Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 21

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< December 20 December 22 >

Purge server cache

December 21

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 Redirected to Rescue Raiders, no further action required per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue raiders

edit

i created a better version of this page with the proper caps: Rescue Raiders

this should just be considered a test page, i guess. MrBallistic 02:30, 21 December 2005 (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. Jaranda wat's sup 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head Control System

edit

Fails WP:MUSIC. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jared king

edit

All the relevant info is on the first paragraph, the rest is a cut and pasted story. I don't know if this qualifies for a speedy nn-bio, but the contest mentioned in the article has very little web presence (82 google hits for "Future Writers of America"), and I can't find any verification of a Jared King that wrote anything. Delete. - Bobet 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a short story to an encyclopedia isn't a good idea, whether you own the copyright or not. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I personally know a little about hacker folklore, and I have heard of Schroedinbugs or Schrödinbugs. — JIP | Talk 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schroedinbug

edit

There's no evidence that it actually exists and wasn't just made up by someone. Kuciwalker 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Funniest Home Videos/Opening Credits (sic)

edit

Detailed descriptions of the various opening sequences of the television series America's Funniest Home Videos. Of interest to no one but intensely obsessive fans of the show. tregoweth 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These types of articles should not be merged and cause concise articles to be obliterated. Let them have their own page with a link from the title "Trivia" and the hyphen explaining what type. 68.194.42.219 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)TikiWike[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rivers Pitt

edit
Apparently best-seller lists are compiled based on how much books are sold to bookstores by distributors, not how many actual customers bought a book. Personally, I really don't think they're reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Artur Diers

edit

Was tagged as a nn-bio but shows a claim to notabily. No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vestal with a heart of coal

edit

Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given, I am bringing it here in case it can be rescued. This is an article about an alleged type of stock character, the opposite of a hooker with a heart of gold. Unfortunately the title appears to be a neologism, with 0 google hits, and there are no references to demonstrate that this is anything other than original research. Kappa 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Every

edit

Seems like a joke page, unverifiable. But I'm not 100% certain of it or enough to mark it as a speedy. Stifle 01:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Neufeld

edit

Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous afd's at vote 1, vote 2, vote 3

Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • A bad article is a bad article, regardless of precedent. Spinboy thinks it doesn't belong: do you have any reason to doubt his sincerity or are you just throwing mud? --Calton | Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, it appears I got a little distracted by the legislative candidates part of it. However, I called it bad faith because it just appears that he has a vendetta against Grant Neufeld aka User:GrantNeufeld, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais (although it is difficult to determine his stance). His only edits to the page have been to tag it but has done nothing to address the issue in the talk page. All the attempts to delete...just looks like he is out for blood. Wouldn't have been an issue if any of the other (how-many)thousands of other users would have put it up for deletion. Let me know if you think I'm "just throwing mud". --maclean25 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh huh. And your reasons for believing he has a "vendetta" is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, maybe the above comment was a little too confusing. So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb, here is an outline of my rationale in a more simpler step-by-step format, all of which was taken directly from the links provided in the previous statement:
  1. User:Spinboy attempts three times to delete Grant Neufeld [6], [7], [8]
  2. unsuccessful, User:Spinboy tags the article as {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{POV check}} but does not participate in the talk page is discussion on the tags (only User:GrantNeufeld does)
  3. User:Spinboy leaves Wikipedia on Oct 27.
  4. User:Spinboy comes back stating "Oh, I'm not staying. I'm still extremely pissed off. I just saw something that cried out for an afd nomination, and I couldn't do that without logging on. I seriously dislike the hypocracy around here, one of many reasons I left." (refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais)
  5. Several days after his return he posts this afd with the same rationale as the last vote "Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb I've noticed that bad writers often try to shift the blame for the confusion, ambiguity, and mystery they cause by insulting their readers. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? Sure -- if you start off assuming malice.
Quitting in disgust and coming back is proof of what? Well, that he got over it. If this is suspicious behaviour, I'll work up a (long) list for you of shady characters for you to watch, including User:Ta bu shi da yu
I like the reasoning, though: he's nominating this for deletion for a third fourth time because he has a vendetta. The proof he has a vendetta? The fact that he's nominating it for a third time. Why is he nominating it for a third fourth time? Because he has a vendetta. Rinse, lather, repeat.
And the fact that he nominated this and not others proves what, exactly? It's a slight variation of the bogus rationale offered by hundreds of voters in past AfDs: namely, the whine "if the Pokemon/one-horse town/trivial-in-my-opinion-subject article stays, so should mine": the appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations. If this (in your view) double standard upsets you, give me a list of other candidate articles, those running on the No-Hope Party ticket in the Riding of BFN that, gosh darn it, Spinboy should have nominated for deletion and I'll do the job myself: I've got some time to kill right and I can get right on it. Though be quick, I'm leaving in half-an-hour.
Maybe Spinboy has nominated this article for deletion because he thinks Neufeld doesn't rate an encyclopedia article? Yes, standards in an encyclopedia -- that's just crazy talk! As far as I'm concerned, if Mr. Neufeld wants free publicity for himself, he ought to check out MySpace or Geocities.
In case you genuinely don't understand what I wrote, let me know and I'll use smaller words. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, please. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to drag this on, I think we both made our points, but I just want to clarify something. I just realized where you got the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat" argument from. The five points above are not five individual arguments, that is, point 1 is not by itself a complete argument. They are a chronological list of events that ended in this afd, that is to say, one argument leading to the conclusion. --maclean25 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just a point of clarification - this article wasn't posted as an "electoral candidate" article (although I have been one). The reasons given for 'notability' were my roles as president of the Green Party of Alberta, and founder of the Revolutionary Knitting Circle (laugh if you want, but we've got chapters on two continents and have had mainstream media coverage on three - I'm most proud of my interviews in Interweave Knits and Vogue Knitting :-). --GrantNeufeld 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Started by subject, edited by subject, not notable as he has not been elected. This is vanity and lacks the ability to have a NPOV with Mr. Neufeld's involvement in it. FullSmash26 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He shouldn't be editing his own article. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. I think that folks with direct knowledge of a subject should be contributing to the articles here. I'd see a serious problem if they were the only ones working on the articles, but the presence of "many eyes" on Wikipedia balances off any POV issues that such contributors may create. I've contributed to a lot of articles on Wikipedia where I'm not "at arms length" (such as the Green Party of Alberta), and provided detailed references when questions have been raised (such as on the article being debated here). In any case, the previous two votes on this article have not found my auto-biographical contributions to be sufficient cause for deletion. As to the imposibility of auto-biographical NPOV, I encourage you to review the comments from Earl Andrew, Kevintoronto and gord on the article's talk page as counterpoints to that view. --GrantNeufeld 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. Whether you disagree with it is utterly immaterial, since this isn't your website, and your blatant self-interest/vanity/self-promotion/whichever doesn't trump long-standing policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't aware that a formal policy against any auto-biographical contributions had been established. I know there's a general discouragement against it - but I have not heard of a prohibition being adopted. --GrantNeufeld 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment That is because there is no such policy. In fact during the recent debacle regarding Mr. Seigenthaler many people were critical of him because he did not simply change the innaccuracy himself and instead made a big deal out of it. It seems people desire to have it both ways on the autobiographical issue. Vanity is bad but people are far more capable of reasoned self appraisal then some seem to think. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia:Autobiography: to baldly state that ... there is no such policy without acknowledging these clear guidelines is playing a bit fast and loose with your rhetoric.
              • To baldly state that there is no such policy is absolutely correct precisely because that document is NOT policy and is a guideline. In addition the document itself does not even forbid the practice but defines why it is ill advised. And yet Jimbo is clearly shown to edit his own article with regularity. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the intro: Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself. Refraining from autobiographical editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like last time, I say delete. Still non-notable, still gross vanity, and still should go -- at best -- to user space or MySpace.
So what is it with the Canadian election? Suddenly it seems every no-hoper-party candidate for every one-horse riding in Canada thinks they deserve an article on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds too much like vanity to me. As per anon user above, this is more appropriate material for a user page. Comment Regarding the repeated nominations, in the absence of a policy or guideline I think Spinboy is within his rights to nominate this again, although it does seem to be abuse of a loophole. Zunaid 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Grant is the president of an active provincial party and an Alberta Centennial Medal recipient. Reviewing the articles for other political parties in Alberta shows that most of the leaders (elected or not) have articles as well. Grant should probably refrain from editing his own article however, to prevent the accusations of vanity. -Dr Haggis - Talk 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely. And note to GrantNeufeld, usually when coming up for a vote, instead of attacking your opponents, you might want to try to prove why people should vote for you. Just for the future. Flyboy Will 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry that you perceive my responses to other comments here and points of information to be "attacking". I'm not interested in flaming anyone (even though there are some significant disagreements here - disagreement does not have to mean disrespect). Please review my comments above again—I believe on close examination they can be seen to be talking specifically to the issues, and are not 'attacks' on any of the participants in this discussion. --GrantNeufeld 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004) and founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). are claims which make this individual notable in my view. People are allowed to edit articles about themselves as long as they remain neutral and while starting your own article is frowned upon, there's nothing forbidding you to do so. Anyway, neither of these are reason to delete an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That this has survived earlier discussion is astonishing: execrable self-promoting vanity page of an insignificant that heavily exaggerates asserted notbaility. The organisation which the subject has founded, Revolutionary Knitting Circle should also be brought to AfD as inherently unnotable as well. Perhaps other Canadians here can chime in on having heard of it or not, but so far my running tally is 0. I find maclean's suggestion that this is a bad faith nomination hard to fathom. A badly self-authored page that is nothing more than a funnel for an out-of-control ego should not be on WP; bringing it up for nomination is a perfectly good thing to do. Eusebeus 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Mildly notable as the president of the Green Party in Canada. -- MisterHand 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, barely notable, but he is a Green Party President.Gateman1997 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The president of the Green Party in Canada is indeed notable and so is the Revolutionary Knitting Circle — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [10]. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jim Harris isn't the president of the party either. Perhaps you misunderstand Canadian political party structures. "President" is a position within the political party's internal structure, who's responsible for running the organization. It's rarely, if ever, the same person as the party's candidate for Prime Minister (who gets termed "leader", but is not actually the top authority in the party structure.) Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this article has survived two votes already why the heck must we have a third!? Wiki should have a policy of no renomination for deletion IMHO. Jcuk 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article is poor and contains a lot of trivialities, the guy is the pres of the Green Party. --NormanEinstein 21:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 04:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nominations. Grant Neufeld's edits since APril 2005 have been to add a picture and categories. Nothin POV or vanity going on here. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I don't see it as POV (although it is a bit heavy on the vanity front). I also think that the repeated nominations for deletion will eventually cause it to be deleted, if only because the ones seeking to have it deleted will keep coming back, but the people voting keep will eventually move on assuming that once the vote was settled, it was settled. I don't see how an article can be nominated for deletion after passing an AfD vote and the article not changing significantly. (unsigned vote by GordonBonnar, 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have revised the article to remove the vanity aspect and make it more encyclopedic. In previous communications that I have had with Grant Neufeld, he has indicated that he understands and accepts that other editors will revise the article. This is no longer a "vanity article". As far as future attempts to delete this, if this attempt fails, it will be clear that future attempts will be bad faith nominations. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mildly notable politician. The last AFD was a keep, and the precident stands. The only time a keep should be overturned, is if it was based on information that turned out to be false and/or unverifiable; or else if there was some kind of failure in process. The nominator shouldn't just keep redoing AFD's till they get what they want. Far to many articles and AFDs go without attention, because AFDs are clogged with these unfounded nominations. Note: if this article hadn't survived a prior AFD, it would have been entirely justified to nominate as this is a "week keep" level person. --Rob 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: this is WP:POINT. Stifle 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clatus Notebooks

edit

Interesting story... too bad no sources are cited and this seems to be a hoax [11]. Request for verification has been up for 1.5 months and nothing has been provided. I suspect this can't be verified at all. --W.marsh 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters

edit

The page seems to have rather low encyclopedic value (although a lot of work was put into it). Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's not even about refrences to minor characters in the mario universe, it's about various pop culture refrences in a webcomic, and it's not really a verry user friendly page. (when I first clcked on it I had absolutely no idea what it was trying to say) Deathawk 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's the plan I have for this unfortunately unpopular page. I will continue to add citations, and if you want to delete it go ahead. I have the page archived on my user page (so those of you who are interested can visit it) and can edit it at will. I plan to put in the references to the NC Chronicles, the one part comics (including Ye Old Taco Hut of Horror), then I will move on to the Deathmatches, Shorts, Flash Movies, Election flyers, and finally, the unpublished Mushroom Wars remake Alph made on the NC Forum. Once that is all said and done, I will email it to Jay and see if he can put it up on the site. --Crazyswordsman 00:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recommend (as mentioned above) that this list be trimmed to the more important element from the series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article of links is not encyclopedic. SorryGuy 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup, but since Crazyswordsman's doing a fine job of that already, I see no reason to try to delete this. Obscure does not imply unencyclopedic. Factitious 20:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I took a tally and it's about a 14-11 vote to delete the article. With about a day left for deliberation, I think I will just concede defeat (unless there are at least four more people that want the article to stay up). - SPKx 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge: an utterly sub-trivial collection of external links. -Sean Curtin 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If it's not OR, or vanity, it seems reasonable to keep. As pointed out, you get rather excessive lists on other topics, why not this one? J•A•K 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OMG, I cannot believe that this article actually exists. OK, so list of cultural references in the pokemon series was a keeper, well the pokemon series is watched by tens of thousands of people at least, and has millions of fans. This is a sprite comic. Totally unnotable cruftiness. In the scale of notability where does Neglected Mario Characters fit? I'm going to go out on a whim here, and say it's less notable than The Thick of It or indeed, any series that has been running on TV on a major channel. Are the "keepers" here claiming that every TV show, ever is notable enough to have its own "cultural references" article, or every published book could have its own cultural references article. People have argued over whether Daniel Brandt or Cyrus Farivar are notable, compared to this, they're kings of the world. - Hahnchen 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since no one has responded to this, I just wanted to point out again that Characters_of_Bob_and_George is a list similar to this one based on a similar sprite comic. I don't see the difference that allows Characters_of_Bob_and_George to remain on Wiki while this one is up for deletion. I'm just curious where the line is drawn. I know my site (NC) isn't as popular as BnG, but they have both been accepted as suitable web comics to feature at Wikipedia. Also, just to make it clear, I'm not forcably trying to push an article about my site on Wikipedia. Whatever is ultimately decided about this article is cool with me. I'm just curious about the standards of Wiki between this article and Characters_of_Bob_and_George. Just for my own curiousity. Thanks.-jay Jay Resop 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the difference lies in the difference between "characters" and "cultural references." Characters are easily verifiable and it is easy to decide what is significant enough for an article. Also, I would argue that they are more the "heart" of the webcomic. Cultural references, on the other hand, are generally going to form a boundless list of unrelated things, which probably aren't of interest to many people outside of the initial creator. It's impossible to decide which are verifiably significant enough to warrant consideration. Also, they seem more tangential to any discussion of "What is Neglected Mario Characters?" If the characters section on the main article got too big, I don't think many would argue with spinning that off as has been done with Bob and George. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfire

edit

Band failing WP:MUSIC. Come back when you have a record deal and a couple albums. Stifle 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life's Blood

edit

Band failing WP:MUSIC, come back when you have a record deal and a couple albums. Stifle 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band did a recording and was apparently instrumental in the music scene of the time. --Walter Görlitz 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I have 2 of their 7 inches including the one with Sticks& Stones. Life's blood was just as much a part of the NYHC scene as anyone else, even if they were short lived. The article is informative as I didn't know some of the info that was in it.

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris harris (speedway rider)

edit

Adding to AfD as this was added to CSD without it (just) not fitting the criteria. I'd say weak delete personally - Speedway is a sport, and this person competes for a notable speedway team. Keep because I've always believed all professional sportsman should stay. Hedley 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Chris Harris (speedway rider). Capitalistroadster 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 first, merge second to Faulkner University. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Xi Omega and Delta Xi Omega - Faulkner

edit

Random sororities with no notability to speak of. Stifle 02:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's inspection of the German Workers' Party

edit

No reason to be a separate article. Should be deleted and/or merged with Adolf Hitler. JW1805 (Talk) 02:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essai

edit

Does not meet criteria for WP:CORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCrazy (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pibbler

edit

Unverifiable neologism, apparently for a progress indicator: see Google on pibbler Tearlach 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphun

edit

I can find no evidence that the term "Cyphun" exists outside of this article. Adunar 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nickwit

edit

WP: Original Research -- Just a self-promotion for somebody's website, and "invented" word Jomtois 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality (ESkog)(Talk) 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goof Off Page

edit

Blatant advertising. -- CorbinSimpson 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. →FireFox 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Community

edit

Nonsense. There is no such thing, and this definition makes an attempt to lump all heterosexuals together. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, too. But this article hasn't even been around for a day... I'd like to see if it would grow to anything before merging it off somewhere, personally. --W.marsh 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gay community describes a distinct subset of the population. This page doesn't - the ways in which the > 90% of the population described on this page differ from the general population are best discussed on the page about the < 10%. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't necessarly support the current version as it is, and hope that you will view the talk page where I make my case for my version which gives both definitions and never had the "mundane" link added. My version also seems a bit more neutral in its current state (the one just reverted). Take a peak. Chooserr 04:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2: Oh and Ben Aveling, my version does label a "distinct subset of the population" not just all straights, but straights that want to participate in the "straight community" and aim to uphold and protect Judeo-Christian values such as Male and Female only Marraiges. Just as not all Gays participate in the Gay Community so to select Straights only participate in the Straight community. Chooserr 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I encourage voters -- especially"keep" voters -- to check out Chooserr's versions (like this and this) to see what use he's trying to make of the article space: myself and Theresa Knott tried (separately) to clean it up, but as William Goldman once said about rewriting a bad screenplay, it's like washing garabage. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't support the idea that "Straight community" is used to label this distinct subset of the population. People who believe that usually term themselves "pro-family" or whatnot. The "straight community" hits I find on Google are all being used by gay organizations to talk about a general gulf in understanding between gays and straights - i.e., "educating the straight community" -"the straight community's views." There's nothing to suggest that people who dislike gays are banding together and calling themselves the "Straight community." FCYTravis 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't about whether the group exists, it's about whether the term does and is used signifigantly. --W.marsh 22:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But remember, W.marsh, terms belong in Wiktionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic subjects. Logophile 22:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. --W.marsh 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition using the information that is available right now. If this term was in wide use, we could say 'This article can be expanded, so it's a stub'. But it's not, and saying 'This article can be expanded when more people start using this term' is crystal balling. --Last Malthusian 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by MONGO (ESkog)(Talk) 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo Sheldon

edit

delete - nn vanity Gimboid13 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen dildo

edit

Only a dictionary definition. It's already been transwiki-ed to wiktionary. I don't see great capactity to expand beyond just the definition. About 2000 googles but many of them seem to be quotes from the movie Vanilla Sky. RJFJR 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. →FireFox 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A winner is You

edit

Dicdef. Not enough behind it to become a full article. Klaw ¡digame! 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What do you suggest for a notability guideline for memes? "All Your Base" received broad coverage in the MSM, including an article in the LA Times. Very few memes will reach that level, so where would you draw the line? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to take the "I know it when I see it" route, but when I see otherwise notable memes like Prime Number Shitting Bear get deleted, it makes me wonder what happens. The delete votes come mostly from "Well, *I* haven't heard of it" or comparing it to the most popular memes like All Your Base. Much like you wouldn't judge the notability of, say, The Apples in Stereo via a comparison with The Beach Boys, it's tough to compare internet memes with their better-known counterparts. So, in a situation such as this, the 13k Google hits alone should raise a few eyebrows as to why we're deleting it. In a situation like the Prime Number Shitting Bear, the Google test doesn't work as well as it's an older meme. Some sort of guidelines should possibly be put into place, but I'm not sure if there's an easy way to quantify them, either. It doesn't excuse misguided delete votes on notable memes, however. --badlydrawnjeff 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't advocating using "All Your Base" as the standard. I'd just like to know where others might draw the line. I hadn't heard of this meme, I haven't seen any MSM coverage of it, and for a leet phrase it doesn't seem to be all that widespread. Nor do I think that Wikipedia needs to include many memes; leave that stuff to urbandictionary. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totse

edit

No notability established, seems to have constant bits of NN facts added by bored totse members. It does have a lot of google hits, but many of them are for the wikipedia article, and the number is inflated due to it being an internet website... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totse.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.131.100 (talk • contribs)
See the Alexa rating above. That seems to indicate they're not really in need to of search engine boosting. They already get visitors. - 82.172.14.108 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not solely informational due to its large collection of textfiles. It is informational for being a popular website and forum that is (for all intensive purposes) unique; for example, an article on your downtown Blockbuster might be not notable, but an article on the company Blockbuster which rents DVDs is notable. Totse is notable due to its popularity, uniqueness, and community. Zachary Murray 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Cal Poly Pomona. --Angr (t·c) 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Chi Cal Poly Pomona

edit

This article was previously listed as an article for speedy deletion, but it doesn't seem to have the requirements. Although this is not my afd, I reccomend to merge with Cal Poly Pomona. JHMM13 (T | C)     03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Icons

edit

A gallery (which I object to on general principles) of icons made by students at Carleton University. Not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor moved the article to Custom Icons and stripped off the AfD header. I have reverted his deletion of the header and have suggested that is not appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Daniel Case. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Honavar

edit

Seems self-promotional. Lots of academic credentials but nothing that would support notability Daniel Case 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ideally, people should do what you are saying, but often they are first-time editors who don't have a clue about how things work here or the supposed notability requirements. You might want to try starting a dialogue when you see rapid editing going on rather than immediately tagging for AfD. The general standard, I've been told, is to wait at least 30 minutes from article creation before AfD. In any case, thanks for withdrawing the nom. -- JJay 05:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plane of Goofiness

edit

Delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable - fewer than a thousand google hits for a website? BD2412 T 03:53, 21 December 2005 (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 - no concensus. →FireFox 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City rivalry in Finland

edit

This article is very well written, but I don't think it merits a place on Wikipedia. It's mostly OR/speculation, and it's pretty generic as well, since there's bound to be some small-scale 'rivalry' between any cities that are close to one another. (And there is a big information technology industry in Turku too...!) It might be worth a brief mention in Ice hockey in Finland (if that article existed), but I'm afraid the rest of it is no good. (Sorry, JIP. :) ) - ulayiti (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MDM - Consultoria e Negócios Ltda.

edit

Delete as advertising. The company does not seem notable. A google search for "MDM Consultoria" turned up only 22 hits (caveat: I don't speak Spanish). Thunk 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the nominator doesn't speak Portugese either. It's common in people who mistake those languages. :) - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. It is just one of many languages I do not speak. --Thunk 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two wise men

edit

There are zero Google hits for '"the two wise men" "john kinzey". "john kinzey" by itself turns up nothing constructive. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefaqs' CaSa

edit

A regional board with a small number of users does not notability make. No matter how popular GameFAQs is, a subset of its forums is not notable enough for an article. Revived 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If LUE doesn't have an entry it's because the LUEsers haven't made one themselves. I am against deleting the entry. However, I would agree on merging the page with GameFAQs message boards, that seems logical.

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Salas

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frogboy

edit

Article is written immaturely apparently about a comic that Google finds few results for. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about real people need to be verifiable too. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Maltsberger

edit

Non-notable; Wikipedia is not the poor or cheap man's Who's Who Daniel Case 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SKIATHOS Wireless Network

edit

Spam. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (early close, likely A7) . gren グレン 13:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wright

edit

Looks like a misguided attempt to start a personal webpage, images are way too big, poorly written, does not begin to establish notability and is likely a vanity page (user has only edited this page). Daniel Case 04:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Don't forget to delete related images and check the user's upload log for more. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as non-notable advertisement. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anime3000

edit

Site that shows no sign of notability. gren グレン 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (4 keeps, 1 delete, 1 merge) Renata3 17:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg Democratic Club

edit

Page was created because of the small controversy generated by the ad mentioned in the article (certainly for no other reason). But the controversy is probably not even big enough to include even in the article for Secretary Rumsfeld. The page simply cannot be justified except by the most loose, chronologically sensitive encyclopedic standards. ALC Washington 04:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand if possible. I never heard about this before, but can't see why the info should be suppressed now. -- JJay 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No desire on my part to suppress anything. But not every little blurb of hyperbole or event that makes it to the fifth story on a twenty-four-hour news blotter deserves an article in an encycolpedia, even one as expansive as Wikipedia. The "controversy" generated by the ad was simply not a notable event, nor does it make the Club a notable organization. ALC Washington 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but can not agree. The event happened. It was covered nationwide, maybe around the world. Like the Palm Beach ballot, it is now part of history and thus must remain here. I also strongly oppose the proposed merge below, because I don't think we can saddle the State party with the actions of this club. -- JJay 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your point of view, but I do not think your comparison is relevant. This event, which received ephemeral and unsubstantial attention, was nowhere near as notable, important, and indeed historic as the Palm Beach ballot controversy. I also oppose the merge below for reasons I outline there. ALC Washington 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you mean unsubstantial as the event was covered by USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, The Associated Press, The Guardian newspaper in the UK and countless other media. A check on Newsbank, also shows that the club has been a longtime player in Saint Petersburg politics. -- JJay 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do indeed mean unsubstantial, as the substance of the thing should not be measured by how many news organizations picked it up on the AP wire. As Last Malthusian's writes below, "it was blown out of proportion when it created a brief media storm and we're blowing it out ten times more by recording it in an 'encyclopaedia' article for posterity. Basically, this wasn't a notable incident, this club has no other claim to fame, therefore it's non-notable." ALC Washington 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, while I have not searched on Newsbank, I did go to the St. Petersburg Times website and executed an archives search (covering 1987-2005). The Times, Florida's largest daily, is the authority on St. Petersburg politics, and would have reported on the club repeatedly if it were a player (the way it reports on, for example, the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club, which is the biggest political organization in the city). The archives search, however, returned only two articles not related to this "controversy," both mentioning the club in passing in brief candidate bios in a voter's guide the Times produces before elections. The club is definitely not a "player." ALC Washington 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I can see that you are virulently opposed to this article. However, as the Guardian called this event- the biggest political story in America, it deserves full explanation here. Even if the story only lasted five minutes on a slow news day. -- JJay 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would not call my opposition to the article "virulent," and I hope that our give-and-take in the discussion of its merits hasn't come off that way to you. I certainly don't want this to descend into ad-hominem remarks. As far as the characterization of the event in the Guardian, however, its suggestion that this was for "one brief moment... the biggest political story in America" must be taken in context. The suggestion was written up in a British broadsheet's "Observer" column as part of a general commentary on the early nastiness of American campaigns. In fact, it does not actually provide much evidence for the main arguments of the Guardian if you consider the column as a whole. Also, that the Guardian preoccupied itself beyond reason with a suggestion by one small independent group in the United States that Secretary Rumsfeld be assassinated should surprise no one familiar with the paper's openly acknowledged biases on the left. There are no hard feelings or vested interests on my side. ALC Washington 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A discussion of the media spin given the event- from both the left and the right- would be a perfectly valid way of expanding the article. -- JJay 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the Florida Democratic Party. At the very least change the name to avoid confusion with the other Saint Petersburg (y'know, that place in Russia). Dodging accusations of Anglo-American bias and fleeing before things get hot... Durova 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we read the newspaper article that JJay supplied to substantiate the event's importance, we would note that the Club received a Charter from the FDP, but nothing else. I live in Florida, and these clubs operate fairly independently. It wouldn't really be relevant to the FDP organization. At any rate, if the vote really is to keep, then changing the name to "St. Petersburg Democratic Club" (after all the official and full formal name of the city and the club) would be my first priority. ALC Washington 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • New addition, I see. It's enough to make me think. Your suggested change is not sufficient. The state of Florida should be in the title because Wikipedia has a global audience. Durova 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dear God, I'm sad enough to remember this. Nonetheless, it was blown out of proportion when it created a brief media storm and we're blowing it out ten times more by recording it in an 'encyclopaedia' article for posterity. Basically, this wasn't a notable incident, this club has no other claim to fame, therefore it's non-notable. I'm English, by the way, so there's not much point in accusing me of trying to 'suppress' stuff about a political party in a different country. --Last Malthusian 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it happened. Wikipedia is the sum of human knowledge. Jcuk 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — possibly needs to be expanded but I see no need for deletion. Notability established by its death threat. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per JJay. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freejournal

edit

Seems purely promotional to me; no attempt to establish what makes this site different from LiveJournal, MySpace et al. Daniel Case 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an example of a site using the Drupal open source CMS, much like the Kerneltrap article. Seems to me if one is allowed, both should be. Lunas11

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Farr

edit

Speedy was placed on the page claiming non-notability; I think it's notable enough to deserve a full vote. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 18:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Gaunlets

edit

Fancruft at its worst. Redirecting is pointless, as nobody should be expected to enter this in. --Apostrophe

  • Merge and redirect. -- JJay 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to what? --Apostrophe 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the pages associated with the show, otherwise keep article as is. -- JJay 04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? It's a fictional invention that serves as a quick plot device and only appears for the best of fifteen seconds. Why, exactly, should Wikipedia even dedicate server space to this? --Apostrophe 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? People watch the show and obviously cared enough to want to share Ghost Gaunlets with the world. I'm not going to tell those people that they are stupid. I am also not qualified to judge how Ghost Gaunlets fits within the Danny Phantom oeuvre. Therefore, I prefer to follow my instincts and err on the side of caution. Plus this debate will probably take up more server space than the article. -- JJay 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alas, life is not a caring matron. Nor is Wikipedia, as evidenced by countless deletions of not notable band articles. (Or are you to argue that we should coodle those people for being ever so kind enough to let us be aware of their worthless bands or geekish knowledge of the obscure?) I am well-qualified at determining the place of "Ghost Gaunlets", though. It only appears for fifteen seconds in "The Ultimate Enemy". Period. --Apostrophe 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not doubt for one second your Danny Phantom qualifications and expertise regarding The Ultimate Enemy, which would probably be an excellent final resting place for Ghost Gaunlets. Think of how much time would have been saved, though, had you pursued that course, a merge and redirect, rather than AfD. We have now discussed the issue far longer than the entire lifespan of said Ghost Gaunlets, a fact that I find somewhat ironic. In any case, the issue is now out of our hands, as it will be decided by future voters, some of whom may be members of worthless bands or devotees of geekishly obscure knowledge. Furthermore, I do not believe we should coodle any of life's uncaring matrons, just the really nice ones who greet you with a warm cup of tea when they invite you in for a spot of Danny Phantom -- JJay 05:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further discussion BD2412 T 05:11, 21 December 2005 (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 merged to Paolo Uccello. BD2412 T 19:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Antonia Uccello

edit

Article on really obscure artist from XV century without any known work. The person's only claim to fame is the father Mecanismo | Talk 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion merges need to be finished with a redirect to retain attribution to the original contributor. Voting merge and delete is not allowed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further discussion BD2412 T 05:11, 21 December 2005 (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JLG

edit

Apparent self-promotion of personal web site; does not establish notability. Adunar 05:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 under new CSD A7 wording. Harro5 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flow, band

edit

Non-notable band. Not signed to label, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Dusty Rhodes

edit

Entire article consists of 2 quotes from other websites. Notable enough subject, with 2 copy violations for an article. (The first person who votes for Keep gets to create new article.) Madman 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it has been expanded; I'd say Keep it and expand if necessary. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noypi

edit

not a slang dictionary; possibly a wiktionary candidate but I doubt it Hirudo 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 18:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 4

edit

Non-notable port of a game. Google for "Super Mario 4" "Jay Resop" turns up nothing, and none of the Google hits for "Super Mario 4" alone seem relevant. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at User:9cds/Super mario 4 9cds 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SwapThing

edit

Promotional. None of the screenshots have any tags and there are too many of them to be encyclopedic. The whole text sounds like it was written for prospective investors Daniel Case 06:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 both. --Angr (t·c) 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High/Scope and David P. Weikart

edit

A group involved in preschooling in the US. The author claims notability, but I just don't see why it warrants a Wikipedia entry. see this as quasi-spam and self-promotion. The article on David P. Weikart, the group's founder, is even less notable, and if the group's article is kept anything on him should be merged and redirected there. Otherwise, delete him too. Harro5 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irides (game)

edit

Google knows not of this "invented 2005" game nor of its author (whose name somewhat resembles the sole editor of the article). WP:NOT free web hosting. —Blotwell 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This game is currently patent pending in the United States. I am indeed both the creator of the article and the game. I wrote the article with the intent of allowing abstract gaming enthusiasts the chance to learn the game without having to wait for the patent. I am awaiting the patent before I create a website to promote the game. Once the website is created Google will have a listsing for the game. I should stress that I am not using wikipedia as an advertisement for the game as I will not be selling the game. As an abstract gaming enthusiast I am more than willing to share any game I create with world. - JeremiahClayton

I sort of feel bad saying this, but Wikipedia also is WP:NOT a crystal ball, and your game may not achieve the notability worthy of Wikipedian webspace (which, in my experience, must cost a lot of money), so I have to say that as it currently stands, the article should be deleted. - CorbinSimpson 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you can patent a video game but in that this is a board game.. that question is not important for this discussion. If the article must be deleted.. it happens. I disagree however with the idea that a board game must achieve some level of notability to be included on Wikipedia. There are countless articles that pertain to relatively unknown topics.. which to me.. is what makes Wikipedia better than the average encyclopedia. I also believe that a patent alone is enough to warrant an article in that it is a reliable source of information. Especially in a circumstance where the game will not be manufactured and was copyrighted only for the purpose of preventing others from profiting on what should remain a free game. I understand that as of now the article must be deleted.. but I have no doubt that it will one day again takes it's place along side other abstract game articles. - Jeremiah Clayton

The game can be found here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/21462.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 18:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive logic

edit

Advert for the author's new book.

User:Wjkellpro replied: Hi Gazpacho! Thanks for clarifying your opposition to my article Progressive Logic. But I think you give me way too much credit for original research and thinking. This article does not breach the limits on original research for several reasons. First, it follows to the “t” the established meaning of “values,” “value reasoning,” and “logic” as these are explained in wikipedia under Robert S. Hartman, and value science.

Second, I’m not refering to a “concept,” such as “justice,” or “good,” or “evil,” but to the process of reasoning that progressives use in the course of weighing the relative importance of public policy options and proposals. I have used the term “progressive logic” merely to summarize this process of value reasoning, which is as old as the hills.

The article progressivism gives some indication of the value reasoning of progressives. Also such historians as Richard Hofstadter, Gabriel Kolko, and Howard Zinn provide books full of examples of the way progressives have reasoned about their policy choices. Progressive social critics, like Erich Fromm and Charles A. Reich also follow “progressive logic,” but without using that exact term (as far as I know).

I can see now that I should have included a selected bibliography to give the reader a clearer sense that Progressive Logic simply describes a reasoning process followed by progressives. I’m sure the writers above (who are still alive) would agree that there is no debate among social critics and social scientists about the existence of this reasoning process, because its existence is so obvious to all who have studied progressive politics.

After I put in a more complete “references” section, I’m sure your objection will be met, and that you’ll withdraw your opposition. Just wait and see.Wjkellpro 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not particularly happy with the tone of the first paragraph, but this is loads better than what was up before. Keep for now. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Folks! I'm new to this game, so I'm just learning the rules. Actually, I thought there weren't any rules, so I could promote my new book here. But I can take a hint. I'll show that Mgm guy that I really do have something to say! User: wjkellpro
  • Hi Again! I have taken out all the advertising. I have now posted what I think can qualify as a genuine encyclopedia article. I invite you all to check it out. I think wikipedia is a great innovation, and I'd like to be a part of it. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gazpacho and Stifle, take another look at my article Progressive Logic. I've benefitted greatly from the assistance of JWestbrook. Please tell me any specific objections you have, and I'll try to satisfy them. Others have changed their votes, I'd like to work with you on this. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shrink to paragraph and Merge into Progressivism, I've changed the framing of the first few paragraphs to reflect this as a thesis, and not a peer-reviewed political theory. Dr. Kelleher, I'm intrigued by your ideas, but I think they need a little more support before something this large has a place on this site. I consider myself to be a very strong progressive, and much of this article is duplicated in your book, so doesn't really need to be added to Wikipedia on its own. A single paragraph referencing your thesis on the Progressivism page would be more appropriate. Feel free to contact me offwiki if you like. Chadlupkes 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Hardy

edit

This page was created by one of my friends as a joke , and this person was a very unpopular mayor and abused her rights and almost got kicked out of her job. This page was NOT vandalized but in fact those comments were real. This page should be deleted ASAP. It was simply made to make fun of her and show to people at the High School. Unremarkable person, apparent vanity bio, frequent vandalism, no value, no real content. -- Jbamb 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Claims of notability, but will never be more than a sentence. I agree that it is not a speedy but it should still go. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Not a speedy, the woman was Mayor of a major town. -- JJay 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has done anything but vandalize this page, if she was Mayor of a major town, why are there no accomplishments? It seems that at best this will be trivia with no meat behind it. She served only one year in a town of 200,000 people. There are about 10,000 towns that size, do we create bios for every office holder in history of those towns? -- Jbamb 06:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate vandalism as much as the next guy. However, if that was a reason for deletion, the George Bush article would have to go immediately. I think bios of every mayor and major elected official would be a nice goal for wikipedia. Just use templates instead of AfD to get improvement-- JJay 07:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between valuable articles that get vandalized, and articles that seem only to exist for the purpose of vandalizing. The people who put this up did it to slam this woman. They keep changing the page. There doesn't appear to be anyone truly interested in putting real information up. -- Jbamb 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vandalism seems to have begun in the last week, as the article was untouched for six months. It could end as quickly as it began. Many school related articles are vandalised, but removal is not an option. The original stub for Ms. Hardy was not designed to slam her as it merely stated she was Mayor of her town. There was no vanity whatsoever. I do not feel qualified to decide what is or is not valuable. However, as one-time Mayor and city council member, Ms. Hardy, in my opinion, is notable enough for this encyclopedia. -- JJay 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs at least a stub classification.TheRingess 06:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep: only if the focus has shifted to her term as mayor before the end of this AfD. No more messing around. Otherwise, delete. Harro5 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep as per Harro5. Otherwise, delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In Huntington Beach, California, Hardy served one year as mayor because that position rotates among the city council members annually; it's not as though she was elected mayor in her own right for a four-year term as one might see in other cities. I can imagine this being a valid article nonetheless, but right now I don't know whether that will happen. --Metropolitan90 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why do residents of smallish United States cities presume their hometowns are world famous? Include the state, please. Durova 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete city council members are hardly notable.Gateman1997 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if she's from a city where Mayor is chosen by the city council from themselves.[19] --SarekOfVulcan 01:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lets try not to put everything on Wikipedia, whether notable or not.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anyone you like above. Vandalism magnet. Oh and put a {{deletedpage}} on it as well. Stifle 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she was mayor of a major city, like LA, I would easily say keep. But, in many California cities, there is a city council that rules the city, and some hire a city manager to deal with internal affairs. In that situation, you usually draw straws to see who is "mayor of the month," since it is mainly a title that has little meaning. I also will like to see a deleted page template slapped on the article. Zach (Smack Back) 08:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of 8-Bit Theater

edit

Unsourced (likely alignments? pasts of characters?), super-extensive fake biographies. I know this is a fork from 8-Bit Theater which was becoming too large, but quite frankly the Characters section seems quite sufficient. Not much more can be said about these characters which would be verifiable and encyclopedic. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would recommend you go and read the archives from the beginning before calling it fake. As far as I can remember, those bios all look accurate and have not extrapolated from the comic or fantasized any aspect of the characters. 8-Bit Theater is probably notable enough to merit a giant article on characters. And, to top it off, it's not the longest webcomic article either -- Megatokyo and Questionable Content are both longer! - CorbinSimpson 09:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do read the comic, and enjoy it. But would you put a detailed plot summary of every episode on Wikipedia? There is a line between encyclopedia and trivia, and I feel it has been crossed here. If the consensus here finds otherwise, then that's great too. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE per Peyna's comment. Harro5 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Changing Face of Missions"

edit

An original research, personal essay (see WP:NOT) copied from a religious blog. Not a copyvio, but not for Wikipedia either. Harro5 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oscarian

edit

A non-notable religious sect, or cult, or miniscule group - whatever you want to call it. No reason to have a Wikipedia entry, but no applicable CSD given its iffy claims at notability. Harro5 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a joke.

TheRingess 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff morton

edit

I'm pretty sure this is not notable. --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete. -- Jbamb 06:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Adelkhanov

edit

He does not appear to be notable yet, he is just a student. May be in a few years... Delete abakharev 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (belated) speedy delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of Bob

edit

This seems to refer to a guild of players of a video game? If so, not obviously notable. Ben Aveling 06:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous overweight people

edit

Listed for CSD under the reasoning, "defammatory", thus claiming CSD A6 as a personal attack. But then, it's true, they all do fit a certain mass-related criterion (they're pretty fat, and pretty famous), so we'll open it up for debate. Harro5 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Overweight' and 'famous' are too subjective when combined. If there were a criterion by mass or weight or BMI for 'overweight,' and 'famous' was the same as our 'notable,' then it could be debated or considered, but as it stands, there's just too much room for opinion. - CorbinSimpson 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The list was already growing in the heavily trafficked and frequently vandalized obesity article and making a separate article is the best way to get it out of there. You know that we have a class of editors whose idea of contributing to human knowledge is to point out that "John Doe is fat". Let's give them a separate place to play so they don't interfere with a real article. Thanks. alteripse 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serving as a lightning rod for vandalism is a very poor reason to keep an article. Does it have independent merits? JFW | T@lk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it has no merits other than keeping people who think it's worthwhile away from the obesity article. I don't personally care whether it lives or dies by itself but I thought it was a useless distraction and a lightning rod for trouble in the obesity article. As long as it is understood that no one re-creates it as part of the obesity article, we can delete it as far as I am concerned. Will you back me on keeping it from being re-started there?alteripse 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason not to have this list. It is important and can be verified based on government definition for fat or obese or using Body mass index. -- JJay 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really unsure about that; and also, honestly, how much worth is to this list? Who's going to look at it and go "oh wow, I had no idea Chris Farley was fat! you learn something every day!" A person's weight is immediatley apparent, and this kind of list would mostly be based on public perception, not fact. As such, what's its value, if all the contents are already in the public's mind? Finally, why the hell does this even matter? Save for a handful of comedians, these people's weight is of absolutely no consequence to their notability. Also, what do we do about people like, say, Kristie Allie? Flyboy Will 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but while we know that Farley was fat without the list, isn't the same true for height, race and many other criteria listed at Wikipedia? Yet, editors find these lists very useful and appealing. From the intellectual standpoint, the list is achievable within wikipedia policy guidelines. Therefore, I can't vote against it. -- JJay 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undefined, unsourced and unmaintainble.--nixie 07:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. 9cds 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Overweight" is an insanely broad term. Somebody like Brad Pitt is technically overweight, at 6' and 203 lbs [23] (I just randomly looked it up, not that I know Brad Pitt's weight by heart). Anyway, this list is completely unmaintanable, and even if the inclusion criteria is modified to be obese-only, it can still quickly grow to be the biggest fattest article ever on wikipedia, as soon as we dip into history past Santa Claus. Flyboy Will 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessarily stigmatising, serves no real informational purpose, sourcing is a nightmare (who knows Brad Pitt's BMI), potentially endless as the definition of "famous" is too flexible. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remote LanD Attack

edit

Labelled CSD, but no criteria apply. This is a nonsense original research about some super-nerdy computer-attack thing. I can't understand it, but know it's not Wikipedia-worthy. Harro5 06:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It IS original research, but it's not nonsense. It more or less makes sense. The author is free to move it someplace else, and then cite it from Wikipedia, but right now, the article needs to be moved or deleted. - CorbinSimpson 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to LAND, and clean that up. --Zetawoof 09:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is in fact complete nonsense. On the one hand, the article is incoherent -- his claim is that the attack is caused by an ICMP packet, but his examples use flags which are only applicable to TCP packets. He also claims that you can introduce crippling latency on a remote network using TCP packets sent to a LAN broadcast address. Both claims are laughable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of TCP/IP networking. On the other hand, even if you fixed the terminology issues in the article, the simple fact is that the exploit he claims, does not work. Unfortunately, the author also modified the original LanD entry to include reference to this entry.

The original LanD entry should be reverted to its state before all of this happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.16.223 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Yes it's comprehensible, but no it does not make much sense. per unsigned comment above, it mentions TCP flags being used on an ICMP packet. It is not original research however, as it does mention older mentions of the attack. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad...

Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia entry. I am also the original author of the write up, Justin M. Wray, and I am the one who did all the research. I laugh at the fact that you guys claim "its not original research". Are you claiming I stole the information? I am claiming it as my own? Well the research is all original. I did do it all myself. And the tests were all conducted by me, with the help of a few others mentioned in the article.

The article is as "wikiworthy" as the original LAND post, which is also on wiki I might add. I was going to contact someone from the defacing team (or whatever the name may be). As some users from digg.com continue to deface the site. They claim they can not get the exploit to work, which I am not disputing, however I have been receiving endless emails from people claiming they got it to work. I had help testing it both from my employer and a College professor in the Networking/InfoSec field. The exploit is far from "bogus".

ICMP vs TCP. Both work, I 'was' planing to make that a bit more clear, yet every time I go to edit the wikipage, I have to fix the SPAM people are leaving. The flags are for the TCP packet but if you send enough ICMP packets it will do the same, it takes about 30 seconds longer or so, so it seems.

This is not a normal "Ping of Death"

Yes I edited the LAND entry to add a link to the new discovery. Its important, home consumers are vulnerable, and its big news in the Security field. If you take a look at the links on the current wiki page about RLA, you will see many big names are talking about it. One is Dave, from the ICANN security counsel. (ICANN is in charge of giving out IP address).

Someone said to merge with the original LAND attack. I am not adverse to that over deletion, but the attacks are only similar in nature, the original could not be done over the Internet, where the Remote LAND Attack can. To me this means they should be separated, but linked to one and other.

I thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia, for the sharing if information and knowledge. I have seen far less important articles. I am shocked to see wikipedia take such actions, this is only hindering education. I know for a fact, if the page stays, it will be used in many college classes, and even training at work. This is an important part of Internet history, even if its inter works are foreign to the average users, the end results are not.

I have more to say, but I will allow you to read and refute the above first.

BTW: Its not "super-nerdy computer-attack thing", its a network perimeter devices exploit. And the sad part is, your "router" is most likely susceptible to attack. Hope the vendors take this more serious then some of you have.

Its funny how hundreds of kids can play in a pool, but let one pee in it and all the funs over. Remember, a lot of people have recreated this attack, and only a handful are saying its bogus...

SynisterSyntax 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What?

Wait a moment...So because its original research, it’s not worthy of being in the encyclopedia? That makes a lot of sense. So only copied material makes it to wiki?

SynisterSyntax 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see...

Qoute: "Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas..."

The research is based off of previous work. However it is in fact, new, different, and original. But it is posted online elsewhere, both on my own servers, and on many other reputable sites. Take a look at the links...

68.50.61.139 19:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sad...

Okay, ive just about had it with all of the stupid comments left by the people who have no clue what they are talking about. They may THINK they do, but they really dont. Im Matthew Wines, i helped with the testings of this exploit and i verify that it works. The very first object tested was my Westell VersaLink 327W (the one Verizon sent me with DSL). When we first tested the exploit it worked, this was to our surprise. We then tested a couple different things and couldnt re-create the exploit and were very discouraged. Then we adjusted some other settings and tried again, it worked. So we moved on to test others to see if it would only work with my VersaLink. However, it worked with Synisters Atlanta DPX2100. That is when he released the exploit information to his college professor, who allowed him to test it on a couple other things. It worked each time. We did lots of tests and would not release or makeup a stroy like this. If you notice, when i was talking about my VersaLink, we DID NOT get it to work every time for the first time. However, once we found the perfect settings, we could reacreate it just about every time. So please dont post your stupid immature spam garbage and accusations, if you would do a better part to society and play World Of Warcraft for 3 days straight then jump out of a 29 story window when someone "Ninjas" your Trinket.... Thank You to everyone who gets this exploit to work, who actually tries it, and does not display themselves as a complete and total fool.

Vendicator 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice and all, but this isn't the place for it. Once your work is proved (by publishing or some other means) then we can include. Until then we can't. BTW, wikiarticles don't write like essays for school. There is no "credit" given to authors except for citations. I vote to delete. Oberiko 19:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read

The work has been proven. Try reading some of the links that are on the page. Read some of the blog posts, news posts, and forum posts. And if you’re waiting for Vendor's to release a statement that will come with time as well.

SynisterSyntax 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hedley 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Fernando Pinzón Cancino

edit

I'm prepared to withdraw this if notability can be established, but at the moment the article makes no clear claim to notability. He gets 295 google hits, but again, nothing obviously notable. Ben Aveling 07:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Only comments by established Wikipedians were taken into consideration. --Angr (t·c) 20:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Fairchild

edit

Comments by established Wikipedians

edit

As discussed on the talk page, content is unverified and probably a hoax, delete.--nixie 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by anons and newbies

edit
  • Keep it- It actually did happen and there was a special on it on Discovery Health channel, not Tlc. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.0.120.106 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it- I am watching the story on TLC as I type this, and I came here to look for further information.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.196.84.227 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" by TAB - This show is on TLC, on a special called "I Am My Own Twin". I am watching it right now, on TLC which happens to be a division of the Discovery Channel networks - yes, TLC, and it was on a month or two ago as well. I would think that TLC tries hard to validate the stories that they show. Lydia was not the only person featured on the show. There was another woman named Karen Keegan who had the same Chimera DNA issue, as well as the case of a baby born as a hermaphrodite. I've never known TLC to be a National Enquirer type network that shows false things. As for the google search, there are two other links on the results page that bring her up under the topic of chimera. So, she is out there in the search engine. The TLC show doesn't list the people featured on their show, otherwise her name would probably show up there if they listed names. I'm sure you could simply contact the TLC network to verify this story. I don't see what the big deal is with verifying this when it's already been featured on a major cable network such as TLC. http://tlc.discovery.com/schedule/series.jsp?series=111185&gid=0&channel=TLC —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.17.20.143 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it - It was on a TLC show last night and can also be verified on Google by searching chimerism

the show was called I am my own Twin and also profiled Karen Keegan with the same condition.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 142.162.145.25 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it -- Chimerism is a rare gentic anomaly; there are only two current cases being followed in the United States. Lydia Fairchild is the only case that has caused legal precedent for human chimera. (Chimerism also occurs in other species, with more prevalence)—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.45.95.126 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" - Hello? It is verifiable by virtue of the fact that it was on a national information network/channel and had to pass the smell test of the producers, etc. etc. of that show on TLC. It is not just original research. Maybe it was 'orginal research' before it was screened by a reputable cable network and broadcasted to millions. But now it fits the 'verifiable' qualifications and has gone beyond being original research or just a theory. All you have to do is contact the TLC Network and/or the larger Discovery channel company. You could even contact the hospitals and other sources that are mentioned on the show. How hard is that to understand? Why is this site run by teens who live in isolated locations? That is scary. Can your qualifications be 'verified'? lol—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.17.20.143 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" - In "Calculated Risk: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You", by Gerd Gigerenzer, DNA testing offers the illusion of certainty. If you have a brother, your brother has a 1 in 16 chance of matching your DNA. I love science, but science is constantly changing. DNA testing will eventually be a footnote in history, like everything else mortals come up with.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 160.254.20.253 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" by EMAnthon - I too just watched the TLC show "I Am My Own Twin" While some of the information in the article is off (Lydia's lawyer didn't find the article on Karen Keegan, the prosecutors did) and if you have more of the information as to how she came to end up in court (Accusations of Welfare Fraud) it makes the information more credible. The TLC/Discovery Health Channel will air it again on JAN 22 2006 @ 08:00 PM, JAN 22 2006 @ 11:00 PM, JAN 29 2006 @ 07:00 PM - This website Everything2.com [26]has an entry dated Thu Jul 21 2005 at 21:15:26 That gives further information and sources from medical journals and doctors that so many of you who want to delete it requested. Also my google searches came up with several other links to Lydia's case and when you add Chimera to her name a more specific list is produced. - 28 December 2005—the preceding unsigned comment is by 204.128.192.5 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" – Further in the book "Calculated Risk”"

On page 167 in a section titled “The Fabrication of Certainty”: (a) 1 in 100 DNA test is a false positive. (b) The FBI has fought hard to prevent outsiders from seeing the results of there own internal tests on DNA accuracy. On page 180: “subjective judgements are an integral part of” DNA testing (matching up lines of a two DNA profiles). On page 181: DNA is effected by sunlight, poor laboratory practices, or inadequate analysis.

My point is a follows: The mainstream notion of DNA’S infallibility is a hoax. DNA is not the end game. There is much yet to be discovered and cataloged for future reference. To delete the ”Lydia Fairchild” story would censor a probable truth. Nothing good will come of such censorship.

Note: FEMA is funding the Katrina DNA testing. Not sure if FEMA has opted to fund the expensive DNA test (more accurate) or the cheap DNA test (not as accurate). When you think DNA testing, think FEMA, perhaps you'll have more empathy for ”Lydia Fairchild”'s nightmare. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.193.211.21 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 December 2005 (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of descriptive songs whose titles are mentioned in the lyrics

edit

User:Light current seems to think that this is a speedy candidate.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica Systems

edit

Appears to be a vanity page, and all of the information on there is lifted from the website anyway. 9cds 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evangel family church

edit

One line sub-stub on a church with no claim of notabliy. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyalpo

edit

Original research ("This page was started by me"). I can't find verification online - if someone more knowledgeable can rewrite that'd be great but I don't think there's anything salvageable here. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Gyalpo can be found. On the Dorje Shugden page, you have to go to the discussion and there you find at the bottom of the page, a long article that explains in scholarly manner that "(in Tibetan 'gyalpo' meaning king, a type of ghost)" on line five of the article. The article is the last one on the page. It starts with "Jeff Watt, the Webmaster for Sakya Resource..." and is entitled "Do Shakyas rely on Dorje Shugden?" This takes you to the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kelsangpagpa

Anyways, I'll refer to the people who are interested in this subject over there and among Tibetan-following folks, and see what approach would be best to break down the subject for Wiki. All the best to you, and also thinks for the advice about Gyalpo. Geir Smith. It's funny, I just sent this same message a few minutes ago but it didn't seem to register right now.

Hope that's all right now ! Geir Smith.

The page is now formatted for new edition along the start-up lines. The new format will be worked out with various people who can work out a collegial manner of writing the article. It's thoguht to become a non-sectarian approach but along the lines the people themselves choose. It's just in the project stage now. Renaming the project as Gyalpo enables to get out of the check-mate that the originally named project is mired in. Things are thus back at step one.

Thanks to you for understanding the difficulty of entering an encyclopedic work. Advice taken and appreciated. Geir Smith.

  • I'll start reediting the page according to encyclopedia norms. The page should thus probably define the verifiable sources behind it's title first and then move on to support that verifiable source with a developped research on it.I'll go slowly on this rather than do things backwards - which is to first put a lot of material online and then hope for correcting later, from others, as I was more or less expecting. I'll thus spruce up the existing links to the first bit there to start out slowly and go from there. G.S.

Nominate for Speedykeep. Signed Geir Smith. 25 December 2005. Noon.

Comment: You cannot nominate an article for speedy keep unless you are the nominator and no delete votes have been received, neither of which has happened (except in cases of vandalism or WP:POINT. Stifle 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added a bit about Gyalpo to give background reference to the article. Geiremann 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 Guys

edit

Band does not qualify under WP:MUSIC; likely self-promotion. Adunar 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont Drama Society

edit

non notable theatre group. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Slip. --Angr (t·c) 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc friedman

edit

Non-notable musician who plays partially un-invented instruments. Zero related google hits. Delete per WP:MUSIC May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"non-notable musician"? please google "the Slip." almost 15 year of professional music. i will be willing to change his bio for more clarity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Music by Man (talk • contribs)

Relisting to December 21, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:29, Dec. 21, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner (band)

edit

Non-notable music ensemble. Numerous google hits for +band +"the banner", but none seem discernible outside of Myspace.com (the parking garage of garage bands). Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to December 21, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, Dec. 21, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry gun

edit

A ministub of a C&C:RA2 unit? I think not. 

Agamemnon2 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to December 21, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, Dec. 21, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 with no other delete votes cast. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Edward Stokes

edit

This page was created and is edited by a persistant vandal who is obsessed about adding false information about Families (TV series), New Zealand cricketers, vegans, The Simpsons voices (with a particular fetish for Mr. Burns), amongst other things. According to the IMDB, this article is 50% incorect. See also Articles for deletion/Amanda Dickison, which was deleted on the same grounds. The JPS 08:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Simon Stokes is an actor and he was in Families among other shows [27]. He probably deserves a page. Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding your nom. -- JJay 09:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had battled to remove the nonsense that this user has added to wikipedia over the last few months, the you would understand it. The IMDB does not mention The Bill. Google does not verify it either. Therefore, 50% of the article is incorrect. If this remains, it will be vandalised, and I will refuse to correct it. I am not nominating simply on the grounds of notability; but the poor notability is not worth the hassle.
    I'm not sure what needs clarifying, but feel free to get in touch if you still fail to understand my nom.The JPS 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A quick google shows that Stokes has been in numerous shows such as Absolutely Fabulous. I can not confirm the Bill, as yet, but it is quite possibly true. Stokes is also a director. While I sympathize with your counter-vandalism efforts, that should not be a reason for deletion. If it were, we would have to cut George Bush and other pages. The editor in question, if really a vandal, should be blocked. However, Stokes must not be made to pay the price for the misdeeds of a wiki contributor.-- JJay 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has also been on Neighbours and Absolutely Fabulous. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable actor. We don't let articles pay for what vandals do to them. Block the vandal and keep an eye on the article. If you don't want to correct it, it should be easy to find someone who wants to (for example at the related TV show pages). - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll withdraw nomination, ehtn, if someone else is willing to look after it. If the vandal can be sorted out, then please do so. Someone else might to try to sort through the 'contributions' he made this morning. The JPS 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of parodies and puns on Robin Hood

edit

nn listcruft Zunaid 09:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of 60's decade oldies covered as altervative rock songs

edit

nn list cruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Zunaid 09:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CPR Buffalo Yard

edit

Very non-notable. Found no google matches. Pogoman 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous albums (songwise)

edit

nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When is this madness going to end? Delete Zunaid 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modify to maintain manageability. I'd suggest limiting criteria to eponymous albums that have reached a position in an album chart in a definitive recording trade magazine, like Billboard, Cashbox (now defunct) or New Musical Express. In the same vein, I'd recommend a similar Eponymous hit singles as this would be very manageable (if memory serves me correctly, there are only about a dozen fitting this category from Billboard's Hot 100 chart and a relative handful from NME). In both cases, the name of the act and the name of the recording must be identical. B.Wind 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Filiocht as nonsense. Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester K.

edit

non-encyclopedic


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 19:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with the same name as song artists

edit

nn listcruft and unencyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm geting tired of all these random song lists, there seem to be LOTS of arbitrary lists going around. Delete Zunaid 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very serious approach to the subject. List demonstrates the kind of careful scholarship I expect from this type of classification. Highly useful for cultural historians. We need more like this. -- JJay 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists about songs named after the artist who performs them is not something arbitrary. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is it encyclopedic? IMHO it is "indiscriminate information". Please convince me otherwise. Zunaid
  • Keep, simply because I believe it is notable. Additionally, WP has many other similar lists that I believe are appropriate and I believe singling this one out would also be unfair. Halo 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agreed, this is a good list. Zordrac (talk) [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDM

TD|Wishy Washy]] Darwikinian Eventualist 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This should already be done. We shouldn't include any song in a list if it doesn't deserve coverage on its own (or in the band/artist article). - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose genre occurs in the title

edit

As with all the other lists nominated, this is listcruft. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Content has no encyclopedic value. Delete Zunaid 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This will become more unwieldy than even the article on eponymous songs that is also up for deletion. Unlike the latter, I don't see a way of modifying the boundaries to rein in the entries to a manageable size (after all, there are way too many charted country songs with the word "country" in their title, ditto "disco," "jazz," "rap," "jazz," "pop," "soul," and -- most importantly -- "blues." I like the idea, bit it won't work here... Delete. B.Wind 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of songs about genres of music. Kappa 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But that's not what this list is about. That would require an article on List of songs about song genres. We Will Rock You is not about rock, it is rock, for instance; so this list is useless for the purpose you suggest. Just a thought. Peeper 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox 16:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Andrzejewicz

edit

non-notable; vanity page Adunar 09:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Terence Ong Talk 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Road, Singapore

edit

Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability redstucco 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hearseburner

edit

Great band name, but it fails the notability test. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Msnfight

edit

Appears to be a non-notable software, see 1 - 9 of about 53 for "msnfight". Also most of the visible results appear to be Dutch (?). Perhaps somebody who can read those would be helpful here. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:08, Dec. 21, 2005

Delete as non-notable. The website in question was launched two days ago, and the article was written by its admin. Melchoir 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locafest

edit

Non-notable, badly-written, fest-cruft? Peeper 11:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

444.

edit

Almost certainly a hoax. Neither the manufacturers of Desert Eagle firearms, or DARPA have any information on this. It doesn't meet WP:V so should be deleted Kevin 11:30, 21 December 2005 (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 'Speedied by User:Dan100 Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gordon-Stewart

edit

It was originally tagged as a speedy, but since the article does assert some notability, I decided to take it here instead. The article is about a 18 year old with a blog, one of many.-- JoanneB 11:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Quan

edit

Delete This may be a valid article, but I can't tell! is it related to 12thC China, 19thC Macau, Sailor Moon or a special guest episode of Friends? Delete, and if resubmitted with enough information to justify inclusion, keep. Colonel Tom 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. However, noting that the recommended target article is currently under copyright investigation, I am going to stop after tagging this article with the recommended merge. Rossami (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pule

edit

An article about a holiday in an episode of a childrens cartoon. The show may be notable, but I doubt the fictional holiday is; and even so, it's unencyclopedic. Locke Cole 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shriekers (band)

edit

The article provides no evidence that this band meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete. Sliggy 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carly McKillip

edit

Article fails to establish notability; the person is apparently a voice actor in one obscure particular film or cartoon feature; I don't see how the article can be fixed to establish any notability. Bumm13 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YADD

edit

The term seems to be little-known, and the issue is better covered in the digg article Lurker 12:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kharghar

edit

Sounds like a vaguely disguised advertisement for a nn private college. Could be wrong though.Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn nomination based on dpbsmith's edits. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EUROFUTURES

edit

Just a constitution for a new think-tank. Not encyclopedic. Randwicked 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Lithuania --Angr (t·c) 20:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania/temp

edit

temporary page- no work since august 2005 Melaen 12:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I just redirect these to the main article. It is faster than VfD, and leaves it possible for anyone interested to check any page history or discussion associated with the temp page. - SimonP 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Global warming. --Angr (t·c) 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming/temp

edit

old temporary page - 4 August 2005 Melaen 12:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deadwriter

edit

nonsense ,It is not that much known about these strange persons, but they exist since many centuries Melaen 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I.T. Staffing

edit

This looks like just marketing blurb about a company rather than an article.Ben Fredlund 13:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Like Anime

edit

Possible vanity, non notable club. If it's going to be kept it needs to be expanded. FireFox 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 1983

edit

Article is a top song list defined by an obscure radio station. Void of encyclopedic value. Mecanismo | Talk 14:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mother ship. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 15:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mothership

edit

Fails to meet WP:WEB. No Alexa rank. One of author's only 2 contribs. ^demon 14:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomas Cranmer" Theological Circle

edit

NN group Bjelleklang - talk 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Active Digit

edit

Seems like advertising for a webpage/company that doesn't seem to come close to meeting WP:CORP proposal anyway. W.marsh 14:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 List of common file extensions. --Angr (t·c) 20:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.dat

edit

Article on a file extension. File formats may be notable but file extensions aren't, specially when having in mind that they vary from system to system Mecanismo | Talk 14:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

change to List of file formats Zzzzz 10:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abrakurrie_Cave

edit

Various good reasons which are not listed under Wikipedia rules: there is consens among cavers to be very carefull when publishing about wild caves. It is not a good idea to have random wild caves listed on a platform as popular as Wikipedia. The two main reasons are to protect natural resources and animals living in the cave, and second to protect the readers from getting harmed in dangerous wild caves.

The article is a stub, there is too much to do, which will most likely not be done by a caver (if they are serious). But others are not qualified to write this article.

Vanity: the article is not of use to anybody. The reader will not be able to visit the cave and it has nothing special, why it should be listed. If it had something special (eg geologic or biologic) this specialty should be listed on Wikipedia, not the cave.

And finally: there are probably half a million wild caves on earth. There is no reason why this one should be listed and others not. But on the other hand there is no sense in listing all the wild caves in Wikipedia, there are other institutions which do this, they are called cave registries. Jduckeck 14:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment—I think only the last two rationales have merit. The first argument in particular is utterly against Wikipedia purpose and policy, because we do not censor information to "protect" people from it. It's a good idea to have notable wild caves listed on Wikipedia...but is this one notable? Are all named caves notable? I would like to hear an explanation as to why this cave should be documented in an individual article rather than just merged back into List of caves in Australia—is there anything special about it, or can it only be justified if all named caves are documented? And what is the source of the name? Postdlf 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I agree, but I guess I did not make it clear enough: there are cavers who try to hide any information about wild caves which is definitely censoring. And a desaster from the scientific point of view. However, the idea is not to protect people from information, but to protect nature, to save our heritage for future generations. I would very much appreciate articles on wild caves which are of historic/geologic/... interest, allready published, famous, or especially if they are protected by other means: a solid gate for example. This is not the case here. AFAIK this cave is only protected by its remote location. And to make it clear: it is useless to list arbitrary cave names in lists like the above mentioned. --Jduckeck 15:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of children or caves. But I would say Delete anyway. As Jduckeck said, there are hundreds of thousands of caves and there's nothing to suggest this one is any more notable than the others. Cavecruft. --Last Malthusian 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Keep, passes 'average hole in the ground' test. --Last Malthusian 09:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CAPTAIN CAAAAAAAAAAVECRUFT!!! BD2412 T 16:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. A couple of minutes on Google shows that this cave is more notable than most (although you wouldn't know it from the article) : it apparently has the largest single cave chamber in the southern hemisphere and the deepest penetration of Aboriginal art of any cave system in Australia. I don't entirely understand the comment above that "The reader will not be able to visit the cave", since it is obvious that there are a number of tour companies offering visits. Humansdorpie 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 17:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Notable cave as per Humansdorpie. Capitalistroadster 17:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per expanded information. Prehistoric art and size make caves notable, if nothing else. Postdlf 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emphatic keep - we can consider only Wikipedia's criteria and guidelines in the AfD process, and Wikipedia is using only publicly available information for its articles (OBTW, if it's a vanity article, it would mean that the cave wrote it -- I seriously doubt it to be the case). Deleting the stub would not help nominator's cause (in fact, it will probably be a setback). Expanding the stub can incorporate the measures being taken to protect the archaelogical sites, availability to tourists, governmental policies about the cave, and so forth. B.Wind 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Angr (t·c) 21:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul-Razzak Al-Hassani

edit

Author too obscure, to say the least. The google test lists zero entries on the author and barnes & noble lists zero entries on the book. Mecanismo | Talk 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I found a couple of mentions of the book on Google (mostly as footnotes) so the book and its author seem to be real. The question is, should he get an article? If that's all there is to say about him, probably not, though I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise if additional information turns up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it is not especially surprising that an author from Iraq who has published a book in 1956 does not have much Internet presence. However, there is some evidence that the author and the book existed: [31]. Note that Razzak seems sometimes to be spelled Razzaq or Razak [32], and the hyphens seems to be optional :-O. - Liberatore(T) 19:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per above Jcuk 21:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per Paolo Liberatore. Capitalistroadster 21:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs more research, but could be important in Iraq history. -- JJay 21:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paolo. Old Iraqi books are almost certain to not have a web presence and they are very unlikely to be sold in American bookstores. That doesn't make any of it non-verifiable, though. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am from Iraq and I am the one who wrote the article, he might be unknown to western readers but he is a very well known historian in Iraq, I have 3 of his books, unfortunately they are all in Arabic. Please refer to these websites to know more about that historian,[[33]]. [[34]]. - User:Classic_971.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Dan100 Jamie (talk/contribs) 15:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schestowitz

edit

Not notable (extremely short family tree for 15 people) --DCrazy talk/contrib 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen Wargames Club

edit

Vanity article about local wargame club. Mecanismo | Talk 15:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maywood Avenue School

edit

Was tagged for speedy as "nn", but schools are not speedyable, so moving here for a vote. Nominator abstains. Jamie (talk/contribs) 15:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are evry much speediable, but only if you use a valid speedy criterion. "nn" isn't one of those. - Mgm|(talk) 09:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons established at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with district per WP:SCH proposal unless expanded and/or verified.Gateman1997 19:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with districtborough per WP:SCH unless expanded with more verifiable information. --Rob 21:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Silensor Jcuk 21:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into school district or town if article is both below three sentances and lacks any sort of illustration, boxed info-template or picture when AFD is closed. This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with school district if possible or town/suburb or not. I note that we don't currently have an article on the school district. Capitalistroadster 21:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just checked, and apparently the relevant school district operates only two schools. After completing grade 8, the students have to go to a school operated by a different district, or a private one, in order to go to high school. So, if merge is the result, I think Maywood, New Jersey will be the merge target (as the borders of the borough and the district match); and there's little point in making a district article for just two schools. --Rob 04:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice article. Golfcam 03:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A great start and clearly a future star article. -- JJay 04:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. ATM the claims of having "one of the best" sports teams and having several runs of being undefeated are unreferenced. Remove them if they don't get referenced in a reasonable amount of time. - Mgm|(talk) 09:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per the consensus established at WP:SCH. Please read and review this before blindly voting 'keep' or 'delete'. Why is it that the 'deletionists' are mainly willing to follow the consensus, but some (not all) of the 'inclusionists' are not? Proto t c 13:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this school is important to the community Yuckfoo 00:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup. I am usually an inclusionist, yet I feel that WP:SCH is completely ludicrous; rather, this article should stay based on its own merits regarding notability. The "Controversy" section, I feel, gives this school enough notability to stay, especially since we have references and citations in the article. However, please remove the "Student Awards" section. It is completely non-notable. -Rebelguys2 09:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I added both the controversy and student awards sections. Why not highlight some of the amazing achievements of the little geniuses at Maywood. If we eliminate that, we give an unfair portrayal of Maywood as a haven for sexual predators and arsonists. -- JJay 09:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(the) Chemistry Coach

edit

Nn site, does not pass WP:WEB with a alexa rating of 145,268 Bjelleklang - talk 15:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 non-notable biography at request of subject. Capitalistroadster 22:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bethany Carkhuff

edit
  • Delete A Google search on this woman returns only 7 original hits, a yahoo search, only 3. This article smacks of a PR plant. The fact that she is wealthy, attends Columbia University and is the daughter of a prominent attorney is hardly notable. The fact that she may have famous neighbors is also irrelevant.I have never read anything about Ms. Carkhuff in any publication-other than Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesaunterer (talk • contribs)
  • Delete I tend to agree with the above comment. Recommended for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.253.55.109 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete This girl is up and coming, the same way Paris Hilton was before she landed the simple life. She is beginning to be well known throughout New York City, and I have seen her in different New York publications for attending benefits, store openings, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craziness1 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral Note: Applebees1 entry has been removed due to repeated VANDALISM by this user who has no prior posting history other than this AFD. Possible sockpuppet account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Applebees1
  • Delete This entry is (in my opinion) one of the most egregious examples of self promotion I've ever come across in Wikipedia. The tenuous connection to the Wang family is ludicrous. Does the daughter of John D. Rockefeller's attorney also have an entry? Article has NO SOURCES and fails to establish any degree of relevance. The two links that were posted don't even reference the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.239.255.248 (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete I know for a fact that Ms. Carkhuff was present as a guest at the Emmy's, the VMA's, and on Howard Stern. I have recently submitted these to IMBD and they should be updated soon. I think it is best to wait and see if this verifiable source can be added to the page before it is subject to deletion. I also believe the above comment (the source claiming to be Ms. Carkhuff is false and is just someone who is either jealous or doesn't know how to create a valid argument and wants this article deleted). I agree with the person who said this article might as well remain, for the same reason there is a Kimberly Stewart article or articles about the younger boy Hilton siblings who have never done anything except been born priveleged. There is a new generation of celebrities arising, and that is of people who are rich and have high class family ties; and even if it is unfortunate, there are people want to know about these people. Ms. Carkhuff appears to be one of these people, so I would not consider this self-promotion, but an article about yet another socialite who is not as well known as socialites like Kimberly Stewart, etc. yet. So I vote for Don't Delete on these grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesocialite (talk • contribs)
  • Don't Delete As a regular wiki surfer, I came across this page through the American Socialites category. I understand the argument about no references and few hits using different internet searches, but there are many models, socialites, etc. that it would be difficult to come across internet sources for. Not every event, public appearance at a nightclub/benefit or even the event itself will turn up in your internet searches. I personally know a high-fashion runway model, who could possibly be considered a "socialite" even though he has no family ties, who has worked with many reputable agencies such as DNA, etc. that does not produce any internet hits. I tend to agree with the person above me. "Celebutaunte," "socialite," and being famous just for the family you were born into or the people you know is a generally new concept that has been brought to light by Paris Hilton, Nicole Richie, etc. Previously you would have said, why should Nicole Richie get her own page, she is merely the daughter of Lionel Richie; there are other examples of people who are in this category simply because of there family. Instead of trying to delete people that could belong to this "American socialites" category, I would like to see it expanded. This is a rising new concept that deserves merit in its own right. I, and I'm sure other users, would like to know who is out there living these life styles, knowing these people, etc.; of course, there will also be people that are jealous or find no interest and want such pages deleted. I wouldn't say that this is a page of self-promotion; why would a person of status waste time and create their own wikipedia page? They obviously caught the interest of someone else, and the page has been edited by several different people. As for "tenuous connections" and "famous neighbors," I think that is merely explaining the source of wealth (Hilton from Hilton hotels) and the area Ms. Carkhuff is from, respectively. As for sources, some verifable sources are bound to come up eventually. So my verdict, don't delete. Wait. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridiculousness7 (talk • contribs)
  • Neutral Restored previous editors Vandalization. Pleas read rules for deletion, people. And do not delete this comment again. Above poster Inukikun has no prior posting history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Inukikun
  • Delete bogdan 10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even I get more hits on Google than this woman does. Humansdorpie 16:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. If she become notable, the entry can be written then.Obina 17:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being rich does not ad to one's notability, she still fails WP:BIO.Gateman1997 17:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible A7 speedy. I'm sure Paris Hilton had far more Google hits than 7 even before the Simple Life [35]. No evidence of media interest on Google or Google News [36]. Capitalistroadster 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at the very least get a better picture. She seems cute, but the provided picture is hard to see. -- MisterHand 18:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even the 'Waldo H. Carkhuff' to which 'fortune' she's supposedly a heiress appears to be completely non-notable. Lawyers don't have fortunes. Having a 20-mil dollar home is not notable. Flyboy Will 18:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending better picture. Yeah, I'm a freak. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cyde Sceptre (Talk) 22:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - FrancisTyers 23:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE DELETE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE i don't know the policies of wikipedia, but the person who this article about is me. i did not create it, and i do not know who did. furthermore, my family and i like to live PRIVATE LIVES and i do NOT want the DETAILS OF MY LIFE SHARED ON THE INTERNET. so please, STOP CREATING A PAGE IN MY NAME, STOP POSTING MY PICTURE. i consider the bethany carkhuff page as well as these comments offensive and rude and an invasion of my privacy. i am a college student, don't label me as anything more, don't label me as anything. STOP UPDATING OR EDITING THIS "BETHANY CARKHUFF" PAGE AND JUST LET THIS BE DELETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. i do NOT want this here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.208.156 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 21 December 2005
  • Delete. The only thing verifiable in this article is that Bethany Carkhuff is a college student at Columbia University; I can't confirm that she is an heiress, socialite, or model. If she really was a famous "celebutante" and tabloid fixture, there would be a lot more Google hits for her. If she becomes one, we can create an article about her then because we will be able to find verifiable information about her. Also, everyone, please sign your votes by ending them with four tildes like this: ~~~~. --Metropolitan90 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cryptic (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Marsicano

edit

Looking back at the original article, it seems to be circulated around cover bands and “Bigg Trouble“, which when entered into google "Bigg Trouble cj marsicano" only returns results from posts cj marsicano has made on various sites and indeed his own personal websites. Perhaps an act of sock puppetry is responsible for this article?

It doesn’t seem as though this alleged “musician” is notable or relevant enough to warrant a Wiki article pertaining to them. Suspected "Vanity" article. (unsigned by Deathrocker, 09:12 21 December 2005 (UTC)) B.Wind 19:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am the subject of this article, but certainly not its creator. As a matter of fact, it was my discovery of this when I googled my name (just my name - none of my old bands obviously have sites online) that led to my getting involved with Wikipedia as a contributor. I had some notoriety as part of the informational part of the dot-com boom, mainly with bigger and/or early sites related to sports entertainment, which is, I am guessing, what led to the article being created. I did add to some of my article at some point (somehow managing to keep an NPOV, thank you very much) but that's about it. I didn't link to any of my techno CD releases or create articles about them in order to avoid possible non-NPOV issues. I am flattered that this article was created about little old me, so honestly I would be quite offended if the article about me was deleted.
All that aside, I have reason to believe that this article is being nominated for deletion out of some sort of grudge. I questioned some of the heavyhanded recategorizing of sites I was monitoring by the person bringing up the article about me for deletion, User:Deathrocker, with an administrator that he had tangled with, as a cursory look at the individual's talk history, which he conveniently whites out on a regular basis, reveals that he has tangled in the past rather vehemently with those that disagree with him. I did choose not to bring anything up on his talk page given that fact, and chose to contact an admin in semi-private instead. I am not surprised, therefore, that Mr. Deathrocker, rather than contact me in private, chose to attack me in virtual public. I should think that there is some sort of Wikipedia guideline against this sort of thing (suggesting an item for deletion based on a grudge). --Cjmarsicano 16:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one's a close call. Had this been written by a third party and referenced, it probably would have been kept as the subject barely makes the notability bar with his ECW activities alone. But the original author of the article Downwiththebass seems to be the same person as Cjmarsicano as the former's sole contributions are this article and Francine Fournier, and two deletion votes. This makes it a vanity article. Lack of referencing hurts here, too. Weak delete and hope that it's recreated by a third party who will reference the stuffing out of it and keep the focus on the ECW activities as the later sections would indicate less notability, not more. B.Wind 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments and a question or two.Let me state for the record that I am NOT Downwiththebass. I am more than willing to swear to that on the Bible... and I'm an agnostic!
Also for the record, as for further notablilty, that will probably be coming next year as I have two EPs and a single, all in the same techno vein as my first EP (which is out of print as a physical album but may be reissued.). I am well aware that Wikipedia isn't meant for promotional purposes, so I hope it's becoming more obvious that I am respecting what this site is for. I enjoy contributing here as a hobby and would hate for this debate to ruin that enjoyment.
"A third party to recreate..." Any volunteers? Is that possible? I don't want to feel like I'm comissioning an authorized biography or anything.
I would also like to request that if god forbid, this item is facing deletion, that it at least be instead moved to a subpage on my user page so that it is not lost. --Cjmarsicano 21:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWith all due respect, haven't you had your say by nominating the article? --Cjmarsicano 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite if need be. The guy exists and is verifiable by the accepted means. Jcuk 21:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep. Borderline as far as the notability guidelines qare concerned, and may need trimming as an article. If the outcome of this discussion is not to keep, then it would make sense to userfy rather than delete (hell, if I've got a "non-article" about myself in my user pages, there's no reason why CJ shouldn't have). Grutness...wha? 00:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response. By all means, if you think it needs trimming, trim it. Hell, I'd gladly take the Wiki-Xacto knife to it myself since I have a good idea as to what other comments here feel is too much information. Much respect. Besides, if we end up userfying the article and I end up a little more noteworthy later on, I'd hate to put WikiPedia through the pain of having to unuserfy the article. ;)
While I have the floor, I have to say that it's funny, I've been listed as a Notable WikiPedian (aw, shucks -- so I made mention of that on my user page) for several months now and nothing's been brought up questioning it until now. Pretty cool to see my name on the same list as Roger Ebert, Leo Laporte and Phiber Optik. --Cjmarsicano 02:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Response I understand that, and I would like to give you the full benefit of the doubt, but the coincidence between the inquiry I made with an admin yesterday about your wholesale renaming of an entire musical category plus your past questionable activity is a tad glaring. No beef from this end at present though, as my guard was up about you just as much as yours was about me. --Cjmarsicano 02:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one problem with that... those music projects of mine do indeed exist. I agree that the rest needs to be trimmed out into some sort of "Etc." subsection. Reminder: I didn't write the original article. --Cjmarsicano 03:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They are not encyclopedic. You are not a noteworthy musician, and this information is of little interest to anyone who isn't you or one of your friends or relations. Even if this article is retained (and I'd rather not see it kept), it should not be filled with trivia irrelevant to your claim to notariety (save for standard biographical info).
Take a look at Jimmy Carter; save for the (standard for a public figure) information about his childhood, the article is about his political and diplomatic life, not his hobbies or other trivia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hearseburner

edit

Great band name, but it fails the notability test. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 10:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rob 07:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rowan Halsall

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (t·c) 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout Cloud Lee

edit

This article offers nothing of real value and is insignificant.Rlevse 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 due to clear and overwhelming consensus. --Michael Snow 22:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Powers

edit

This strikes me as a vanity. I'm not sure she is significant enough to have an article either. It reads like a resume.--Esprit15d 16:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding photography

edit

This seems to be a vanity page, and an advertisement, not encyclopedic. It seems to me the topic could be a section in Photography. Drn8 20:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BXML

edit

This is recreated material which underwent an AfD here in september (decision was to delete), and was speedy deleted a few days a go for being reposted content. The content has improved somewhat since then, but being reposted, I thought I'd put it up for AfD again. FireFox 15:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my fault. Merge into Ajax. Bjelleklang - talk 23:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Make it into an independent article. If we merged BXML, shall we merge XAML, XUL and many others? If we merged the markup languages, shall we merge Java, PHP and Ruby? They are better to put in different articles. Tomyeh
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 23:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction Italjet motorcycle

edit

ad, no real content, possible copyvio from www.bikez.com Hirudo 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (accountant)

edit

Claims notability, unverifiable MNewnham 15:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep and redirect to List of real names of professional wrestlers. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 03:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professional wrestlers real names

edit

Delete: This is an unwikified list that could potentially reach ridiculous length. The title is grammatically incorrect. Real names are already available within specific articles, rendering this list unnecessary. The list also fails to cite sources, and is already erroneous - "The Undertaker" is said to have the real name "Mark Callaway", when extensive research has indicated that his name is actually Mark Calaway. There are also some privacy concerns where particular wrestlers are involved. McPhail 16:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rossami (talk) 07:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hex (board game) Buy a rollup vinyl Hex board

edit

Aside from the awkwardness of the title, Wikipedia is not... a howto on constructing game boards? This is also an orphan article, and I have no idea how anyone would ever find it. - squibix 16:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NEW page "Hex (board game) (Buy a rollup vinyl Hex board)" is now linked to from the page "Hex (board game)" in the "Physical sets" section. This new page contains no link or reference to any retailer.

This new page is not to be confused with the page under discussion, which has one fewer set of parentheses.

Whichever page you use, if you merge it with the main Hex (board game) page, that's a large image which many users are sure to complain about. They complained about (and removed) my POV-Ray Hex board image (see the discussion page for Hex (board game)), so someone is sure to complain about this image which is less relevant.

Maybe this new page is considered to have an even more awkward title? What other title should I use? It is intended as a side note for the "Physical sets" section. It doesn't take up much room. Delete it if you want, but I don't see what harm it is doing. I hope you will delete this old page but keep the new one. Thanks for your time. --Twixter 16:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus.

I count 5 "deletes", 6 "keeps" (one anon and one suspiciously new user discounted) and 1 "abstain". Azathar is incorrect in his/her assertion that the AFD discussion automatically stops after 5 days. Discussion may continue up until an admin has time or volunteers to close the discussion. That may happen no sooner than 5 days but, due to the backlog, often lasts longer. (Sometimes much longer. The current backlog of only a week is remarkably good.) Late comments are still counted as long as they are fact-based and made in good faith. Rossami (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Fleet

edit

Bravo Fleet is a wikipedia entry about a Star Trek simulation/role playing group. I'm nominating it for Deletion. Deletion Precedents indicate: "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable." As a website, it fails all three WP:WEB guidelines, a Traffic Rank of 1,907,000, only 10 incoming links, [40], less than 5,000 members (around 1,500 total), and no verifiable impact in the national news media. [41] [42]. I'm sure its a great community - but it's not notible enough to warrant an entry by any current policy or guideline. its home is at Memory Alpha - The Star Trek Wiki. Agnte 16:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It doesn't belong at MA - that's for onscreen factoids only - as Bravo Fleet extrapolates and contains non-canon elements (such as ship designs), it would be deleted at MA. As for its position on WP... It's true that it appears to fail to meet the targets you specify, but I believe that it is seen by many as the most notable group in Star Trek RPG (and I am not a gushing fan and member in case you were wondering :) ). The group creator has been interviewed by About.com, appeared on I-SciFi and the group was featured in the book, "The Incredible Internet Guide for Trekkers." Given these references, plus others and the fact that Wikipedia is (as always, it seems) reviewing what constitutes "noteworthiness," I'd just lean over towards keeping. This is clearly not Microsoft visability level, but I feel it is notable to the online & Trek community, both of which are large groups of people. - Hayter 17:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I understand it, and I've only been editing at MA for a short time, the wiki takes no notice of fan groups. Character developments and the like that are seen in non-canon novels are often mentioned at the foot of a page under an 'Apocryphal' section, but sheer fanon (I hate that term) is ignored entirely. So no mention of the USS Extramazing NCC-1023141 or anything of the sort. - Hayter 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just finished looking at some similar afd's (one of which was nominated by myself), have checked the Bravo Fleet site and forums and have reconsidered my position. First, Bravo Fleet (the website) merely serves as a hub for the simming group itself. The majority of 'business' conducted concerning the group is not seen here. I don't mean the emails that relay back and forth with any co-maintained website, but this. Bravo Fleet rules state that every individual game must have its own website. Looking at the group's posted stats, that's 186 websites. Add to this forums and posting groups and the numbers suddenly shoot up. We can't measure the combined visibility of these websites and they probably don't deserve their own articles, but there's no denying they add to the totals presented for Bravo Fleet, given that they are subserviant to it. As well as this, on Wikipedia's notability page for websites, it is stated that with regards to (sign up & read) forums, that a total post count totalling three times the user count is 'good.' The BF forums have a post count that is 64 times the member count. Now I feel this method of judgement is somewhat lacking, but Wikipedia adheres to it and so it should be considered. The page also cites An established comic or site which has set a trend eg. Bob and George, while not the first sprite comic, did inspire many others. This seems to fit Bravo Fleet rather accurately. It was not the first Star Trek RPG group (its own history confirms that "Tango Fleet" is at least a year older) but many ST RPG groups seek to mould themselves in Bravo Fleet's image i.e. a large 'fleet' containing multiple 'task forces' and games. The closest written example to hand I have is taken from Expansion Fleet,
A Feedback/Suggestions forum is opened for all members to discuss freely their ideas and suggestions. This initiative proves succesfull and the idea is born to turn Expansion into something bigger and creating various divisions, similar to the style of Bravo Fleet and Tango Fleet.

Also note that the Wikipedia guidelines regarding website notability are often ignored in individual cases. I have no intention of extensively debating the suitability of these guidelines (as I find them to be largely unobjectionable) or defending this article, but given that the above strengthened my mind on the issue, it may be that it affects others. Clearly piece by piece these 'loopholes' if you want to call them that, don't seem much and don't warrant inclusion by themselves, but there are clearly a number of them in this case making this (I feel) an exception to the general rules. - Hayter 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP I'm a senior member of BF, to be honest, but this group has been around for 8 years, and is a strong member of the Star Trek on-line gaming community. Using WP:NOT, We're not a paper encyclopedia, so, why can't we have a topic like this. Is it hurting anyone by keeping it there? I'm sure you can tell that I am an Inclusionist. Its not slanderous, its verifiable, and we have kept sites that are just as non-notable before. Also, I don't see how it meets the WP:WEB standard: It has won web design awards, and has been included in a book on Star Trek and the creator has been interviewed a couple of times. Also, I'd like to see some definitive reasons it is considered a vanity site WP:VAIN. Is it enough to say it doesn't meet a number thresh-hold (WP:WEB) and that it is vain (WP:VAIN) without citing why?--Azathar 14:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that if any website like this deserves an article on WP it would be Bravofleet but it still doesn't imho. No, it won't hurt anyone if it is kept but neither would it hurt anyone if I put up an article about myself or my own website (which has quite a few number of visitors from around the wordl) yet it still wouldn't be right and is not a reason to keep. Also, the fact that other non-notable sites have articles is not a reason to keep this non-notable site. Two "wrongs" do not make a right. ("Wrongs" is probably not the right word but you know what I mean hopefully.) I just don't see how Bravofleet is encyclopedic and how it has made any impact on anyone not directly involved with it.--Kalsermar 16:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well Kalsermar, you're entitled to your opinion and I am to mine. If we remove BF, then we should start removing articles about a whole bunch of websites. You're right, 2 "wrongs" do not make a "right", so, by your logic, we should be combing all over Wikipedia and AfD'ing a whole bunch of articles on various websites that don't meet your criteria for worthiness in Wikipedia, but may meet some one else's. Granted, that is the point of all this, to gain a consensus, but still, it's better to keep an article then delete one.--Azathar 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, we should not "comb all over Wikipedia" but when I come across a similar article I will nominate it for AfD. AfD discussions are done on the merits of each nomination if and when they come up and should never be based on what other articles might or might not be out there that may or may not be less worthy of inclusion if the article under consideration is deleted. Compare it loosely with a judge who presides over a traffic offence hearing when it is brought before his court and who does not stand on an intersection seeing who else might be doing the same thing and not be ticketed and thus meriting not fining the case he presides over.--Kalsermar 20:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that this group has attracted attention of about.com and a book about Trekkers on the Web (per Hayter) seems to be enough to give it notability. Moreover, it seems to be the largest or one of the largest and one of the longest running Trek RPGs on the web. - Jord 17:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • After going over the AfD rules, this should have ended on the 26th of December. Discounting the Keeps/deletes after the 26th of December still gives this 5 KEEPS and 4 DELETES and 1 ABSTAIN. According to Wikipedia:Consensus, a 2/3rd majority should be used for AfD's, and this by no means has a 2/3rd majority to delete. This AfD should be closed and archived as such. I am recommending to a SysOp such procedure be done.--Azathar 18:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was ambiguous.

The strict "vote count" argues for deletion but Mgm is correct in his assertion that we are required to preserve the attribution history of anything that contributes to an article. This is a requirement of GFDL. At least one edit to the Armenian Genocide article appears to me to have been made with material from this version. Of course, we can not be sure without interviewing every editor - a tactic which is not feasible given the number of anonymous editors to the article.

Comparing the two article histories, I strongly argue against a history-only merger as a way of preserving the attribution history. It would badly confuse the edit history. In this case, I must agree that this sub-page can not be deleted. That brings the "vote count" to 3 to 2 and fails to reach the necessary consensus for deletion. I am going to exercise my discretion, though, and close this discussion as a redirect back to the original article. Rossami (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide/Working version

edit

Working version of heavily edited document. Has been nominated in April, but was a keep because sufficient time hadnt been elapsed to allow for a working version to mature (original discussion to be found here. This working version has seen little activity since. The original article on the Armenian Genocide has been edited extensively and no longer even resembles the working version. The Minister of War (Peace) 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Robert 17:05, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Johnson (Dancer)

edit

Claims notability as both dancer and accountant (wahhhhh?), unverifiable MNewnham 16:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 count 4 "delete" to 2 "keep". My own review of the article does not convince me that this person meets our recommended criteria for inclusion of biographies yet. Rossami (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Green

edit

Non-notable bio Ian Pitchford 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added and referred to a story on the BBC News website, where he won a rap battle. Changing vote to weak keep as prominent representative of a notable style. Sliggy 21:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DAT Poker

edit

Not notable, appears to be advertisement. Delete. -- MisterHand 16:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. DES (talk) 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DART-Tag

edit

Not notable, appears to be a bad faith submission (includes a photo of a muffin for some reason). Delete. -- MisterHand 16:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CHOOKA!

edit

Looks like nonsense though not quite patent. No google hits seem to be relevant. Probably made up. DJ Clayworth 16:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I believe I have heard the term used before, or read it. I asked a computer savvy friend, and he claimed to have encountered the term once being used at his university. -Typo man 16:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DAB Productions

edit

Not notable, appears to be a vanity article. Delete. MisterHand 16:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panda (superhero)

edit

NN. Delete just like Frogboy. gren グレン 16:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GRYPHON productions

edit

Worthy, but NN video production company. Page is basically the resume of owner MNewnham 16:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Andy Rakich

edit

It seems fairly clear that this is a hoax. The diminutive "Andy" was not used in the 12th century, and it sounds like real details have been used with the name of the article's author (or one of his acquaintances) substituted for the originals. Deb 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think so - Delete Tim Fellows 17:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the details are not true either. Eg there was no invasion of England by Louis of France. Ben Fredlund 18:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Douglas-Home

edit

Article on semi-obscure individual which amusingly reads as a press release of his departure of his previous job. The google test on "Mark Douglas-Home" lists 256 results, including wikipedia and not related entries. Mecanismo | Talk 17:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion CSD A 4

Remax templarios

edit

Advertising forNN Realtor. Is there any mechanism for speedy deletion of this kind of stuff? MNewnham 17:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rossami (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden strengths

edit

Unencyclopaedic, and if anything it's a dictionary definition, although that's pushing it. Certainly isn't a literary term. Delete.Peeper 17:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. In addition to the comments below, I find no evidence that this organization meets any of the recommended criteria of WP:CORP. The only evidence I can find of their existence is their own website which describes this group as "a network of some 300 men and women in business". This does not meet my understanding of our current standards for inclusion. Rossami (talk) 08:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EBBF

edit

Poorly written article about an obscure organization which reads like an official site. Google test on "European Bahai Business Forum" lists 357 results Mecanismo | Talk 17:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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) 19:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in the Republic of Macedonia

edit

I originally created this page believing that the Albanian minority in Macedonia was exceptional, or unique, or notable, but since then I have found I was incorrect. They are a small percentage of the population and do not face second class citizen status. I highly doubt that they ever did. The information on this page comes from, almost exclusively, the badly written, highly dubious UNPO website. Every obscure ethnicity in a particular country does not deserve its own page. freestylefrappe 17:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it also attracts hordes of vandals, warriors and spamers. Wikipedia's aim is to be valid and useful encyclopedia, not free-for-all fighting ground. Pavel Vozenilek 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Albanians in Macedonia are hardly obscure. Describing their percentage of the Macedonia's population as anything less than "substantial" is simply wrong. Their parties have been members of ruling coalitions in the country for years, and there was once an abortive armed uprising which was highly publicised in international media. Zocky 17:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --dcabrilo 17:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is important, but as a Macedonian, I am very reluctant to change it, as it would be promptly tagged as POV. I would like to see some Mac. Albanians contributing there, if possible--Cigor 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article might be interesting, especially if somebody expand it with detailed information about area of the Republic of Macedonia inhabited by ethnic Albanians (to specify all municipalities and settlements in which Albanians are majority if possible). PANONIAN (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Albanians in Macedonia are a significant % of the population (higher than African-Americans in the USA or Jews in any country except Israel), have had separatist violence committed in their name and may or may not have been repressed by the Yugoslav and subsequent Macedonian regimes. Carlossuarez46 22:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve Aldux 15:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Records

edit

Article on obscure company which only books obscure acts. Google test on "Darwin Records" lists 372 results Mecanismo | Talk 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Rossami (talk) 08:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evergar

edit

Advertisement for non-notable game. "Evergar" gets about 137 Google hits. Delete. Joel7687 17:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dlx0r

edit

This really seems like it should be a speedy, but I couldn't find any criteria that matched the case. So: advertising for non-notable product, with no relevant Google hits. - squibix 17:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please delete. Will re-add once product is google-able. kokushibyou

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. I will de-pluralise, though. -Splashtalk 17:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore Gamers

edit

This article was previously kept due to no consensus being reached however the article remains poorly written. It further contains definitions of the word that I cannot verify. The term is also used to describe those who value gameplay over Graphics. Even if the term is used frequently in the industry, a fact I doubt as I have worked in and arround the industry for a number of years and while a person may be described as hardcore I have not encountered the phrase in this form, this article is clearly a dictionary definition. While I might support a merge to Gamers or a Transwiki to wiktionary if cleaned up, as it currently stands my vote must be Delete — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 17:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I'm astounded that somebody who has worked in the industry has never heard the term "hardcore gamer". Oh well. -- MisterHand 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I agree that the gameplay/graphics definition is incorrect. If anything, the opposite is true: casual gamers often buy products with fairly poor graphics (like Bejeweled or the Deer Hunter series), while hardcore gamers often spring for very expensive video cards to get maximum graphic effects from the latest glossy FPS. By the most accepted definition, hardcore gaming has more to do with amount of time played than specific game or feature preferences. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd love to know what industry you have worked in ..because it can't be the gaming industry if you have never heard of this term...unless, perhaps you are making learning software for grade-school age children - they typically are not "hardcore" yet. Hardcore gaming is a community, a society, a way of thinking ..its its own little world. I OFTEN hear people who are very hardcore making the comment about preferring content over graphics, but they are also the same people who have (or want) really nice gaming systems. I can see it go both ways. This may need multiple definitions. --Naha|(talk) 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I said I have heard the term "Hardcore" I have never seen it constructed as a phrase to refer to people as a group. I.e. A gamer may be Hardcore but I do not recall ever before hearing of "Hardcore Gamers" And even lacking that problem the article is still nothing more then a dictdef. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Hardcore gamers tend to seek each other out in many games like EverQuest and form large raiding guilds where dozens to a few hundred of them are together at any given time. Birds of a feather flock together hehehe. While they are not always groups, they do tend to manifest as such in many games. That is not to say that the title of this article has to be or needs to be plural ..but I don't see a problem with it, unless it is violating wikistyle. --Naha|(talk) 20:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not into games in the slightest, but I'm familiar with the term. (No vote, haveen't read the article for reasons stated!) --kingboyk 23:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but drop the "s". Golfcam 03:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to video game player. -Sean Curtin 05:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the article is in dire need of expansion, not deletion. I also agree with Golfcam that the plural needs to be removed.--Arcaynn 21:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be expanded and cleaned up. Drop the s. --Slo-mo 06:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. In addition, why can we not just add the adjective of "hardcore" to a variety of things? E.g. hardcore student, hardcore golfer, hardcore driver. Since "hardcore" is a fairly common adjective to use to describe someone more serious than others about something, keeping this article just opens the door to creating more dictionary articles on the previously mentioned articles. --C S (Talk) 11:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Industrialisation of Application Development

edit

Extremely obscure topic. Google test lists on "Industrialisation of Application Development" lists a gapping 3 results, two of which is from the same site. Probably original research Mecanismo | Talk 18:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 17:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forward Radio

edit

Article on very obscure hospital radio station which completely fails the google test (558 hits, all unrelated with the article's subject). To make matters worse, the article was created and was targetted for vandalism in the same day. Mecanismo | Talk 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The author has blanked the page, so I have put it up for speedy delete MNewnham 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (13 delete, 5 keep, 1 transwiki/delete, 1 delete sublists/keep main list). Mindmatrix 19:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Paris, France in alphabetical order

edit

Violates WP:NOT a directory and a list of internal links (and redlinks) at that. Also listcruft. This nomination also includes all 26 pages listed on this page unless anyone objects and thinks they should be listed seperately. Also this is a recreation of Paris streets-list which was deleted. Delete Gateman1997 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ou Effacement. This kind of anorak tendency is not for these parts. doktorb | words 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is part of the Portal:Paris project. These lists are a useful way of finding information. Nobody is saying that every entry is going to be turned into a blue link but the important streets will (and should) have their own entries. Even the red links have some value as a data source. The of lists itself is a clear keep as method of organisation. The sublist commencing with Z for example is now complete. Seeing as this reorganisation has only happened over the last couple of days I suggest giving it some time to see how it works out before deleting it. Also, its not really correct to say that this is a recreation of Paris streets-list - it's a reorganisation which is proposed on that Afd talk page and to which nobody objected. And finally I disagree that this violates WP:NOT a directory - that is using directory in quite a different sense. Dlyons493 Talk 00:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict - I hadn't finished commenting above before you replied. Dlyons493 Talk 00:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, like the lists you usually submit. -- JJay 04:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I learned it all from you. -- JJay 14:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think there's a danger of confusing two separate issues here - the question of the size of these lists/their possibly unencyclopedaic content and the separate question of how to organise a list of streets. Most of the negartive comment above seem to be driven by an understandable wish not to have large lists of unencyclopedaic streets. I suggest the way to achieve that is open to any editor - just go into a list and delete some/all of the entries. Other editors can later recreate articles from scratch for any streets that are notable enough. Alternatively, we can leave some/all the red links as an encouragement for people to turn the important ones blue and that was my motivation for reformatting the original list. There seem to be only about 20 live street links which is too few for a major city like Paris - we should try to encourage creation of others. I think is useful to have the structure of a master list and sublists and I feel it would be a pity to remove that - that would be the result of this Afd as currently formulated. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 08:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another pointless comparison- Hong Kong list created Nov 1, 2004, Paris list created December 2005. That left a bit more of a margin for writing. Oh, and the HK list's discrimination is that it is incomplete, I assume once completed it gets deleted-- JJay 12:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, once it becomes an indiscriminate collection of information it gets reverted. I don't think they're heading in that direction, given the "Here is a partial list" disclaimer. It's incomplete because they haven't included every single notable street, not because they haven't included every single back alley and cul-de-sac. And if this list is unfinished, then as I've said time and again, it can be worked on somewhere else and recreated when it doesn't contravene WP:NOT, at which point it won't be eligible for speedy deletion. Moreover, the Hong Kong article never looked like this - check the history. P.S. What's the verification for this? The back of the Paris A-Z? --Last Malthusian 12:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, verifiability is a major concern. Imagine the havoc that could result if a non-existent street snuck on to one of these lists. Therefore, I guess we should set up a project to source all our road lists such as List_of_roads_and_expressways_in_Singapore, List of Nova Scotia provincial highways, List of numbered routes in Massachusetts. I prefer individual footnotes for each street, but am open to suggestions. The project could run for some time, though, given that there are at least 75 more of these lists Category:Lists of roads. Of course, the better route might be a blanket nom on AfD, particularly if maps such as Paris A-Z are the only available source. -- JJay 02:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, batter creator over the head with Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, repeatedly. The Hong Kong list is discriminate, as it is only the major roads. If you really need this pap, put it in someones user space. Proto t c 13:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would support a merge to List of notable streets in Paris for instance, pruning the list heavily. Normally one assumes that submitters know that "List of x" = "List of notable x", but appears not to be the case here. I generally support deleting all pages where more than 10% of links are redlinks. AKAF 13:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sorry guys, but, as it is, it must go, as it lacks any context. Had I known it would make such a fuss I wouldn't have uploaded it in the first place - true that that kind of data is not easy to come by (and it was a lot of work to compile) but I had second thoughts (Encyclopaedic?) almost right after I saw it in place, and tended to agree with its (almost immediate) nomination for deletion. By the way, this list is in no way "part of" the Portal:Paris project - I uploaded this on a completely different whim. There is still much work to do on the Portal:Paris page so if you would like turn your attention there and take this "data" to a personal page to fill it out somewhat (all those redlinks!) at a more liesurely pace, maybe we can do something with it later. Thanks all the same and cheers. And happy holidays! ThePromenader 18:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've now created Rue de l'Abbaye - a notable street. And deleted Chemin de l'Abbaye- a non-notable one. As AFAK says we want to end up with a list of notable streets - I think the main disagreement is on the best way to achieve this.

  • Delete It's unencyclopedic to have these useless lists of unnotable streets - it just slows down access to notable ones. Link to notable street articles in a 'see also' of the Paris article or one 'streets of Paris' page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Wilson (talk • contribs)

Comment - You know what rings a bell for me? The category "Streets of Paris". If every street in Paris had an article with a "Category:Streets of Paris" tag at the bottom of it, the "Streets of Paris" category page would end up looking like the list of streets. And in alphabetical order to boot. That way the list wouldn't be an article in itself. Articles on every Paris street - WikiProject? The list of streets as it is could be a Talk page "to do" list. Just a thought. ThePromenader 22:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Rue de l'Abbaye it has Streets and squares of Paris and Île-de-France geography stubs - these already existed. Dlyons493 Talk 22:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Paris Streets Wikiproject begun. Cheers! ThePromenader 13:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Frankly I don't see the use of grouping these two together on a "France" page - the general consensus (and even my own, the creator of this error) was to delete this article in favour of attributing categories as indicated in the Paris Streets project. So for this particular list, to the bit bucket!

Comment - Egads - I hadn't realised it had spawned sub-pages! (waving sword) ThePromenader 16:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 20:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winninger Schlomo

edit

Trully obscure character. Google test on "Winninger Schlomo" lists zero results. Mecanismo | Talk 18:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent_designer

edit

Nonsense soapboxing. Merge useful content with God Endomion 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Neologism, delete or redirect to God Endomion 18:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC) (Modified nom Endomion 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

If content is to be merged anywhere, the article cannot be deleted as per the GFDL. Guettarda 19:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the good stuff (if any) to God or redirect to God, but deep-six this article. Endomion 19:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the place for merges. This is deletion. Are you nominating it for deletion, or do you want it merged? You can bring an article for merging here. Guettarda 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Modified nomination Endomion 23:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You "modified" the nomination? Don't you find that to be rather disingenuous? Are we going to play a game of modified nominations until you run out of ideas? Besides, your modification is absurd, and linguistically incorrect. Enough is enough. Jim62sch 00:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, FM, your reasons prove this article is about God. Endomion 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Or the intelligent designer, depending on who you're talking to... That's kinda the point.FeloniousMonk 20:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a whole article to make this point violates the principle that Wikipedia articles are not to be propaganda or advocacy of any kind (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. If ID advocates say the intelligent designer is God, then this article should redirect to God. If they don't identify the intelligent designer, then please don't create original research about such an entity. Endomion 20:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment They don't say the designer is God, so why are you requesting this be redirected to God? This is against your own argument. With all due respect, you're not making any sense. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By apppending the suffix -er, the creator of this stub made an article about a sentient entity, not a movement. FeloniusMonk cites many identifications of God as the source of design by ID proponents on the Talk page of this article. Endomion 03:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's obvious you're just making your objections up. Try google next time before trotting them out. Google gives 284,000 hits for "intelligent designer" [50]. Dembski's book "The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design" has 56 instances of "intelligent designer" alone [51] FeloniousMonk 07:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, FM, putting a binary word like "intelligent designer" into a search engine harvests hits from "intelligent gerbils" and "designer drugs" Endomion 16:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong. By using the " " operators, you limit the search to the specific term at Google. A broad search (without the " " operators) yields 5,340,000 hits as you say. But the 284,000 hits for the narrow search for "intelligent designer" shows it's a well-established concept worthy of its own article. I mean really, if you're going to AFD articles, you should at least know how to Google properly and check the topic on Google properly first. This is exactly the same problem we had with you when you tried to AFD Neo-Creationism. FeloniousMonk 16:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly why I nominated this article on nonsense grounds, this article identifies something that even intelligent design advocates do not identify. It is a backdoor attempt to double the exposure on Wikipedia of the anti-ID POV, which is why I nominated it on the grounds it is a soapbox. Endomion 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think not. In fact, now that the spurious nature of the AFD has been further amplified, I am changing my vote to

Move to Speedy Keep

edit

I move to speedy keep this article and close this AFD. It's not a valid AfD as the nominator is asking for a merge. FeloniousMonk 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your nomination after people have already voted and commented is highly irregular and more than a little disengenous. New arrivals will be under the impression that previous comments are to your current updated reasoning, and will appear out of step. You need to go back, replace your original comments for justifying the AFD, then add your updated comments beneath it or strike-through the old reason. FeloniousMonk 23:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was necessary to reword my nomination because I had politely suggested that any actual descriptive information about this intelligently designer entity could be merged with the God article as a less destructive alternative, but this was used by others operating from bad faith as a pretext to attempt to halt the debate. My current nomination eliminates this technicality. Endomion 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea Nomination is based on inaccurate assertions, and AFD mechanism has been misapplied. Jim62sch 16:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, now that the nom has been changed it doesn't even make sense. Its a daughter article of ID, ID originators and proponenets have stated numerous times that the designer is not necessarily God, the changed nom is a political maneuver on the part of the nominator. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nay, let the AFD run its course.Gateman1997 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ID'ers claim that there is an intelligent designer that is distinguishable from the Christian God; indeed that claim is central to their attempts to get ID into public schools (it's widely acknowledged to be a smokescreen, but they still make that claim). Iceberg3k 22:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Intelligent Design Article is too long, and therefore needs to be split up, and this is obviously a perfect splitoff article. Whether or not there is an "intelligent designer" or not, is irrelavent. It would appear that who ever submitted this artical for deletion is extremely controlling, not wanting to allow others the freedom of thought. I posted a small highly relevant addition to the page and it was deleted almost immediately, I would suspect by the person who wants this page deleted. A person into thought control of that sort, should be considered for banning, if there is a process to ban people. I'm sure this is not an isolated incident for this person.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epsilon Sigma Phi

edit

Article on obscure sorority formed in 1995. Topic is absolutely non-notable and google test on "Epsilon Sigma Phi sorority" lists 155 results, being the results from the official site, geocities and yahoo. Completely void of encyclopedic value. Mecanismo | Talk 18:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angolan banks

edit

Another pointless list article which doesn't list any article whatsoever. Mecanismo | Talk 18:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't believe it can be considered systemic bias. I pointed out a list article without a single valid entry. I wouldn't matter if it was about angolan banks or US banks because the article is still junk. On top of that, categories are better suited than simple articles for this particular purpose, which is another reason to delete this entry --Mecanismo | Talk 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing invalid about the actual banks. The article entries are what is invalid. The links point to articles which don't exist. What's the point of creating a list that links to nothing? Moreover, categories are better suited for the purpose this article aims to achieve. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list gives users examples of notable banks in Angola, and the redlinks encourage them to write articles about them. Also they will automatically turn blue if/when articles are created. I can't see how a plain automatically-generated list would be more useful than this annotated one. Kappa 20:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles are created, it is too easy to add the stubs into a Banks of Angola category. With that the user is automatically creating a automatically maintained list, which can't be achieve with a simple article. I'll start the stubs and insert them into the category to demonstrate what I'm talking about --Mecanismo | Talk 22:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And where in fact does anyone state that they aren't? Please try to read the AFD comment and the discussion. It doesn't do the debate any good if a voter not only doesn't read the article and the discussion but he also keeps misunderstanding and missing the point entirely. --Mecanismo | Talk 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a pointless list article which doesn't list any article whatsoever? As I did not devote the time necessary to deconstruct the philosophical underpinnings of your argument, I will switch to Abstain and withdraw from this debate for now. I reserve the right to return to keep, when I finish reading the discussion from all the keep voters on this page. I also promise to read any comments from delete voters, should they make themselves known-- JJay 00:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the articles really need to be written, then a properly stubbed article does more to advance it than a red link. It is extremely easy to create a properly stubbed article and it is even easier to include it in the right category. Then, if someone adds a category:whatever to the stubbed article, that user is also creating/expanding a list which is kept automatically and doesn't need any maintenance. So, a list article with red links not only doesn't facilitate the creation of new content but it also, compared with category pages, needs a lot more care and maintenance than a category page. Therefore, the list articles which are made redundant by category pages should be deleted in favour of the category pages, which is exactly this case and that is why the AFD should be deleted. --Mecanismo | Talk 00:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • They aren't. It can be seen as a manifestation of the editor's lazyness because it is extremelly easy and even trivial to create and stub an article. To make matters worse, sometimes a red link is created eventhough the article already exists.--Mecanismo | Talk 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't nice. All contributions are good unless they are vandalism or biased. Golfcam 03:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia disagrees with you Mecanismo "Links to non-existing pages are common. They are typically created in preparation of creating the page, and/or to encourage other people to do so." Based on that and the Canadian Banks precedent, I change my vote to STRONG Keep Jcuk 08:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclovandalism

edit

I hope this isn't an example of the phenomenon it describes LOL. Ayway it doesn't google, and a being mentioned once on television doesn't demonstrate that it's an established concept, not a nonce word. Kappa 18:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. A7. -R. fiend 19:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nix mehr kosmos

edit

Band which is as obscure as it gets. Google test lists zero results and band isn't listed on allmusic guide. Article admits they are nothing more than a local band. Probably vanity band article. Mecanismo | Talk 18:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superducktoes

edit

Non-notable website [53]. - Liberatore(T) 18:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SAVE

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race In The City

edit

Sounds like a fun activity, but ultimately is not particularly notable and fails to meet WP:CORP. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Activedoc

edit

This page has been transwikied to WiktionaryScrappy36 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Scrappy[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 R. fiend ("borders on libel"). howcheng {chat} 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Crusaders

edit

Non-notable "organization?" Speculation. J. Nguyen 19:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. If the NPOV problems cannot be solved, it can be brought back here. -Splashtalk 20:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of unfulfilled Christian Prophecy

edit

Article does not conform to the Wikipedia NPOV policy. It is not a scientific point of view that these events are prophesied, and an argument can be made that the article suggests that these prophesies and their results are seen as cause and effect, or having a pro-Christian bias. Tried to put an NPOV boilerplate at the top of the page, but a comment attached to a revert edit suggested I recommend for deletion.

  • Keep there are a few POV entries (ie the Pat Robertson one) however many of them are verifiable Christian prophesies that failed.Gateman1997 19:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep could use some cleanup and expansion. To be honest, I really don't follow the argument of the nominator- that is, I don't understand it. --Krich (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though a copy-edit is in order. Anville 20:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is formulated in a POV way in how nearly every term on the page is defined. The result is an article that would be more accurately titled Some formal and informal predictions and guesses and statements of opinion made by some people who might have been associated with Christianity either by themselves or by being characterized as such by someone else. The inclusion of "prophecies" by individuals who specifically claim that they are not making prophecies (Hal Lindsey for example) is just one case of this. Dalf | Talk 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To make my objection clearer, the article’s title is in conflict with its content. The inclusion of any cult, splinter sect, or other group at all associated with Christianity is not what the average reader is going to think they are coming to read about when they see the phrase ‘’Christian Prophecy’’. Most people expect that this term is going to apply to ‘’’biblical prophecy’’’, or at the very minimum conform to some academic standard of what is and what is not (A) Christian and (B) A prophecy. The primary author of this article has stated on the talk page that pretty much any statement of opinion about the future by anyone who says that are Christian or any member of a religion derived form Christianity (even if the person also say they are not making prophecy) is worthy of inclusion.
I disagree. When I came here I was expecting any prophesy made by Christian leaders since the Old testament... and that's what has been placed here.Gateman1997 22:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
comment Who is the arbiter of who is a Real Christian or not? I didn't read through every single link on the page, but the several of which I did appear to be statements made by people who professed to be christian. I think that pretty much anyone who professes to be a christian, and has Jesus Christ somewhere in their doctrinal belief system in some form or fashion is indeed a christian. If someone is listed where an argument can be made that no one considers them even a fringe christian, that argument should be played out in editing the article. --Krich (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The problem comes in when including predictions which got the people who made them labled heritics by the church of their day. Or by groups that even the author of the article charcterizes as cults. I understand the argument that anyone who wants to be called X should be allowed to be called X but at the same time others who also call themselves X may not want to be grouped with the others. In this case considering what the general populas will anticipate when encounted with X is important. A real example is the use of Islamic and Islamist on wikipedia inorder to maintain NPOV. Dalf | Talk 08:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point - however, whether or not some members of group X (christians) like it when others with different doctrinal beliefs identify themselves as christians doesn't matter. One person's "sect" or "cult" is another person's Truth. If a person or group makes a religiously-based prediction of the future, and they self-identify as christians - I don't see how they could be excluded from this article. Some entries perhaps should be removed, others edited. However, again, I feel these issues are best worked out in discussion at the article itself, not at a deletion vote. Yes, the article has flaws... it should be fixed, not deleted (in my opinion, of course). Thanks, --Krich (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as you like, so long as by doing so you are not under the illusion that we are somehow avoiding decideing "what christianity is or is not" by doing so. Either way you step on someone. I do agree that a lot of the content of the article is worht keeping, I just thinking a more NPOV title would be approprate. A title that would give the article somewhat less vauge and less offensive context. Regards, Dalf | Talk 09:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
not "christian?" Sez who? --Krich (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is a bit, rough but the fact that the critera for inclusion on the page is not acceptable rigiorus or NPOV is pretty easy to understand. I think an article about the history of predictions of christs return (or the end of the earth) is worthwhile, I do not think the current title is approprate for it however. Dalf | Talk 08:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. POV is only a basis for deletion if the problem cannot be corrected within the article. Nominator makes no claim that this is the case. Durova 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I can see how some may want to interpret this article as non-NPOV (as any religiously themed article invariably is by some), fundamentally the article is simply a collection of facts and makes no attempt to lend interpretation to the failed prophecies (nor should it) and therefore is relatively immune to POV encroachment. Although I think that all the claims should be properly documented as it could be very easy to insert out of context statements and complete fabrications. The topic is worthy of an article and any POV issues within the ariticle can be corrected within the article (eg. inclusion of a broader Christian history). mhunter 07:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting and NPOV in my view (per Hunter). Needs a clean up and perhaps a change of title, unfulfilled ambiguously connotes both failed (as the article means) or not yet come to pass, but still may such as a prediction that the Dallas Cowboys may win the 2006 Superbowl. Carlossuarez46 22:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Carlossuarez46 on that.Tommstein 18:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suspect the nomination for deletion has more to do with the nominator's POV than any perceived POV in the timeline. These prophesies were made and didn't pan out. That's historical fact.
  • Keep. As the original author of the article I naturally want it to stay. I was inspired to create this article by the Elizabeth Barton article which appeared on 23 September 2004 on the "Wikipedia's new articles" section of the front page. I then realised that many people within the Christian church have prophesied all sorts of things that have not come to pass, and that it would be important to have a record of it. I am an evangelical Christian myself (see my user page) and I do not find it POV to have a record of wrongs from the Christian church that I am part of. In fact, I think it is actually of great service to the church for this page to exist. I need to point out that Dalf and I have discussed this article on its talk page and we have very different opinions as to what is defined here. Dalf takes the pov that prophecies by Jehovah's Witnesses (for example) shouldn't be included since he does not regard the JWs as part of the Christian Faith. I actually agree with this sentiment, being the conservative evangelical that I am - but because this is an encyclopedia, people who have made specific prophecies as part of the "visible" church should be included here. Putting Pat Robertson here would only be pov if he had made some vague opinion about Bush winning by a landslide and for others to descide that it was a prophecy. The fact is that Pat DID in fact tell his television audience that God had given him the message that W would win by a landslide - so his inclusion in the article cannot be pov since his actually did make a prophecy and it did not come to pass. A change in title is okay, but needs to be discussed. If the title is misleading, then surely the opening paragraphs make it clear what it is about. --One Salient Oversight 00:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is awesome! Of course from many perspectives this might be condsidered biased, I think we can easily get around that with a note of possible bias. This is great information.
  • Keep; many items need revision for clarity (I didn't understand the 1981 Oral Roberts thing, was it unforfilled or not?) but this is a useful collection of information. Sunnan 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In 1981, Oral Roberts had a vision of a 900ft tall Jesus who told him to build the "City of Faith Medical Center" which would be some wonderful Christian medical research institute that would bring glory to God etc etc etc but it went belly up about 10-12 years later due to financial problems.--One Salient Oversight 04:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Macromanagement (computer gaming)

edit

pointless unnecessary dicdef article, simply the opposite of micromanagement (computer gaming).

wouldnt it do more good merged with micromanagement (computer gaming) (as it was merged, previously, before somebody decided to separate it out again). if not, then it fails dicdef.Zzzzz 17:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Players do not generally use this term to refer to the higher aspects of the game, they rather talk about strategy vs micro, or with similar concepts. This word only exists as a back-formed word, an extension on the idea of micromanagement. However the concept is real, even though the exact word to use is in question. Santtus 14:38, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, per Grue. Stifle 00:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Origology

edit

Neologism to promote another Wiki (what there are others!) MeltBanana 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau (talk) 12:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas J. Lee

edit

Delete. Non-notable, which isn't fixed just by being old - appears to be a genealogy project gone awry. Nothing links here. Bantman 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Guillette

edit
  • Delete* It's likely a page to promote self-importance. He's non-notable, and less than a minor footnote in Alachua County.

Being a Member of Alachua County Republican Executive Committee or finishing third for mayor of a small town don't make notablilly. Fails WP:BIO Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 18:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gutslice

edit

Delete. It's non-notable under WP:Music for one thing. The band has only been around since June. Secondly, it's written by a musician for the band, who kept on removing the delete notice. Iinag 19:23 21 December 2005

  • Speedy delete - new wikipolicy, you can nominate speedy delete for groups of people by tagging nn-band or nn-club Zzzzz 20:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for telling me about that one, Zzzzz. I had originally put this up for Speedy Delete-- in fact, I put this and an EP of theirs up for it around thirty times each -- and on each occasion, they kept taking it down. I was told to stop trying and move it to AFD, but clearly the new wikipolicy covers this. On the talk page, the author is trying to justify their inclusion in Wikipedia because they were involved in a minor show that they organised themselves. It's madness what some people will do. Iinag 20:17 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Self promotion of a nn band. --kingboyk 00:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not speedy as they have released a record albeit not a particularly successful one which is an assertion of notability. A speedy delete band article would just say that they are a band that hasnt released any material at all. Capitalistroadster 00:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
i thoght they had to *release* an album to have an assertion of notability? they could have just "recorded" onto a cassette tape with a walkman judging by the article. Zzzzz 08:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cut Yourself

edit

It's a recording produced by a band (Gutslice) non-notable under WP:Music, who have only been going for six months. Their biggest claim to fame is playing at a concert that they organised themselves, and this article was itself written by a band member. Iinag 19:32, 21 December 2005

Comment Isn't their a new policy that saids non-notable bands can be Speedly-deleted? Banana04131 21:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Here it is. WP:CSD Banana04131 21:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I thought that it should be speedily deleted as an NN band, but my notice for that got deleted scores of times. Iinag 21:12, 21 December 2005
Comment Oh well... its going to be deleted anyway. LOL [54] I'm going to watch to make sure the AFD notice doesn't disappear. -Banana04131 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment(s): You're right, Banana :D; unless there's some further lunacy, that is. As for non-notable recordings not having a category but non-notable bands having one; that's as mad as nn authors being speedible, but not nn books. I will have to try to raise that... somewhere. Iinag 01:38, 21 December 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reed College Co-op

edit

This is a non-notable college co-op. At best it should be merged with Reed College, but I don't think it even merits that, frankly. Delete JDoorjam 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 23:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Forest Cafe

edit

A very noble effort, but not particularly notable. Could not find any reliable sources via Google. howcheng {chat} 19:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theforest.org.uk/about_who.php Hope that helps. Zyarb 19:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: It's not about whether it exists or not, but if it's notable enough to have it's own article at Wikipedia. Bjelleklang - talk 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware. I figured the "About" page might help in deciding whether or not it actually is notable enough. Zyarb 20:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you could find some newspaper references, or a BBC article, or something else that meets our verifiability criteria, I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. howcheng {chat} 22:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Unless someone could create an article about art venues in Edinburg (which is already listed on Edinburgh), and if so, merge.Keep Bjelleklang - talk 19:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Much of the point of the place is it is alternative, so it is not generally featured in the 'mainstream' media (but here's several mentions of it in a major newspaper anyway: [55] [56] [57]), but it is very well known within the alternative scene in the city, and often mentioned on Indymedia etc [58]. It is unique within Edinburgh as it is not for profit / volunteer run etc. Note there are articles about various other Edinburgh arts venues, eg. Pleasance, C venues, Dean Gallery etc, are you suggesting merging all of those? Vclaw 22:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unless credible sources could be found, I would rather have seen this as part of an article featuring several art venues, than delete it. Wouldn't nescesarily merge all the existing, but would have mentioned them and made a link to existing articles if nothing else. Changed my opinion to keep thanks to the sources you referred to. Bjelleklang - talk 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Civilized Tribes Museum

edit

Appears to be a non-notable museum. Also, the page is is largely self-promotion, and there are 953 Google hits for "The Five Civilized Tribes Museum". --Khoikhoi 19:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But that's why there's a Five Civilized Tribes article already. The whole The Five Civilized Tribes Museum article is full of self-promotion. --Khoikhoi 00:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ALUA

edit

Transwikied to Wiktionary Scrappy36 19:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 17:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the last man

edit

Delete: no significant content. Gaius Cornelius 19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following Kappa's edit we now have the right spelling for the author and he can be tracked down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaius Cornelius (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn by Jdoorjam. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Siegler

edit

He's had an interesting career, I suppose, but is simply not notable. JDoorjam 19:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep I remember Siegler posting on the same BBS message board as me years ago, so I somewhat know who he is. --MisterHand 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, I wrote the article, so I would just look silly if I voted otherwise. :) There aren't that many Wikipedia articles linking to him, but for instance a Google search for "Joe Siegler" (including the quotes) gives me about... 73,500 hits, if that means something. If you are active in the Apogee/3D Realms community (or one of its game-specific sub-communities), you know who he is. He is of course also synonymous with Dopefish. Anyway, I figured that was enough when I wrote it. Maybe I was wrong? Retodon8 23:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apogee's influence in the computer games world is enormous, particularly considering its size, and Siegler has contributed significantly to it. Kragen Sitaker 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 02:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will confess (at the obvious and critical! detriment of the AfD) to know very little about Dopefish. I would guess it's a cold-blooded animal off of which one can get high. While I can't close the AfD, I'd ask an admin to do so, and would gently suggest the notability be stressed more sharply in the article for those of us who have not browsed across those 73,000 hits. Cheers, JDoorjam 03:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TravelMate 8000

edit

Technical specs of a specific Acer laptop MNewnham 20:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emily DeGoey

edit

This is an unotable person. User has a bad deletion record and seems to hit WP every few months. I have been checking daily to see if User:DeadFishEater has vandalized, and they sure did today (See Lunchables) FireSpike 20:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fisher Aimes

edit

DELETE this nonsense. If such a person truly existed (and really wrote the First Amendment to the United States Constitution), he'd ring up more than 35 google hits. In fact, the entire Bill of Rights was actually drafted by James Madison, who used George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights as a model - and the language went through several drafts in committee in Congress before a final version was settled on. Also, the terminology and phraseology of the quotes attributed to this person are highly unlikely for someone speaking in the 18th Century. This is either a hoax or a joke. BD2412 T 20:06, 21 December 2005 (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EventMe.com

edit

Seems to be just an advertisement for the website

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI and DELETE, creation apparently accidental. -Splashtalk 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AM Showers

edit

This appears to be a dictionary entry; however, it also does not appear to meet the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion Scrappy36 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (8 keeps, 4 deletes, 1 rename, 1 comment, 1 anon vote) Renata3 18:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of proven conspiracies

edit

Random hodgepodge of "conspiracies". What is the point? Mirror Vax 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I think the point of it is to show that many theories that allege a conspiracy actually turn out to be true. Perhaps you didn't notice the word "list" in the title? zen master T 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the point is to organize and enable users to find information about proven conspiracies. Kappa 21:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it's a good idea for a list, and most of the entries are concise. -- MisterHand 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, recreate with a NPOV title, and heavily edit. The current title implies a pro-conspiracy-theory POV, and may be taken to imply "look, all these conspiracies were proven, thus my conspiracy is valid". This should be something like "list of historical conspiracies" or "list of successful plots". Besides, half of the content on that page are by definition not conspiracies, such as secret government projects, anti-Nazi resistance, etc. Flyboy Will 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By literal definition any theory that alleges a conspiracy can be labeled a "conspiracy theory". The list is important to disassociate between "conspiracy theories" that are definitely proven and ones that are represented as being false. zen master T 21:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, a "facial wipe" can mean the back of my hand or my sleeve; and an "action figure" is any figure capable of any action. The "proven conspiracy" to me in the list title has a very strong air of a "conspiracy theory", in its actual accepted definition. A list of proven conspiracy theories is very, very different from a list of conspiracies as in plots. Flyboy Will 22:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is "conspiracy theory" and even "conspiracy" is often assumed or represented as being false, the list of proven conspiracies exists to correct that misconception. When you say "accepted definition [of 'conspiracy theory']" what do you mean exactly? zen master T 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and split by broad type, most of these are military coups or underground resistance movements, so economical agreements to fix prices should be on a separate page - not in the least because the list can and will become extensively long. Rename to "List of conspiracies" - anything not a proven conspiracy is unverifiable and therefore not valid on the list. Radiant_>|< 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is. Nothing is wrong with the article, the definitions are all accurate. Avengerx 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, drivel. From Conspiracy: a conspiracy is an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime. How's WWII resistance conspiracy? Who did conspire in Dreyfus affair? How is Caesar assassination different from other political murders? What is conspirational on project MKULTRA? I see no chance to keep content of this article valid. Listcruft. Pavel Vozenilek 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is cartel to drive prices (of DRAM) up conspiracy? If so what isn't conspiracy? The article is extreme original research in selecting few points in history and labeling them with certain term (and claiming absurd notion of proveness). Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is, conspiracies are any meeting including more than two people talking about a secret. Only as a legal term does it only apply to crimes. They where conspiracies even if they are not secret now, even in legal terms. Notability is not a problem, we use wikipedia standarts, size is not a problem, this is not a paper encyclopedia, we can creat breakout articles if it get to big. --Striver 20:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with no enthusiasm; I think Flyboy Will is right about the intent of the page. I would prefer to see all the list of conspiracies pages merged and drastically edited. I don't see that happening. If we delete this page, the same motivation will result in the same content reappearing elsewhere. The same motivation leads people to edit-war for a favorable definition of Conspiracy theory, to try to get conspiracy theory removed from article titles, and to put up Coincidence theory. In List of proven conspiracies, the desire is to have a page that says, "They laughed at Wilbur and Orville" without having it say, "and they laughed at Bozo the Clown." Not actually being able to find a Wilbur and Orville, the page has become a rather bland list of events that involved secret plans. As such, I think it's useful enough to keep. Tom Harrison (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • My main complaint is that the article lacks focus. And so everyone has a different idea of what the article is about, or should be about. That's not a solid foundation to build on. Mirror Vax 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep with regret. Of the three consipracy lists I found today, this is actually the only one with any real merit, since it's the one which contains only proven conspiracies. But actually I think a category would be better: if the conspiracy theory is not big enough for an article, it's not big enough period. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Does not meet WP:CITE standards. --Chalko 05:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is worth helping people with things like ideas for research by making it clear what conspiracies are generally believed or made public, such as MKULTRA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.114.240 (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Conversations on Success

edit

Non-notable book Ian Pitchford 20:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karpathium

edit

A neologism, with quasi-mystic gobbledygook attached. If only I could find a reason to speedy MNewnham 20:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Viking definition is indeed correct. I am a anthropologist and can verify. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 1.136.227.253 (talk • contribs)

Comment: 71.136.227.253 blanked this AFD discussion in this edit. Stifle 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARFCN

edit

Transwikied to Wiktionary Scrappy36 20:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Meersman

edit

Non-notable DJ in small market Nv8200p talk 20:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to the above comment. A Very notable DJ in a highly complex radio market. A large star in not just this market. He is listened and loved worldwide over the internet. Keep Not keeping this would be a huge mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.223.135.77 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 22 December 2005


Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.223.135.77 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 22 December 2005


To not keep this entry would be rediculous. This DJ is one of the most entertaining in the entire state of Illinois. Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.203.96.174 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 23 December 2005

He is a local celebrity in Champaign-Urbana and well known throughout Illinois. Keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.208.67.196 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 23 December 2005

i vote to keep Dr. Meersman. He is a huge celebrity in Illinois and should be honored for his creativity. He is listened all over the world and loved by all of his Meersmaniacs. KEEP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.189.76.10 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 24 December 2005

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Funkerrock

edit

Non existant band - the band, including their home page is made up as a viral marketing project or something by an Austrian PR Agency. The few Google results all trace back to the agency. Same thing in the German WP: de:Funkerrock --Inza 12:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted 21 December. Robert 20:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 23:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudius Silvanus

edit

Seems like a made-up story and is un-encyclopedic. Anti-Anonymex2Come to my page! I've gone caliente loco! 20:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This debate is difficult to interpret since there are clear concerns about the article that have been denied rather than addressed. The final comment suggests it may be original research, but opts to keep it: WP:NOR is not negotiable, and you cannot couple it with a recommendation to 'keep'. There's no consensus on what should presently be done with this article, so it isn't deleted. I get the feeling that this AfD should not prejudice a future one, nor any merging/redirection that may result from discussion. -Splashtalk 20:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Korean pride

edit

Delete. This article is full of POV and is as pointless as creating articles such as Turkey pride, Greek pride, Japanese pride, Chinese pride. In addition, the main (and really only) contributor is User:Atrahasis, who has made his reasons for creating this page pretty clear on Talk:Hwang Woo-Suk: "This amounts to no less than a tacit desire by the majority of Koreans that they desired glory even if it meant they had to cover up the truth. This is a kind of vanity which Wikipedia defines as "the excessive belief in one's own abilities". At worst it cn also be called a kind ofnarcissism, which Wikipedia defines as "a pattern of thinking and behaving in adolescence and adulthood, which involves infatuation and obsession with one's self to the exclusion of others". Not that self-respect is bad, but as far as Korean pride is concerned, it is a kind of extraverted pride that is not really different than something like white pride which believes in the inherent superiority of oneself or one's race over others. The issue of Korean pride is also a valid complaint by foreigners who deal in the academic and business worlds in Korea." C S (Talk) 21:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chan-Ho, as far as I know it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to make personal observations on the Talk Pages of an article. What you're sying here is that you don't like what I'm saying, which is perfetcly fine, but what you need to do is to come up with logical and relevant reasons that refute my points. --Atrahasis 03:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is not perfectly acceptable to let your rant on a talk page spill over and become an article, which is what has happened here. Your Korean Pride article is in effect just a continuation of your endless theorizing on the Hwang Woo-Suk talk page. It is, in fact, original research. Your article is not a properly sourced scholarly article fit for an encyclopedia; rather, it is an amalgamation of your theories of "Korean group-think" and "Korean hierarchy", which you use to explain the Hwang situation. --C S (Talk) 08:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A rant maybe to you, probably because you have so far failed to reflect deeply enough on the issues brought up in the article, which is your own personal failing, and not mine. As for the claim that it is "original research", I challenge you to pick out any specific part of it that can't be backed up factually. Korean group-think exists. Korean hierarchy exists. Korean inventions and discoveries exist. Korean pop culture exists. Seoul's economic and cultural dominance in Korea exists. What part of any of this do you have a problem with, other than the general rant that you have made that you don't like it? --Atrahasis 08:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is NOT a racist article. Anyone can check over my user history and see that I have made many and deep contributions on the topics of Korean culture, food, and history, all of them factual and neutral. If anyone calls this article racist, they should stop making the fallacy of such a general comment and precisely point out which part or parts it is that they are referring to. As it now stands, it has a balanced structure, exploring both positive and negative aspects of the very real topic of "Korean pride", which people who have had dealings in Korea and/or with Koreans end up talking about, because it can be a source of consternation for them and at times even ends up affecting international relations. For people who need a reference, there may be comments like these in internet cafes where foreign English teachers in Korea frequently make them, though they may be deleted rather quickly. I suggest people explore such forums to get a taste of what this phenomenon is all about. --Atrahasis 03:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.naver.com/news/read.php?mode=LSD&office_id=001&article_id=0001175416&section_id=102&menu_id=102

  • Also, take a look at what professors and acadmeics and commentators are saying about Korean Pride...the following is an exceprt from a link on Wikipedia's Hwang Woo-Suk page. --Atrahasis 04:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The final domino to fall will be "Korean Pride," when Koreans fully confront Hwang's fraud.

But in the words of Joseph Steinberg, "South Koreans have to learn to . . . replace pride . . . [with] confidence. "

How do they do that? Cho Se-mi suggests that (among other things) Koreans should "pursue excellence." I'd add that they should strive to be honest in, e.g., their pursuit of a university degree, where honesty would entail actually doing the work required rather than plagiarizing so much. The problem lies not just in academics, of course, but also in the Korean business world, whose level of dishonesty foreigners constantly complain about.

I also think that Korea needs to develop a culture of discussion, and that would entail a flattening of the hierarchical social system to enable juniors to openly question their seniors.

But that will take a while.

posted by Horace Jeffery Hodges

http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/

  • This topic may be controversial but strictly speaking it is no more "racist" than Wikipedia's article on race and intelligence for example. Moreover, people who try to compare the inherent national pride of X country with Korean pride are making a generalization which is inherently illogical. What this article does is try to point out the special characteristics of a phenomenon that both Koreans and foreigners consistently refer to and has big impacts on Korean society, and to delete it would mean the censors win, which is against the spirit of wiki as well as free and progressive thinking for that matter. Moreover, denying the existence of the phenomenon does not do the Korean people any good either, because the next step in the evolution of Korean consciousness and society is to confront this problem and discuss it and perhaps even find ways to deal with it, which presumably would end up with the betterment of all. It has especially come to the forefront because of the Hwang affair, a situation (if you think about it deeply) many say was brought about by Korean pride on the part of Hwang (his desire to make Korea a research hub and also Nobel Prize considerations) and even him using it to keep all of his underlings silent. Remember, it was the head of the Mizmedi hospital, Roh Sung-Il, who first blew the whistle, and not any of Hwang's underlings. In a free and open society, for soemthing like this you would think there would have been a whistle-blower from within the research team ranks, at least anonymously. And yet there wasn't. The interesting question is, what kind of a hold does one have to have on his subordinates to commit such a fraud? There is the hierarchical power structure to be sure, but motivations of national pride had to have come into play as well. This is why discussions of Hwang will inevitably bring up the issue of Korean pride, which makes the topic not only real but also relevant these days. It is only logical to begin discussing it. --Atrahasis 06:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say it should be Kept for now. If it is to be preserved as its own page, more external links (such as the ones you, Atrahasis, just mentioned) should be added. Or could it possibly be put as part of a different Asian Pride article? The current Asian Pride article seems more focused on Asian-American culture. Perhaps a broader focus or seperate article could be established, like Asian Pride(global), or something? --Mysterius 24 December 2005
Thank you, and the probelm with finding links for this kind of thing is that it's not something that English speakers will speak about often with any great depth of knowledge because it's probably a tad politically incorrect to do so and can be miscontrued as some kind of hate ranting. Thanks for pointing out the Asian pride link, this lends quite a bit of support to the existence and nature of the topic at hand. --Atrahasis 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yeah keep the article but merge it with Korean Nationalism wiki page ##
  • I think this article should be kept. I think that Korean pride

is very unique in its nature and this acknowledged by quite a few koreans I know. I think the article is reasonably balanced but needs cleaning up. --nzfooty 26 December 2005

I totally agree, more people should consider ways to add to the article. --Atrahasis 08:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the same as Korean nationalism, because it's possible to not really care about the country of Korea per se but at the same time have pride in being Korean or thinking that Koreans are superior in some way. --Atrahasis 08:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Korean Nationalism" and "Korean Pride" are two different ideas. For example, in many Chinatown, Chinese who does not have Chinese nationality and does not endorse the current Chinese government still have high regards in the culture he or she passes down. I don't think this is "nationalism" but "pride". Right now, most Koreans do live in Korea, but for those living outside and not having Korean nationality, is it improbable for them to not to have the same mentality? If Korean immediately becomes "un-Korean" once he or she loses nationality and leaves Korea, then we have to argue whether the only thing binding them together is "nationalism" and that Korean entirely lacks "pride". Certainly Korean has to have both "nationalism" and "pride" and both has to be distinct. -- Revth 05:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I totally agree, thanks for picking up on that. --Atrahasis 08:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even when this looks like a clear original research to me, I'm casting my vote to keep it for political reasons. Why, Chanho Suk listed this article on AFD for political reasons to start with -_- Alright everyone, let's start pulling scholarly references and all that. I wish I was still in college to have access to journal databases.. --Yonghokim 05:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 15:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVVID

edit

Transwikied to WiktionaryScrappy36 21:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (3d/1k), given the qualifying comments. Mindmatrix 19:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

East London Inventors Club

edit

NN Club, not part of university where meetings are held MNewnham 21:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farahad

edit

Non-notable game. Looks like a dozen Google hits, the rest refer to random people with Farahad as a proper name. Ifnord 21:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it is a notable game, there is an entire community of people behind this, and it has been around for over 4 years! Games like Utopia have large articles, and I think that this encyclopedia would be a perfect place for the community (built around farahad) to contribute information for it.
If you google farahad (which SHOULD NOT BY ANY MEANS be a factor in deciding if it exists, as you're basically letting google decide what stays and what goes) the first thing that pops up _is_ this game.
The article will expand fast, I and others are currently working on it. This game has just a right to be here as Utopia has, as Utopia just has a much larger playerbase. Many people have played farahad, and right now it's playerbase is kinda low due to some circumstances, but again, many have played before. (Probably over a thousand, easily)
Hell, I figure, if this article is deleted, you may as well delete small townships of 100-300 people in Northern Ontario. Those townships aren't notable, and come up with tons of hits when you throw their name in google, yet these townships have the right to have an article exist about them.
Give this article a chance, it will develop and be widely used as a reference amongst the community. Not to mention, it's much easier to explain to (wiki)people who wanna know wtf I'm doing if I just paste them the link for this article about the game hehe--Cheevz 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Cheevz[reply]
OK, Cheevz, let me try to exmplain the problem here from my perspective. In the case of small towns in wherever, the information is verifiable in the Wikipedian sense of being verifiable from trusted secondary sources (census data etc.). Minor games, especially online ones, are not verifiable by these criteria: they are generally written about only by fans (who are not neutral) and mainly in the blogsphere (which is not a trusted authority). So "non-notable" in these cases is a shorthand for subjects which, due to their limited currency, cannot be verified as being covered in a neutral and factual way. Plus we don't allow every stone to have an article, there is a threshold below which the "who would care?" test applies. Finally, WP:ISNOT either a promotional vehicle or a crystal ball. Adding articles for games which are not, as yet, widely played, looks like an attepmt to drum up interest based on speculations of future success - a sort of Wiki bootstrap. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I find more effort put into your rationale of keeping the article then you put into writing it, certainly it's longer. AfD's last for five days, you have time to improve, cite sources, and convince people (and me) to change our minds. (BTW, I nominated this article.) Ifnord 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Ok, keep in mind I'm new but again, I don't want to put work into this unless it stays. Other people who contribute will probably say the same, the reason I put more "words" (and by your logic that means effort :|) is because I care about keeping this article here so I can put more resources. Don't worry, this article is a stub atm (im learning how to make it official stub, heh) --Cheevz 21:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of the people working on the article are new, give them and I (I am new) a chance to write this and make it more professional. I think it's important to get player numbers published, and more statistics about this game: Atm there are two users who put their comments, which doesn't seem to wiki to me, what does everyone else think? Is it too subjective? Maybe we should have a link to player reviews and just add a fact that 'there are many players who believe this is a great game' (then throw in... but, there are also many criticisms about... <insert what I'm inserting tomorrow about it's criticisms>) etc... Nomme sayin'?----
  • Delete Btw, I read the last note left previous, and I agree about neutrality/sources, and this game can get past that, with a little time for me to get sources from online game review sources. As for the "who would care" argument, I don't think it applies because there is a positive - more than a few interested getting satisfaction - and very little negative - a small amount of wikipedia article storage that is giving this article a run to see if it turns out successful, if not, I agree it should be deleted. And again, this is not a promotional tool (or crystal ball? whatever that may be)... there are better mediums for that. I sincerely believe this game does need an article explaining it, and I think it would be productive not only for the farahad-gaming community to create this article, but also for those interested in knowing what Farahad is for finding it out. If the players who thus far commented on it seemed like they're promoting it, then agian, this can be fixed (I'll coolaborate with them). Not everyone is used to the concept of wiki, so again, a little time for us/them to figure it out would be greatly appreciated (especially more than the 5 days or so granted by the deletion process)----
  • Comments without "vote" - 1) Player testminonials tend to help delete an article; third-party references tend to help keep it (gaming blogs connected to fans of the game fall in the first category, not the second); 2) Wikipeda is not a crystal ball (either the game is successful or notable now or it isn't), and because of that, it must deal with the here and now; 3) Keep rewriting the article, but if it smells of self-promotion and reeks of POV, it will be deleted; 4) No matter the final result of this AfD, your hard work in good faith is always appreciated here; 5) To give more weight to your comments, please sign them with ~~~~. B.Wind 18:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. I can find hardly anything about this game while Utopia has scads of references to it. You can't use Wikipedia to market something; come back after it's become popular and we'll be just begging to have an article for it. You can call me Al 18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, it doesn't matter if it's notable. It is there and has been there for a long time. Just as many small northern Ontario towns have articles concenring them, yet these towns aren't notable by any means. Yet they exist, and have the right to. Regarding references/player opinion: I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, recently, after 4 years of active involvement in this game, I quit because the game creator made a completely irrational decision to restart the game. Anyways, enough of that boring talk: I vote for this articles deletion as I won't be contributing to it any more (0 interest) and the people I know who will be contributing have no concept of wikipedia in them, and do regard it as a marketing tool (even though I didn't). You can see this by looking at the farahad page, where it marks their player names and a piece of "opinion" (yuck) about the game. Soooo subjective. *Shivers* Sorry for wasting your time, I'll write an article about my scarce hometown instead. (Even though the cows overpopulate the people, it's apparently notable) 209.226.141.116 21:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imran qamar

edit

The article asserts some notability, so not speediable in my view, but I still doubt this person should have his own wiki-article.-- JoanneB 21:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BNYA (Internet slang)

edit

Near-meaningless neologism with an unreferenced and conjectural etymology. Delete. JDoorjam 21:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can find no reference to this anywhere via Google. Barneyboo (Talk) 21:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Barneyboo. --Interiot 21:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 DES (talk) 01:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Staples

edit

Non-notable Canadian farmer. YUL89YYZ 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Mooney (blogger)

edit

This AfD arises from this RfC. There was an edit war on the Paul Mooney page between editors writing about the comedian Paul Mooney, and an anon who claims to be Paul Mooney (blogger). The two pages were disambiguated, and this page has {importance} and {cleanup} tags. I have removed a SPEEDY tag once, to ensure the page could come here to AfD. No vote myself at this point: I'm bringing this here to help resolve the RfC. AndyJones 21:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Remembrance Day Renata3 17:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remembrance

edit

This page is nothing more than a dicdef than a quote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was transwiki, then delete. The article was already moved to wiktionary, so I will simply delete this page. Mindmatrix 19:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acrospire

edit

Transwikied to Wiktionary Scrappy36 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tunlaw 415

edit

Delete, non-notable. Google search reveals no results. - FrancisTyers 21:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZodaNet

edit

Uh yeah, I created this page about my website a long time ago, back before I was very much aware of the rules. It wasn't really until now that I decided to put it up for deletion. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Titoxd (attack page). howcheng {chat} 23:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Bowers

edit

This is probably an hoax (I could not verify any information in this page). I suggest to delete it per WP:LIVING. - Liberatore(T) 22:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Klaxons

edit

Probably a non-notable band; formed in "late 2005". Thue | talk 22:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 14:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actirasty

edit

No corroborating evidence that this word exists in the English language. Scrappy36 22:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 CLW (nn-bio). howcheng {chat} 17:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Ketrenos

edit

No claim to notability. Would that make it a criteria for speedy? For now, non-notable +/- vanity. Ifnord 22:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 14:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry (vacuum cleaner)

edit

Technical spec for a NN vacuum cleaner MNewnham 22:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undecided the tech spec is unencyclopaedic, but the Henry is iconic in the UK. If there was an article on Numatic I'd say merge, but there isn't. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, yeah, I'm not from the UK, but it looks like there's a significant amount of pages, usenet postings, etc. about it, and its picture makes it look like it might stand out from other vacuums. On the other hand, the current article isn't encyclopedic in the least. --Interiot 22:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Yes, the Henry is iconic in the UK and maybe one day WP should have an article about it, but this is not it - it is just a place marker for a future encyclopdic article. If the article does not improve very soon it should go. Gaius Cornelius 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up a bit, but it's still rather crufty. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 14:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Address message

edit

Transwikied to Wiktionary Scrappy36 22:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hoax posting user. Hedley 22:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolay goksoyr

edit

Looks like a hoax to me. No google hits. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Parker

edit

vanity page; calling into a radio show is non-notable; no evidence that he is TV actor. Adunar 22:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox 22:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xavier Herring

edit

Delete Whoever this is actually about, I don't think it belongs in WP Gaius Cornelius 22:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PhantasyRPG

edit

Allow me to quote. "Welcome to the PhantasyRPG Resources Page. Here I will being to compile information on the game, so that it is in a readily available form for all to see." Tempshill 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ford Focus Renata3 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ZXx

edit

Wasn't this already covered on the Ford Focus page? --ApolloBoy 22:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TPSB

edit

Non-notable and self-promotion. WP:NOT. - FrancisTyers 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-orthogonal analysis

edit

Although the term "non-orthogonal analysis" is used in statistics and wavelets, this article does not appear to describe that concept. Instead, it seems to be based entirely on original research, as referenced in the external links section of the article. linas 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Micro cellular gravity

edit

Unencyclopedic writing, no Google results, questionable veracity of belief/topic. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 23:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hudin

edit

Article about a non-notable surname which doesn't add much to it. Article was uncategorized and orphan Mecanismo | Talk 23:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 17:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Spanish profanity

edit

I hate I created this articles some months ago, it was doomed from the start as people added some meaningless phrases they probably fabricated. Put I (and me) out of its misery and delete it. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do the same to Portuguese profanity as well. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 23:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 14:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classic Cola

edit

The economy brand cola which is sold in Sainsburys. I'm not sure whether this is really encyclopedic - It's not really a proper drinks brand, it's just what they call their cheap version, much like all supermarkets do. We don't really have articles on "ASDA Economy Lemonade", "Tesco Extra Value Apple Juice" or "Wal-Mart Orangeade", so I think this should be deleted. Hedley 23:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The contributor has removed the AfD sign. Let's assume they did so in good faith. I have asked them to expand the article to make it clear that it should be kept. <KF> 00:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "The creation of this own brand cola complicates further important issues raised in human and economic geography"??? howcheng {chat} 00:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I will go to the trouble of expanding this article to reflect what I believe is its true context but am not confident in doing it at this time. The creation of this label does complicate further important issues raised in human and economic geography.
There is a swathe of literature about how retailers squeezed their suppliers during the 1980s and 90s. Classic cola is one of the main examples where a retailer tried to take on the might of a coporation by using its dominance in the retail sector to best effect. This may not sound like a big deal, however at the time there were few examples of this behaviour. The creation of the cola led to a law suit between these two corporations which may have already been covered in wikipedia.
The retail space does have a very special place in economic and cultural geography because it's where economic geography meets consumerism and the very culture that consumption embodies. Moniz 00:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but that doesn't in the slightest tell anyone why this article is notable for Wikipedia. It may be an example for a Business Studies A-Level student, but that isn't a reason for writing an article. Hedley 01:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Each of the four major UK supermarkets has several thousand own brands. Big issues can be discussed in relation to any of them, but that doesn't mean they are the sensible starting point for an article in an encyclopedia. Calsicol 09:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment However classic cola is an exception because it has a place in history as being the first own-label product that specifically tried to take market share away from a global label by using its retail space to greatest effect. This article delves into an academic area that is not covered in wikipedia. the article will exist eventually as articles surrounding that area of research are created i.e - The geography of retail and restructuring. Moniz 21:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, influenced by the vandalism on the deletion notice. Stifle 00:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indiefeed

edit

Non-notable website, stub as it is. No Alexa ranking, and only 200 sites have a link to it. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 23:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WiTendoFi

edit

Advertisement. Page has few Google hits, no Archive.org history; non-notable. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 23:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Black

edit

completely made up game by vandal IP. Jedi6 23:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novemberween

edit

neologism using wikipedia for publicity אריאל יהודה 23:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_21&oldid=1234126784"