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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary fiscal policy[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (wikt:Transwiki:discretionary fiscal policy) James084 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as transwikied. --Terence Ong 04:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per transwikification MLA 09:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I thought these could be speedied. Proto||type 14:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as transwikied. Andy Saunders 18:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would a redirect to Fiscal Policy not be appropriate? Another page - Automatic Fiscal Stabiliser - redirecting to Fiscal Policy would be appropriate too I think. They are the two main components of Fiscal Policy, and are likely to be something people search for. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as transwikified, useful search term. ProhibitOnions 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distributive tropism[edit]

The transwikification has been properly performed and the author information recorded at Wiktionary. (wikt:Transwiki:distributive tropism) James084 02:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not as dicdef, but as non-notable, possibly nonexistent term (no Google hits besides Wikipedia & mirrors). --Allen 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per transwikification MLA 09:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as transwikied. Andy Saunders 18:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 19:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Management by perkele[edit]

• del nonnotable foreign-language neologism. mikka (t) 02:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 04:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guideline, if it has a decent amount of google hits, there is realistic evidence of usage. Further, there are far more google hits for the original-language version of the term. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've changed my vote to keep. --Terence Ong 05:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It has 48 unique google hits in English pages mikka (t) 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oscar Arias 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom MLA 09:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough to cross borders and countries and gain 420 direct hits. May be a new term and therefore a neologism but no less important than Management by objectives and other similar entries VirtualSteve 11:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has 48 unique google hits in English pages mikka (t) 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep notable in the countries in question - 420 google hits for the english version of the phrase alone. Also, quite interesting and informative. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has 48 unique google hits in English pages mikka (t) 20:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, perkele! This expression is very notable in both Finland and Sweden. There's more to Wikipedia than the USA, you know. JIP | Talk 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a good point - to delete this would be an affront to Scandinavian wikipedians. It would be offensive, and would discourage people from contributing articles about Scandinavian cultures. Why not just delete the Finland page while we're at it? Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And another good point is that it is English Wikipedia. The expression has no prominence in English usage. We cannot cover all possible idioms in all lagnuages of the world. mikka (t) 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O RLY? Night Gyr 21:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clear evidence it is notable. Bondegezou 15:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, would appear to be notable. Would like to have the original Swedish form of the expression, though. Smerdis of Tlön 16:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable Funky Monkey 17:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Appears to be a term of some usage... at least nobody is trying to assert it is becoming an English language loanword... Out of curiousity, in Sweden, is it actually expressed as "Management by perkele" or is there a phrase is Swedish that is more commonly used?--Isotope23 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the phrase originated as a Swedish insult of Finnish leadership, I would think the Swedish actually call it "Management by perkele". However they probably mispronounce it as "Management by pärkkele". JIP | Talk 20:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...which is better than "Bergele" though... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve, because this is not an English phrase, even if a widely used Scandinavian buzzword. ProhibitOnions 19:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, at least BJAODNable if not kept. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) perkele.[reply]
• Strong Keep Notable term. Used in US in certain software engineering circles as illustration of what not to do to succeed. dryguy 00:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, vittuun perkele. // Gargaj 13:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This vote appears to contradict itself... JIP | Talk 13:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted per CSD A7 Naconkantari e|t||c|m 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close to Home (band)[edit]

Does not meet WP:Music criteria. TKE 02:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Bucketsofg 03:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. There are no assertions of notability against WP:NMG in this article. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not for articles on bands that only play in their parent's garage. --Oscar Arias 05:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coding by Comrade Reguspatoff[edit]

• del. While reguspatoff is a venerable joke, but (a) its application to coding is even not a neologism (b) the article is factually incorrect. "Reguspatoff" is American joke, not Soviet. mikka (t) 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. --Terence Ong 04:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but funny, moved copy to BJAODN. Oscar Arias 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. The humourous aspect must be too subtle for me MLA 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete silly, unencyclopedic - and not really that funny folks. VirtualSteve 12:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nonsense and not funny Funky Monkey 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, funny because it's not true. ProhibitOnions 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn. Ezeu 09:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Construction Company[edit]

I tried to clean this up. Creator seems content to continue adding corporate addresses and phone numbers, essentially commercial spam. I tried to help them but want to keep the spam up so Delete Montco 03:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK per the early returns, I withdraw my request to delete.Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)
• Keep. I sympathize with the nominator, but if this company did indeed build some important buildings, it is probable wp-worthy. Delete the spam, warn the spammers, but keep the article. Bucketsofg 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are notable and I would under other circumstances have no problem. If they are going to keep going in and adding spam to the article and erase the work I tried to do in terms of agetting rid of the all caps entries and the addresses what can you do? I'll leave it to someone else to cleanup if the decision is to keep.

• Keep because the subject is valid. Quality control should not be done by just one person - we're into collective responsibility here! Therefore I have added it to my watchlist and if it is kept I will try to help keep it clean of corporate addresses and phone numbers. Ziggurat 03:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. Oscar Arias 05:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. --Allen 06:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has withdrawn, no other delete votes. Can we get a speedy keep and early close, please? -- Saberwyn 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Dope Records[edit]

nn record company that was only created this month Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn, definite need to chill until notability is reached, g/l with that... Deizio 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not-notable. Bucketsofg 03:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn wannabeCruft -- Oscar Arias 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as no current notability MLA 09:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn Ray 12:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. ProhibitOnions 20:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. Must have been created by some underground hardcore punksters. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  21:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair News Music Package[edit]

Article about a music package for TV news programs. Non-notable; entirely too arcane for an encyclopedia. tregoweth 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For that matter, everything in Category:Television news music packages looks dubious. tregoweth 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Oscar Arias 05:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could someone explain what a TV music package is? The article doesn't say. Then maybe we could merge the whole crufty category in one article. Sandstein 07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the background music for a news program: the opening and closing theme, the backing track under a graphic or a commercial bumper, etc. Bearcat 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost certainly nn, but I would think that it can't really be treated differently than all the other similar packages listed at Category:Television news music packages. The whole thing is utter cruft, to my mind, but clearly someone is interested in this stuff. I'm willing to say delete if the whole category gets cancelled with it — I'm not going to support singling this one out as a uniquely nn example within the larger category. Bearcat 10:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep millions of people hear the contents of these music packages and may be curious as to their origin. killing off the entire category would be be a profound disservice to wikipedia, and singling out this one entry would be bizarre, as Sinclairis a notable name in broadcasting. The fact that some people may not already be familiar with the nature and creation of these music packages does not make them nn - they are widespread, and, again, they are heard by millions daily. effort should be undertaken to integrate these music-package articles more thoroughly into the articles about their corporate creators, so that they are not orphans. that is the only problem here - lack of integration. merging, however, is not neccessary or desirable. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: though we have the several articles on individual packages, as far as I can tell we have no general article on television news music package, or news music for that matter. A basic article would supply helpful context. Smerdis of Tlön 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I left a note at the talkpage of the guy who made all the package articles; if he doesn't do it, I might try something. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 16:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; no reason to single this article out for deletion, and Sinclair is a clearly notable broadcaster. "Too arcane" is not a criterion for deletion. That said, the article seems grossly incomplete without significant content information. Monicasdude 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Wikipedia is not paper, so no curious background information is "too arcane". Smerdis of Tlön 16:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems notable to me Funky Monkey 17:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - arcane is good. That's why we use the encyclopedia, to look up stuff we don't know. ProhibitOnions 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. --Golbez 04:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expedito Briceño[edit]

Non-notable. -- RHaworth 03:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete under A7. -- JLaTondre 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The author may have put a ((dontdelete)) tag for more time, but it is highly unlikely that any new info will surface that will make it notable or keepable. Draeco 03:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ((dontdelete)) tag was created by the author for this article! -- RHaworth 04:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. ÜberVanity, A7 and then some. Deizio 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete under WP:CSD A7. No claim to notability; being a salesman in an unidentified clothing store is not a sufficient claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Sorry my friend, nothing leads me to believe you're notable enough. Besides, you don't google too well. Grandmasterka 04:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7. --Terence Ong 04:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Capitalistroadster 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REALbasic[edit]

Delete. Any article which pertains to provide a fair overview of a subject needs to include both pro and con attributes of the subject matter. This article has been repeatedly edited so as to remove information pertaining to the cons of this product so as to portray only supposedly good things about this product. This product was was originally designed for the Macintosh platform only, and for many years it ran on the Macintosh platform only, and then with the introduction of RB2005 this product was extensively modified. The cons the modifications need to be reflected within this article as they are both part of this product's history and portray an accurate portrait of the reliability of the product. The original Macintosh interface and numerous features have been removed since the introduction of RB2005, which has upset numerous users of this product, who are not being allowed a voice in pointing out their displeasure with the product as easily verfied by examining copy of the last major release of this product (5.5.5) prior to the revamping of this product within RB2005. In addition there are issues with an extensive increase in the amout of bugs experienced with this product since RB2005 was intoduced, as verfied by this product's own feedback pages upon the publicsher's own web site. There have also been concerns about changes made to terms under which the demo of product can be used, differences between pro and standard version, and modifications made to the pricing of this product (i.e., a move away from simply purchasing a update to having to buy a update and subscription instead. Wiki is not suppose to be a free advertising site for Real Software. Unless sections are added to cover Missing Features, Non Functional Features, and Other Modifications, and the like this article should be removed as it it nothing more than propaganda to sell a commercial product. TruthInAdvertising 03:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wow. Deizio 04:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. I see that a very long-winded section (that I assume you wrote) has been removed from the article. You can edit the article yourself using a concise, encyclopedic tone to write about all the changes you've gone on about. Bringing it here (or writing about what's wrong with the article in the article) is certainly not a constructive solution. Grandmasterka 04:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per bad-faith nom. This AFD is NOT the place to air your grievances about a content dispute. Try RfC, RfM or RfAr, but whatever you do, don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. ---J.Smith 04:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Grandmr and JSmith. Bucketsofg 04:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep if you feel the article is missing something, you can add it (as long as you don't vandalize existing content or break NPOV. Oscar Arias 05:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. Aplomado - UTC 05:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. per above.--SirNuke 05:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. --Allen 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per above. --Terence Ong 05:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Vertical leap.  (aeropagitica)  22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measuring Vertical Leap[edit]

WP:NOT an instruction manual.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Wikipedia is not a how-to-guide. --Terence Ong 04:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not-how-to Bucketsofg 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Too bad, I was planning to add an article about my favorite grilled-cheese sandwich recipe. Aplomado - UTC 05:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, if Vertical leap should stay (and I really don't know), this could redirect to there. --Allen 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT a how-to guide. (Is this even something for which one really needs a how-to guide?) --Kinu ^t/_c 06:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. VirtualSteve 12:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Vertical leap and improve that second-rate article. ProhibitOnions
• Comment Hey i'm the writer of this post. I'm very new to this, as you can obviously see. Please help me out, I don't mind it linking back or getting deleted. I think Vertical Leap should stay though. As you can see i didn't even know how to reply here properly :S Can someone fix my stupidity when they see this, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmethead3 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Vertical Project[edit]

nn "program" for some nn business.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not encycopedic, not notable, not for wp. Bucketsofg 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advertising. WarpstarRider 05:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obvious fake early April fools joke along with that Vertical jump one I'm guessing same author? -Oscar Arias 05:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. VegaDark 05:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad, nn. --Terence Ong 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ad Funky Monkey 17:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 20:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable, WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baja Arizona[edit]

Delete nonnotable political screed. While "Baja Arizona" may have some currency as a term for the southern region of the state, this unfortunately is an article about an insignificant political group of some sort wanting to form another state. Relevant google links appear few.[5] If someone can rewrite this into something substantial and verifiable about the region, please do so, but I think we're just better off deleting this mess and starting over. Postdlf 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The movement seems at least passably notable, and I think the article is salvageable. Perhaps more information from this site can be gleaned for beefing up the article. Delete per nom. Aplomado - UTC 05:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verifiable. --Terence Ong 06:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The site suggested by Aplomado is a humorous site and isn't verifiable according to our standards. Wile E. Coyote would apparently be the state animal for example. I would vote to keep if it were a verifiable region of Arizona and the article was about it. Capitalistroadster 06:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, you're right, forgive me for my gaffe. Aplomado - UTC 06:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unverifiable. ProhibitOnions 20:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency Exit (ska)[edit]

• Delete Single self published album, no evidence of touring or major media coverage. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Richfife 05:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. The MySpace link leads me to believe it's WP:VSCA as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-band, vanispamcrutisment. --Terence Ong 06:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "In February of 2006 they released their first CD, titled Nobody Cares." Yep, I'd say that's apt. Delete. Aplomado - UTC 06:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Give em a break ska is fun. Plus if we deleted it it would be playing right into thier hands. -Jamzz 06:16, 17 March 2006 (GMT -5:00)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/merge I don't think there's a consensus to delete this. Personally I think it might be better suited for a userspace given its intention, but that merging/possibly moving seems to be what consensus is, not deletion. --W.marsh 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs/old[edit]

""keep it"" strongly vote to keep

• del or move to user space. It nochalantly sits in the main article space, linked to and categorized along with decent, peer-reviewed and truly encyclopedic obscenities, not to mention the second-generation List of sexual slurs. mikka (t) 06:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless I'm missing something... how come people are editing it so much, even after it was moved to a subpage? --Allen 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Neutral per debate below. --Allen 14:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing special, just remove it. --Terence Ong 06:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sexual slang. -Oscar Arias 07:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. There are 643 slurs here. Compare that to the 39 slurs on "List of sexual slurs" page (34 of which were created by me) and the zero listed entries on "Sexual slang". Further, they won't allow the two to be merged because these ones don't have sources.^[6] Many of the entries they refuse to allow are obviously real (e.g., dike).^[7] The reason they moved these to the "old" subpage was to exclude unsourced entries. But deleting these slurs will create an increadible amount of vandalism as well as alienate many legitimate users editing anonymously on the page. Perhaps we could add a tag to the "old" subpage specifying that it is a page specifically for unsourced entries? Making it almost impossible to find the terms by moving them to a user page would be wrong. I have three slang dictionaries at my house, so trust me when I say that the vast majority of the words here are true. If an editor thinks an entry sounds suspicious, they can add a ((fact)) tag to it and give the author some time to find a source. The vast majority of these entries were written before the recent push for citations, so the authors didn't know that they were doing something wrong by adding the unsourced material.--Primetime 09:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not dictionary. Move them to wiktionary or wikiSaurus, if you like them. mikka (t) 09:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The nom is completely off base here. It doesn't sit anywhere, it is the old article that we made into a subpage in order to reformulate the main article. See talk page discussion in which this nom did not participate. It is the basis for the article we have and hence the edits are essential. Finally, it is useful for keeping vandals away from the main article. -- JJay 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Put it into your user page, then. mikka (t) 17:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw the nom and then we can discuss it. A message on the article talk page, stating your concerns, would have been a far better approach than AfD, which is a waste of everyone's time. -- JJay 18:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge verifiable content, until then move it somewhere else. There are no subpages in the main article space, and it shouldn't be linked to or categorised. JPD (talk) 12:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge verifiable content into Sexual Slang. PJM 12:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• All the verifiable content has already been merged. What remains is both unreferenced and not suited to an encyclopaedia (WP:NOT a dictionary]]). Delete. Proto||type 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Words like whore, tramp, and tomboy (all of which are in the list) are certainly verifiable. I have a bunch of slang dictionaries right with me, and I can see that most of the entries in this article can be verified. The only thing lacking is time. Words like whore, in my opinion, shouldn't even need a citation--as they're obviously correct--but strange-sounding words could be tagged with a ^{[citation needed]} tag if they're suspect. We shouldn't delete--or refuse to merge--entries that haven't been cited yet, as finding citations for over 600 terms overnight is unrealistic.--Primetime 04:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete subpage of main article... especially since useful content has already been merged per Proto.--Isotope23 14:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to wikipedia space -- Astrokey44|talk 15:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sexual Slang Funky Monkey 17:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of sexual slurs and Sexual Slang AdamJacobMuller 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a subpage, verify and transfer to main page. ProhibitOnions 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into above article(s) what can be verified (sourced). We don't use subpages in the main namespace, and the reason it isn't the main article is because it's unsourced. -- Mithent 20:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above articles. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per AdamJacobMuller Carlossuarez46 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. ---Dana 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You will all need to know that User:Primetime has decided at Talk:List of sexual slurs that this article mandates the complete and total merging of the /old article into the main article, whether or not they are verifiable and claims that they "will not be able to be removed". I trust those voting to merge are fully aware of how their words are being interpreted. -Splash^talk 21:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge what can be verified, term by term. Once this workshop page is no longer needed, then it can be deleted.Voice-of-All^T|@|ESP 22:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. There is a difference between verifiable and verified content. Some--not all--voters who voted to merge wrote that they think "verifiable" content should be merged. Thus, content that is verifiable--but not yet sourced--should be copied onto the "List of sexual slurs" page.--Primetime 21:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, actually, Wikipedia:Verifiability is much stronger than that. Your notion here would allow absolutely anything to be added to any article whether or not it can be verified. The burden, as WP:V makes very clear, lies on the person adding the information. It goes on to say "Any edit lacking a source may be removed", and thus unverified items are subject to removal from an article until they are referenced. Splash^talk 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy nonsense. mikka (t) 10:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blurp[edit]

Doesn't appear to be a real word. Bordering on CSD G1 (nonsense). I've already removed one piece of nonsense from the page. TheParanoidOne 06:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:WINAD. WarpstarRider 06:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --Terence Ong 06:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, pure idiocy. However: "Legend has it that students hollered out,"BLURP!",causing an anonymous staff member to respond,resulting in much laughter." lmao Aplomado - UTC 06:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Supposed dictdef with no reference or citation to back it up; possible ((hoax)).  (aeropagitica)  07:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for many reasons already stated, as well as WP:NEO, probably. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speddy delete as WP:BALLS. --Ezeu 08:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep.  (aeropagitica)  09:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty White[edit]

Does not meet WP:BIO nor assert any notablity. It has been tagged for a few weeks as lacking any reason for wiki inclusion. He has four works: one is a four page article self-published, one you cannot even find a search for the ISBN, and the other two are published by unknown publishers who do not currently press/sell/ make the books available. Arbusto 04:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 04:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. --Yuk Yuk Yec 05:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New user Arbusto 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all four of White's books were found in either allbookstores.com or half.com. --Yuk Yuk Yec 06:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for joining wikipedia six days ago and expressing your thoughts, but judging from those links he's not notable. Other than a few books available used and from independent sellers it is clear his books aren't anything "notable." Nor has his notablitity been established. Also he only has four "books" if you included his 4 page self published article on dating, which he has no credentials in. Arbusto 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought there were guidelines about being civil and not biting newbies...... hey ho. Jcuk 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user's advanced knowledge of wikipedia demonstrates she/he is not a "newbie." Arbusto 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BLP. Monkeyman^(talk) 06:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.34.152 (talk • contribs)
• Weak Keep seems like prominent UK Young Earth spokesman. Eivind 07:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep appears notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 15:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, lots of sources and borderline assertion of notability. Article is POV right now, but that can be easily fixed. Grandmasterka 17:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. WP:BLP is policy relevant to keeping WP out of legal trouble; it's not first and foremost an inclusion/deletion policy to make AfD decisions. The relevant policy is WP:BIO, and this published author who's been profiled by the BBC meets those criteria. The current article is pretty one-sided, but what's there to say - this is a physical chemist who worked on elemental-dating methods and then changed his mind, wrote some books about it, and achieved fame thereby. (Full disclosure: I think creationism's ridiculous.) -ikkyu2 (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable creationist. Btw, Ikkyu2, I'm pretty sure that White never worked with dating methods before he became a creationist. JoshuaZ 07:04, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep looks notable to me at least. --Terence Ong 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- notable although perhaps better off not being.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Monkeyman. Kuzaar 13:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vote, in light of Ikkyu's comment. Kuzaar 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, seems notable. (Insert joke about "dating methods" here) JIP | Talk 14:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears to meet minimal notability criteria, particularly due to BBC coverage. Monicasdude 15:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep notable Funky Monkey 17:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep only because of the press coverage; his vanity-press output desn't cut it. ProhibitOnions 20:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability established. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JetSetCD[edit]

• Delete Vanity page. Larry V (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Sandstein 06:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. This is a recreate of a previously deleted page.--Dakota ~ ° 06:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreated and nn-bio. --Terence Ong 06:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, what is this, Match.com? Aplomado - UTC 06:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: G4 as recreation of twice-deleted content; is an A7 due to lack of notability assertion regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete ((nn-bio)); no claims to notability in article, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  07:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleted. Not as reposted content (WP:CSD G4 specifically does not apply for previously speedied content) but as an article on a person with no assertion of notability (WP:CSD A7). Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1947 Organizational Chart[edit]

Just one image, and a bit of POV musing. This image belongs on an Air Force page, not on an article of its own. PROD removed without comment. Sandstein 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no content. --Terence Ong 06:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, absolutely no context, as much as I am impressed by their "humble beggings." Aplomado - UTC 06:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it's of interest to the SAC article, the image can go there. I'll pop a note on the SAC talk page in case someone wants to work it in. Kcordina 09:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good, because the graphic is useful, but the "article" is not, thus Delete. ProhibitOnions 20:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article and merge image to SAC if appropriate. Capitalistroadster 20:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not that management of the US Air Force isn't important, but an organizational chart won the Cold War? That should get a place on BJAODN. Peter Grey 05:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. incog 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Cool3 00:40, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Juggling Jollies[edit]

About 28 unique Google hits for this juggling act out of Bellingham, Washington. I'm afraid that's not notable enough. Oh, and the author is one of the Jollies, apparently. Delete, per WP:Vanity. GTBacchus^(talk) 07:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable group, also reeks of WP:VSCA. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete JuggleCruft - Oscar Arias 07:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sandstein 07:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanispamcruftisment and nn. --Terence Ong 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable juggling group, WP:Vanity refers.  (aeropagitica)  13:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I looked at speedying but overseas performances are an assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 20:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Matczynski[edit]

Originally nominated for CSD, but then contested, so we'll put this up for a vote. An article on a non-notable IT guy, who claims to have started an internet phenomenom. But I doubt he'd have to write his own hype if that were the case. Harro5 08:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Herrick 08:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 08:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kcordina 09:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bio Funky Monkey 17:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity, NN. A legend in his own mind. Fan1967 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:09, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiggish[edit]

Contested ((prod)). Silly neologism. Example: "Tiggish; adjective. To have tig-like qualities." Non-encyclopedic. Vslashg (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 09:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, clearly doesn't belong here - Eagle^talk 09:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn neologism. Wiktionary can have it if they want it. Kcordina 09:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nonsense, quite possibly ((db-attack)) on person called Tig. Weregerbil 09:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Neologism. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 12:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, idiotic neologism. JIP | Talk 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as per nom Funky Monkey 17:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- neologism, and a pointless one at that Reyk 22:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete slowly. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Kept due to community concensus and withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 08:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Coggins[edit]

From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: "Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Wikipedia is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." - Eagle^talk 09:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - Eagle^talk 03:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems notable for the awards he received, but the article needs to be de-hagiographized. Sandstein 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. An extremely frivolous and boorish nomination. The nominatior didn't even bother to check the notability of the person. Time to read wikipedia artice about google before proceeding to editing wikipedia. mikka (t) 10:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From the originator of the article on Jack Coggins Jack Coggins was a very well known artist and writer - checking Google will show the number of references to his works. Someone who has produced so many books, paintings & illustrations surely deserves a place in an encyclopedia. The information given is all factual and supported by documentation. A quick scan of Coggins's work on the referenced web site may indicate the breadth and effect of his works. Dcoggins.
• Comment Sounds notable for awards and galleries where he is represented. However, author is user:Dcoggins and article is too subjective in present form. Is there any non-relative who could de-memoralise the article?--Porturology 12:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep He obviously has a list of achievements, and shows up more on the web then just here. This page is definatly worth keeping.
• Weak keep, his awards looks notable. --Terence Ong 14:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - you can't toss an article about an obviously notable person (16,000 google hits, awards in his field) just because it was created for unencyclopedic reasons. Some people just have friends or relatives who are notable...the fact that they also know how to use wikipedia doesn't make said friends or relatives non-notable all of a sudden. NPOV it, of course, though. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, nomination does not cite valid claim for deletion; subject of article is conspicuously notable as published author/artist. Monicasdude 14:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable Funky Monkey 17:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per mikka and others. Vslashg (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though in need of a cleanup.--Isotope23 18:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though it would be nice if the External Links contained legitimate references instead of his family's memorial website for him. That sort of thing is what tends to trigger AfD notices like this. Fan1967 19:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Cleanup. He has an entry on Galenet's Contemporary Authors Online so is notable enough. I have added a cleanup tag to this - key issues to be addressed are NPOV (article refers to Jack throughout) and verifiable third party sources as per WP:V. Capitalistroadster 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From Dcoggins Obviously I am a novice at Wiki - I have tried to "de-personalise" the article. Jack Coggins was an associate of Fletcher Pratt, Chesley Bonestell, L. Sprague de Camp and other sci-fi notables of the 50s, many of whom have entries here, so there is a precedent.
• Keep Article seems to focus on subject's career, not his death... so the "memorial" reasoning isn't justified. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• From Dcoggins I have now added some independent external website references and a bibliography of some of his work. Dcoggins 23:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You've obviously put in a lot of work and significantly improved the article. Good work. A warning: don't be surprised if other people do some copy editing. That's Wikipedia. Fan1967 03:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Thank you for the comments. I have added more references and internal links, plus some print sources (if this is appropriate?). I am learning fast and refining the article as I go along. Yes, I expect that there will be editing by others. Dcoggins 05:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EnterpriseWizard[edit]

EnterpriseWizard gets around 500 ghits, and the top hit is another EnterpriseWizard entirely. I tried to find out if it is listed, and the size, to see if it meets WP:CORP, but the website was down, at which point I gave up. Spam links now removed, this did include the no. 1 vanispamcruftisement indicator, starting with the company name correctly intercapped as a weblink. I call spam. Just zis Guy you know? 10:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, WP:VSCA. PJM 12:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, VSCA. — Saxifrage ✎ 14:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lean mean fighting machine[edit]

It reads like an advertisement. Blueiris 11:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advert. What an appalling advert for an advertising company, I doubt their aspirations to greatness will succeed if that pathetic attempt is indicative. MLA 11:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Obviously an advert. Cordless larry 11:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert! Thought it may have been some type of web/graphic/media/high school design project, but it is not. Any way it is not encyclopaedic.--Blue520 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, advert. PJM 12:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatent advert.  (aeropagitica)  13:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatant ad Funky Monkey 17:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Great online advertising is a rare thing." Yeah, but people using Wikipedia for advertising seems to be all too common these days. Delete. --Elkman - ^(talk) 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteth. For my face doth screweth up with the bitterest of rage upon encountering AddeCrufte such as yon page. Deizio 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Spam. Stupid spam. Reyk 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 03:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National anarchism[edit]

Non notable political ideology - only 559 unique google hits. This article has survived one previous AfD discussions and failed one: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National anarchism and Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/National anarchism (2nd nomination).

• Keep because you consider a political ideology non-notable, it is invalid? It is still an ideology, perhaps the article could just be moved. Pindle 14:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable, possible hoax political philosophy. - FrancisTyers 11:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Would consider Move to Anarchism and nationalism for a detailed article on the connections between the two. - FrancisTyers 15:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or transform to Anarcho-Nationalism or Anarchism, racism and nationalism and broaden it out to include the whole gamut of anarchist nationalists. The proposal to delete it is POV.Harrypotter 13:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not particularly, how do you imagine that my proposal is POV. Do we have a page on libertarian fascism? Hell, maybe I should get a page :) I would not necessarily be opposed to a general page on Anarchism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 13:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure what you are getting at here. Have you checked out Georges Valois? Just because you do not know much about something does not mean that it is non notable, or even a hoax. Also see A number of the demonstrators wore clothing bearing slogans such as "We Grew Here, You Flew Here", "Wog Free Zone", "Aussie Pride", "Fuck Allah - save 'Nulla", and "Ethnic Cleansing Unit". Chants of "Lebs out", "Lebs go home" and other expressions were continuously shouted out by many of the demonstrators, including some families with young children. A banner saying "LOCALS ONLY" with a symbol for anarchism in place of the "A" was displayed (Daily Telegraph, December 12). from 2005 Sydney race riots. Do you want libertarian fascism as an alternative to National Anarchism, or what? I have noticed that a number of people ndo not want any mention of this very real movement on wikipedia on what I feel may well be ostrich style POV reasons.Harrypotter 14:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The (A) symbol is used in many ways, association with the (A) symbol does not necessarily mean anarchist. I don't think libertarian fascism is an ideology, do you disagree? I read the page on George Valois, it doesn't say anything about national anarchism or libertarian fascism. I agree that in some cases people nominate articles for deletion as a result of Ostrich like behaviour and assure you that this is not one of them. As I said above, I would not necessarily have a problem with keeping the content provided it was moved to a general page about Anarchism and nationalism, or even if you like it could be moved to Anarchism, racism and nationalism. - FrancisTyers 14:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Move - to a more general page on eg. Anarchism and Nationalism .Unfortunately these people do exist - well, just about, maybe a couple of them, or at least they did. Personally I think wikipedia has room to comment on even the stupidest and most offensive ideas, as long as it's made clear just how tiny and marginal this bunch are, and that whatever they call themselves they're fascists not anarchists.Bengalski 13:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) On closer inspection, we've got various scrappy pages or stubs on 'anarcho-nationalism', 'nationalist anarchism' etc., and I'm not sure there is any real difference between all these. So I think the best approach, per ideas above, would be to merge the lot into one decent page on the whole crew.Bengalski 15:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Kuzaar 14:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep existing political philosophy - unpopular, and not approved by you or I, but in existence nonetheless. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 14:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings for or against it to be honest, can you direct me to a book written by a National anarchist? I realise that books aren't the only indicator of notability but I think I could safely provide citations for most of the other political philosophies that Wikipedia covers. - FrancisTyers 14:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never read one; I'll have to look into it. I see your point, but this is apparently a rather new ideology, in terms of coalescence. I'll have a look around a little later. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 15:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The national-anarchist movement was started by the security services as a honey trap. The trap has been exposed. National-anarchism is dead. The ideas were stolen from the national-bolsheviks (a much larger political force, especially in Russia) and the better insights are being marketed effecively by others who are not tainted by connections with MI5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.225.145 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 14 March 2006

Quite possibly, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be exposed again here.Bengalski 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kepp. Highly objectionable "trojan horse" ideology with little or no real claim to anarchism. Noteworthy nonetheless. - N1h1l 15:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge if something to contain this non-anarchist national front naziness can be found. Take the alleged "faction" with it into a paragraph or small box in contemprary fascism or wherever it can be dfound a hole. Failing that, Delete it not for its irrational loathsomeness but for its pretensions. Midgley 15:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anarchism has a long tradition of opposition to both nationalism and racism. This so-called ideology was created by marginal neo-fascists in an effort to attract more followers. Wikipedia shouldn't include every crackpot movement that attempts to revert the ideas of a long-standing political tendency with over a century of existence. Having an entry on "national anarchism" is like keeping one on "Satanic Catholicism." Just because a handful of people believe something that is opposite of an existing ideology with millions of proponents doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Chuck0 16:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should definitely be an article on satanic catholicism.Bengalski 17:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or merge move to anarchism and nationalism. 560 Google hits is not notable for its own article. -- infinity0 17:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Anarchism and Nationalism per Bengalski. The Ungovernable Force 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Delete - non existing ideology. // Liftarn 18:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The page Nationalist anarchism might also be of interest to those voting here. Fightindaman 19:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Nationalism and anarchism might be the best solution. Sarge Baldy 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or make it a redirect to Nationalism and anarchism which should have the same content. PMLF 06:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OK so it's not a huge political movement but there are groups in the world who choose to identify themselves as national anarchists. Don't redirect to Nationalism and anarchism as, whilst this would be a worthy topic, National anarchism is a specifically modern term that deserves its own entry whilst a new article would have a wider, more historical, scope. Keresaspa 14:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --metzerly 09:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: I think there should be a page called Anarchism and nationalism like Anarchism and capitalism and Anarchism and Marxism in the side panel. The convention seems to be have the words placed in alphabetical order, or am I wrong here? When that page has been fully developed, we shoudl be able to better see whether national anarchism deserves its own page.Harrypotter 22:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While I do support the political position of No platform for fascists whatsoever, it's only Anarchist Occultists who want to cloak, censor and delete this p[articu;larly telling manifestation of their so-called politics. Paki.tv 15:21, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • huh? - N1h1l 18:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I can't believe that once again somebody has put this article up for deletion, only six month after the last AfD. The results of the last vote were to keep the article - what's changed since then. Moves to delete this article are blatantly POV - I should remind those who keep brining this article up for deletion that just because you disagree with this ideology or disagree with the fact that they call themselves anarchists is not a valid reason for deletion. I'm reposting from the last AfD why I think this article is important and should be kept: "The argument for deletion is blantly POV and sectarian in nature and smacks of censorship. (Which this move entirely hypocritical coming from so-called anarchists, but I've seen worse similar hypocrisy coming out of that movement before.) It is simply an attempt by Toothebarricades to delete an article based entirely on the fact that he does not like national anarchists calling themselves anarchists. Whether or not "national anarchists" is a valid as an exponent of anarchism (and I happen to agree that it isn't good anarchism) is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be an article on this topic here on Wikipedia. The argument that the argument is too non-notable to warrant a Wikipedia article is entirely false - the long list of links on this page, the large number of websites (both pro- and anti-NA) resulting from a Google search for "national anarchist" or "national anarchism", the obvious influence it has in the neofolk music milieu, plus the very active National Anarchist Yahoo Group are all evidence that this is a topic of interest and criticism for many people and therefore well-deserving of a Wikipedia page to introduce interested people to the topic. There are plenty of Wikipedia articles on Trotskyist tendencies that are far more obscure. " Peter G Werner 19:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your comment, I'm disappointed that you suggest that my motivations for posting an AfD for this article are different from what I have described. Is there one of those google hits that you would classify as a scholarly source? As for a very active Yahoo Group, does this mean that we should support keeping articles for all kinds of forums, after all, there are many forums which are pretty active (and probably more active than that one) without articles. Forumcruft is not something that really floats my boat so to speak. I can appreciate that I'm not going to change your mind on this, but it would be nice if keep voters actually attempted to show how this "group" (for want of a better word) is notable instead of crying loud about some kind of perceived censorship. See above for my response to "blatantly POV and sectarian". - FrancisTyers 20:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An abstract of a journal article on national-anarchism and related tendencies: [8]

I have to ask, though, just what is your motivation for deleting this article, if not POV? Especially in light of the fact that an AfD for this article was up only 6 months ago and it was decided that the article should be kept. Did you even bother to review the previous arguments about the articles relevance? It seems to me that the reason this article keeps coming up for AfD over and over again is because its on the hit list of various left anarchists who really don't like the idea of a far-right and racialist ideology calling itself a kind of anarchism. I'll point out again that whether its good anarchism or not (and I happen to agree with critics who say it isn't) is totally irrelevant to its relevance as a Wikipedia article.

I have serious doubts about your criterion for dropping this article, in any event. The active Yahoo Group, plus the website Rosenoir.org, plus 596 Google hits, are quite sufficient to me to state that this is an ideological tendency with actual adherents and has an active place in the marketplace of ideas, and not just some kind of hoax that somebody made up off the top of their head. This is not to mention the controversies around national anarchism and similar ideas - do a Google search for "Anarchist Heretics Fair" and you'll see that there was a rather large controversy in the anarchist and anti-fascist press about this ideological tendency. I'll also point you to FluxEuropa for an example of the influence that "national anarchist" or "third position" ideas have in the milieu of neofolk, martial music, and other "dark music".

If your criterion is that National Anarchism too small of a tendency to be taken seriously (which I think is a pretty dodgy reason for dropping an article), here's some other groups which you might want to float AfD's for: International Bolshevik Tendency, Socialist Action (Canada), Trotskyist-Posadist IVth International, Communist Party of Trinidad and Tobago, Typhonian Ordo Templi Orientis, Last Thursdayism. If National Anarchism is too obscure of a subject, why should these other obscure groups get to have Wikipedia pages? For my part, I'd be against dropping any of these pages - one of the best things about Wikipedia is the fact that you can find good information on subjects that are way too obscure for Encyclopedia Britannica. Peter G Werner 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in brief, I don't have long, yes I would vote delete to most of those (probably not CPTT), but I wouldn't AfD them as because you have mentioned them i would be violating WP:POINT. Regarding Peter Werner, you should get a page as with >200,000 hits you're pretty notable :) Note on the journal article, well, you've convinced me, they are notable enough not to delete outright. Good searching. - FrancisTyers 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the Yahoo group is not particularly active -- a handful of individuals post there repeatedly, sometimes using different nyms (nyms are a big thing with these guys -- something to be taken into account when counting the 'keep' votes, as well as their ability to summon up large numbers of meatpuppets). Their Yahoo group is in serious decline -- the original group was attracting over a thousand contributions per month a few years ago. Now their group is struggling to reach 400. The original group was banned for TOS violations and the current one is mostly chitchat.

This is a pretty serious accusation: "a handful of individuals post there repeatedly, sometimes using different nyms (nyms are a big thing with these guys -- something to be taken into account when counting the 'keep' votes, as well as their ability to summon up large numbers of meatpuppets)." Can you demonstrate that any of the above Keep voters are actually sockpuppets? Put up or shut up! So far, this discussion has failed to generate anything approaching a consensus to drop - your accusation that most of the Keep votes are mere sockpuppets is a pretty dodgy attempt to tilt things in your direction. Peter G Werner 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Troy Southgate's organising a meeting between Alexander Dugin and representativs of the BNP makes him and N-A notable. Also there is Leonard Savin's infiltration of Peoples Global Action which came to light last year. There has also been the involvement of anarchists in promoting Neuropa, in the context of Euromayday project. The overtly and conscious fascist elements of national anarchism run alongside - and hopes to influence - an unreflected institutional racism found in a movement which fetishises the state and finds it hard to look at its own failure to live up to its so-called principles.Harrypotter 18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "Leonard Savin"? Google doesn't seem to know [9]. - N1h1l 14:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try Leonid Savin

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BEJ[edit]

Looks like an advertisement, and there is something about it on its talk page, too. Blue۞Iris 12:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT - original invention. PJM 12:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per PJM. Kuzaar 13:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 14:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as ad. --Terence Ong 14:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT, Advertising/Self-promotion for a university project "Senior Design 2 Project". If deleted, the redirect to Beja language should be restored also.--Blue520 15:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad Funky Monkey 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above; also, it looks more like a website for their project, and WP:NOT a webhost. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT to show off and self-congratulate on your class project. Deizio 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Girls and Boys[edit]

Delete. Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Ashenai 12:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, article claims the band has been 'approached' by labels, but not signed. The number of bands that are 'approached' by labels is always far higher than the number signed, so that doesn't make them notable. Average Earthman 13:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per av. Earthman

Band had previously been signed to an Irish independent label, which since became defunct due to means beyond the band's control or influence.

Whilst the term "approached" doesn't comment or reflect on the band actually being signed, the negotiation procedures are underway and the page will be updated with the result of said negotiations.

Band has been commented on in favourable terms in music publication "Hot Press" within Ireland. (unsigned comment by 213.94.192.200) --Ashenai 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC). Please use ~~~~ to sign your comments on discussion pages.[reply]

• Delete ((db-band)) candidate. The band are working on demos at the moment; no album or single releases or chart positions; no notable members - WP:Music violation.  (aeropagitica)  13:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per the comments aruging for deletion, the source will be revisited and the article re-submitted at a later date, accomodating a more refined definition of relevance as per the terms of inclusion. (unsigned comment by 213.94.192.200) --Ashenai 13:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as nn-band. --Terence Ong 14:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable, though an entertaining name. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --MaNeMeBasat 14:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. nn --mmeinhart 17:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete for both articles.  (aeropagitica)  22:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George M. Turner Jr., Allied Artists of Johnstown Pennsylvania[edit]

• Delete Vanity article that reads like spam. Local artist who clearly fails the guideline for notability. Google search for "George M.Turner Jr." and "artist" shows 15 hits mostly to authors web site. Article was deprodded by author. I have also listed Allied Artists of Johnstown Pennsylvania of which he is president. It has 138 members.--Porturology 12:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete adspam vanity Bucketsofg 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Though the entry of George M. Turner Jr. may be obscure the references are varifiable and notable, searches through google provide information about this artist from credible sources such as the Southern Alleghenies Museum of Art, the Allied Artists of Jonstown Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Council on the Arts, AMD&ART, the Johnstown Tribune Democrat, Associated Artists of Pennsylvania, and other sources. The entry may appear as a Vanity Article but I set up this reference so as to provide a starting point that will enable other users to expand upon, which will occur because of the relevance they hold as a resource for many others related to the formentioned topics. (unsigned comment by Georgemturnerjr)  (aeropagitica) 
• Delete as vanity. Kuzaar 14:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity spam. --Terence Ong 14:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable artist, vanity article, WP:VANITY refers.  (aeropagitica)  16:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as WP:VSCA (as blatantly indicated above) and the former as not meeting WP:BIO as well. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, "Do Not Delete" plea says it all - "obscure...vanity". Deizio 22:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Deletei am a member of the allied artists and would like to keep this information posted (jasoncramer)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic Applications Server[edit]

Delete. Non-notable beta software slated for release in Q3 2006. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Article author is repeatedly spamming Blog with this as well. · rodii · 12:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Bucketsofg 13:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and as software vanity. Kuzaar 13:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, vanity. --Terence Ong 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xlogic[edit]

Page was de-prod-ed, so it gets to come here. The proposed deletion was "No indication that WP:BAND is met. See also WP:BAI" Blue520 13:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per original proposed deletion.--Blue520 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blue520. Kuzaar 13:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original PROD. Sandstein 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cult following & only one album released = non-notable band. WP:Music refers and probable ((db-band)) candidate too.  (aeropagitica)  13:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness ^(talk) 13:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn-band. --Terence Ong 15:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks quite good.

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete If the website subsequently becomes notable then the article can be rewritten to reflect this.  (aeropagitica)  22:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred the Monkey.com[edit]

Non-notable website, 280 google hits for "fredthemonkey.com", no Alexa rating. Kuzaar 13:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete WP:WEB violation; non-notable website.  (aeropagitica)  13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep it of course!! this site is awesome!

Comment: can't even find this addition to the vote to do an unsigned template. Take that as you will. Kuzaar 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it! you can't just get rid of something because you think it's "not-notable." as an encyclopedia you are supposed to be nutral and to label something like that is obviously giving it a bias. this article should be kept, and who do you think you are to decide whether or not something is notable anyway? —This unsigned comment was added by Beatrixcastle (talk • contribs) .

• • (User's only edit) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 15:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn Funky Monkey 17:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. the.crazy.russian ^{vent here} 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites). —Eternal Equinox | talk 21:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. ComKeen 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User ComKeen has been registered for less than four days and has approximately fifteen edits. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep NON Relevant???? Fred the Monkey is about as relevant as an animation website could possibly be. The characters are completely relevant - some might even say significant. MrD 22:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User MrD is not registered. Kuzaar 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain, but MrD is registered. Ardric47 23:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP MAN WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO SEE THIS GREAT WEBSITE GO AWAY MAN U GUYS ARE IDIOTS

TOADFAN5 aka FRED THE MONKEY FANATIC 5 —This unsigned comment was added by Toadfan5 (talk • contribs) .

• • User's only edit besides his own user and talk page. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Great humour, and deserves the recognition. —This unsigned comment was added by 59.167.156.33 (talk • contribs) .
  • (User's only two edits) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though this site is not famous at the moment, it is becoming exponentially more popular, and is clearly quality work. If it is deleted now, it will probably simply be added again in the future. —This unsigned comment was added by Pirateslifeforeme (talk • contribs) .
  • (User's only edit) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Please don't delete! It's my favorite site in the world and I don't know what I'd do without it! —This unsigned comment was added by 69.171.32.231 (talk • contribs) .

• • User has two edits, this one and one to Fred the Monkey.com. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some voters (like this one) seem to think we're voting about removing the entire site rather than the wiki entry. Mackan 12:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Site is over 4 years old with sevearl thousand loyal fans, should be kept as semi notable D_X

User D_X has less than 30 edits, all pertaining to this subject. Not to point the finger, but this is suspicious to me. Kuzaar 17:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sigh. Fails notability. For reference, I prodded Clydex the Platypus, which is based around the site. --Fuzzie (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Site itself is growing in popularity, and the flash itself is defintely notable.--Wizardman 02:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has less than 40 contributions and is less than 10 days old. Kuzaar 18:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepKeep, pretty popular, especially among afficionados of flash. —This unsigned comment was added by CrazyEyes (talk • contribs) .
• Comment I just went thru and identified some unsigned posts and commented on users without significant contribution histories. It doesn't mean I don't think new users can contribute, but it points out who might not be familiar with Wikipedia policy and might only have an account for the purpose of "voting" here. (Decisions are made by consensus, not vote.) NickelShoe (Talk) 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Three years old, does carry an audience on the net, and I haven't heard any grounds for deletion that appear reasonable other than the per nom which I assume has to do with the policy. The newest post on Newgrounds is a social commentary that I find pretty good, similar to the battle between "Cyanide and Happiness" with "Top Web Comics". Give the artist time and I'm sure he'll battle this deletion to the bitter end. —This unsigned comment was added by 128.195.78.102 (talk • contribs) .
• KEEP - Exactly like that guy says ^^ it's a monkey for christ's sakes! - monkeys rule :( —This unsigned comment was added by 83.216.136.62 (talk • contribs) .
• Delete and Comment. To justify my deletion vote I just want to say that even if it will become notable it doesn't mean it is now. Joseph Blanchette aka Legendary Frog had his entry removed despite being several times more famous than "Fred the monkey". My comment is, the creator of Fred the monkey has started a campaign to make sure his entry doesn't get deleted, through a flash movie submitted to newgrounds.com and probably elsewehere as well where he tells people to go to Wikipedia and "tell them to shut their stupid faces" (and a clickable link that leads to the Fred the Monkey entry). This surely explains the many recent unsigned "Keep" votes. I am appaled by the creator of "fred the monkey"'s lack of understanding for what wikipedia stands for (it's an encyclopedia and not a showcase for up and coming artists) and I think this move makes it much harder to hold a fair vote, which I think in the end will only weigh FOR the deletion of this article. Here's the animation on Newgrounds: Fred the notable monkeyMackan 11:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another Comment: There is not only a single (1) google hit on "fredthemonkey.com", search for any page name and you'll only get one result. From there you click "Find web pages that contain the term "fredthemonkey.com"". This gives 243 hits (note, by looking on the first page of results I get the impression that many of them are created by the maker himself). This does however, in my opionion, doesn't change anything. I'd vote "delete" if it had 10 000 hits. In fact, my own flash game "Shotgun Orc" comes up with 30,000-65,000 hits on google (currently 65,000), but I wouldn't dream of suggesting an entry to be made for it and if somebody did make one I would definately nominate it for deletion myself. Mackan 12:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable - 280 Google hits. -- infinity0 15:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn --mmeinhart 17:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you're gonna delete this from The Wiki, then Delete Homestar Runner, too. This site has been around for about as long as them, and they've made tons of laughs amd is enjoyable by many people. And, why does Clydex get his own Wiki Page, but this one is on the edge of deletion? He isn't ver a main character! Anyways, keep the page up. The Pro X