundamentalist churches to talk about their stance on pornography. I'm not sure if it's notable though, it's just not complete nonsense. Makemi 06:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 818 Google results [23] shows some impact but not sufficiently established yet to warrant an article. Capitalistroadster 06:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - existance != encyclopaedic. Not notable enough. Mention on the Xxxchurch article if that does get kept. Proto t c 12:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, see my comment at the Xxxchurch AfD discussion. JIP | Talk 12:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable holiday. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. According to the website, it is only practiced by about 80 parishes in the USA. - CorbinSimpson 20:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable pseudo-holiday.--Isotope23 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't all these concerned Christians be out helping the poor instead of frothing at the mouth about what goes on between a couple of "actors"? For people who are against erotic entertainment, they seem strangely captivated by it. But I digress, Delete is what I came here for. --Agamemnon2 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really easy Keep for media coverage; see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Xxxchurch for a partial listing. -Colin Kimbrell 20:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it and the xxxchurch it rode in on. Carlossuarez46 21:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 21:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weld 11[edit]

Not just a college dormitory, but a room in a college dormitory. Nothing on google to suggest notability that I can see. Delete or at least redirect to List of Harvard dormitories. Spangineer (háblame) 04:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very unencyclopedic. Mentioning people who didn't live there is a nice touch, too. -R. fiend 04:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Lockley 05:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Don't even need redirect. Makemi 06:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. I got drunk there once, an experience which was only very modestly notable. Ikkyu2 06:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it as soon as possible. For goodness sake, even a room in a college domitry can be on an encyclopedia. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ivycruft. Youngamerican 16:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also, at the moment this article contains no verifiable information as no citations are provided. Maybe we need to consider putting "Content must be verifiable" under every edit box. Oh, wait... Dpbsmith (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAI. Stifle 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy keep. See WP:DRV. -R. fiend 05:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: This nomination was closed early because there was already an on-going discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The renomination should not have been created until that discussion had a chance to conclude. This prevents confusing and circular discussions. It also prevents any appreance of impropriety through "forum-shopping". Rossami (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator I want to record the fact that I strongly dissent from any implication that an AfD discussion, which is based on consensus, can be prevented from proceeding because there is a prior discussion on DRV, which is not consensus-based. I see no reason why this nomination should not be re-opened by anyone wishing to record their opinion of whether this article should be deleted, but I will not edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.[edit]

This article was listed previously.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state-named Avenues in Washington, D.C.

The result was no consensus, and as is normal for such a result the article was kept. Someone has queried this result on the basis that he thinks the discussion favored deletion, and he has taken the unusual step of going to Wikipedia:Deletion review to try to get it deleted. Since Deletion Review is one of our few forums that are not consensus-based, I think it's probably fairer if the article is relisted for discussion in this consensus-based forum. I recommend, I admit rather lukewarmly, a keep, and present my arguments below. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a perfectly good article to me. The existence, in the one full part of the United States that does not have statehood, and moreover the one devoted wholly to government of the United States, of streets (mostly avenues) named after all fifty states of the Union, is no coincidence, and a list of those streets is of encyclopedic value. It is of perhaps as much encyclopedic value as the list of streets of Atlentic City that appear in the US monopoly board, or lists of streets in London that appear in the British version. That is to say: not much, but the net value is positive and the article is unlikely to pose any great maintenance problems. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with Tony Sidaway. The article has encyclopedic value, is completely verifable, and is more expandable than a category is. The content is certainly more encyclopedic than other lists we've deemed notable enough for inclusion. —Cleared as filed. 03:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Provides more than a category can, as it includes redlinks, and can include redirects (like if Ohio Drive were to redirect to the park it's contained in). Provides more than a redirect to U.S. state can, as it links to the roads. Provides more than Category:Streets in Washington, D.C. can, as it pulls out the ones specifically named after states - because, you know, not everyone lives in the U.S. or has the names of the states memorized. (I have split them off into a subcategory, but I don't have high hopes for its survival.) Common sense, dudes. This does more good than the zero harm in keeping it. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful list --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I stand by the opinion I expressed the first time around. - SimonP 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe rename it to List of state-named Roads (or Streets) in Washington, D.C., so as to include Ohio and California, instead of just having them seem oddly out of place. Rory096 03:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and well organised information. Golfcam 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and enhance While it is mildly problematic that there are so many redlinks currently, this only means that this worthwhile list regarding state-named roadways in the U.S. capital (and ancillary topics of DC being a planned city) should be enhanced. For instance, it'd be great if a map was devised to highlight all of these roadways. Furthermore, each entry should be accompanied by approximate locations in DC and/or all of them should be categorised/sectioned according to location (e.g., NE, Foggy Bottom, etc.) As well, I'd actually suggest renaming it to List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C. (lower case r, since many roadways are named Avenue, Road, Street, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT, etc. Hardly encyclopedic, atomic level detail on streets doesn't even qualify as "almanac style entry". Simple verifiablility isn't the hurdle for inclusion, we're an encyclopedia, not Everything 2. While we're at it, censure Tony Sidaway for bad-faith venue shopping. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone please add this to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 30 again, please? Someone keeps removing it but I don't like to edit war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been a strange debate. I have no strong feelings about the article (other than my original vote of delete as non-notable listcruft) but I note tensions run high in others (both supporting and not). I don't know why this AfD was closed early as there was no consensus for speedy keep.
- The debate closure note references Wikipedia:Deletion review. I think the intent is to consolidate the discussion. -- Plutor 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Toadstool[edit]

Some local bar in the 60-70's. Google shows that there must be some garrage band by the same name and I could find only one relevant hit. Searches for any band or people mentioned there does not give much results either. Non-notable.

Delete. I wikified it a little. Renata 04:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless a better case can be made for notability. Sounds like it might have been an interesting place, but interesting places are a dime a dozen.
- Oops forgot to sign. -R. fiend 06:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Makemi 06:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD A7. 19 displayed of 119 similar Google links, only one of which was not a Wikipedia mirror. Apparently it really existed and was a club venue for live music, according to the photograph, but no evidence of notability. Ikkyu2 06:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Preferrably speedy. TheRingess 06:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taco the cat[edit]

Non-notable cat. Speedy tag attempted but assertion made that cat appeared in Prince Among Cats, therefore I nominate to delete. Andy Saunders 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete non notable -Drdisque 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cat is known for Prince Among Cats, which was featured in the cult mag Weird NJ and on NPR. He is a notable cat. Don't delete him! People always want to know about him!
- The preceeding comment was by User:Rosiekgo and User:141.153.138.88. -- Andy Saunders 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was featured on NPR ([24]), but I don't have an article. Nor am I nearly notable enough for one. --Andy Saunders 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Wow, Andy. You should be the poster boy for "non-notable". Something like, "You must be more notable than Andy to ride this ride." Powers 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge into an article about Prince Among Cats. —Brim 05:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio of a cat. I find no ghits or anything on IMDb about a film called "Prince among cats" (perhaps a cult home-video would be a more appropriate name?). Makemi 05:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hahahaha incog 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not 100 million pages about someone's cat. That honor belongs to the Internet. Ikkyu2 05:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete-prince among cats was screened at a bunch of coleges, i was wondering who the cat was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.4.4 (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom, and can we please start doing something to these goddamn potheads polluting this site? --Agamemnon2 08:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better a pothead than the pathetic classics phd neocons that sit on wikipedia deleting other people's pages while toggling back to their online personal ads. Your teleological values almost rationalize the acute separation anxieties that keep you at home memorizing factoids instead of buying a plane ticket and god forbid helping somebody, since for you patrician virtue can be attained at mother's kitchen table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.252.4.4 (talk • contribs)
Useless unverifiable article. And appearance in "Prince Among Cats" is not a claim of note, since the film can't be found either at IMDB or at Google. Delete - candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 14:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was redirect; as a former KoL player, I know there's nothing to be merged. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Johnson[edit]

Was nominated for speedy deletion, but I have an inkling that Jick may be notable. No opinion. - EurekaLott 05:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. His website appears to be notable. Rory096 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect with his website. StarryEyes 11:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect as per StarryEyes. A lot of the contributions for the "Kingdom of Loathing" and related articles seem to come from User:Xym, which is almost Xym's only contributions. I'm assuming good faith (which is why not delete), but it smells like a self-promotion, and more importantly do we really need 3, 4, + stub pages regarding one website that is only in the top 11,000 per Alexia? —akghetto ^talk 16:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is not notable. If anyone cares to, merge any applicable content to the apparent article about his website (which doesn't seem to be all that notable IMO, but that is a separate discussion).--Isotope23 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No Opinion I am not affiliated with KoL in any way except as a player. I wasn't really even serious about this page as I was just doing it as something minor to screw around with to try making a page. If people would like to remove it, it's fine with me. Xym 06:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy (movie)[edit]

nn movie "scheduled to begin shooting in late February". WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cant' find any ghits on "production team", or on their lead actor on IMDb. Makemi 05:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Makemi -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Royboycrashfan 08:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete per nom. I am the Christopher Ray listed there and I made the page. I removed the shooting information, its a good point to keep it strictly factual. I'm still working on the webpage for the movie so once it's done I'll make the link. c_ray_86 13:48, 31 January 2006
Delete - per nom (open defiance). Latinus 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and delete it. I've read through your rules several times and still can't figure out how to work this out in an orderly manner. I simply get short-handed jargon that I don't understand listed here, so have your community of information where you can disregard what you deem unimportant. I love the wiki idea, and hope to see it continued. Don't loose sight of your own vision of the free flow of information. But then again, this will be gone soon as well, and all will be forgotten. c_ray_86 22:26 January 31st 2006
- I offered to help you on your talk page. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 21:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Jablonsky[edit]

This is basically a CV. This guy might meet WP:BIO but it's hard to tell amidst the puffery, and if kept, it would basically need to be rewritten from scratch. 96 unique googles. -R. fiend 05:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn bio. Reads like his resume. Makemi 05:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is his resume! Eusebeus 07:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (yes it's seems his resume, and so what, you retard? what's the point?)11:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)~[reply]
Delete per above. Royboycrashfan 07:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' as per above. Jawz 08:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete NN bio. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how can this not be his resume/cv?!? —akghetto ^talk 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. This defaults to keep; do not cite it to support/oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 06:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Ass[edit]

Possibly a hoax. Not mentioned in the newspaper article listed. —Brim 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep did Google search, found documentation that this phenomenon exists in multiple cities. Plenty of pics for proof. Notability is debatable, but public events organized in multiple cities seem just as notable as lots of other stuff to survive AfD. Ben Kidwell 05:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Horrifically, article is true, and its subject receives regular media coverage. -Ikkyu2 06:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could we have links provided to these mentions in reliable sources, please? They should use this name as well. Thanks - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few links to assess significance: [[25]], [[26]], [[27]] and here are some resources from the, um, "C-ass community?" [[28]]. I also found a lot of people discussing and co-ordinating these rides on forums, journals, blogs, etc.Ben Kidwell 07:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1,750 Google hits but many refer to bicycle seats see [29]. No evidence that this is a significant event. Capitalistroadster 06:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn fad. Per the link above, only 5 riders took part in TO. Eusebeus 07:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and expand. It not entirely nonsense, and it is - dare i say it - even mildly interesting (even if it is small). Certainly not the most encyclopedic article around, but worth keeping imho. The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 11:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Eusebeus et al. StarryEyes 11:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It's not a hoax or a fad. I've done two Critical Ass rides (one in NYC & one in Ithaca, NY). You can see photos from multiple other communities as well on Flickr here. Note this image in particular in which someone is wearing a "SF Criticl Ass" sticker on their underwear. Just because something's not well-documented on the web doesn't mean it doesn't exist in the real world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mobius1ski (talk • contribs)
- Well, most everything that ends up on Wikipedia exists in the real world, but that doesn't make it all notable by necessity. StarryEyes 12:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trust me, the LAST thing we need is to see is photographic evidence! --Agamemnon2 08:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable, failing that smerge into Critical mass. The sources provided make it clear this does not warrant its own article. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ben Kidwell and others. I had never heard of this, but the article does a good job of explaining the phenomenon. Some photos added to the article would also be most helpful. -- JJay 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Aaron Brenneman, although the redirect should go to Critical Mass. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, and recreate if they make news. Heck, if anyone here is involved with 'em, tell me and I'll write a feature on you. Just promise to wear clothes. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 01:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Raggaga 12:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand use of "per nom." here. The nomination says "possibly a hoax" but it has been clearly established that this entry is not a hoax. It may not be notable and since it remains a very brief entry on something that is basically a prank (very different from a hoax), I would agree with those who suggest merge and add a redirect to the main entry on critical mass bike rides. "Per nom." deletion doesn't make sense when it was nominated as a possible hoax, which it is not.Ben Kidwell 16:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimmac[edit]

This article's content is almost impossible to get. I had a very hard time even ascertaining the subject. It makes no sense. the only outbound links are to disambiguation pages. Tobyk777 05:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef, or at least that's what it looks like to me -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef (edit summary said so too); unverifiable (no obvious Google hits). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 06:32Z
Delete. Having seen Bloodsport many a time throughout my youth, I know what it is. ("What's a dimmac?" "Death touch.") But it's an obscure martial-arts dicdef, so let's give it the dimmac. StarryEyes 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per StarryEyes.--Isotope23 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 21:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toate[edit]

Same deal as above. Very hard to understand. Only links are to disambiguation pages. Article makes no sense. Tobyk777 05:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as dicdef -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef Avalon 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscuro dicdef.--Isotope23 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as obscure, unreferenced dicdef. Stifle 00:03, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skut[edit]

Delete as a neologism Rory096 05:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. NatusRoma 05:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom also dicdef, bordering on attack (well, almost bordering). Makemi 06:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom StarryEyes 11:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Isotope23 20:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though per the OED this is an alternative spelling for "scut," an obsolete term of contempt for a person. (Though not having anything to do with women or promiscuity.) It is also the name of a minor character in a Tintin comic. I'd support a redirect to Piotr Skut. Crypticfirefly 06:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. Latinus 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I add new meaning of term Skut, hope the page will not be deleted. I work on this project and want to create huge article about everything feated this term. (left on talk page of this article by User: Vill, with edit summary "No!!")
- It is possible that the new info added by Vill is legit, but the original content of the article needs to go. Crypticfirefly 04:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 21:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DnBrowser.com[edit]

Advertising. Delete. Andy Saunders 06:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per NomBrokenfrog 06:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to being an advertisement, it reads like one. Royboycrashfan 07:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Draeco 09:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Latinus 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Water empire[edit]

Almost textbook WP:OR as it stands. Several strands collected into a "new" idea. There may in fact be an article in this, but with a different title and different sources. ~~Delete.~~ brenneman ^(t)^(c) 06:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Georgewilliamherbert for finding a target... merge. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 04:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's pretty obvious that we are dealing with a science fiction theme here. As such, the article is no different than many of the 131 articles in category:science fiction themes. A good example of what this might become is Parallel universe. -- JJay 13:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do review the link to "original research" above. Unless a theme is noted in a Wikipedia:Reliable source than regardless of how "obvious" it is it cannot satisfy WP:V. As always, I'm happy to see sources provided. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 14:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite your pedantism, I am fully aware of wikipedia policy. There is no need to bombard people with links. If references were your concern, you might have started with some of the templates we have available in that respect. Oh, and please do review WP:Civil. -- JJay 15:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's "pedantry". —rodii 00:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC) sorry, I couldn't resist[reply]
    - Well it's in my 1913 webster, didn't realise it was obsolete. [30]. -- JJay 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - It was a joke, JJay... only a pedant would correct "pedantism" to... oh, never mind. rodii
keep patently obvious as a sci-fi theme, or do I need to get a credible source to verifie that the books I read are actually published science fiction.--Pypex 16:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The source you need is one that verifies that the concept "water empire" has been used in this way before it appeared in this article. Otherwise you're writing a (small) work of criticism, not an encyclopedia article. That's what "no original research" means. It doesn't seem like a breathtakingly original idea, so there ought to be something, under some name. Might require a rename if a source is found.—rodii 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Merge to Hydraulic empire, which lists historical context and origin of the term. Georgewilliamherbert 02:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! So that's a merge, I guess. —rodii 03:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. Clear merge candidate. Even if nothing were to be merged (which seems unlikely, given the idea's currency in science fantasy) we'd want to keep the redirect to Hydraulic empire. --Tony Sidaway 03:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Deleted 3 times in 20 minutes, latest as a copyvio. - Bobet 11:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rules of Wedding Crashing[edit]

Article has no content. Brokenfrog

The article now has content. Nom withdrawn. Brokenfrog 06:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boutique Wine Company[edit]

Simply put, blatant advertising. Delete TheRingess 06:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Royboycrashfan 07:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dlete., yes ad. Jawz 08:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TheRingess, I fail to see how this entry is any more an advert than Kmart Australia. If you are prepared to delete this entry, then you really should delete the entire Retail companies of Australia category. Dally Horton 08:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply That kind of argument does not hold water with me. Every article in Wikipedia deserves to be judged on its own merits.TheRingess 14:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is verifiable third party sources about K-mart Australia. Alas, I don't know the same can be said about the Boutique Wine Company. 1,990 Google results for "Boutique Wine Company" but many are about other boutique wineries.[31].A Google News story proved fruitless. A search of Australian news stories came up with nothing about this company. Capitalistroadster 09:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is acceptable as other companies in Australia but it needs time to develop. --Bduke 09:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Random online store. Ambi 09:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only notable online Australian wine store I can think of is Vintage Cellars.--cj | talk 11:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 09:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete Advertising, nothing else. (aeropagitica) 17:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--nixie 23:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising of nn business. Sarah Ewart 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advert. Latinus 22:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so quick to jump down my throat. You might try offering some constructive criticism perhaps? If I need some verifiable third party sources, that’s fine. Dally Horton 04:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's just not important enough - it's a random online store. This is an encyclopedia, not the Yellow Pages, and while we're (justifiably) very lenient with notability, we do have our limits. Ambi 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --BorgQueen 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Garrett[edit]

Delete. Only 10 Google results for Kevin Garrett, none of which are related to this person. Also violates WP:VAIN. Royboycrashfan 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. --Andy Saunders 06:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, vanity. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 06:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or replace with Kevin Garrett, NFL player with the Kansas City Chiefs - [32]High Plains Drifter 06:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I had that in thought, but the history of the vanity bio should at least be removed. Royboycrashfan 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this guy is famous at neyland so why you wanna erase this page??????????????????????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.194.244 (talk • contribs)

- Comment: It's not like he's known countrywide. Royboycrashfan 06:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Ainge isnt known countrywide and he has an article on here.........

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.194.244 (talk • contribs)

- Comment: You know what I mean. Erik Ainge's article was written by someone who doesn't know him personally. Kevin Garrett's article seems as though it may have been. See WP:VAIN. Royboycrashfan 06:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Erik Ainge is a collegiate football player at an NCAA Division-1A school. He is well-known and a notable figure. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 07:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well leave it anyway you guys take this stuff way too seriously. besides the guy is very well known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.194.244 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Like I said before, only 10 results come up when searching for Kevin Garrett on Google. They're all about the NFL player. Royboycrashfan 07:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as A7 nonnotable biography. Would vote to keep article on the Kansas City Chiefs player. Capitalistroadster 07:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. I've gone ahead and tagged it for CSD:A7... unless someone things attending football games, drinking beer, and yelling profanities is notable. If so, I expect my wiki article to be posted today.--Isotope23 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topaz chat[edit]

Non-notable software. Delete. Andy Saunders 06:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even my Battle.net junkie friends have never heard of it. Draeco 10:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 12:45Z
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day-Wizzle[edit]

Non-notable musician. Delete. Andy Saunders 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to non notability, possible hoax. See Artem. TheRingess 06:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Royboycrashfan 07:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable musician. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated above, non notable. PeteShanosky 03:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Evil saltine 03:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Copaja[edit]

This is a tricky one, so bear with me while I explain. This (orphan) article has remained a ten-word stub for nearly a year (I was the last editor, stubbing it last March). It may be a real place, and as such I am loath to afd it, but... it doesn't even say what country it is in, so technically it could be speediable. Google returns about 650 non-wikipedia hits for "Copaja", but many of them are for the website of Felipe Copaja, or for scientist Sylvia (S.V.) Copaja, or for other people with Copaja as their surname. Of the first 120 google hits, only one was for a Mt. Copaja, and that 404'ed. Unless there is some extension of this article, or at the very least confirmation of the mountain's existence, it doesn't really have a place here. Grutness...wha? 06:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- OK - good work Lukas - it looks keepable now. The alternative spelling may have been what fooled google. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of context and verifiability problems as Grutness pointed out. Also, a 5097 m cliff? Take a look at the cliff article to see how tall the world's highest cliffs are. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Lukas's research and expansion verifying the existence. The subject, once verified is valid, the problem with the original article has now been adressed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The web reference is here: [33]. It doesn't give the country, but a reference grid. I found two other, higher peaks with the same grid position, and they are described as being in the Western Andes on the border between Chile and Bolivia. Perhaps someone can look it up in an Atlas? "Cliff" is just non-native English for "peak", I guess. Lukas ^(T.|@) 09:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 11:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've found more information and added to the article. It now has exact co-ordinates and three web references, including the American government's GEONet Names Server database. "Copaja" is a variant form of "Capaja". Lukas ^(T.|@) 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the rewritten version and thanks to Lukas. Capitalistroadster 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel 22:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jawarlal Nehru Port Trust[edit]

Misspelled name in the article title. The correctly named article is Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust. Nothing links to this. doles 06:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the empty article name is more than one letter error from the intended article name, it is probably best to delete the empty article. Jawz 08:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1.2 million Google hits for "Jawaharlal Nehru"; only 369 for "Jawarlal Nehru". Many of the 369 had other spelling and translation errors. -Ikkyu2 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not opposed to a speedy redirect. -Ikkyu2 04:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust.--Ezeu 09:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect per above. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. Stifle 00:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete --HappyCamper 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Max josephson[edit]

Winning the 2004 California Arts Scholar award does not make one significant enough for inclusion. Delete. Andy Saunders 06:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, per A7. Royboycrashfan 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as ((nn-bio)). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 12:46Z

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 22:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

5_Minute_Walk[edit]

Delete - not notable per WP:MUSIC, vanity entry Funkymuskrat 07:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity band. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Read the article carefully; it's not a band, it's a record label, and it's a record label that sports quite a few artists notable enough to have Wikipedia entries. StarryEyes 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per the difference between a music label and a band. Falls under WP:CORP not WP:MUSIC. - Turnstep 15:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- appears notable. Odd that the official website for the label appears to focus on just one band, which is not even listed in the WP article -- but I found plenty of references to the label. Powers 15:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Powers, Roper is listed on the Wiki article as the only band currently signed to them. Thus why they only feature Roper on the site. STAREYe 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as others have noted this is an independent record label, not a band and therefore doesn't fall under WP:Music. Dan, the CowMan 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, per Turnstep. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 01:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep warpozio 10:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McGillicuddy's Irish Pub[edit]

Non-notable bar : blatant advert Oscarthecat 07:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, perhaps speedy. Royboycrashfan 07:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertisement. POVray: Are they really the most popular? Jawz 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We should look at adding companies or enterprises to list of non-notable organisations under Category A7. There is no evidence showing why this is any more notable than the thousands of Irish pubs around the world. Capitalistroadster 09:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ad. StarryEyes 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Latinus 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tight pockets[edit]

This is simply a non-notable store. I don't think it's likely to be expanded, since this post indicates that it was condemned in July 2005. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn. Jawz 07:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the year before last's Athens Yellow Pages. - Randwicked Alex B 10:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:21Z
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uturn creative studios[edit]

Was tagged as speedy copyvio, but article creator, an alleged representative of the company, gave permission to use. However, it is still non-notable and a vanity article. Delete. Andy Saunders 07:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement for some web thing. Delete. Jawz 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a faq for a non-notable webcomic website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 12:44Z
Delete. It appears this does not meet WP:WEB guidelines. -- Dragonfiend 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not even an article. --Agamemnon2 09:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feelone[edit]

Delete nn band. They don't appear to have recorded any albums, have not performed outside their country and "are still looking for major recording labels". A Google with +Feelone +nasyid -wikipedia yields only 8 hits. --Bruce1ee 07:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 07:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - ManiacK 09:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. StarryEyes 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no albums released means its not notable at all. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable band. WP:Music refers; chart positions for singles, albums; two major album releases; notable members. (aeropagitica) 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedied under A7. - Lucky 6.9 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana paredes[edit]

Delete. Appears to be a vanity page. A Google search does yield results, but none appear to be her. Rory096 07:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it not speedy A7? --Andy Saunders 07:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if it was indeed a vanity page, as there wasn't even enough content for that. I suppose I could have even marked it as a speedy delete for lack of content, but I decided consensus was better. Rory096 07:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7 Royboycrashfan 07:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. One A7, hold the mayo... - Lucky 6.9 08:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Chevallier-Boutell[edit]

This article seams to be one messy hoax. Not only theres no google hit on Bertha Evelyn Angela Frances Chevallier-Boutell outside wikipedia, but I haven't been able to find any reference at all about a Bertha Chevallier, Berta Chevalier or any combination of them. Not even the Aspall site has any reference to her. Mariano(t/c) 08:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Just do the math: we have no birth date for this woman, but if her mother was 30 years old when she was born then she would have been 40 years older than her second husband. Preposterous. Durova 14:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if she were real, there's no notability here. Webb-Reder - webreader. Get it? Haw, haw. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ~~hoax.~~ non-notable. Also see the afd for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chevalliers_of_Aspall_Hall OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 19:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette brands[edit]

Does not serve any purpose that Category:Cigarette brands does not. Ezeu 08:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good nom. StarryEyes 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. May be useful to have the list at some point, although it should be renamed List of cigarette brands. Youngamerican 13:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the red links onto the category page, then delete. I think a list really needs to present multi-variate data to distinguish itself from a category. — RJH 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The category is adequate; the page is superfluous. (aeropagitica) 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. Regulatory fascism is becoming more popular than ever, and someone must stand against it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.12.205.39 (talk • contribs)
Weak keep, despite my urge to engage in some regulatory fascism. Might be useful somehow, and offers more latitude for expansion than a category does. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 01:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd stand against regulatory fascism, but I doubt it'd hold me up. Ikkyu2 05:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all listcruft :: Supergolden 16:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to a category and a list that appears to have been created solely for the purpose of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, contains red links, thus not redundant to a category. Kappa 10:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, add to each line some one-liner text for context -- Marvin147 05:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbars[edit]

Questionable dicdef. Delete. Catamorphism 08:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. Jawz 08:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and not an internet slang one in any case. Delete. haz (user talk) 15:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I was wondering, why should the page be deleted? I mean, this is a Encyclopedia! Surely it should have stuff like this in it, for people who don't know what a userbar is...Am I wrong? User:Lavarock09

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (In particular, see the section "Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide".) Catamorphism 18:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism; not encyclopaedic. Latinus 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what they said. — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 22:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree.Tom 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Eduardo Visacovsky[edit]

NN professor that doesn't seem to pass the professor test nor the Google test. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable biography. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to break him out from most prof's. Obina 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn ( <=no citations to his work in Scholar Google) - move content to User:Seredvisac User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Student Learning Center[edit]

Is a building at a minor university really notable? I doubt it. In addition, many universities have departments that use this name, and it's misleading to suggest that it refers only to one specific university's Student Learning Center. Delete. Catamorphism 08:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Aucaman^Talk 08:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into University of Georgia - would cut and paste nicely as a new section. There is the possibility of a generic article on Student Learning Centers that could go under this name, but this is not it. Proto t c 12:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good job merging it, Proto. Powers 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't redirect, as the name is too generic. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hell, even my university has one. Doesn't make sense to create an article about a building almost every university has anyway. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone here so far. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism in Black Metal[edit]

This article is a brieft, biased, mainly POV article. It has already been tagged as not meeting Wikipedia's expectance of articles, and has also been tagged as needing to be cleaned up. The article also repeats information that only exists about a small scene in the Black Metal genre, which is explained in much greater detail on the NSBM article. Its also mentioned in brief, but greater detail on the main Black Metal article. As such, this should be deleted as Biased POV Repetation and a redirect should be left to the NSBM article Leyasu 08:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Socialist black metal and merge if there's anything valid not covered in that article. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 09:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if anything valid can be merged, Plain Ol' Delete if not. Youngamerican 13:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Black Metal. aliceinlampyland 14:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect as per canadian caeser. If there's space there, then it should be merged also. Akerensky99 05:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as CanadianCaesar suggested. Sandro67 22:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Leyasu. --Jakob Huneycutt 22:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agumon382[edit]

Delete Not notable user wrote article about himself. ManiacK 09:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. Autobiographical article (written in first person) which meets WP:CSD A7. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Park[edit]

nn vanity page--MONGO 09:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable vanity page. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable person. - ManiacK 09:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. Someone tagged this for a speedy under WP:CSD A7, and I agree. Absolutely no assertion of notability. Just says how popular she is. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cornells TruValue[edit]

Delete Not notable hardware store. Only few results in google. Ad? ManiacK 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, ad. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tellingly, my erstwhile hometown is the next one over, and I've never heard of this establishment. (Of course, they don't even give the state, so only those familiar with local geography--or bored enough to do the research--would know where it is.) StarryEyes 10:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, we should have an article for EVERY TruValue store in the country. Nah, just kidding. Delete! Powers 15:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion A6). howch e ng {chat} 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Holder[edit]

Article serves solely as an attack on someone else. Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 09:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is my friend. I'm bored and just thinking the most random stuff in the world to put on there. Hence the YIDDISH CUP joke. ALright, what is it that you find so offensive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulledteeth (talk • contribs)
- It's not about finding it offensive or not, it's about it violating a gazillion Wikipedia policies and about it having no encyclopedic value. --Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 14:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:BALLS--Ezeu 09:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a personal attack. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 09:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a personal attack, but just a stupid joke, and not a particularly amusing one. StarryEyes 10:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, per WP:BIO, as attack, as completely idiosyncratic non-topic. It sounds almost as if someone bored was just thinking most random stuff to put on there. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the author's protestations, the article serves to disparage the subject and as such could be tagged with ((db-attack)). Even if it isn't tagged as such, the content is not encyclopædic and should be deleted. (aeropagitica) 17:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged as such. -Buchanan-Hermit™..contribs..speak! 18:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Deletergerradhgh. The Land 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angharradh[edit]

Tagged as a speedy (A1), but there is plenty of content and context here so I'm bringing it to AFD. Article appears to be about some Dungeons & Dragons goddess. I can't remember seeing this one in Deities & Demigods, so it might be a fan creation, but it might be in some other published D&D material. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and it wouldn't surprise me if it's a copyvio from a print publication). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, a very thinly edited copyvio of [34]. - Randwicked Alex B 10:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'll tag it as a copyvio then, but it is not speediable since it was added on January 15 and WP:CSD A8 only counts for articles less than two days old. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the copyvio is from the published Forgotten Realms expansion book, Faiths and Pantheons. The web page linked above is itself a copyvio of that source. Powers 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, hopefully it'll go out copyvio style. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 12:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She could deserve an article; a few of the other Elven deities have them, but not all, and of course any article would need to be original rather than yanked out of Faiths and Pantheons. Powers 15:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Angharad means "more love" in Welsh. There is an old Welsh legend about a woman named Angharad Golden-hand, and a minor character in Lloyd Alexander's Prydain trilogy is named "Eilonwy daughter of Angharad. -Ikkyu2 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Latinus 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Burnie Mall[edit]

Delete The register of shops at this mall indicate it is a small suburban shopping centre--Porturology 10:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable mall. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not for an article on your local mall. Stifle 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Longhair 15:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete . The Land 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team 9[edit]

Delete nn band. Its previous nomination for deletion survived with a request that it should be cleaned up, but nothing notable has been added – we still don't know who the band members are! --Bruce1ee 10:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Since the members are not named, what's the point of keeping it. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? Obvious Keep, notable in the mashup/bootleg community. Again, WP:MUSIC is worthless for this band because it cannot legitimately make records and rarely gets radio play. If you need something to cling tenaciously to WP:MUSIC, then Party Ben's association with the group was noted on VH1.com, and one of their mashups were reviewed on Pitchfork. If we can speedy delete nn-bands, we should be able to speedy keep notable ones. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- More links that will be added to the article at some point. NME, MTV, Spin, NBC's Birmingham affiliate. Furthermore, one of their remixes was also reviewed in Blender magazine and a few apparently made the Toronto Star's "anti-hit list." Is this really still a question? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 20:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, not encyclopedic. Subject's site has no Alexa ranking, Google search for sites linking to subject's site yields only 279 hits. Ergot 20:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as very notable, and easily meeting WP:MUSIC requirements (e.g. 5 and 11). I've cleaned up the article and added some references as well (thanks to badlydrawnjeff for finding those). Turnstep 01:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Redirected to Engrish. The Land 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To push start only 1 player button[edit]

Stub about mistranslated bit in old Namco game. The phrase is already discussed at length in Engrish. StarryEyes 10:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. StarryEyes 10:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Are there really people who care about these things? JIP | Talk 12:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, yes, but even those that do do not think that this meme reqires its own article. Delete Youngamerican 13:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pink panty[edit]

A Google search was unable to come up with this drink, though there is one called a "pink panty dropper", made with a different recipe. Appears to be a neologism. ThreeAnswers 10:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 00:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Treanor[edit]

I was tempted just to mark this as nn-bio, but the fact that it's been around for a few months and has been edited by several different people made me reluctant. Nevertheless, I don't believe there is any claim of notability, beyond "runs a website and has some political ideas". Delete. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 11:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only true contributor to the article is the original (anon) author; all the others made minor fixes such as disambiguation, grammar, wording, categories, and so forth. No real assertion of notability. StarryEyes 11:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable vanity bio. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Faith (Christian rock band)[edit]

Delete nn band. No sign of any albums. No AMG entry. Google on +"The Faith" +"Jed Mercardante" -wikipedia yields 6 hits. --Bruce1ee 11:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete vanity band. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable band. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:20Z
Speedy delete, then make the band revert any and all royalties to Ian MacKaye's baby brother Alec's much more notable and influential band of the same name to cover trademark infringement costs ;). Cjmarsicano 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Karaolis[edit]

Delete not notable and subject doesnt want the article online — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk • contribs)
Delete also he doesnt work in Downing Street and so isnt a notable figure there...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.10 (talk • contribs)

the above comment are from User:194.60.38.10, I only listed this as second nomination. see [35] --Melaen 10:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in view of non-notability (not in view of the subject's desire that the article not appear). Joe 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep semi-notable figure in office of Deputy Prime Minister. Also vice-president of the UK arm of Nepomak, the World Organisation of Young Overseas Cypriots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torim (talk • contribs)
Delete as non-notable. I've recently reduced the Whatlinkshere count (eg: [36] [37] [38]) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot notable figure - also those trying to preserve the article seem to be doing it as a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krad1 (talk • contribs)
Keep adviser to John Prescott on public policy. How is that not notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poolin (talk • contribs)
Comment to User:Poolin: First contribution to Wikipedia? Please don't delete votes. You are getting confused with John Prescott's notability zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable and nobody here has offered anything above what's on the page. Turnstep 01:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's not an adviser to John Prescott on public policy - he is a researcher. There is a difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krad1 (talk • contribs)
Delete There are thousands of parliamentary researchers - not sufficiently notable in itself to warrant inclusion. NewmanSociety 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 00:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 00:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry blasters[edit]

advertisment.delete. Melaen 11:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and remove the commercial names at the end. There are plenty of other candy description pages as precedent. This one is pretty well known. :-) — RJH 16:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RJHall. I removed the commercial names at the end. Where (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Cherry Blasters --Melaen 10:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Nomination withdrawn —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:19Z

Ogston[edit]

Content: Ogston (Family Name) (Origin:Scottish). Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 11:50Z

I've turned it into a disambig page, as there are a few Ogstons lurking in WP. Keep now? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Great job! Withdrawing nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:19Z

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darold Crotzer[edit]

non notable film director Melaen 12:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per IMDB entry. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many directors, few are notable. Mr Crotzer doesn't appear to be counted amongst them. (aeropagitica) 17:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per his IMDB entry, none of his films has yet been released. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in addition to what has already been mentioned, there are only 263 google hits. Where (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hammer Crew[edit]

Delete. I can't find any reference to this band. A Google on the band name plus any of the 3 albums listed yield no hits. --Bruce1ee 12:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable band, unverifiable. Tagged as ((nn-band)). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:17Z
- The article describes them as a "popular" band who lasted for five years and released three albums. That's a far cry from "no assertion of notability". Verifiability is not a speedy criteria, it's for this AfD to discuss. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Saenz[edit]

Notable? See also: David Solis, jr., Mischievous Toys, The Underground Theater —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 12:03Z

Delete per nom. Stifle 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 05:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fascicularis[edit]

dicdef - transclude to wiktionary then delete. UtherSRG (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikitionary. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shivyness[edit]

delete nelogism. Melaen 12:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: even if it wasn't a neologism, the article would belong in wikitictionary, not wikipedia. But it is. Also, only 7 google hits. Where (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism. Latinus 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric schwartz[edit]

non notable photographic artist Melaen 12:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, some parts looks like ad. --ManiacK 13:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although there's a pretty well-known "furry" artist by that name who could probably have an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Advertising, no discussion as to notability of artist. (aeropagitica) 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert, non-notable bio. Stifle 00:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete.. The Land 00:16, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Saiyaroid[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page about a fanfiction character created by user Mystery Androclese, Google returns no results. Shiroi Hane 12:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable comic someone made up, no indication it was ever published anywhere. Only other mentions of it are things the creator keeps adding to Tokyo Mew Mew. - Bobet 12:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[user Mystery Androclese] I have added more to the page. Don't delete it until you've looked at it. signed, Mystery Androclese

It is exactly the same (i.e. the last recorded edit was me adding the AfD template). Remember you can sign your name using four tilde (~~~~). Shiroi Hane 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete, and send the creator to the principal's office for a paddling.. The Land 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DIE The video game[edit]

A video game created by some kid who was angry at his teacher. Content borders on nonsense. - Bobet 12:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Young Trevor would be wise to cover all traces of this; in today's post-Columbine world, this is the stuff suspensions and expulsions are made of. StarryEyes 12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nonsense. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:15Z
Delete, total nonsence. --ManiacK 13:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only claim to fame is being the first AO-rated game, which I'm 99.99999% sure isn't true, since AO-rated games go back at least to 1996 with the "Joy of Sex" disc for the CD-i. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's help this guy cover his tracks and delete this. Grandmasterka 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As much as I'd like to keep this on permanent record so it can come back to haunt the poor dolt, I agree. --Agamemnon2 09:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Wikipedia should not be a place for kids to unleash their PMS or whatnot. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet (fate)[edit]

delete. Turkish dicdef. Melaen 12:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is not a Turkish wikitionary. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef (but leave the disambig entry at Kismet since it is a commonly-used loanword with 2M Google hits). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:14Z
Delete, but include a partial dicdef at Kismet, before all the disambig links. -- GWO
Delete as above. Latinus 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyph3rz[edit]

"Online hacker, cracker and cyberpunk support network", that's contactable through AIM. 0 hits on google. Even if it was true, it's non-verifiable and not notable. - Bobet 12:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, unverifiable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:13Z
Delete unverifiable with no google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable, probably vanity. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leon shanglebee[edit]

delete the article contains only rewievs. Melaen 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One long copyright violation--Esprit15d 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre's law, probable copyvio. Stifle 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jo_Bellotti[edit]

I would politely suggest that having once shagged Robbie Fowler behind a hotel does not quite meet notability requirements. -- GWO 13:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, everything is in the Robbie Fowler article anyway. Starfighter Pilot 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Stu 12:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yosi (Saffi) Levy[edit]

Non-notable vanity biography. Edited mainly by User:Yosi Saffi Levy and anons. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:35Z

Delete per nom. --ManiacK 13:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Stifle 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Rubin[edit]

Delete Not notable person. I gues that user wrote this article about himself. ManiacK 13:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 17:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Come back when you need to shave. -Ikkyu2 05:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. The Land 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Coffer[edit]

Delete Hoax Mib1 13:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mind explaining why it's a hoax? No google hits outside WP mirrors, admittedly, and no sources cited, but the google count isn't so strange considering what he's notable for is supposed to have happened in 1968 and he died in 1985. No vote for now. Sam Vimes 14:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Benjamin Coffer is an English student at St John's College, Oxford. It is likely he was born in 1985. Students at this college have a history of fictitious Wikipedia posts. For example, Jon Day (see deleted pages). This is a waste of everybody's time.

Delete --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 14:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Smacks of original research -- all of the sources are from letters (from Rickards and Osborne, and to Creighton), which appear to have been reviewed and assembled into a theory on Coffer's importance. Even if the claims prove true, it's not clear his accomplishments were notable enough to deserve an entry. Basically, even if this guy did all this and deserves recognition for it, we must wait for someone else to determine that and publish it before we can include him in WP. Powers 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, all this "unpublished letters" stuff stinks of hoax. --Agamemnon2 09:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probable hoax from the SJC dicks. There's a "What links here" that needs de-hoaxifying too. GWO

The result of the debate was delete. The Land 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the sound[edit]

This online forum is probably not notable. Only 143 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Echoing the sound" +forum. For the 1 external link provided, the Alexa traffic ranking is 90,162... and a total of 1 sites link to it, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. Only 1 other article links to this (ETS, a disambiguation page), it has only been edited by 2 users, and not since 4 November 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I checked, and the one other known link to this site is from "Slashdot: Games". Thus, this appears very spam-like. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 14:22, Jan. 30, 2006
Delete as non-notable forum seeking advertisement. few thousand registered memebers, and a niche subject. non-encyclopaedic material. --timecop 14:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --凸 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as widely unknown. Sam Hocevar 08:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn --jax 05:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Marinus 08:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If pages like this one can not be speedy deleted, putting them for AfD is pretty useless. It probably took less time to write the whole content of the page than for me to write this comment. This way the WoB is a lost battle and a huge waste of time both for us voters and for the admins that have to handle the whole AfD procedure. -- Femmina 09:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn forum incog 22:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Proto | t c 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn blogcruft. --Hosterweis 01:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just another forum. Ashibaka tock 17:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Redirect to Ohmu. The Land 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OHMU[edit]

Table-top game, no assertion of notability/importance; scant google hits for OHMU War Machine. Very neglected article created by 24.225.70.5 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 14:26Z

I'd have redirected it to Ohmu instead of bothering to list it here, but might as well delete since the bureaucracy's already been set in motion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quarl. Stifle 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete all but LASER. Johnleemk | Talk 05:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey McMurray, Cyberdog Castle, Steven Harris, LASER (emulator)[edit]

NN-bio of a person whose sole claim to fame is a company and an obscure BBS door game, which got deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society of the Eternal Rulers). Also included in this nomination are his company, another developer in the company, and their product. howch e ng {chat} 17:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mike _{(T C)} 17:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. PJM 17:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for these reasons:
- 22,500 Google Results
- simulates discrete circutry games which MAME does not. Pong Doubles is not simulated by any other emulator other than LASER.
- one of the few multiple arcade emulators that has been ported to many different systems. mahojohn 22:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is that for all articles or just LASER (emulator)? howch e ng {chat} 00:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (software) are still in the proposal stage. Strongly suggest postponing this AfD until consensus is reached; the place of historical software and particularly obsolete software under emulation is currently under some modest debate. -Ikkyu2 05:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PJM. I note that this should have been closed, not relisted: three deletes and one keep. Stifle 00:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except LASER (emulator), which should be kept for notability. I fully expected this to be a full delete, but I was surprised at the number of Google hits of the specific phrase "Little Arcade System Emulator". I should also point out that as far as I can tell, the nominator is incorrect and LASER is *not* a product of Cyberdog Castle.
Keep LASER (emulator) and Steven Harris. LASER is notable for the reasons listed above, and Steven Harris is a pioneer in independent Dreamcast development. His nick ss_teven gets 796 hits on google. MetaFox 14:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Harwood[edit]

Incomplete nomination --Joel7687 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-bio written by self proclaimed bofriend... need I say more... see also

Delete. --Joel7687 14:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perhaps if she's an "expert", she's been quoted in a major publication or had articles written about her or testified in a criminal trial or written a forward for a book.... No? Thought not. Powers 14:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or speedy. See also Mark Astemborski. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Being a vegan Deadhead rafting guide is not a claim to notability. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Audiere[edit]

This is an open source API for audio output. It is no more remarkable than any other API; hence I do not know if it warrants it's own article. James084 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solar information: London[edit]

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete Zunaid 14:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Zunaid. Is this information static for every year? I would think Leap Years would throw it off after three years. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Zoe -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove ephemeris data - replace with conversion between the data at s:Sun and the data for London. - - RHaworth 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 03:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragic[edit]

Delete nn band. No evidence of any albums and a Google on "Jon Weisberg" "The Tragic" -wikipedia yields only 9 relevant hits. --Bruce1ee 15:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as ((nn-band)), tagged. Stifle 00:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Williams[edit]

I doubt that he is "well known" for Beast Meringue.

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. (completing User:Hosterweis' nomination)Aleph4 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that "Caleb Williams" is a novel by William Godwin (1756–1836). Many, if not most, Google hits for this lemma refer to the novel, not to the journalist--Aleph4 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the book, put a blurb about this guy in the gonzo journalism article. Ruby 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable; Google for "Caleb Williams"+"Beast Meringue" returns only one page, and it's the one that we're discussing here
Comment whoops; forgot the reason :o i remember putting it there... probably just got sidetracked and didn't get around to finishing it. thanks Aleph4 for finishing the nom --Hosterweis 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. incog 00:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unverifiable author. Internal links relate to the Godwin novel which would warrant an article [39] although the formal title is "The Way Things Really Are or the Adventures of Caleb Williams". Capitalistroadster 03:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:33, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unaborted[edit]

Delete nn band. A Google on "The Unaborted" "Stoke on Trent" -wikipedia yields no hits. --Bruce1ee 15:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 16:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 23:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Jareth as copyvio. Stifle 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CriticalControl Solutions Corp.[edit]

Tagged as empty, which it wasn't really as it had been blanked as copyvio, but past experience leads me to the view that PR statements are not regarded as really copyvios. In the end this is apparently spam, but for the avoidance of doubt I invite the community to judge it on its merits. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete de-doo-doo. The Land 00:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oklapaoroda[edit]

Something created in one school day, unverifiable (No Ghits). Neglected article created by RandomCharizard (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 15:22Z

Strong delete unverifiable, WP:NFT, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, nonsensical neologism. Rory096 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Under which criterion? -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asset Management Technology Solutions[edit]

tagged as {nocontext} but sadly does provide sufficient context to see what it is: namely, spam. Whether this is a notable company or not I don't know, but I don't see a lot of merit in keeping what we have here. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, spam. Please remove or nowiki external links in "articles" of this nature to foil their nefarious pagerank-boosting scheme. —Cryptic (talk) 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Thryduulf 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ad/spam/shit incog 03:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. James084 17:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - spam. Latinus 22:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or rewrite as a legit article) Krashlandon (e) 13:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DMBLive Volume 3[edit]

tagged {db-band} but is about an album or show, not a band. Still probably not notable per WP:NMG though... No vote, I'm just the janitor. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable album from a non-notable band. Stifle 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Jack[edit]

tagged as {nn-bio} but I think notability is asserted. I'd have bene tempted to userfy instead of speedy anyway. Over to you... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 15:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Non-notable (in my opinion). — Fingers-of-Pyrex 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree that he doesn't appear notable, but I don't think this is a speedy. Thryduulf 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and while it doesn't really meet CSD A7 requirements, an element of WP:SNOW does apply here -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was no consensus; merge and redirect. This is purely an editorial decision and has no authority. Anyone who disagrees is free to call me a WP:DICK and undo it and start an edit war. Johnleemk | Talk 05:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irving Elementary School[edit]

Delete. - Not notable. Uencyclopedic. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - no content. Thryduulf 16:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I think it was decided the high schools are notable (which I disagree with), but elementary schools don't have this status yet, AFAIK Captain Jackson 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Often, voters will comment that "high schools are inherently notable," or something of the like. However, there's no standard for either primary or secondary schools that has been accepted by consensus. Historically, nearly all schools are kept, unless unverifiable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. If kept, do not expand with transient and non-notable information just for the sake of expansion. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I daresay that, as with most schools like this, you're not going to get anything other than non-notable information. D e nni ☯ 02:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'll wade into this debate by saying that while High Schools are mostly notable (really, for some towns more can be said about the high school than the rest of the village combined), elementary and middle schools are rather cookie-cutter, and for the most part aren't notable. This one doesn't have anything establishing its notworthiness/significance/whatever, hence my vote -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:SCH Jcuk 20:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I would normally say "keep" to school articles, but, the problem is, this one is just so... bare. --M@thwiz2020 21:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, it had a phone number before I removed it. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, schools are notable. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maywood, Illinois. Short stub, and school has only local notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; rewrite As a stub this article could work as it is a real school. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maywood, Illinois as its a elementary school. If that fails than Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the standards for keeping a school. Vegaswikian 07:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, encyclopedic. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Maywood, Illinois or delete. D e nni ☯ 01:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Merging (such as with Maywood, Illinois) only makes sense if there is some coherent treatment within the merged article (see Evanston, Illinois#Private and parochial schools). Sticking a loosely connected fact in an inappropriate way in another article is a disservice to both articles. The Maywood article is currently basically a rambot article and this would stick out like a sore thumb. -- DS1953 ^talk 16:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As this article stands it is very little different to a rambot article. Thryduulf 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 00:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OIM[edit]

Acronym for a phrase used on a non-notable website. Traffic Rank for onlyinmalta.com: 325,567. Neglected article created by 81.139.143.100 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 16:07Z

Delete as random acronym. Stifle 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave This is not a phrase used only on that website. As a Maltese I can confirm that this is an expression used in everyday conversation by both English-speaking and Malti-speaking inhabitants. Perhaps the entry needs more information, such as details of pronunciation? il Papa 14:00, 3 February 2006 (CET)
Delete as neologism. —Cleared as filed. 13:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 00:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omid Memarian[edit]

Blogger who was awarded the "Golden Pen" in Iran in 2001. Traffic Rank for memarian.info: 1,480,144. Notable? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 16:14Z

Keep. 30k google hits [40] It looks like there was some controversy over his detention in Iran [41] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Watch honored him late last year for his contribution to human rights in Iran see [42]. Meets WP:WEB based on verifiable outside reports. Keep. Capitalistroadster 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Unbound eMagazine[edit]

This webpage doesn't seem to be that notable and mainly consists of unreferenced opinion pieces, all by the same guy. No organizational sponsors seem to be present. Non-notable vanity. ShadowPuppet 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Stifle 00:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ditto. --DanielCD 23:09, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OS Hideout[edit]

Non-notable webforum. Traffic Rank for worldgamerz.com: 272,598. I wish non-notable web forums were speediable. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 16:20Z

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. --ShadowPuppet 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PAN-ZEN[edit]

Some kind of music organization; no assertion/evidence of notability. Website has no alexa rank and web forum is practically empty. Few related Google hits. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 16:25Z

Delete per nom. --ShadowPuppet 16:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spuripedia[edit]

Non-notable. [43] - Sikon 16:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. -- RHaworth 22:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spurious. Stifle 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Random NJ[edit]

Patent non-notable website that was created to host a few webcomics. No Alexa traffic rank. Neglected article created by 67.81.2.120 (talk · contribs). Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 16:30Z

Delete Sounds like blatant self-promotion to me. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.T.A[edit]

Seems to be a biography of perhaps a high school math teacher. All it states is an unverifiable quote. Neglected article edited by anons (probably one guy with dynamic IP). Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 16:31Z

Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 16:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whitcomb Soccer Championship[edit]

While a rousing and quaint story, it isn't encyclopedic. Every high-school that wins all-state for every sport can't chronicle the experience in the coughhallowedcough wikipedia. Esprit15d 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable event. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. Stifle 00:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 04:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Chandler Rockefeller[edit]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for family trees. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 16:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being someone's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate is not a sufficient assertion of significance. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not many 6 year olds can meet WP:N and nothing here indicates Laura does (yet). On same "family tree does not equal notability" criteria, shouldn't John D. Rockefeller V be deleted as well? -Jcbarr 20:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This young person has done nothing to warrant a separate article (but given she was born in 2000 there's plenty of time yet). She is already mentioned in Rockefeller family.. Sliggy 20:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sliggy. Youngamerican 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Latinus 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to John D. Rockefeller V or delete. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild levitation[edit]

Delete. The un-attributed title "Wild Levitation" turns out to be a butchered version of Paul Harris' "Sooperman" from 1977 - a known variation of the Balducci levitation. Therefore, the relevant info has been added to Paul Harris name on Balducci levitation, where it belongs. As it has been filed under correct name, originator and with proper source - a page that duplicates it without sources serves no purpose TStone 16:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Balducci levitation. Pointless repitition of information. (aeropagitica) 17:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why delete? "wild levitation" yields 9000+ refs on google (some commercial), so it seems valid to me. Just add a link to balducci for now (not even done yet), + maybe 1 or 2 of the google links 212.11.48.247 19:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There's about 15 derivative versions in USA, 8 i Europe, ? in Asia + many that have appeared and faded away since 70's. One page for each?--TStone 19:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - So please add information about them. This is not a reason to delete this page first. Why did you want to *delete* it at all anyway? From your contributions, it seems you dislike some magicians, and tend to disparage their work; you even said "butchered" above. Be careful about being NPOV and non-discriminatory. 212.11.48.247 19:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - So Wiki is improved by false information? Tracking history in this field is tough as it is. Now the info is under correct title, originator, date & publication. What is improved of having unsourced duplication under false title? That is like nails against blackboard. Yes, I dislike Lorayne and especially Fearson on a personal level, and made extensive edits on them. "Butchered" is a valid descriptive term here. Don't recognize "tend to disparage their work", please explain? I should create 20-30 pages on the same trick?--TStone 20:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per (aeropagitica). -- JLaTondre 01:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Gettings[edit]

Non-notable writer's bio, likely vanity. Delete. Andy Saunders 17:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Andy. Powers 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. --Ac1983fan 19:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doubt anybody has ever heard of them.--169.244.70.148 18:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Berghain[edit]

This is unremarkable club in Germany. There is nothing notable about this club at all and I don't think it warrants an article. James084 17:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite notable as clubs go. Not quite the Hacienda, I suppose, but one of the best-known current Berlin clubs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Notable enough to rate a mention in Variety (described as "ultra-popular") as part of a feature on the Berlin Film Fest. ("Berlin Social Scene," Feb. 7, 2005 issue, page A6.) Crypticfirefly 06:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was No consensus to delete. The Land 19:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Griffin comparisons[edit]

I am not sure about this one. I can't put my finger on a specific policy saying that Wikipedia does not want long comparisons between four characters in contemporary US television and comic strips which continue down into the minutiae of fertility problems, whether they wear glasses, and which of them are noted for tearing their hair out. But I'm sure it falls under WP:WIN somewhere. I just don't know where. Original research? Indiscriminate collection of information? Or merely outstandingly pointless? At least a dozen accounts are listed in the history page, which staggers me a bit, so someone obviously doesn't think it's pointless. But I bring it here for comment anyway. Telsa 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I certainly wouldn't want to see loads of articles like this on all sorts of tenuously-related characters ("Jean-Luc Picard compared to Princess Toadstool", etc.), but the Peter/Homer similarity is widely noticed and remarked upon by even casual viewers of both series. I would prefer that each claim be referenced by at least one episode citation, and perhaps some of the less-important points removed (e.g. the glasses). Still, deletion is not cleanup, and this is good information. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Peter Griffin. Cut the enormous amount of irrelevant, over-written cruft that presently clutters the article. Leave enough for interested readers (i.e. no-one) to fill in the gaps. -- GWO
Smerge as per GWO. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:FICT, this would not fit in the original article. However, I would suggest a re-naming and a clean-up of some of the discursive language (WP:NOR). Possible names - "Similarities between Peter Griffin and other television fathers" or perhaps cut out the rest and just make it "Similarities between Peter Griffin and Homer Simpson". -- Lochaber 18:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, made the cover of MAD magazine, heard it in lots of other places. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOR.I'm sorry, but "I've heard it in lots of places" or "I've heard it remarked" is not a reference. This article is original research. It may in fact be true that there are relationships. If so this should be published in a secondary source, and then we can write an article here. If this Mad magazine article mentions some similarities, then this may be a reference. I suspect that this whole long artlcle is not from Mad, it is rather this authors own knowledge.Obina 00:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article gives us some fair ground to work on by citing things already, namely the comparisons made in the episodes themselves. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In no respect does this information, in any form, fulfill encyclopedic standards. It is, for lack of a better word, complete trash. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum for fat, smelly cartoon aficionados. --Agamemnon2 09:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, not encyclopedic at all, any pieces of relevant content can be merged somewhere appropriate :: Supergolden 16:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, WP:NOR. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencylopedic original research. —Cleared as filed. 13:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An absolute load of original research. - Hahnchen 16:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouthshut.com[edit]

advertising Melaen 17:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable website. Powers 19:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and Cleanup - Alexa rank of 6,686 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alexa rank of 6,686 doesn't make it a notable website. —Cleared as filed. 13:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as copyvio. - Lucky 6.9 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

XIOS[edit]

Non-notable store. Delete. Andy Saunders 17:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like a copyvio/ad spam/link spam. Gone. - Lucky 6.9 17:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep.. The Land 18:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem College, Ashfield[edit]

This appears to be an unremarkable private school. The article does not list an notability of this school whatsoever. James084 17:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/town per WP:SCH proposal.Gateman1997 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a real school. Private schools don't make good merge candidates, especially old ones. Kappa 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now meets the three non-generic sentence requirement of WP:SCH. --Rob 20:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good start and can only get better. Interesting alumni. Fully meets school guidelines for those who care. -- JJay 20:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is quite old. It clearly needs more work - adding more alummni, history, etc., but that should come with time. --Bduke 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, a year from now it is very likely it will look just as it is today. While people do not hesitate to create school stubs, they are much more reluctant to develop them into interesting, comprehensive articles. Denni ☯ 02:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well I see five editors have worked on it today. Why not make it six Denni? Or would you rather wait till a year from now? -- JJay 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, if you take a look at the edit history (excluding bot edits and vandal/anti-vandal edits) for other schools in the same category you'll see, these articles are being updated much more frequently then suggested, outside of AFDs. I think the problem you mention is when somebody goes and creates 20 substubs for elementary schools built in recent times in a highly centrally run school district. Its much harder finding information for such schools, which I've been open to merging them up in many cases. But, schools, like this one, with substantial history and greater autonomy tend to have a good basis for expansion. --Rob 05:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again, real schools get real articles! And at least one person is trying to improve it. Grandmasterka 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:SCH, notable 120+ year old school. Silensor 05:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the requirements of WP:SCH. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Keep. Per WP:SCH. Cnwb 06:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nico augustamos[edit]

possible hoax, no raference found. delete. Melaen 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm sometimes much inclined to delving into improbably AfD's to see if anything can be salvaged, but not here. Even those names don't sound as if they could be authentic Greek. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom. Gaius Cornelius 18:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Luvelli[edit]

Non-notable; only Google hits point to Myspace. Delete. Andy Saunders 17:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a hoax, or at least unverifiable. No IMDB entry, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough (assuming it isn't a hoax). Latinus 22:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hystud[edit]

Non-notable constructed language/constructed culture that is being posted here by someone very close to its creator. Delete. Andy Saunders 17:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete more of a fake micronation-type-thing than just a conlang. 69 Google hits, and most of those are irrelevant mismatches with hýstuð, apparently a real word in Iceland which shows us under a search for Hystud. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - presented as a hoax. Thue | talk 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep especially if it can be linked to a discussion of constructed languages and cultures. Five hundred words is a fairly respectable size for a beginning language (especially one constructed simply according to linguistic rules), and the constructed history and culture seem to be consistent, if sketchy. -- MatthewDBA 18:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keepNot only close to the creator, but the creator himself. Non-notable? Since when did wikipedia become an exclusive club? I apologize for the assumption of hoaxery, but in my defense I am an inexperienced wikipedian. As to the google hits: do not say "most of those are irrevelant mismatches" when this is in fact false. Of the first page, 9 of the first 10 are relevant to some aspect of Hystud's online existence. Akerensky99 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has always been an exclusive club. The sign on the door clearly states: Only Facts Welcome. The rest of you can bugger off. So make like a bee, and buzz off. --Agamemnon2 09:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahem! Please address the article itself and refresh your memory of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. Uncle G 13:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Until this constructed language receives some recognition from the outside world, I think it violates Wikipedia:No original research. --Thunk 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, the 'overview' section is nonsense -- Astrokey44|talk 00:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm voting delete because even though Langmaker and Janko Gorenc's list have it, it has fewer than 100 Google hits. Plus the "roughly 500 words of vocabulary offline" presents problems with verifiability. Wiwaxia 08:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Wiwaxia. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I vaguely recall seeing an article about Hystudian a few days ago. But when I checked back, it was a redirect without a page history. Does that mean that it was speedily deleted? If so, I have to object against that. Notable or not, verifiable or not, but that's no way to go about these things. Although I might have voted for deletion in that case too, I still found it interesting. —IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 13:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
the hystudian article is now on Frathwiki at: Hystudian Akerensky99 21:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Mahoney[edit]

Substandard content - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crinoidgirl (talk • contribs)

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waveform web designers and D.inco.[edit]

~~Advertising~~ Non-notable web design company. ...Scott⁵¹¹⁴

Comment: The website is on freewebs so no Alexa data available, Google gets precisely one hit: this article. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, non-notable. --Zeno McDohl 19:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why delete a page thats for refrence and created just yesterday

Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warning: Deleting or striking out other's peoples comments, whether or not you agree with them, is vandalism. You have been warned. --kingboyk 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like vanispamcruftisement to me. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 18:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as non-notable. Edgar181 18:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Michael Beck[edit]

Delete This page seems to contain a lot of false or unverifiable information and may be an extended joke or an attempt to prove Wikipedia is a bad source. Dabbler 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, just looking up the first thing I looked for shows that he was not Calamy in Master and Commander, the rest reads like nonsense. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep,“Unverifiable information” should not be grounds for deletion in this instance. Despite the opinion of User: Zoe, the entry does not read as nonsense, chronologically it makes perfect sense, and much of the information couldn’t be verified unless the reader were exceptionally well versed in “electronic noise music,” or British magazine publishing. Admittedly, it does seem a bit fantastic that one individual could do so much, however, you’ve no way of being certain the article is a hoax. User:Wizard of Gore18:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove that this information is correct, we might change our minds, but see WP:V. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that User:Wizard of Gore tried to put the false information about Stefan Michael Beck being Midshipman Calamy into an article I watch, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World which is why I became suspicious and investigated further. Dabbler 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The picture on the page is highly suspicious -- it looks like a college shaming attempt. Anyway, besides that, the assertion that "'Unverifiable information' should not be grounds for deletion in this instance" is hogwash. Unverifiability is always grounds for deletion. It's the only way to keep original research and hoaxes out of the encyclopedia. On the other hand, this article is linked from a few others that appear to be serious. Further investigation may be warranted. Powers 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page was changed to a redirect back to the original article and also all the references on other pages (see comment above) seem to have been inserted by User:Wizard of Gore. This is looking more like a speedy delete! Dabbler 20:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Powers, do you mean to suggest that the information on Wikipedia pertaining to the Giant Squid can be incontrovertibly verified? All I’m getting at is that articles should be based on the best information available. If that information can’t be proven inaccurate you’ve no choice but accept it as fact. Dabbler, why on earth would you watch the Master and Commander article? As I understand it Stefan Beck did play midshipman Calamy. If I’m wrong, please forgive me.

Oh, and hogwash? Come on guys.Wizard of Gore 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Response. Giant Squid contains information gleaned from what sources we have available, and thus is the best information we have so far. This article, on the other hand, lists ZERO sources. That's the difference. If there were no sources for Giant Squid, we'd probably consider that a likely hoax as well. Remember, Wikipedia is not a primary source. You say "articles should be based on the best information available." So far, we have NO information available, except the say-so of whoever wrote the article. Since Wikipedia relies on verifiable sources, that just isn't sufficient. Please read WP:V. Powers 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's awfully strange that there's a page on Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World in what purports to be an encyclopedia. I see also that Dabbler has contributed an article on "trampolining." I don't know which is more pathetic, the fact that he "watches" an article about a crappy movie, or the fact that he thought a children's pastime worthy of explication in an "encyclopedia." Am I wrong or is this an entirely voluntary, not-for-payment, activity? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FondaJane (talk • contribs)

Delete WP:NFT is the best category to describe why.Obina 00:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insulting said people on an Internet forum isn't exactly Nobel-worthy thinking, either. On the other hand, I do think we should get paid for having to deal with human waste, garbagemen do too. We don't even get uniforms, despite having to tackle some amazingly degenerate individuals' "contributions". --Agamemnon2 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see why this article couldn't be legitimate. Granted, it seems like an unlikely life, but you guys might find that if you leave the warm glow of your computer screens for a few moments, amazing things can be accomplished by anyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mistersketchee (talk • contribs)

Comment I take exception to MisterSketchee’s comments regarding the warm glow of my computer screen. It’s been my experience that virtually all social interaction beyond the WikiWorld is painfully embarrassing at best. Last week I asked a woman on the 6 train to accompany me to a singles dance at my Synagogue and she threw carbolic acid all over my face. I vote for keeping the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff Tweedy's Brother (talk • contribs)

Comment. Stefan M. Beck seems largely the same, content-wise. It was created yesterday (30 January 2006) by the user who posted the comment above mine (User:Jeff Tweedy's Brother). Powers 22:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since both articles are eerily similar, I have turned Stefan M. Beck into a redirect to Stefan Michael Beck. If this AfD ends in a decision to delete the article, the closing/deleting admin should keep in mind to delete this redirect as well. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 23:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Obina. Stifle 00:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrik Pape[edit]

Not notable. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valley News Net. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being a news director in an obscure news service fails WP:BIO. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable biographical article. See WP:BIO. Stifle 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. The Land 18:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neocms[edit]

Delete. Nn software, advertisement. Lukas ^(T.|@) 18:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertisement. ChemGardener 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Latinus 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VSCA. Stifle 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chataroo syndrome[edit]

"Chataroo" and "syndrome" together get zero Google hits. Claims such as "It is thought to have originated from the locally produced fertiliser used on the grass tennis courts in the region", "the majority of the population display the above charachteristics without being considered medically ill", and "common symptoms" including "Tennis elbow" all spell hoax to me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (amusing, but irrelevant) Nonsense Obli (Talk) 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is nonsense. Any such syndrome would be well known in the medical literature.
Delete Load of old cobblers. Maustrauser 13:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paedo & the Looneytics[edit]

Appears to be someone's idea of humour; the group is said to blend multiple kinds of world music including "delta-blues, Amazonian chants and Limerick bishop-bashing" and the frontman is said to have a "singing technique modelled on '"Frank Sinatra being bully-rammed while falling from a cliff"'". Even if there's a real band by this name, they're not notable; the only Google hits they get are Wikipedia mirrors. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, they fail WP:MUSIC due to only having one album. Powers 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article needs to be cleaned up alright.The band would have a relatively small but growing fanbase around Dublin city.They don't take themselves too seriously.Possibly written as a sort of joke but I could see the merits in keeping the article. Hopefully though somebody will clean it up and make it more presentable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.226.112.12 (talk • contribs)

The result of the debate was Delete, bordeline speedy as a context-free article.... The Land 18:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAL[edit]

One-line article with no new information not already on Wal-Mart BonsaiViking 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy, under A1 (no context). Powers 20:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G3, silly vandalism). howch e ng {chat} 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Colleen McCarville[edit]

Looks like a hoax. Esprit15d 18:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete hoax/nonsense -Drdisque 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an obvious hoax. The person who created the page also edited to the page on Canada's new prime minister to say that "Colleen McCarville" was his sister. HistoryBA 23:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – once you get past the first few sentences, there's absolutely no doubt it's a hoax. Among other doozies, it says her son was killed by Agent Smith, the character from The Matrix. ×Meegs 00:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - joke article. Latinus 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a total fabrication by somebody bored one day. Tagged as speedy nn-bio. Turnstep 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep, after being rewritten into a decent disambiguation page. . The Land 18:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sirota[edit]

Etymology and alternate forms of a surname. Wiktionary material, at best, and it wouldn't even merit an entry per wikt:Appendix:Names. —Cryptic (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as threatening to violate WP:NOR. Stifle 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite. Disambigs on surnames with short ethimology are quite common (e.g. Smirnov or Vinogradov), why not do the same for Sirota. As now the article is full or OR abakharev 08:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. KNewman 11:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
del --Ghirla | talk 12:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Orphan Halibu tt 12:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Alex (rewrite). I wrote a replacement at Sirota/Temp to replace the current article after it's deleted.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ezhiki's variant is perfect. I am for speedy move Sirota/Temp into Sirota and keeping it abakharev 20:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Shepherd[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Squiddy for being nn-bio but IMHO as the publisher of the only Apple II-related magazine does not qualify. Bringing it to AfD instead. howch e ng {chat} 18:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Vanity page primarily apparently existing to promote his business and boost search engine rank of linked-to pages. — mjb 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I might have been hasty in speedying the guy, but I think he's clearly non-notable. There are plenty of magazine editors and IT people who ought to do something else with a wider impact to be considered notable. The article author's name suggests vanity, too. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Mjb. 4th grade? I started in the 2nd grade, on a computer I made myself from materials I foraged in the woods.Obina 00:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not encyclopaedic material. Latinus 22:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paulette Senior[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by an anon as nn-bio, but IMHO winner of African Canadian Achievement Award is a claim of notability. Bringing it to AfD instead. If kept, article needs serious cleanup. howch e ng {chat} 18:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims to notability as candidate but being a candidate for parliament is not in itself establish notability. If the African Canadian Achievement Award was a national award throughout Canada, that might be enough to get her over the line. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Latinus. Stifle 00:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Keep. The Land 18:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying submarine[edit]

Just a drawing board idea from World War II. Although I saw something about this on the History Channel once, it is non-encyclopedic. Should we have an article for every car which ever made it to the blue-print stage? Captain Jackson 18:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it was a flying submarine car, yes! Fascinating subject, I clicked one of the external links and it was an interesting read. --kingboyk 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This machine was never actually built. It's just a blue-print idea from World War II without so much as a prototype built. Captain Jackson 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it were a prototype by an individual inventor, I don't think it would be notable. But since it seems like a design that was considered by a government during WW2, that seems good enough to me. (If I'm getting the facts wrong here, please correct me.) --Thunk 22:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd agree with you, but I haven't seen this History Channel piece, and neither of the links on the article's page are about the vehicle proposed by the Soviet Union. I somewhat hesitant to keep this around unsourced. ×Meegs 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnoud Engelfriet[edit]

Finishing incomplete AfD nomination by User:217.22.55.53

Comment: See Wikipedia:Notice_board_for_topics_related_to_the_Netherlands#Protected_page:_Arnoud_Engelfriet. —Ruud 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Personal page (vanity?), has been stub for months, person does not seem notable enough to warrant a page in Wikipedia.
Delete: Agree. Created by himself, but untouched afterwards. 64.9.205.95 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn bio incog 03:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Andries 20:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Timeline of P!NK[edit]

More unverifiable (and most likely fabricated) crystal-ballery by Britney federline (talk · contribs). Extraordinary Machine 19:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It took me a bit of research to figure-out that this is supposed to be a compilation of songs by Pink (musician). No google hits for the title or with or without the exclamation point. ×Meegs 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three elements of nursing situation[edit]

This appears to be a random piece of information from some book about nursing and is in no way an encyclopedia article. If the information is viable, it could certainly be placed in the nursing article itself, but even in that case, a redirect would not be needed and this page should be deleted. Indrian 19:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An idea of how nursing should be from the book mentioned, but the article is not really about anything. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I moved the information to the article Nursing assessment. It is unfortunate that the material in this contributor's other articles was lost without incorporating it into other articles. From their comments they put a lot of work into their now-deleted articles and Wikipedia lost a contributor. THB 19:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joe 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deliverance-Online[edit]

Non-notable MMORPG. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Squeal like a pig and delete. Their official site has an Alexa rank of 1,102,864, which is abominably bad for an online game. World of Warcraft, for comparison's sake, has a rank of 561. About 180 unique Google hits for "deliverance online", but virtually all of those are unrelated, mostly places selling the movie DVD, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website / server / electronic resource / space between the wires / whatever kind of non-notable thing it is ;x

—Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 2006-01-30 20:31Z

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drop Dead Magazine[edit]

Non-notable music magazine whose first issue is still yet to be published. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until it has some publishing history. Sounds fun, though. I'd read it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT DeletePlease Read Better. First (Read Demo) Issue is in stores now (Issue 0). The magazine is a legitimatize magazine, that covers a music scene ignored by likes of Rolling Stone and Spin Polina Y 19:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it can count as notable until it has some publishing history. A demo issue doesn't count in my book. --Thunk 22:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. But give it time and it may have its day to shine... Grandmasterka 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Apostolopoulos[edit]

Non-notable music writer. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit! matter of opinion. Buddyhead.com alone as a site with 1 million hits a day and a staff including members of Nine Inch Nails and Queens of the Stoneage alone should qualify. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Gmfb (talk • contribs) 19:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: If I've made an egregious error in nominating this, the rest of the community will tell me so here. I stand by my nomination and delete vote, however. --Andy Saunders 19:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Buddyhead.com might have enough notability for an article, but this is an autobiography and is nn. --Bugturd Talk 00:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the tone of Gmfb's comment above, I've decided to look into other contribs by this author. Could be more AfD's to come for nn. --Bugturd Talk 00:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep and move. Johnleemk | Talk 05:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kol toarh[edit]

Non-notable, ad plus wrong spelling :P Compu te r Jo e 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Kol Torah and cleanup. It appears a lot more notable than, say, a High School article. There are quite a few Rabbi's who reference studying there. But some of the PoV statements need toning down (or backing up with references). — RJH 21:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per above. R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is not nobody. Personally I think that if he is notable enough to be included, his yeshiva should be also. Akerensky99 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 05:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgelet[edit]

Advertising page for an online financial-services company with what appears to be a novel instrument. Both the term "hedgelet" and the company name/website gets in the hundreds of google hits, not meeting WP:CORP in my opinion. Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this marked for deletion? How is this any different than posting information about a registered brand? ie: Air Max by Nike

Nike Air Max is rather more notable than Hedgelet. We don't document any and every registered brand; for details, see WP:CORP. bikeable (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junhua Chang[edit]

Executive of non-notable company. Also, looks like the page was created by the subject himself, violating WP:VAIN. Delete. Andy Saunders 19:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNon notable executive. I think perhaps General Computers will be next, because it seems their first product is not out yet. Like a band not yet released their first album. Not sure this minute I'll watch the page.Obina 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Stifle 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was no consensus', but it is notable in Canada. Shanel 19:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MDG Computers[edit]

complete spam ccwaters 19:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom -Drdisque 21:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. RGTraynor 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep not because it's a well-advertised firm in this neck of the woods, but because of this GC article and having won some sort of Consumer Choice Award for numerous years. Weak Keep, personally, because of numerous complaints I've heard from friends. --Perfecto 03:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Perfecto, but cleanup. Ardenn 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This company is just not important enough to merit an article. Their size isn't substantial enough, and notwithstanding their size, they haven't done anything interesting or special to merit an article in any encyclopedia, anywhere. Derekwriter 04:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations), delete --YUL89YYZ 13:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth mentioning in any manner. Janizary 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least in my recent necks in the woods - Ottawa and North York, Ontario - MDG is very significant in the computer market. -Joshuapaquin 04:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like the company, but doesn't mean they aren't notable. Clean entry to remove elements of advertising. --Dogbreathcanada 07:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see this company in papers every day. I guess they are a competitor to Dell, Future shop etc. and therefore significant. --apple
- Why the deception? Your (Special:Contributions/66.207.102.147) edits come from straight from MDG's network. [44]. Oh if my nom doesn't count as a delete vote...consider this my ballot: DELETE ccwaters 15:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't like the company either, but if I can't say that's a reason to delete the entry. there's lots of weird stuff in here... like McDeals :) Maybe someone can expand on the article, offering more historical information? Just trying to help. -- vogue99
Delete. per Derekwriter. Dr Debug (Talk) 03:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are a reasonably notable Canadian computer sales company — though we don't necessarily all shop there, I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of computer-literate people in Canada at least know what MDG is. That said, the article does read kind of spammishly, and I'd be hard-pressed to improve it myself since the only source I'd have for information is their own site. If there's a reasonable possibility of cleanup, then I'll vote weak keep, but I reserve the right to withdraw that if I don't see some evidence that anyone can turn it into anything more than an ad. Bearcat 08:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Big Mamas Funeral[edit]

Article fails to assert the notability of this literary work. Does not seem to be a remarkable piece in any way. James084 20:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anything by Nobel Prize winner Marquez is pretty important. This looks to me like it just needs some expansion. -- JJay 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 21:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep. Monicasdude 22:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJay. ×Meegs 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This work gives a good example in a comparatively short form of Garcia Marquez's 'magic realism'. As with a lot of his works, a lot of background knowledge is assumed in order to understand it, particularly the history of Colombia. I tend to assume that anyone who approaches any of Marquez's work has the intelligence to know what he or she is doing. It would be an insult to such a person to arbitrarily eliminate this entry.Alloco1 01:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Book by notable author in Garcia Marquez. Capitalistroadster 03:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Work by winner of Nobel Prize for literature should stay, notable, and no doubt there is room for expansion.Crypticfirefly 06:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Cotton-Wray[edit]

Page has had a "context" tag since last August, but no changes. SEEMS to be about a character from Mortal Kombat (based on an different edit by the article's creator). Three Wikipedia mirror hits on Google, and that's it. Calton | Talk 20:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a confused mess. Stifle 00:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was redirect to Cobblestone, which already mentions these. Johnleemk | Talk 05:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greenfield Potatoes[edit]

Local term for cobblestones in Arroyo Seco, California. howch e ng {chat} 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Cobblestone -- Astrokey44|talk 00:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. —simpatico ^hi 07:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Term used only very locally. Merging this with cobblestone would only clutter up that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 20:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to cobblstone -Drdisque 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arroyo Seco (Monterey) (which currently looks like a copyvio) or Delete. This term is limited to a very small region, while cobblestones appear all over the world. Even a mention of this name in cobblestone would seem out of place, but I do not object strongly. ×Meegs 00:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 05:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Cross[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was band is not notable. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete another nn screamo band. Ruby 20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Title available at Amazon; three titles listed at AllMusic. Oh no itsJamie^Talk 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Noname band ~~(owner) 20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)~~ —the preceding unsigned comment is by 206.106.75.41 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, possibly speedy no claim to fame. seems like an advertisement rather than an informative article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.104.160 (talk • contribs)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable -Drdisque 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Multiple works through amazon. -- JJay 21:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listed at All Music Guide, members of notable bands. Punkmorten 21:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster
Strong Delete, possibly Speedy no claim to fame. seems like an advertisement rather than an informative article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.104.160 (talk • contribs) dont EVER delete my comments. got it? the voting was restarted idiot, therefore i am restating my vote.

Despite your friendly comment, the voting was not "restarted"- it was extended. Your original vote still counts and your second vote should be removed. -- JJay 13:39, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - Mike Rosoft 21:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Offuhuge[edit]

Blatant advert created by User:Offuhuge. Alexa rank 56,375. Generally no sign of meeting WP:WEB. Delete. --Malthusian (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hispanic Demographics[edit]

Delete - tidbits of POV trivia Drdisque 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the demographics are well-covered at Hispanics#U.S. Hispanic population, which is also the more appropriate place for them. Even though some of the projections are different, the nominee's numbers are not well-sourced, so I do not recommend a merge. ×Meegs 01:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was deleted in a hurry due to the potentially damaging nature of this article. It does certainly look like a hoax to me but I can't say that I know this for sure. See also Talk:Green_Day#Neo-Nazi_Accusations, it looks like this has come up before. Friday (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Day and Neo Nazism[edit]

Hoax. Alleged sources do not exist. Strong Delete Fightindaman 21:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you beat me to the AfD button! - Aim Here 21:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article must be forever immortaliized in the revolutionary wiki genre that we simply call, Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense. --D-Day 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be put in Delete nonsense, yes.--Adam ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy keep/redirected to Wiggling (as in [45]). --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 23:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiggle[edit]

delete. no evidence that this is a genuine phenomenon Jorge1000xl 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was no consensus / keep. Punkmorten 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Love Lost But Not Forgotten[edit]

Not notable, only one editor.

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Let's lose and forget this one. Ruby 20:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several titles at Amazon; full write-up at AllMusicGuide. Oh no itsJamie^Talk 21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ruby. Stifle 11:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If they have multiple albums at Amazon, they are neither lost nor forgotten. It also means they fully qualify for the precious guidelines. -- JJay 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough for Allmusic.com bio and albums on sale. Capitalistroadster 03:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. They may technically meet guidelines, but that's why they're guidelines - not absolute law. Ifnord 15:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of danielle[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge what is pertinent to Danielle. --Lockley 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge per Lockley. Ruby 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inaccurate information which doesn't need to be merged into Danielle. "Danielle" is not of English origin meaning "princess of the lambs," it's the French female version of Daniel which ultimately comes from Hebrew meaning "God is my judge" (see Daniel (biblical name)). Since the main substance of this article is unverifiable it should not be merged. --69.209.219.121 08:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary deals in the meanings, pronunciations, and alternative spellings of names. There's nothing here that is useful for Wiktionary to grow an article, since it is wholly unsourced. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of names. Delete. Uncle G 18:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per 69.209.219.121, above. non-encylopedic and unverifiable, —LeFlyman 23:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D e ath phoenix 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting because if the information on Danielle in this article is truly false as is claimed above, there is nothing in this article to be merged, and the article could be safely deleted instea. --D e ath phoenix 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC

Delete per 69.209.219.121 Royboycrashfan 21:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the "Nicknames" line only. The "Meaning" and "Origin" lines are dubious, and the rest is not necessary. ×Meegs 23:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (still, as per 69.209.219.121, above). All sources list "meaning" as Hebrew for "God is my Judge" and "origin" as being the feminine form of Daniel.--LeFlyman 05:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: don't consider Leflyman's votes twice. ×Meegs 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. The Land 01:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abyssic Hate[edit]

Delete: Non-notable band that has released only one full-length album. This goes against WP:MUSIC which calls for two full-length albums on major labels. Only the one album on Amazon. No mention on Allmusic. Article includes discography or else I would have speedied. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 21:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom - WP:Music violation. (aeropagitica) 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT delete: While this band released only one album, it overshadows quite a lot of other much-lauded but non-entity bands and has a scattering of devoted fans, those who refuse to bow to the zombifying pop propaganda —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.221.47.112 (talk • contribs) .

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Berries[edit]

I am wondering if we really need separate articles for these "Berries". I wouldn't mind keeping the list and possibly combining the berry information into one page. Then again, I don't know much about Pokemon. Is this all encyclopedic? Abstain for now. F a ng Aili 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somebody could expand the article with descriptions of the berries. Otherwise, it would be best to simply merge and/or redirect. Royboycrashfan 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would support a merge of these into one article, with redirects as appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into one article as per precedent at List of Pokémon items. Stifle 00:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge merge merge. Melchoir 04:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of Pokémon items. Sahmeditor 00:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InfoTech Xchange Inc[edit]

Vanity page for company. Lbbzman 21:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 21:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising. Latinus 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -- RHaworth 23:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan prayer flags[edit]

Seems to be identical with Tibetan prayer flag...and perhaps Tibetan prayer and prayer flag as well. ShadowPuppet 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's prayer flags. --ShadowPuppet 22:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Tibetan prayer flags, Tibetan prayer flag and prayer flags to prayer flag (I think the redirect is reasonable since they are generally spoken of as a plural). Delete Tibetan prayer. Lightly spank author. bikeable (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-Vishnu-ize[edit]

Google only turns up this page, the page linked, and another forum quoting the linked page. Therefore not a real word in common usage. BonsaiViking 21:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, protologism used by 1 magazine (per Talk:De-Vishnu-ize), won't qualify it for wiktionary. - Bobet 00:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JusTech'n[edit]

No where near the recommendations for a keep in WP:WEB. Alexa doesn't put it in the top 500k, Google returns about 60 searches. HackJandy 21:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the primary editor is also Ryanmc, whom has been deleted. The article claims "Ryan McLaughlin" is the founder of the site. Nomination to speedy?
Delete advert. Stifle 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @

Doc-U-Ment Corp., Doc-u-host[edit]

Website advert pages, evidently written by one of the star techies. Despite the claim that "Right now, Doc-U-Ment is one of the most popular and most visited Search Engines", I get an Alexa rank of over 2 million. Delete. bikeable (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as non-notable. Aecis ^Mr.^Mojo ^risin' 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanispam -Drdisque 04:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 85.124.174.190 vandalized all three votes above, adding the comment "Let them online....lets give them a chance......". I've reverted. bikeable (talk) 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ManiacK 13:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John rindlaub[edit]

Insufficient notability, limited Google hits (many of which are for one or more other persons of that name). -- Curps 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep as far as airline execs go, he's moderately notable. -Drdisque 22:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marketing guy at an airline. While he may be good at his job (although I had'nt heard of it), nothing in the article or online appears to indicate that he meets the criteria outlined at WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 04:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How is he moderately notable as airline execs go? —Cleared as filed. 13:23, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy redirect. -- RHaworth 23:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oberon zell ravenheart[edit]

Sorry, I accidentally created a duplicate - newbies, eh? Yewtree1968 22:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructor Soldado, Mestre Olho De Peixe, Teacher Borracha, Professor Borracha, Grupo Capoeiracre[edit]

Set of articles about martial arts instructors. Created by Soldado (talk · contribs), who removes tags people place such as ((nn-bio))/((notability)) and ignores them. Some of the articles make claims of notability but I have a hard time evaluating the claims. I didn't find anything related via Googling for soldado borracha or "jose de amorim". If Grupo Capoeiracre is notable, perhaps they should all be merged there. (I believe the Batizado article by this user is OK; it just needs tone cleanup.) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 22:04Z

Delete, per nom. incog 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knightmare (RC739)[edit]

Delete. The little content there was merged with Knightmare (MSX) Frodet 22:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete No content. Night Gyr 05:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was Delete. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8e[edit]

does not deserve its own article, perhaps merge into the article about middle schoolsSavidan 22:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should still stay up because people might not think of looking in the middle shool article.

I should have clarified that this page could be made into a redirect... Savidan 22:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dictionary definition-ish; pointless; do we want 8a, 8b, 8c and 8d, as well as 7a and so forth, all saying the same thing? Would make an arbitrary redirect too. In these days of categorizations 8e could mean an endless number of things. Vaporize to avoid setting a maddening precedent. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree know with them and thank them for pointing out my error. Sincerely Alkil01. ps-im just not signed in.

The result of the debate was transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 05:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (slang)[edit]

Dictionary definition, and inaccurate at that; it isn't rhyming slang. Paul Tracy_|\talk

Delete nonsense neologistic dicdef Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Wiktionary perhaps it belongs elsewhere, but it is slang; its used in a number of films, including Shaun of the Dead. Thenugga 01:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is slang, but it ain’t rhyming slang, except in the sense that every word rhymes with itself. (Except, of course, “potato” and “tomato”.) Paul Tracy_|\talk 12:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Matt Murphy[edit]

Article is a vanity about an accomplished, but otherwise non-notable individual. – Clockwork Soul 22:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, should have been speedied. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is asserted, but not established. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zedmaster[edit]

Delete - page is link for the company. Removed link ChemGardener 22:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then. Latinus 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeebi's[edit]

Delete - page is an ad for the store. Removed links to the store. ChemGardener 22:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising. Latinus 22:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert. Stifle 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertizement. Kukini 14:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Rathe Council[edit]

Non-notable, and attack page. Possibly a speedy candidate. delete or speedy delete Firestorm 22:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only purpose is to attack SOE.Obina 23:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Kong & Peter Tang[edit]

NN local law firm MNewnham 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable local business. No claim to notablility so almost speedy, but a partnership is not quite a group bio. Obina 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 05:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parsons Green (band)[edit]

This band seems completely unverifiable. I can find no evidence of its existance, and any searches for it just turn up Wikipedia results. This can't fulfill what it takes to be a Wikipedia article. Gwenllian 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. jareha 23:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching my vote to keep, in light of notability information presented by badlydrawnjeff below. jareha 04:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a folk rock group that stems from WP:MUSIC-approved Meridian Green. I say we create a Meridian Green article and redirect to there. I'll try to get a Meridian Green article up this morning if someone doesn't beat me to it. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Article created. It's worth noting that the Parsons in this instance of Parsons Green is Gene Parsons from The Byrds. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 15:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 18:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of knowledge[edit]

Originally tagged as copyvio, but frankly looks much more to me like original research. States and attempts to prove an original thesis, rather than summarizing an existing field of study. Delete as inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Bearcat 23:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Yap, looks like an essay to me Obli (Talk) 23:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:NOT a publisher of original thought -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom--Esprit15d 13:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR, as it concludes without reference, [The] “elitist” attitude [of Wikipedia] is being re-examined.... there will continue to be a concomitant evolution of our concepts of knowledge. The Rod 00:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skunx[edit]

Uncyclopedic, seems to be a minor subgroup of punk fans, seems to be hard to cite any references. Obli (Talk) 23:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Adam ^(talk) 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 15:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How Do I Live[edit]

Articles about individual songs generally do not belong on Wikipedia. I see no reason how this is different. Stifle 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of individual songs can be found and do belong on Wikipedia. Even if this one grates my ears. jareha 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes they do, see Category:Songs -- Astrokey44|talk 00:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Two notable versions of this song. The Trisha Yearwood version won a Grammy and reached #23 on the Billboard Hot 100 (#2 Country) in 1997 see [46]and was the 12th bestselling song of the year in Australia in 1997 see [47]. The Leann Rimes version reached #2 on the Billboard Hot 100 see [48]. Notable enough song for mine. In regards to notability of songs, today's featured article is on a song and there have been others. Capitalistroadster 04:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable songs. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jitters[edit]

Either non-notable or non-existant band — multiple Google results only returned Wikipedia and mirrors of. jareha 23:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It may be old, but it's till non-notable. Obli (Talk) 23:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 18:16, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guinea pig theory[edit]

The subject appears to be neither notable nor verifiable. It is also probably an OR abakharev 23:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. jareha 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable. Kappa 00:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 00:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely idiosyncratic non-topic WP:DP. Ikkyu2 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough and hard to verify. Latinus 22:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ManiacK 14:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valley of Elephant dreams[edit]

Either non-notable or non-existant album. jareha 23:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At best, merge with The Jitters page. Otherwise delete. :) — RJH 21:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The band was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jitters. So this goes too. Punkmorten 00:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was keep — smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 10:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Legs[edit]

I doubt that white descendants of indentured servants are the "poorest" inhabitants of a country with 90% Black inhabitants. Unsourced. --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC) --Revolución (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source is from the Wikipedia article for Barbados: "The modern descendants of this original slave population are sometimes derisively referred to as Red Legs and are some of the poorest inhabitants of modern Barbados."

Jimmcq 23:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Barbados.org notes the existence of the red legs, as do many other sites. CIA World Factbook notes there are approximately 10,000 white Barbados inhabitants, without characterizing them by income or wealth. Article shouldn't be deleted on the grounds of this assertion; if the original poster's really tweaked, he can put a verifiability template on the page. Ikkyu2 04:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am withdrawing nomination per changing of language "poorest" to "some of the poorest". --Revolución (talk)

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bluemud[edit]

Seems non-notable. Article claims that website held instructions on bomb building, but it no longer exists, nor should it exist! Kareeser|^Talk! 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipornia[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep It!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.247.49.168 (talk • contribs)

'Keep itIt seems to me that if somebody really wanted to look at porn, they wouldn't go to anything Wikipedia. It's not harmful and should be kept up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.168.72 (talk • contribs)

Keep it. You can't seriously be considering this. I can think of no more gross an example of subjective morality's continued stranglehold on mass media than this insurrection into the collective free-knowledgebase that is Wikipedia. We've got issues on this website, and we don't need to be judging an ACCURATE, popular article when there are several incomplete, poorly written, and largely false articles existing on the site daily. The "neologisms" argument is a wolf in sheep's clothing. It denies the global community the ability to have its say in what information should be readily available to mass audiences, which is what Wikipedia was made for. Last time I checked, we're not Microsoft. This timid argument is ridiculous.

The idea of banning "Neologisms" is faulty policy to begin with, and that's what this debate boils down to. The gap between 'current' neologisms and legitimate terms is only bridged by apparent common usage. Common usage is related to popularity, which is, in most cases, due to nothing more than personal exposure to the word. Wikipedia is special for many reasons, not least of which is its ability to disperse new--yes, even BRAND new--information to a large, international audience. To deny that Wikipedia facilitates society in this exciting learning process is to depreciate our own website, and self-impose a lower standard of value and influence on society than traditional media. We're peeing on our own feet, folks.

This article strikes at the heart of the faulty "Neologism" policy. We can't just say "wait we don't allow these because we say so," if it appears as though there is a legitimate reason for the policy ITSELF to be reviewed, which I believe is the real issue here. If you expel the ability of Wikipedia to help new concepts make it as quickly as possible into the marketplace of ideas, you're destroying what makes this site unique and extremely important.

Comment: Things are not notable because they are on Wikipedia; things are on Wikipedia because they are notable. --Andy Saunders 21:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so "Wikipornia" isn't exactly the most important and valiant example of the flaws inherent in the "Neologisms" policy; that DOESN'T mean that the flaws don't exist. If you outlaw the Wiki-community's ability to help new concepts come to the forefront, you're stunting the vast potential of Wikipedia, and railing against the very concept behind the internet itself.

If we decide to delete this, and other similar articles, I wish you good luck in your quest to make Wikipedia as dry, boring, linear, and immediately out of date as a regular encyclopedia. Why don't we just publish a book if we want to exclude the idea of timeliness, completion, community, and open-source R/evolution that began this site? [User:68.22.241.142|68.22.241.142] 13:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- MadCasey

KEEP It....if anything its only bringing more people to the wonders of wikipedia -Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.178.116 (talk • contribs)

Would you take the word penis out of the dictionary? It's no worse than what children learn in human sexuality which is an extremely common course lately. In fact, in the class, children see much worse than this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.158.213.222 (talk • contribs)

Keep it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.126.148 (talk • contribs)

"Keep it! It can't go undocumented just because you find it inappropriate!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.48.34 (talk • contribs)

Keep this. Dont be like China.

KEEP it. The world can't be hurt by having too many entries into Wikipedia!!

Keep it. Only because it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.247.79.15 (talk • contribs)

Keep it! You've gotta keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.160.142.29 (talk • contribs)

~~Delete~~ Strong Delete as neologism and not terribly encyclopedic at that. Fightindaman 00:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! This is a valid entry, but it definately needs to be touched up and made better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.185.84.246 (talk • contribs)

Keep it!: I think the point is coming accross quite well. If Wikipedia needs to make a disclaimer because hundreds of people...WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS WORD, are fighting for it to be kept, it is worthy of being up here. There are "encyclopedic entries" where the definition says it is a neologism and aren't up for deletion. WIKIPORNIA is also mentioned in the WIKIapproved page for College Humor. How could moderators allow such a page to exist if they descripe wikipornia in it? Because it is widely accepted...--Onestudlyomelet 16:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hundreds of people who would never have shown up here if not for a College Humor hotlink directing them to, and hundreds of people who will probably never contribute to this project again after this AfD is decided. I could write something non-encyclopedic about Jeopardy! wagering, post it, and then post on the show's message boards to get everyone to support my point vociferously when it comes up for AfD. But that wouldn't be right. -- Andy Saunders 16:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it!: How about deleting and correcting the idiotic and merely incorrect articles you already have before witch-hunting ones that don't meet YOUR particular set of moral standards. Just because it represents an amusing aspect of youth culture does not prevent it being interesting, accurate and insightful. Save Wikipornia! ~ Forbie
Keep it!: IMO kids have been snickering at the vagina entry of an encylopedia for years, its just now on the internet, no difference ~ TymZero

Delete as per nom --Bugturd Talk 00:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Censoring the Wikipedia? You are better than that? Arent you? Did we just step in to Google ChinA? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.195.135 (talk • contribs)

The phrases "laser," "homophobia," and "genocide" were all neologisms. Source Wikipedia.Indeed this word is soon to become a cultural phenomenon as Collegehumor, and Wikipedia obtain thousands of unique hits every day. Let it also be known, that because there is little information surrounding the phrase "Wikipedia" that is the only reason he can claim the allegations that it is "not terribly encyclopedic." As you all know, users are enabled to add information they deem necessary, therefore addition to this definition will occur over time. This article should NOT be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs)

Comment: The comparison is laughable at best.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Fightindaman (talk • contribs) 18:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Other words that caught on after being neologisms: Blog and Spam. Please do check those wikipedia pages out. I'm sure they are in existence.—the preceding unsigned comment is by Onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Should the term become widely used, I would see no problem with adding it. However at the present time, it is not widely used. Thus, Delete per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball and Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms. --Hansnesse 00:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The phrases "laser," "homophobia," and "genocide" were all neologisms. Note the past-tense verb "were". Does that apply to the term under discussion? No? Present tense? Delete. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- FREE CLUE: The only thing that bridges the gap between "were" and "are" is, as you all keep screaming about, COMMON USAGE. Common usage is related to popularity, which is, in most cases, due to nothing more than personal exposure to the word. Wikipedia promotes common usage and is a place to LEARN, not a place to assimilate. The neologism argument is flawed.

Comment: You cite Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms and here is a quote from that page: "Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data (See Corpus linguistics) or, at the least, search engine hits." It seems I meet thier demands quite clearly as stated even in the definition. This is a word that has been seen by literally tens of thousands of people, and I'm very sure that its addition is quite necessary. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Onestudlyomelet (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
- Free clue: people here aren't impressed by amateur legalisms; they ARE impressed by actual evidence. Try that. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable unstable neologism, i.e. protologism -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, neologism and a self reference -- Astrokey44|talk 00:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is no self reference in the definition. I only saw it on collegehumor. I am in no way affiliated with them. And on the neologism note I make myself perfectly clear that I meet the standards by citing the hits from many non-collegehumor pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 31 January 2006}
- "I meet the standards"? A little Freudian slip, there. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Upon further research, "wikipornia" is even cited by others than myself on this very website. Bottom of Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs) 1:05, 31 January 2006
- What part of "no self-references" was unclear? And please SIGN YOUR POSTS. --Calton | Talk 01:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I tend to agree this is not a WP:SELF problem (and if it was, I don't think such is basis for deletion, only a rewrite). To quote the policy, "Wikipedia can, of course, write about Wikipedia, but context is important." I think if everyone and their mother used this term (or for instance, newspapers) then there would be no problem. As it is, however, it is a new idea and needs to gain popularity before being included. Existing on google is quite different from being widely used (as might be demonstrated via google). That is how I read it at least. Thus I claim it is a relatively unused neologism and should not be included as such. --Hansnesse 01:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The phrases "peckay," "EJ" and "schrank" were all neologisms. Let's check Wikipedia--oh no!!. ~~Delete~~. —rodii 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make that Strong Delete. All you outraged collegehumor people--please realize you haven't made much of a case here, because you haven't really based your arguments on any understanding of how Wikipedia works, just this generalized sense of "oh noes! mean wikipeople hates our word!" It just won't wash. —rodii 02:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Don't forget the arguments that the horde of anons who have never edited before and never will again are the ones who really know what wikipedia is about, and that they are the ones defending its true principles. Fightindaman 03:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, I browse CH all the time and have never heard of it. --Andy Saunders 04:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And this vote changes to very very strong delete thanks to the socks. -- Andy Saunders 16:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Additional comment: I just searched CH personally for "Wikipornia" and found no hits. --Andy Saunders 05:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: It only shows up in the link section. Search through the recent link archives and you'll find a couple examples of it. Fightindaman 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - And because it shows up a couple of times in CH Hotlinks it's suddenly become encyclopedic? I think not. --Andy Saunders 05:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - - RELAX: And because it shows up a couple of times in CH Hotlinks it suddenly DOESN'T exist? Take your "neologism" morality (read: sexy slang) and stick it where it belongs: your own home.68.22.241.142 12:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC) -- MadCasey[reply]

- - - - Comment: I agree. That's why I nominated it for deletion. [User:Fightindaman|Fightindaman]] 05:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
        Heh. For some reason I thought you were on the Keep side. My bad. -- Andy Saunders 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 04:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for utter idiocy. --Agamemnon2 10:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well it is clear that the majority has spoken. Have fun not being able to research wikipornia when your professors tell you to do a paper on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.172.236 (talk • contribs)
- Comment: I wouldn't use Wikipedia on its own to research any topic, let alone something as tenuous as Wikipornia. --Andy Saunders 22:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also: WP:NOT a democracy. "Majority" means nothing. "Consensus" does. Andy Saunders 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Promise. As a professor, I hereby solemnly promise never to assign research on wikipornia to my students. —rodii 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It clearly meets the requirements and is accurate. Leave it.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.209.254 (talk • contribs)
Comment:Keep it, if there is Manscaping there should be Wikipornia Reefsurfer226 07:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:To the people who are wanting to delete it, what harm is the word causing you? It is obviously something at least some people are interested in reading information about; therefore, it should simply be left alone. Aren't there bigger fish to fry? I think so. I hope I helped you gain some insight on your life and a realization that you could be caring about something a bit more necessary. 01:34, 1 February 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.15.134.38 (talk • contribs)

Comment: Keep it - And make it a section of Wikipedia. It is accurate and has been mentioned quite a bit on CH.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.168.65 (talk • contribs)

Comment: It is a word that is greatly growing in usage and therefore should stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.196.64.181 (talk • contribs)
Comment:Keep it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.182.162 (talk • contribs)

CommentKeep it i like porn and i like learning thats all, and if i can look at porn a learn about the baby maker parts of women nice. dpaine1979
Comment:Keep it, why not? censroship here? surely not (heres looking at you google) 81.77.224.38 17:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a link on Collegehumor.com entitled "save wikipornia" today. All of these unsigned votes are probably directed from there. NOTE THIS IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. SIMPLY COMING HERE AND TYPING KEEP WILL NOT ENSURE THAT IT GETS KEPT. Fightindaman 16:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: LOL...this last comment is funny...how about this...THIS IS NOT A TOTALITARIAN REGIME!!! SIMPLY TYPING IN ALL CAPS WILL NOT IMPOSE YOUR WILL UPON OTHERS!!!...that being said, what's the big fuss? There certainly are more ridiculous pages on here...see "Teabagging" or "Rusty Trombone" for examples...71.249.76.83 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)Matthew Ruiz[reply]

Comment. What makes me laugh is all these people coming here to passionately vote Comment. You're making a strong case for Comment there, guys. I can't wait to see the closing admin say "The result of the debate was Comment". —rodii 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism. When it's no longer neo-, then we can list it. Powers 17:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, not encyclopedic or notable. Most suited for urbandictionary. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 18:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Quote: "Wikipedia articles are not [...] a usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." If we must keep it, fold it into the CollegeHumor article. And a note to everyone who's crowing about censorship: the deletion of this article is not censorship, it just doesn't belong in Wikipedia, like a dissertation on Gothe doesn't belong in Playboy. Basseq 19:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seems to be some confusion as to the nomination. I see no one thus far arguing for removal because of morality. Note that removal for the protection of minors is against policy (See this policy), however deletion because the word is a neologism is consistant (in my view at least) with its neologism policy. This is one of many neologisms (hundreds, if not thousands) that have been nominated for deletion. I support a deletion as it is a neologism. --Hansnesse 20:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. --Goobergunch|? 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! neologisms shouldn't be universally banned because if they become colloquialism part of the beauty of wiki is that people can look up anything. stop being snobs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.241.81 (talk • contribs)

Keep it It is a new word. There has been alot of discussion today about this subject. Therefore it exists and should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.192.91.23 (talk • contribs)

Delete I vote for deletion. Wikipedia is not a slang guide. Anyways, this isn't popular slang at all. "Thousands upon thousands" being familiar with the term is maybe a few thousand people out of "millions upon millions" that speak English. And anyway, like the article says, this term was coined and used about 5 times on Collegehumor.com. Wikipedia does not and should not have articles about inside jokes or slang terms used by every single website's userbase on the web. It's simply unrealistic. Articles about internet subculture are valid articles (think 1337) but Wikipornia is not common enough to merit having its own article. Used 5 times on one website? Please. The only reason this is being debated is because CollegeHumor linked to this article requesting users to "Save Wikipornia." TheDapperDan 21:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason not to keep this article. Everyone here citing Wikipedia's "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." Needs to read the next sentence of that policy. The next sentence says "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." This article, although is a slang term, is not a guide on how this term is to be used, but rather an explanation of the term itself, which is Wikipedia worthy, because it explains a phenomena, not mearly a straight dictionary word with a meaning and definition. Therefore, I vote Keep. Drlecter491 22:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't qualify as a phenomenon. Right now it's just a silly word someone made up. If it becomes a phenomenon, then we can write an article on it. Powers 00:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it As a valid current phenomenon, Wikipornia should be kept as an entry to continue with the modernity of Wikipedia. If it is in use in the public domain, there should be no reason to delete it.

Keep it Do not become totalitarian. Just because views towards your website are not favorable or may jest you does not mean they are not newsworthy or important for people to be able to find information about. Your website is about providing people as much information about a given subject.

Delete as neologism, and one invented less than 2 months ago at that. To be truly objective about this apparently emotional vote: delete this article, and wait 6 months later, and see if the term is in widespread use. If it is, then maybe it merits an entry in Wikipedia, otherwise, no.—Tetracube 01:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with keeping it? It is as much a word as "yo" and "dawg". Grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.185.65 (talk • contribs)

As I understand it, the whole idea of Wikipedia is to be a sort of dictionary that evolves as our language does, faster than any Websters or Encyclopedia could. If a word is being used and was not made up to hurt someone, where is the problem? Anyone who is offended by this sort of thing should probably type something else into google. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.154.223 (talk • contribs)

- Three cheers for this poster. 68.22.241.142 13:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)MadCasey[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And again, as has already been stated, nobody is saying that this shoudl be deleted because they are offended by it. It is simply not worthy of an encyclopedia article. Fightindaman 03:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware of, the people voting for Delete aren't doing it 'cos they're offended. They're voting Delete 'cos this article isn't relevant to Wikipedia. Stop with the knee-jerk reactions already.—Tetracube 06:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember my friends and I checking out "encyclipornia" when I was a kid. We were innovators! KEEP IT!-yurmom

Delete. To everybody from collegehumor.com and LUELinks, chill. Wikipedia's rules say that among other things, articles on neologisms are not allowed. Slang is fine when it enters general usage, but new words or phrases that are not a part of common usage are not. For example, we have articles on jazz and skyscrapers, but not Longcat or RICK JAMES, BITCH! because these memes are not in common usage. I fail to see how this word is encyclopaedic. - CorbinSimpson 06:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Bullshit. That Neologism "rule" is a Nazi loophole designed to keep out sexually explicit language and depictions of "immoral" actions, such as Teabagging. If we delete this article, good luck in your quest to make Wikipedia as dry, boring, linear, and immediately out of date as a regular encyclopedia. Why don't you just publish a damn book if you want to exclude the idea of R/evolution and community that began this site.

Ahem: Teabagging. We don't want to exclude "R/evolution and community." The objective is not to create an encyclopedia that is boring, linear, and out of date. We just have a high threshhold for new material. When a word becomes well-established (with, in my opinion, Teabagging being right about at the threshhold), we include it. We can't include every little thing someone makes up -- it's not feasible, and other sites (such as Urban Dictionary) cover that niche sufficiently. When "Wikipornia" becomes as widely known as "Teabagging," we'll add it. Powers 13:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism. Belongs somewhere else, as mentioned, such as UrbanDictionary.com. Not on Wikipedia. onishenko

Keep Wikipedia is a continously evolving format. It offers more than standard encyclopedias because it offers certain, less scholarly points of view than say Britannica would. You get a more complete sense of a subject through Wikipedia, rather than be restricted by select facts that are approved by a select community. I believe that by censoring popular trends in culture because "they are more fitted for urbandictionary.com" you are only depriving Wikipedia of one of its inherent advantages over standard encyclopedias. Wikipedia has the opportunity to be a factual, first-stop resource, but also has the opportunity to supplement the facts with popular opinions, trends, and other less tangible, shifting elements of culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.36.60.116 (talk • contribs)

Thank You As the creator of this much controversial article, I would like to thank those who have supported the upkeep of not only the word "wikipornia" remaining in wikipedia, but the integrity of wikipedia itself. Whether or not this article will stay has everything to do with the consensus, and we are making it clear, with valid arguments nonetheless, that this is a worthy article. Dirty Sanchez, Rusty Trombone, Cumfart, Creampie, and even ideepthroat...if wikipornia is more of a neologism than those, I believe WIKIPEDIA will lose a lot of users, both new and old. Ahhh I love work. --Onestudlyomelet 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest possible delete followed by a salting of the earth so nothing ever grows again. I have the utmost faith in the closing administrator to discount the torrent of sockpuppet votes. --keepsleeping slack off! 14:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lot's of arguments here (for and against), but when you sift through it all it's non-notable +/- neologism. Ifnord 15:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn neologism. Kusma (討論) 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BALLS ("the phrase is still in its early days") and as nn neologism. --Mgreenbe 19:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Dsol 19:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oddly Enough, that link goes to a page explaining that the phrase either has to be 'verifiable' or not to plainly obvious. No one can say that "wikipornia" is unknown or that its existence can't be verified. --Onestudlyomelet 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are refering to the WP:BALLS link, that one goes to a policy page. Wikipornia is not, to the best of my knowedge, policy (nor is WP:BALLS, for that matter, an article in the encyclopedia). --Hansnesse 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I really don't understand why people don't want to keep this entry. People are citing two policies which have no baring on this entry at all. The "Wikipedia is not 'A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide.'" states specifically that the artical should not deal with the usage of the slang, not that the article should not be about a slang term itself. "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used." The article makes no mention of the idea that slang terms themselves cannot have an article.

The citing of WP:BALLS is simply rediculous, because the article itself states that it is NOT Wikipedia policy. The policy which states that Wikipedia can not be used to publish original research cities that coining a neologism in an article is a way of establishing that the article is original, and therefore unsuitable for Wikipedia. AGAIN, the policy does not specifically ban neologisms, and because this article is not a reasearch paper, or an attempt to publish any kind of theory, data, etc, as stated on the Policy page about no original research. Therefore, it doesn't fall into that catagory, and the fact that it may be a "new" word doesn't mean it's excluded because it does not pertain to new reasearch. There is a "content guide" which seeks to have users aviod neologisms, "unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data or, at the least, search engine hits." As the wikipornia article itself states, there are google hits pertaining to the word.

Many people also are saying that it's too new and/or not widely used enough to warrent a Wikipedia article. My question to them is, at what point does it become old enough, or widely used enough to be deemed Wikipedia worthy. If anything this article should be kept because it pertains to something that exists on Wikipedia. It is not a straigh dictionary definition, nor is something not noted or unworthy. The fact that so many people have visited this page and put in their two cents (rightly or not) shows that this article is well known and widely used. I urge the administrators to keep this because it is an example of what is best about Wikipedia: the ability to evolve and be crafted from the ideas of its users. Drlecter491 00:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEO Specifically states

In many cases, neologisms get deleted. Protologisms are almost always deleted. It could be via speedy deletion or the Articles for deletion process.

But this is not a court of law, and although citing policy is a good idea, we should always be sure to ignore all rules (see also this policy). There are dozens if not hundreds of neologisms up for deletion at the present moment. We have the neologism policy (and similar policies) because we are building an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, not a phrase book, certainly not a free for all content host. This is undeniably a neologism. It is a routine deletion, one of more than two hundred nominated per day (and this is nothing new). It is wonderful that so many people have taken an interest in Wikipedia, and I hope they stay. But we can not turn Wikipedia into a host for every person with access to the web to post their ideas. If "wikipornia" becomes commonly used (think thousands of google hits), then it should be included. But until then, we leave it (and the thousands of words like it) out. --Hansnesse 01:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Morning Sunrise[edit]

0 google hits, I'm guessing this is just a drink someone invented and wanted to share with the world, unfortunately wikipedia isn't the place to do that per WP:No Original Research etc. Kappa

Delete per nom, WP not recipe book, either. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 00:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom. Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 10:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Latinus 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Holy Hand Grenades[edit]

NN, band vanity, WP:Music, etc. Delete. Vanigo 00:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No releases mentioned. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 22:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NMG. Stifle 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]