< March 4 March 6 >

Purge server cache

March 5[edit]

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

The result of the debate was deleted - userfied NSLE (T+C) at 06:09 UTC (2006-03-05)

Vit Zvanovec[edit]

This is clearly a self-reference, and does not belong in the article namespace. There is no claim to notability aside from within the Wikipedia community, so the official complaint is Wikipedia:Notability (people). Delete Makemi 00:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user has now userfied this (User:Ross.Hedvicek/Vit Zvanovec), so I believe it can probably now be speedied (I didn't originally speedy it because I didn't know where it should go, and wanted to give the user time). Makemi 04:27, 5 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 by User:Harro5 — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undead Soldiers Of Ares[edit]

Was prodded, prod removed. Seems to be about non-notable gaming group, and their exploits in a game. Fancruft. Delete Makemi 00:21, 5 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The result of the debate was speedy keep as withdrawn nomination. bainer (talk) 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide and position of Turkey[edit]

POV fork of Armenian Genocide not discussed at all on talk page of article. In fact, previous consensus was that a page such as this should not be created. Point being that the goal is to get the original article to inclusive NPOV, rather than splinter off the minority view. pschemp | talk 08:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC) I withdraw this nomination. I feel the debate will be damaging to the community. pschemp | talk 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Ah, well this has been a nasty messy topic and the archives are full of fractured discussion, but I'll do my best to find the comments. pschemp | talk 16:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok...here's one, (I am only including the opinions of serious editors to the page, it attracks a lot of POV spam and such from random anons. Also, its not like eveyone lines up after each comment and says, "I agree" or I disagree".) Actually, we would delete such an article since it is a POV fork. The point is that the Armenian genocide is hardly contested outside Turkey and widely accepted as a historical fact. Immediately after the genocide and more recently it is partially accepted in Turkey too. Both the history of the genocide and the fact that many Turks and few others have reservations is well covered in the article. Therefor it is NPOV. We also cover the recent recognition of the genocide in Turkey, but are still weak on its early recognition. gidonb 22:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Yo, guys, you are voting on a proposal that has been WITHDRAWN. It is still here for the records, but is not an active afd. Please respect my decision and stop adding votes. pschemp | talk 17:27, 5 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. Angr/talk 10:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Colduck[edit]

Non-notable, vanity-ish. Being a radio news guy on a minor community college station is not really notable. It's just a job. DanielCD 01:43, 5 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. Angr/talk 10:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jombob[edit]

hoax neologism, not a real architectural movement as said DVD+ R/W 02:12, 5 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. Harro5 03:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Light Smashers[edit]

Non-notable, possibly hoax. TigerShark 02:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, this is a team which takes part in a online-football management game - it's not causing any problems or upsetting anyone on-line so please re-consider deleting this page.

Thanks

M — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theweegrafter (talk • contribs)

Above user's edits have all involved this article. Royboycrashfan 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Theweegrafter is in the process of trans-wiking this page to the shared webhost http://bluwiki.org. If an admin could avoid speedying the article for about an hour, that should give him time to transfer what he wants to transfer. --Red Penguin 03:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll hold off on the speedy. Just get the user to jot down a note that the transwiki is done when he's finished. Thanks. Harro5 03:33, 5 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. Clear consensus established. Punkmorten 09:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ERef, PRef, VRef[edit]

Three duplicative articles on a NN product by a NN company. Company website is an ad for a bartending DVD. ERef is their term for the MPEG version available for download. -- JLaTondre 00:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
King of Hearts | (talk) 02:45, 5 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 as non-notable club. Capitalistroadster 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Chix[edit]

Non-notable gamecruft. Brian G. Crawford 02:57, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(note: The link to this AfD from the page itself has been sorted Deiz 04:26, 5 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. Although many votes were for delete, the nominator withdrew the nomination. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matteo Carandini[edit]

Vanity page, non-notable neuroscientist. DeleteThis person has a record of publication that is comaprable to anybody at his stage in his career, none of the pubs appear to be from his own laboratory, but rather work done as a graduate student or postdoctoral fellow. Nrets 02:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Weak Keep Upon further reflection, this person is as notable as many others that are allowed to remain on WP, the bar seems pretty low. He does have some articles as a principal investigator (which come up in a medline search) in top scientific journals. While I still think he is not nearly as notable as many other Neuroscientists who are not in WP, I guess this is not a good reason to delete him, although the arguments for keeping him are pretty weak as well. So I have changed my vote. That being said there is very little in the article to reflect his notability, and perhaps the article could be improved to show why he is more notable than the avrage assistant professor. Nrets 02:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to second that, the subject of this article does not have any publications as an independent investigator. If you look at his publication record you will see that he is never the last author. In scientific publications the last author is the principal investigator in a study, the first is the one that does the actual lab work, and this could be a graduate student or postdoc. The subject of this article does not have any more publications that the average Assistant Professor and is not notable within his field. I'm not saying he's not talented or smart, just not notable enough to merit an article. So no, this is not aggressive ingnorance, but an informed choice by someone who is in the same field. Nrets 01:49, 6 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. Angr/talk 10:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llull voting system[edit]

Is Wikipedia turning into an aristocracy now? Administrators have now disregarded official policies regarding this article two times. One time in keeping an article having a 3-1 vote in favor of deletion based on a personal judgement of the article's noteworthiness, the other for removing the entry from deletion review without there being a majority of votes endorsing the original result.

The Condorcet method already contained a reference to Ramon Llull, but this was later removed based on an argument that IMO borders on original research. There is no reason to effectively duplicate the contents of an article under a protologist title. Instead, Llull's role could again be mentioned in the Condorcet method article under a newly created history section. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:47, 5 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. Angr/talk 11:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hull University Union[edit]

  • Why not? We already have 28 lines on her tattoos. Though I'd probably start with other parts of her anatomy. -- JJay 17:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Above account created today, participation limited to AfD. -- JJay 16:18, 6 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. Angr/talk 11:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Davis[edit]

Non-notable minor leaguer, not in the Pros yet, no awards, etc... Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:02, 5 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 on withdrawal of nomination. Capitalistroadster 06:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Datasheet[edit]

Withdrawing Nomination--Vercalos 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the change in the article, should I replaces the VfD with the result as keep? Or should administrators only do it?--Vercalos 05:22, 5 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. Angr/talk 12:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin rhodes show[edit]

Article itself asserts that subject is not notable outside of the (small) boundaries of his hometown. FuriousFreddy 03:58, 5 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. Angr/talk 12:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frazerton Ltd[edit]

Delete small family business, article written by family member who makes unsubstantiated pov claims about minimum wages and world economy--Porturology 03:59, 5 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 as copyvio, and to meet its deleted brother at Kidnapping Part 1. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping Part 2[edit]

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought Bladeswin 04:39, 5 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. Angr/talk 12:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Eyed Kids[edit]

With a low Google yield for "black eyed kids", this appears very strongly to be a neologism. Is it in some use? Yes. However, the term is not widespread by any means. Are there notable cultural uses of kids with blackened eyes (i.e., the eye itself is all black)? Sure, there are plenty of scary movies that might use that effect, but they're not referred to collectively as such in any of those films, and cataloguing them and trying to make blanket statements about them is rather original-researchy, IMHO. Delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs)

Comment added an 'unverified' tag for the time being. -- Vary | Talk 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed many people speculating that this is indeed not fact but folklore - however from the various different sources and experiences it is as "factual" as any other paranormal phenomenon i.e. Chupacabras and Ghosts. Therefore it is not only part of folklore and legend but a rather recent form of paranormal phenomena which should be taken into account. Regardless whether you believe in it or not that is not what is up for debate. It is definitely verifiable as someone earlier stated Art Bell and the other sites mentioned. Piecraft 03:47, 10 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.

Redirected to Bogside. — Rebelguys2 talk 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bogside[edit]

The few scant details are all in the article Battle of the Bogside though I added the dates. There is also an article Bogside related to this topic, so no need for this page. ww2censor 05:01, 5 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 Stargate (device). -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Energy vortex (stargate)[edit]

A very rarely used or spoken-of term for the "kawoosh" which is covered plentifully in many many other Stargate articles, particularly Stargate (device)  Alfakim --  talk  05:21, 5 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 the nomination is incorrect; this is not original research, and a name change is more properly a topic for the talk page. In the future, you can check in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics if you believe an article may be original research but aren't sure. SCZenz 06:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Standard Model[edit]

Appears to be original research, and in any case the article name is faulty. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 05:27, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't pretend to know what the heck this article is about, but if it's not original research, then the tone needs to be changed from that of an instructional manual to something more encyclopedic. --djrobgordon 08:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For now, I suggest keep; it's got some summaries of stuff I have seen elsewhere in depth in physics literature, and is a good overview for aspects of the problems with the standard model. I think it appears to be straddling the line out towards original research, but isn't clearly over it. It clearly needs references, some cleanup, and to be made more encyclopedic in sections. But those are cleanups, not AfD justification. AfD is not a substitute for cleanup tags. Georgewilliamherbert 08:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't the title be "Physics beyond the standard model" (notice case as well)? --Nlu (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Standard Model is usually (perhaps even always) capitalized in physics, as it refers to a specific model. Adding "physics" to the title is fine with me. If the "beyond …" is considered to be too unencyclopedic, perhaps we can use Extensions of the Standard Model? But I'd prefer to have somebody who really understands this stuff to choose the title (that is, not me). -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Physics beyond the Standard Model actually sounds more professional. I think "beyond" is just as encyclopedic as "Standard"; the word is entrenched in modern usage. Melchoir 05:31, 6 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. - Bobet 22:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arcana Jayne[edit]

del nonnotable webcomic. Only 119 unique google hits. mikka (t) 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • I don't mean to be difficult, but I'm not sure you do. "unique" Google hits are a nebulous concept, and of little to no value in judging the notability of a given topic much of the time. While very low or very high numbers might be meaningful, midrange numbers just don't tell you much. They absolutely don't mean that all results other than that number are duplicates or repeats. Anyway, I'm sorry if my original reply was terse, but nominations based on "unique" Google hits are one of my pet peeves :) I hope this clarifies my position. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For an "internet phenomenon", 119 is way below "midrange". My son's personal website has more google hits than that. mikka (t) 10:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you mixing/matching Google hits / "unique" Google hits? — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you so want to keep it, please provide reputable 3-rd party references, as well as evidence of notability. Website itself and blogs do not count, as you know. mikka (t) 09:25, 5 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 merge with Odyssey (Magic: The Gathering). Angr/talk 12:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychatog[edit]

Single Magic: The Gathering card. Single cards aren't notable enough for Wikipedia (though the most famous nine cards from Magic are notable enough for their own single page).

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

The result of the debate wasspeedy deleted NSLE (T+C) at 06:03 UTC (2006-03-05)

Big 1-0[edit]

Non-notable neologism; WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Alan Au 05:43, 5 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 Userfy — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiruththikan Senthilnathan (Kiru)[edit]

user probably meant to create a user page but created an article instead Rklawton 05:46, 5 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. Angr/talk 12:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verma v.s. brewer[edit]

An obvious hoax, no ghits for case, someone created fake ACLU article earlier about lawyer, also no ghits. Delete Oh, right, prodded, de-prodded. Makemi 05:59, 5 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. Angr/talk 12:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willy_Wumpacheeks[edit]

This article is trivial and its entire content is already in its 'parent article', Crash Tag Team Racing Cornflake pirate 06:02, 5 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. Angr/talk 13:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah beng vs bangla[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as short article with little or no context. Capitalistroadster 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kickapoo rock festival[edit]

Attempted to prod, but tag was removed. No assertion of notability, fails Google test with only 1 hit. --Alan Au 06:07, 5 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. I also protected the page from re-creation since this was the fourth time it had to be deleted. Angr/talk 13:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: I removed the ((deletedpage)) tag, as there are valid incoming links to Alex White (for a British musician). I don't predict recreation of deleted content will be a major problem, but I'll keep an eye on it for a while just in case. — sjorford (talk) 17:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex White[edit]

not notable / unremarkable person. Nominated by User:Theusualsuspect. (2nd Nom, result of first was speedy delete) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yep. Both have been AFD listed. --kingboyk 02:20, 9 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. Angr/talk 13:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Crawford[edit]

DELETE - nnTheusualsuspect 06:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a VfD vote last June, which resulted in a keep vote. Now the VSU bill has passed, it might be time to review this, but Barendse seems to be far more notable than Crawford. It's not just about what position you hold, it's about what you do in office. Crawford didn't do anything worth noting on Wikipedia; Barendse shaped a major debate. Harro5 09:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I certainly don't fault him for doing so but I'm not sure how he's any more notable than Crawford who seemed to get more press. I think they both ought to be deleted until they get into Parliament or something. DarrenRay 15:08, 5 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. Angr/talk 13:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joe kamensky[edit]

Unable to find either Joe kamensky or the Allegheny Meat Fest. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 06:21, 5 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. Angr/talk 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Community Church[edit]

Delete: vanity, no real content Cantara 06:40, 5 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. Angr/talk 13:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tibshelf services[edit]

Ip removed prod without expansion or reason. Prod reason was: "Non-notable mall. Not encyclopedic." Delete -- Perfecto 07:26, 5 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 merge with Horror punk. Angr/talk 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horror Hardcore[edit]

This article is pure neologism, the creator has tried this before with "Gothcore" which was deleted. - Deathrocker 07:29, 5 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. Angr/talk 13:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skull Baby (band)[edit]

Self promo/vanity, it would seem as though this article has been started purely to sell CDs through CDBaby.com.. - Deathrocker 07:33, 5 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. Angr/talk 13:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HexIt[edit]

Prod removed. I still think it's non-notable software. Delete -- Perfecto 07:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Many other software titles share this name.
Ooops! - I just caught Perfecto's note that other software share the same name as I was about to surf away. My search may then have returned invalid results? SilkTork 13:24, 10 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. --Ardenn 20:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party of Nova Scotia[edit]

A group that is having their first meeting this weekend. No media coverage = fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Mailing list has 27 members. Delete-- Perfecto 07:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: http://www.cbc.ca/ns/story/ns-green20060215.html and: http://www.herald.ns.ca/Search/488087.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ty89 (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 redirect to Osymyso (nothing to merge because all relevant info already there). Angr/talk 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intro-Inspection[edit]

If you say this is verifiable only because of half-a-line in the New York Times that doesn't even say the song's title (See this link), then I still say this fails Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Delete -- Perfecto 08:05, 5 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. Angr/talk 14:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament[edit]

This article has no precedent for earlier elections, but more importantly there are more convienient ways for this information to be collated. The existing election "main page" and Constituencies in the next UK general election article bring together the information attempted to be listed here. This list is nowhere near complete, and seems unlikey to be adequately completed without massive duplication of information on individual constituency pages. Delete on the grounds of listing information which can be adequately covered on existing articles. doktorb | words 08:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree but the UK system means, in over 600 constituencies, over 3,300 candidates from an array of parties. This table has never been attempted before and I wonder if it the potential for duplication and inaccurate information means it would be acutally easier to keep the information in the current articles rather than this. I am interested in any clean up suggestions people may have... doktorb | words 09:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm admitedly ignorant to UK electoral process, and would welcome suggestion from anyone more familiar. Perhaps there's a way to divide this regionally. An Americentric example would be having separate pages for House of Representatives candidates from each state. --djrobgordon 17:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly possible. It could be done by region, for instance, like the Templates for constituencies are. David | Talk 10:42, 6 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. Angr/talk

Aspire Auctions, Inc.[edit]

Subject of only one media article. Fails WP:CORP. There are hundreds of auction sites around. Delete -- Perfecto 08:30, 5 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. Angr/talk 14:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article purity[edit]

I find very little instances of this terminology to mean as such. Unless it means "purity of an article", which we don't need an encyclopedia or dictionary for! Delete -- Perfecto 08:35, 5 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. Angr/talk

alt.fan.nb[edit]

Delete nn news site with alexa ranking>200,000 and article is full of the usual cruft and in jokes. Was prod but unproded. Current main topic is how to prevent deletion. Prepare to repel sock-puppets--Porturology 09:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Note. Above account created today, participation limited to AfD. -- JJay 16:18, 6 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 Payasam. Nothing to merge since there is no encyclopedic content. Angr/talk 14:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Payasa, MungDalKheer[edit]

recipes, unsuitable for Wikipedia per WP:NOT. Delete, or possibly move to Wikibooks Oldelpaso 09:24, 5 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. Angr/talk 14:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale meat music[edit]

Vanity/advertisement for record label. Gets 36 Google hits. Punkmorten 09:26, 5 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny[edit]

Deleted here, redirected to Neil Cicierega at The Ultimate Showdown of Ultimate Destiny and elsewhere, redirect endorsed by WP:DRV, but the article is back again. Maybe it's notable by now (after three months "out there") but maybe it's not. Either way this seems to me to need an AfD decision to avoid being speedied as a re-creation of previously deleted content. My personal view is that individual Flash movies are not notable except in extraordinary circumstances, but there you go. I'm also just the teensiest bit fed up with content being endlessly re-created until eventually it gets kept; for some reason this content is almost always related to some internet fad or aparent neologism. Yet more proof, in my mind, that we should not even try to document anything until at least a year after it happens, to allow a proper perspective to develop. Just zis Guy you know? 09:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as for reliable sources, per WP:RS? Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why we have an article on him. But that does not make every single thing he does independently notable. Just zis Guy you know? 23:36, 9 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. Angr/talk 15:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Factory Network[edit]

Non-notable fansite, seems to fail WP:WEB badly. Was prodded before, but got unprodded by an anon after two days.

  • That seems to be because their forum has a lot of subpages. If you count the number of unique Google hits, it only comes to an unimpressive 74, which still includes many subpages of their domain. --Aquillion 10:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. joshbuddytalk 10:51, 5 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. Harro5 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monocan[edit]

Hoax or patent nonsense, I originally tagged this as speedy under CSD G1, tag was removed by author. On reflection its borderline whether or not its a speedy, so listed here. Delete Oldelpaso 09:57, 5 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 Cupid. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cupid's bow[edit]

This page just repeats what’s already in the Cupid article. Philip Stevens 10:17, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil's Online Comic[edit]

((prod)) removed without reason, so bringing this here. Article on a web comic designed in MS Paint of which a massive 26 have been released on the website. Other than the phrase "the very noteable comic", no assertion of notability is given. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You're right, it doesn't matter. However, this AfD isn't an attack on your comic, it simply means that it may not suitable for inclusion in wikipedia yet, as it may be too new and/or have too few readers. Henrik 11:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote added by 211.26.126.147 [4] not Chris. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote added by LoudHoward [5] not LH. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's only edits have been to this article and it's associated image, talk page, and this AfD. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 16:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue here isn't the quality of the comic. What matters is whether or not it is notable, based on the WP:WEB. My vote is unchanged. Bad ideas 00:48, 8 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albion High School[edit]

This a disambiguation page for two pages that don't exist. Further, it is an orphaned page. I say that it should be deleted, and should the need for a disambiguation page ever arise, it can then be reinstated. -Fermion 10:34, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lewis[edit]

((prod)) removed without explanation, so bringing this here. Seemingly a non notable musician, but I guess listing films starred in etc is an attempt to establish notability, and thus this isn't speediable. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:40, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The physical tv company[edit]

Non-notable dance company. -- Longhair 10:41, 5 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 and protect from re-creation. Angr/talk 15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperwind[edit]

I'm probably the last person who should be consulted on Russian music but here goes. This has been deleted four times, the last time by me, but the author strongly objects. He has brought in new evidence of his notability, that he is "included in St. Petersburg's trance & ambients artists' registry http://psytrance.spb.ru/music " although I'm not quite sure what that means or suggests. The article at this point seems to suggest that the subject is not a public figure. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 11:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User has eight edits, and has twice tampered with voting on RFA.[6] [7]. -Colin Kimbrell 16:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User's first edit. -Colin Kimbrell 16:24, 6 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. Angr/talk 14:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cherubs[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --CrypticBacon 11:15, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exulcerate[edit]

Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. --CrypticBacon 11:23, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remnants of a Cannibalistic Debauchery[edit]

Non-notable album by a non-notable band. --CrypticBacon 11:25, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Askew[edit]

Original ((prod)) removed without explanation. The original prod was ((prod|non-notable podcast, only 32 unique Google hits, not affiliated with View Askew)) Royal Blue 11:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


-The reviews on iTunes give the Podcast 5 out of 5 stars

-Although not directly affiliated with View Askew, Kevin Smith has acknowledged, approved, talked about, and appeared on Radio Askew

-This is by far the biggest, most devoted View Askew fan project ever

-I brought the deletion of this Wiki up on the official View Askew Message board [8] and several other fans were willing to search for 'Radio Askew' on Google for no other reason than to keep this Wiki alive.

-The fanbase for this Podcast is huge, because they share the View Askew fanbase, and the number of listeners increases nearly every single week —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TylerMertens (talk • contribs) 19:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment: I added the above attribution but made no other edits to the above "plea". —C.Fred (talk) 01:46, 6 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. Angr/talk 15:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The gosh guys[edit]

Nominating as not notable per WP:MUSIC. I think this is supposed to be a parody cover band. A Google search doesn't turn up much. --CrypticBacon 11:42, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy Mind Body Planet[edit]

Was deproded without explanation. Delete. As Self-promotion/Advertising, per WP:NOT -- Royal Blue 11:56, 5 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 as attack page. Haukur 19:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf State[edit]

Delete. Derogatory for Japan. I think this page is written as joke, "So today the dwarf state is obsolete, dwarf should no longer be discriminated.". This belongs somewhere else. No Google hits. Lord Snoeckx 12:18, 5 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, but it may still be deleted as a copyvio. Angr/talk 15:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tassimo[edit]

Delete. brand name for coffee-maker, article reads like spam/ad. prod removed without explanation--Porturology 12:32, 5 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. Angr/talk 15:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Prymak[edit]

Vanity biography created by User:Josephprymak (see WP:VAIN, WP:BAI); no notability (see WP:BIO) is apparent from article or Google results. Sandstein 12:44, 5 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 all. Angr/talk 15:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immaterial world[edit]

Mr. Joseph Prymak (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Prymak) has seen it fit to grace Wikipedia with his original research, which I hereby all nominate for deletion in one fell swoop: Immaterial world (incl. Non-material world), Universal questions (incl. Eternal questions) and Anthropogeology. -- Sandstein 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can also list many others who defend these ideas if you need more humans to explain why. I hope that we gave some satisfactory reasons, and that these alone are sufficient instead of a majority rules situation, which is against the Wikipedian rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephprymak (talk • contribs)

  • Comment: Thanks for your considerate reply. However, the first articles in particular still read like a slightly confusing personal essay to me, and not like an encyclopedia article. And Anthropogeology still lacks any sources to indicate that anyone except you uses this term, so it also looks like original research. While we're on procedure, please also note that it is considered bad form to change one's previous comments; if any amendments are necessary, it is usual to strikethrough the old text like this and append any necessary corrections as a new comment. Best regards, Sandstein 16:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Dear Sandstein,

Thank you for your guidance and patience with me as a new Wikipedian. I am impressed. I was once edited by a very rude Wikipedian, and you are by far superior. I agree to delete the article of Anthropogeology. Yes, you are right, the other articles need a lot of work, so delete them. I could not have been nominated for deletion by anyone more kind and reasonable. Thanks again for your patience and treating me with respect. I hope to improve my ability to properly contribute to the Wikipedia. I learnt some good lessons. Yours sincerely, --joseph 05:09, 10 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. Angr/talk 16:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Vedic studies[edit]

Reason: The article is so obscure that it is not clear either what its subject is or why it is significant. Must be deleted. Pecher Talk 12:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, but a search for the phrase "Islamic Vedic studies" gives zero hits. And your search results for Islamic and Vedic do not seem to imply the sort of connection between the topics that the article does. Sandstein 15:45, 5 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. - Bobet 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avengex[edit]

db tag removed, prod tag removed, so here goes. Link to non-notable website, does not conform to Wikipedia:Notability (websites) guideline, advertising. Accurizer 17:51, 4 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. - Bobet 22:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Episode VII: The Fallen Hero[edit]

I've put this up for deletion since info on this entire SuperShadow/Sequel films hoax is already well-covered at both SuperShadow and Sequel trilogy (Star Wars). Delete. The Wookieepedian 13:28, 5 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. bainer (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Muslim Christianity scholars[edit]

Closer's notes
This was fairly evenly split between delete and merge. A merge would have been compatible with some of those delete votes, but there was no consensus as to what the appropriate merge target should be.

Reason: only 3 links on the list of which one is red. The description is obscure and does not specify who "Muslim Christianity scholars" are. The list should never have been created. Pecher Talk 13:37, 5 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, one of the keep votes was confused about which site it was about, the other was based on an alexa rank, which actually reflects all of wikicities.com, and this site has under 1% of those hits according to alexa. - Bobet 22:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiHowTo[edit]

Non-notable wikicity. —Cryptic (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but you killed your argument yourself when you said that it is important to [sic] "me and my wife." (in other words, it has to be important to a far FAR greater amount of people) The below user said it all with its low Alexa rating - if it is related to this site it needs to be Wikipedia:HowTo (in other words, in the Wikipedia, not the article space). I think this is best deleted. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it seems I was confused. The site I use is WikiHow and that is a very usefull site and I think it should be referenced somewhere from Wikipedia. However, it seems that this artcile is about a different site. Is anybody else confused? My comment about the use by my wife and I was merely to say that it was usefull and if we fiound it so it is likely that many others would too. However, that is different. --Bduke 22:13, 6 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. - Bobet 22:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McElwain[edit]

Reason: the stub does not specify why this person is notable Pecher Talk 13:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. greatly improved--Blue520 12:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just publishing something does not make an author immediately notable; see WP:BIO for guidelines. Pecher Talk 16:11, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete book too. Pecher Talk 16:23, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
al-islam.org itself is of very dubious notability, and not surprisingly it was nominated for deletion. The link on globalresearch.com is essentially the only link saying something meaningful about that book. Not notable, whatever way you look. Pecher Talk 20:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to look things in perspektive. Of course you are going to find a Shi'a twelver book only on Shi'a twelver sites, you expected to find them on atheis sites? Al-islam.org is THE bigest shi'a twelver site according to Yahoo. It doenst get bigger and more notable than that, not as long as the book is addressing only Shi'a twelvers. --Striver 00:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If McElwain is notable, I think it's probably more for his work with languages. As for Yahoo, it's difficult to judge their criteria for popularity. The top-ranked site is the most popular among Yahoo! users and only among the sites listed in that category of the directory, and it doesn't indicate how popular the most popular site actually is. It could be that there are more popular sites among all internet users, or among sites not listed in that directory category. Шизомби 01:25, 6 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  ALKIVAR™ 09:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goolash[edit]

Seems more like a dictionary definition, if it's even a word. I can't find it in any dictionary anyway. Reads more like nonsense to me. Perhaps they meant Goulash? --vortex talk 13:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, should not be on Wikipedia according to the standards etc. 84.47.67.126 14:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Delete This really is a no-brainer J.J.Sagnella 14:04, 5 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. - Bobet 22:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beta butterfly[edit]

Dicdef. - Sikon 14:37, 5 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. - Bobet 22:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Cats ReBoot Corner[edit]

Reads like an advertisement, award is listed as Unofficial ReBoot Award on it's google'd results. I feel that it does not meet the guidelines for Website notability. Bladeswin 14:38, 5 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. - Bobet 22:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Futuretrack5[edit]

Advertisement for non-notable web design company. Originally littered with linkspam as well, which I have already removed. —Cleared as filed. 15:03, 5 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. - Bobet 22:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KHProductions[edit]

Delete does not meet criteria of WP:WEB SailorfromNH 15:25, 5 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. - Bobet 22:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euro America[edit]

The term is a neologism and the content found in the article is original research, and other content information which is blatently fabricated (and unssubstanciated in the case of Chile, by its census figures). Although "Euro America" may be vaguely based on reality (at least in the case of Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil; the ethnic demography and culture in those areas are overwhealmingly European) it cannot be credibly substanciate with the countries it presently specifies (again, I'm refering specifically to Chile).

In regards to Chile being a part of the so-called "Euro America", that nation is overwhealmingly mestizo (93%) and conforms a part of the Southern Cone in geography and politics, not by demographic or cultural affinity with either Argentina, Uruguay or southern Brazil. Then there is Paraguay, another mestizo country (95% mestizo, with its ethnic composition identical to Chile) which is also a part of the Southern Cone, yet not included as part of the the so-called "Euro America".

Then we have the contention of the "America" of "Euro America". If the neologism where to be taken seriously, would it not be "Euro South America" since it doesn't include Canada or the USA?

There already exists the article Southern Cone, and the subject matter to be found in Euro America is already touched there. Al-Andalus 15:35, 5 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 withdrawn by nominator. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaibandha District[edit]

The page gives no info. Can be remade when people contributes more info.Soumyasch 15:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the page has been expanded enough in less than a day. I take back the nomination now. --Soumyasch 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 04:34, 6 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. - Bobet 22:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ibrahim Kalyanaraman[edit]

Non-notable as per WP:BIO: no Google hits on him or his supposed book on martyrdom. Sandstein 15:44, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[18] [[19]]

Well, essentially, no, it doesn't matter whether the subject himself feels he's notable or not. Otherwise, we'd have to keep all vanity pages, where the author feels he's notable but most others think not. So essentially, all deletions require consensus on AfD irrespective of the article subject's wishes (which are only reported second-hand by you, incidentally). Exceptions are divine intervention or articles fulfilling the Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Please also note that you should sign all discussions thus: ~~~~. Do not try to create a signature for an user that does not exist, like the "Wikkid" signature above. Sandstein 18:58, 8 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. - Bobet 22:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exburb[edit]

The article readily and proudly states that this is a neologism derived from another neologism. Delete as—you guessed it—a neologism. JDoorjam Talk 15:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FALSE (in reply)[edit]

An entirely false premise from the outset. It holds that any neologism is invalid (or a more commonly cited line of reasoning, that any additions to the collective phraseology are somehow self aggrandizing in nature and without applicable merit.)

Exburb is an entirely valid phrase labeling a structure of pattern migration that didn’t exist until recently. Furthermore, it’s status as a neologism is entirely reliant on ones own involvement in the relevant academic pantheons. Those involved in urban planning or the various human sciences are well aware of the term in spite of it’s relative obscurity amongst the public at large.

If exburb is to be deleted, than so shall be exurb, one of the most commonly cited components of the centricity of dwelling patterns. Wikipedia has the ability to remain on the cutting edge of the collective lexicon by virtue of it's open addition procedures.

Your position is akin to a linguistic xenophobia that maintains that anything new must be invalid by virtue of being new. While it may be new to you (and shockingly, Wikipedia too) it isn't new amongst those who are involved with the study of such things.

I agree that in many cases, neologisms are invalid. To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shizzle

In this case, it most definitely isn't invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:24.26.19.116 (talk • contribs)

Some Get It, Others Don't[edit]

I'll refrain from casting my own vote since i'm the one who penned the article and it must be obvious as to where I stand.

I wish I made it up. If I did, I would probably own the domain for it (which I just checked, and is taken by someone). To say that exburb overlaps with exurb is akin to saying that tread and retread are the same thing, or anything else where the basic logical construct is altered by virtue of a letter or a prefix is the same as it's parent phrase.

The specificity of exburb in no way negates it's applicability or validity. I'm sure there are a panoply of medical terms on wikipedia that you or I wouldn't know from a hole in the ground yet to that particular community, the're as valid as a page on the Boston Tea Party might be to a historian. You cannot on one hand cite the reference to a neologism (exurb) in support of your claim for deletion yet come to defense of said neologism when the premise of your entire point is that any neologisms that you have yet to hear of must be invalid. As I maintained earlier. If exburb goes, than so shall exurb.

Exburbian living is particularly common in the beltway. Many formerly exburban communities (like closet communities in New York City) have since evolved into bona fide exurbs or even suburbs. Human migration is one of the most fluid and constantly changing things, and as such, the phraseology might take a little time before it leaves the confines of academia into the common lexicon.

I understand that most people don't study planning just as I know nothing about video games or those Asian Cartoon things. If someone were to post a phrase native to those areas of interest, if I were the sort who were inclined to vote for deletion for anything that I didn't understand, I might take such a position too.

Let it be known that taking such a position is incorrect and if that thinking (I'll refrain from calling it "logic" as "logic" it ain't) were applied universally across this site, about 3/4 of it would be gone.

Nope[edit]

Call him up and ask him or her what's a commonly used phrase to the communities that are outer lying to the exurbs yet still service the central metro area.

This isn't a matter of "research" as there isn't anything here that's quantifiable no more than you could justify the shizzle other than by abstract reference. The word exburb is indeed a recent addition to the lexicon in spite of you personally being out of the loop. The point of contention here is the validity of said word. You are saying it's invalid. I would ask what field you work that affords you a perspective into the common phraseology used daily by the people who study this stuff day in and day out?

There is nothing more offensive than getting advice on field-specific linguistics or phrases by an IT guy or a video game programmer who maybe took a relevant one credit class in college 6 or 7 years ago.

My desire to "convince" someone like you is about nil. You have already displayed your ignorance by virtue of your position, thus I have no desire to educate ignorant people. I spend too many hours during the work day doing that to waste my time with it here.

The internet allows you the oppurtunity to naysay by virtue of casting a vote for deletion. It allows small and underqualified people "the power" to have a voice even though their qualifications to speak are none. Your qualifications to comment here (I would wager) are non-existant. You used a flimsy, blanket logical premise and applied it incorerctly to this word.

In short, we have is a petty and ignorant language xenophobe. THAT is not the wiki concept.

With that said, I would like to vote for deletion as well and it's my article.

This whole Wiki concept, while very clever, fails in it's most essential precepts. You cannot have valid information without vetting, but vetting isn't a matter of "public vote". It's peer review. You cannot allow unqualified individuals to impact those who are qualified just because they can adfford a computer and an internet connection and "have an opinion". Valid information comes from field-specific men and women who study and research the topic as a matter of their lifes work and is in turn reviewed by their peers in the same field. It is not a matter of "consensus" nor is it a matter of "public opinion".

What we have here is akin to the "internet public" voting on the techniques a doctor might use for a heart surgery. Anyone can vote, majority opinions might go one way or another, but few are qualified to comment in spite of their seemingly endless desire to do so.


I am quite confident that the "exburb" concept is very regional in nature, existing only in areas where the demography affords it an opportunity to exist, thus a planner from an area without any exburbs to speak of might not be up on the cutting edge of the colloquy. For example, you won't find any "exburbs" in areas that are suburbanized 100 miles out from the main urban center. They exist in some Metro area corridors where the transit times are within reason. Jacksonville, Florida is a community well known for "exoburbs"- suburbs of the exburbs- as is Atlanta Georgia. There are quite a few in Texas as well. Of course, now everyone who lives in Florida, Texas or Georgia will confidently chime in and say that at their job as a dump truck operator, they've never heard the word "exoburb" before.

As an aside, you work in the field of land use planning? I have colleagues all around the country in that field. Might I ask what area you are in? I knew it was only a matter of time before someone chimed in claiming to be in the field yet disagreed with the term. Enter the basic invalidity of the "internet expert".

  • I figured it was a regional thing. Unfortunately, that may not be enough for Wikipedia, which works with Wikipedia:Verifiability as a core policy. If this concept can be cited to a reliable source then it will probably get kept. If not, it will probably get deleted. The deletion is not forever, just until it can cited and meet Wikipedia's guidelines. In the mean time there are many other planning-related articles to build upon: Category:Urban studies and planning (help yourself). On your side note, I work as a rural land use planner for a government in northern British Columbia, mostly dealing with agricultural subdivisions and non-farm uses, as well as the normal zoning stuff. --maclean25 01:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, your case for deletion had to do with anything you classify as a neologism is invalid by sole virtue of being a neologism. Now, well, golly, neologisms are valid so long as they can be sourced through a certain degree of google hits. The basic logic (laugh) of your position is that validity is predicated on google hits which is just plain dumb. Google is no friend to regional specificity, nor highly specific topical matters. For example, a regional phrase for a touchdown scored at the Meadowlands arena is "Stomping on Hoffa" derived from the urban myth that the missing body of Jimmy Hoffa is supposedly encased in the end zone at that arena. Would you believe that not a SINGLE google hit came up for "Stomping On Hoffa", "Stompin On Hoffa" Stepping On Hoffa" or any variants thereof. In spite of googles inability to catalogue this regional colloquialism, it's heard about every ten seconds in that area when a game is being played. An entirely valid regional "saying", not one single google hit. I am sorry but your case for deletion is very, very weak. It basically holds that anything new is invalid so long as you personally haven’t heard of it or it doesn’t meet a certain threshold of google hits. This site is not an extension of google. It’s a consortium of knowledge from many different spectrums, including those that you don’t know or understand.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Bobet 22:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Argotist[edit]

Barely asserts notability, but does not appear to be actually notable. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:15, 5 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. - Bobet 22:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Argotist Online[edit]

Similar to The Argotist above, but appears to assert even less notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:18, 5 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. - Bobet 22:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gipp's Egylet[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 22:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strat (drinking game)[edit]

The article is unsourced and a Google search doesn't show me much: [22] or [23]. It doesn't seem very notable, to me. PJM 16:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something similar, perhaps. This one's been here since June 2005. When I glanced at its history, I did not see any AFD taggings, which is surprising. PJM 01:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rome wasn't built in a day. Other non-notable drinking game articles will find their way here eventually. PJM 22:31, 8 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. - Bobet 22:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vestre[edit]

delete. Non-notable individual, despite claims in the article. 45 Google hits DMG413 16:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Francisco Valverde 16:49, 5 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capping stunt[edit]

Delete: Non-notable, non-encyclopedia material JimmyO 16:39, 5 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. - Bobet 23:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibroker[edit]

Delete. Pure advertising. As far as I know, advertising is not a crteria for speedy deletion, so i'm reporting it here. SGJ 17:15, 5 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. - Bobet 23:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youth involvement in the Asia-Pacific Scout Region[edit]

This page looks more like an advert than a Wikipedia article. Philip Stevens 17:23, 5 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. - Bobet 23:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_notable_American_liberals[edit]

Comment If Alf Landon's on the list, it's an awfully broad brush. Fan1967 04:45, 6 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. - Bobet 23:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Groff[edit]

Delete Notability is uncertain, reads like a section of family history. Prod removed without reason--Porturology 17:39, 5 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. - Bobet 23:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo (Riki) de Soto[edit]

Non-notable surfer and artist. 9 Google hits for Riki de Soto and 59 unique hits for Ricardo de Soto. Delete. DMG413 19:22, 5 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. - Bobet 23:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian Student Association in UTP[edit]

Not notable, haven found anything in the Google and there are no external links. Francisco Valverde 17:52, 5 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. Interesting, but a protologism. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agent Smith Moment[edit]

This article was deleted once via WP:PROD, as a neologism. Apparently, someone disagreed, because it's back. I agree with the deletion, so I'm bringing the issue here. Joyous | Talk 19:32, 5 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 merge (to four different places per Elonka). bainer (talk) 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Templar today[edit]

This article incorporates a lot of legend as fact, and the rest is almost all redundant with the articles already existing (see Knights Templar (military order), History of the Knights Templar and Knights Templar legends) --Loremaster 19:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Davidsolomon 6 March 2006:

Hello everybody,

I have exhaustively read the Talk:Knights Templar (military order) page, the History of the Knights Templar section, the Knights Templar in England page and other articles around the subject area as well and frankly there is a lot missing. Why is nobody interested in the Templars in England, or the post-disbandment history of the men in the Order there?

The Knights Templar in England page makes no reference of Baldock or its County, Hertfordshire whatsoever! That is where the Templars had their HQ between 1199 and 1254!! They founded the town and gave it its name!! Other Templar locations still exist in Hertfordshire, such as Hitchin and Hertford Castle (where Templars from Temple Dinsley - ALSO IN HERTFORDSHIRE - were locked up during the persecution. How can any serious page on the Templars, let alone the Templars in England, exclude this factual historical information? Some Templar historians seem to be terrified of Hertfordshire because they know that some people believe the Templars are still there.

Sorry for the typos, I only just created the article and I have not yet finished editing it (in face the drastic response to it may be a little premature!)

I created this article because there is not a single word elsewhere about the Knights Templar after the official disbandment in 1312. There is information about the Freemasonic Knights Templar, but they have no connection with the original Order whatsoever. In fact the only basis for a connection between the two is that somebody once claimed that crusaders formed Freemasonry to make sure they could tell the difference between themselves and the local Muslim population!

Where else in this entire encyclopedia is there information about what happened to the Templars who were not killed (only a tiny minority were killed.)

Is there no reasonable reference to legend anywhere else in this encyclopedia? I see mention of the Holy Grail in other articles but nobody wants to delete them. The Templars are positively steeped in myth and legend as I have pointed out and no piece on the Templars is complete without mention of some of the main legends that surround them.

I've only used solid information and I've also included my sources so I don't see the problem.

I urge you not to delete or make drastic changes to this article because it contains important information - with sources - that is not included anywhere else. That is why I spent so many hours creating the article!

Where else is there material on the Templars in England (the last place they went unpersecuted and the country that bears their flag as its own)? Where else is there information about what happened to the men of the Temple after the persecution began?

Please do not ignore the research of experts with specialist local knowledge like Helen Nicholson, Sylvia P. Beamon and F. M Page simply because it does not fit the usual brand of Templar material, which deliberately avoids the subject of the activities of Templar men after the Order ceased to exist. The men themselves did not spontaneously cease to exist after 1312 and indeed the activities of Templar fugitives after 1312, including the construction of Royston Cave, are fascinating. So why do many historians fearfully ignore them?! These are not modern Freemasonic Templars studying the Order from the United States.

The experts I invoke are people who live and work in towns like Baldock, towns founded by the Templars. These experts have studied the structures the Templars built after the dissolution and some of them indeed have had contact with people today who are involved with the genuine underground Templar order that continued directly from the original. Why does this create so much fear? Perhaps it is because in a cosy, neat and tidy world, if somebody important says, "your organisation no longer exists" that is the final word on the matter. But what if the people concerned don't share that view? What if they still consider themselves a part of something?

Removing or seriously altering this article will denude and rob this encyclopedia of information on a subject that appeals to a great many people. And the legends surrounding it only add to its appeal.

Thank you for reading my response.

God bless. (Posted by DavidSolomon)

I do not believe that there is need for an additional article, so the Knights Templar today article should be deleted or redirected to Knights Templar (disambiguation). Other information should be incorporated into existing articles as follows:
  • Additional information about Templar activities in England should be merged into Knights Templar in England (which I agree, is badly in need of expansion)
  • Additional information about what happened to Templars in the decades following their suppression in the 1300s should be merged into: History of the Knights Templar
  • Additional information about Masonic Templar activities (if referenced) should be merged into: Masonic Knights Templar.
  • Additional information that is unreferenced, meaning that it is believed to be true but does not have solid confirmation, should be merged into: Knights Templar legends
If I missed anything, let me know.  :) --Elonka 17:50, 7 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) 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lotball[edit]

Non-notable made up game. Googling "lotball" returns 180 hits, "Federation of Lotball" returns 4 hits (quoted it returns 0 hits). It appears to have originated on this myspace page. Delete — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 19:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If anyone saw what was formerly posted here, it was an error.

If I am not mistaken, several local Federation Lotball groups may be found in recreational societies and intermural programs found in the the Hudson Valley Region of New York, and these groups are rapidly expanding.

Lotball is an entirely valid sport. I would know, being a member of the Lotball Regulatory Commission (LRC). I can personally vouch for lotball's existence as a completely real and organized sport, and board meetings continue daily in order to better define and regulate the game. *Do not delete 

Captain Cowboy 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am secretary of the LRC and if wanted I can summit minutes from previous meetings and an agenda for the Commission. *Do not delete

Doesn't the fact that we're discussing this prove that it is notable or, at the very least, that it exists? This page has now had several different contributors and I'm sure that if the hit count was known for this site, you would find that it has had an abnormally large impact for a brand new article. I understand the neccesity for putting articles up for deletion, like spam, advertising, multiple articles on the same subject, or "non notable" topics, but does this article really fit under any of those? It is obviously not spam or advertising, and this is the only lotball article on Wikipedia. Though some may claim that it is supposedly "nn," what truly defines an article as notable? I have often surfed Wikipedia and found articles on mindless garbage I don't care about. The truth of the matter is that those articles might not matter to me, but they do matter to someone, they do matter to those who know what the article is about and those who wish to learn. Isn't that what Wikipedia is for, those who wish to learn? I love Wikipedia and I love the ideals for which it stands. I would never want to make something that would be harmfull to its goals. I ask you to please uphold the ideals of Wikipedia and keep this article. -INVENTM

"or should be because of its particular importance or impact." Ah, I see now. Wikipedia:Notability: "This is an essay representing the opinion of some editors but by no means all or even most editors. This is not a policy or guideline." Yes, I do see. "There is no official policy on where the line of notability lies." Yup. "Failure to meet these criteria does not mean that a subject must not be included; meeting one or more of these criteria does not mean that a subject must be included." Uh huh. "It has been argued that lack of "notability" is not a criterion for deletion, because (among other things) this isn't specifically stated in the deletion policy; and since Wikipedia is not paper with (in theory) no size limits, there's no reason why wikipedia shouldn't include "everything" that fits in with our other criteria, such as verifiability and no original research. However, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is not a strictly limited set of criteria for deletion. Articles are deleted daily on grounds of notability, and this has been common practice for over a year now." Sure.

"Many people already act on the assumption that notability is a requirement for inclusion." Though we all know about the dangers of assumptions, right? And note the use of the very word: assumption; it is not a rule, not even a guideline.

"Wikipedia is not paper and (practically) has no size limits, and so should include "everything" that fits within its other criteria. There is room for articles on any and every verifiable subject. There is no harm in including an obscure topic, because if it is truly non-notable, people simply won't search for it or link to it. It will not create a significant server load as such." This is Lotball, right here. What's the harm? Really, what's the harm? Go ahead, tell me that the lotball article is not encyclopedic. It is not a vanity page, it is not a spam page; it is a thoughtfull, formal article on a topic that deserves to be included in the vast servers of Wikipedia. Please consider these points and judge lotball honestly and neutrally. Thank You. -INVENTM

Inventm, you should also read these pages: WP:V, WP:NPOV WP:OR. They are more important than the notability guidelines. — ApolloCreed (comment) (talk) 04:43, 9 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. W.marsh 00:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chei Mi Lane[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 00:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Murphy (author)[edit]

non-notable author. published ebooks: [27], [28], [29] Grocer 20:01, 5 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. Punkmorten 00:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeworkswap[edit]

Brand new site [30], still in Beta, no evidence of notability. Article seems to be promotion rather than explanation. Alexa rank is currently around 1 million. Might become massively popular in the future, but until then delete on grounds on non-notability. Fourohfour 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a promotion. I am explaning what it does. If you read it I never say "we" I always say "it", etc. Why is there a problem if it is a brand new site and if it's alexa rank is 1 million?

Oh yeah and google doesn't have everything you know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdminHWS (talk • contribs) 2006-03-05 17:14:30

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Osman[edit]

Non-notable/Hoax/Attack (it'll be one or more of those). No Google hits. Possibly Speedy Delete? ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:43, 5 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) 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witch trials[edit]

This is a POV fork of Witch trial. Applicable policies are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:OWN, and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#not a soapbox. I have tried to engage the editor who created this article in constructive dialogue. This person has characterized various Wikipedians' attempts to bring the page in accordance with Wikipedia policies as "censorship" and insists, among other things, that a highly POV discussion of Abu Ghraib prison is relevant to witch trials. The article creator removed the merge flag I had posted and replaced it with an informal poll on the talk page about whether to delete the article, so I'm nominating it here according to standard procedure. Durova 20:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator has removed the AfD tag three times now, most recently with an edit comment that User:Grandmasterka and I aren't objective because of our Russian usernames. Durova 01:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Loud, cynical laugh!) Grandmasterka 03:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. —Kirill Lokshin 03:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the highly POV and unreferenced nature of this article leave all information suspect. It's also on another website (a link is at Village Pump), so copyright status is questionable. Durova 04:30, 7 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. Mushroom (Talk) 16:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jericho (comedy troupe)[edit]

Vanity page for a small, new student group at UC Berkeley. Unnotable now, and unlikely to become notable enough to yield an encyclopedic article later. Zyqqh 20:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep part of culture of UC berkly 03:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patcat88 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Movasat[edit]

Tagged A7 but there is an assertion of notability, so bringing it here instead. Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 5 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) 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Students 4 michigan[edit]

Contested PROD. Was prod-ed as "Non-notable student organization". The prod was removed by an editor and the proposed deletion has been disputed. Along with this organization's political opponent, Michigan Progressive Party (also a contested PROD now under deletion consideration), it is a university organization of no particular note, whose 27 distinct Google hits are essentially all from University of Michigan and student websites. Delete. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 21:19, 5 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 by User:DragonflySixtyseven — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilburt[edit]

Tagged for speedy, no reason given. I can't see an appropriate speedy critrion, but a quick look round leads me to believe that this is complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 21:31, 5 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. Punkmorten 00:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pizno.com[edit]

Oh how we need a speedy category for blatant spam. I am, however, mildly curious as to what my "pizno needs" might be. Just zis Guy you know? 21:34, 5 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 by User:Xaosflux as re-recreation of deleted content — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pottsville radio[edit]

Speedied twice here and once each at five other similar titles, unencyclopaedic in tone and of zero relevance outside Pottsville. Just zis Guy you know? 22:41, 5 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, but at the very least, a ((cleanup)) is in order. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaadietya[edit]

Dear Friends,

I am Aaadietya Pandey. I have been recognized as the youngest Astrologer-Numerologist world over by Hindustan Times (a famous international daily).And am awaiting a Certificate from Guiness World Records for my Infinity Calendar theory. They will certify me as the fastest human calendar.

As far as the page on Wikipedia is concerned, it is not a self publicity because it has not been done by me but my followers and disciples.

I am a columnist for Hindustan Times and the Times of India, so there is NO PORN or VULGAR matter on my page.

I am a spiritual person and have no inclination towards SKEPTICS as pointed out by JoshuaZ.

For those of you who might be having problem understanding Hindi, i would like to inform that neither the page on wikipedia nor my website contains terms in Hindi which cannot be understood. Only the honorary title awarded to me mght not be decipherable. It is 'Ved Vaachaspati' which meand the person who is a laureate in vedic sciences, a person who has an indepth knowledge of vedas.

Yes, there are not many pages linked to my name Aaadietya because I have recently corrected my spelling as per numerology. Originally it was Aditya" so my contributions to the world wide web were earlier published under the head Aditya.

Lastly, I am really glad to see so active members here on Wikipedia and I think my name must not be made an issue to discuss upon. So I request that this entry might surely be removed if still my dear friends do not think it appropriate.

God bless!



Vanity about non-notable astrologer. Name returns 38 google hits JoshuaZ 22:50, 5 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 should have been on redirects for deletion, not AfD. I am speedying it as a typo. W.marsh 00:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paola E Chiara[edit]

Delete: a) redundant b) no page links to it Gennaro Prota 23:38, 5 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Barbarians are Coming[edit]

Book is not a significant contribution to the literary well. Hummer190 23:40, 5 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. W.marsh 00:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science fact[edit]

Second nomination. See discussions here and here / Ezeu 23:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds more like some sort of conspiracy theory article to me, rather than fact. --日本穣 03:51, 6 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.
More