Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 14

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< January 13 January 15 >

Purge server cache

January 14

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

The result of the debate was keep as the nominated version was vandalized. Punkmorten 10:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnhordland

edit

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to be. Whatever it is, it has no content, and just seems like a picture made out of letters. It doesn't belong here, that is, if it belongs anywhere. Tobyk777 07:22, 14 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 Speedily deleted as per CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 02:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

97gsec3xyz

edit

Vanity page which serves no encyclopedic purpose and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information JuanOso 00:16, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviad

edit

It seems to be a person that doesn't exist. No English Bible I've searched has Aviad untranslated (and as far as I can see, the Isaiah passage is the only place where it would be). In addition, no google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors had anything about Aviad being the peace minister of David or anything like that. The article seems to interpret the Isaiah passage in a strange, incorrect way. TimBentley 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a translation from a Hebrew word, perhaps someone who speaks hebrew can comment? Mike 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a word translation service. Nor is it a dictionary. (Signed: J.Smith) 00:48, 14 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Law School 100 rankings

edit

Delete. This page is not verifiable. The only source is LegalTV.com, which does not exist. Copysan 00:36, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short words

edit

Is this a real page?? I see just link to Wikipedia articles that I think would be more appropriate for a list than a dis-ambiguation page. Delete if no one can see its consistency with general dis-ambiguation pages. Georgia guy 22:43, 13 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 Babajobu 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Koppie

edit

Non-notable politician. Delete Atrian 01:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quinn (band)

edit

I'm not so sure about this one, It only had one album by a minor record laber and they are weakly shown in allmusic, so it's not a nn-band speedy, but the myspace link don't help really and it still looks like it fails WP:MUSIC. Delete for now but I might change my vote later. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:25, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Life affirming

edit

Personal essay. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:41, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Thorne

edit

Comment. There appears to be a consensus among contributors to this page that it needs to be scrapped. I am just submitting this for AfD, since the creator of the page appears to have tried to do an AfD but messed up. His/her message is below. Srleffler 01:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

asked for deletion by those who have not read the Rockman X manga by Yoshiro Iwamoto or the information books by Capcom. I wish to avoid a flame war [Unsigned comment by User:Alexxu 19:41, January 13, 2006]

  • Keep and cleanup. Definatly a mess, but doesn't seem any less notable than any of these fellows. Deleting and recreating a page is never the answer, nor is this the place to take content disputes. I take that back, since MegaManZero pointed out that the verifiable information already exists somewhere, I'm instead voting Delete --InShaneee 03:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per user InShaneee. Kerowyn 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, nice page, but its filled with loads of inaccurate information, and fancruft (Iris doesn;t have a last name!). Cleaning it up would be a good idea, however, that's completely moot, because there already is, in fact a Iris article at the List of Mega Man X characters. Articles that contridict canon established by the company and have misleading information do not belong at wikipedia. -MegamanZero|Talk 04:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, I've already deleted inaccurate information concerning Megaman Zero from the article. The rest just seems to be fan material, as I cannot verify any of this Thorne nonsense at Megaman Network or other Megaman fan sites. (P.S. It would seem some of the "fancruft" has leaked on to List of Mega Man X characters too. If this article influenced it, then there is no doubt in my mind this article must be deleted. Wolf ODonnell 12:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I first noticed this article when it introduced untrue information into the Dark Elf article. (here). If its doing the same to even more articles, we need to re-fix them and delete this as soon as possible before anyone gets the wrong idea. -MegamanZero|Talk 13:17, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro ISV

edit

Appears to be a random neologism with little currency. Stifle 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Unsure. It is a neologism/protologism, but seems somewhat known. Article may be promotional, since a book about Micro ISVs is to be released "this week" [1]. On the other hand, a book about Micro ISVs gives the term some credence. Book will be sold by Amazon [2]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 22:26Z
  • Weak Keep, Rewrite, Clean-up and Expand Seems quite a notable neologism, it needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV ComputerJoe 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of the stub and a micro-isv I agree that the term is a neologism, but with wide usage with small ISVs. The article surely has to be extended. Other sources [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (I have nothing to do with the book) StephanSchmidt 09:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to lack of comments - please comment :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Northwest. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwesterner

edit

Non-global fork, already on wiktionary Stifle 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since there's no hope of this being more than a dicdef or getting a more global definition. If someone can think of some specific characteristics of northwesterners that isn't original research, please tell. - Bobet 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to lack of comments - please comment :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:56, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of online lyrics databases

edit

A list of external links to lyrics databases. Wikipedia is not a website directory. JoaoRicardotalk 02:05, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fable(wrestler)

edit

Delete non-notable wrestler for uncited organization Drdisque 02:11, 14 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 merge and redirect to The Fall of Man. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prelapsarian

edit

Dicdef, already transwikied to Wiktionary, seen no edits for two months, will probably remain a stub indefinitely. Seahen 02:16, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortranposix

edit

Content is Fortranposix is an implementation of some POSIX functions in Fortran 90/95. The project is currently incomplete, and is in a testing stage. Looks like crystal ball to me and WP:NOT a crystal ball Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akiyoshi Shimizu

edit


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The friend society

edit

Delete - Article does not make a case for the web site being notable. Google found 900 websites that note it and 90 that link to it. -- Rediahs 02:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete. Valid article to an actual webpage, and the owner is the creator of the Bananaphone animation, which does qualify the page as notable. Worloq 02:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) (original user did not sign message)[reply]

That would be the orrigional bananaphone FLASH animation, appologies for forgetting a key word.Worloq 03:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's the one I'm taking about. See Bananaphone for details. Ashibaka tock 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That would be as opposed to... what other kind of animation? Java? -- Rediahs 03:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the person who reference the very old, very boring 4chan animation of Bananaphone, which was, if I remember correctly, a .gif file, and not phone-like in any way.Worloq 03:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah.. I misunderstood -- Rediahs 03:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a Flash movie, and it is too a phone. A banana phone, to be exact. Ashibaka tock 04:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is all so fussy and messy. The important thing is that the website is not notable, not the flash movie which it hosts. -- Rediahs 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? This sort of discussion is what makes AFD great. Ashibaka tock 04:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, whatever you like. :) -- Rediahs 04:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, unencyclopedic, un-sourced webcruft of the caliber that hits AfD daily. Potentially worth including in an existing article about something notable it's associated with, whatever that may be.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 03:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let me try another route here. Regarding non-notability, it is, if I remember Wiki’s policy, NOT policy to delete something purely for being non-notable, but instead to mark it as a stub for future expansion. The section regarding webpage notability states that a webpage need only meet one of a list of criteria to be considered notable. In that list is the following: “The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.”
As stated in another location, the Bananphone flash animation created by Dave Teatro, original hosted on TFS, was later posted at Ebaum’s World, a page which is well known (434 on Alexa’s listing http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=www.ebaumsworld.com), and which, by Wiki standards, must be notable, else the entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebaum) on eBaum would’ve been removed by now. Therefore, on the grounds that TFS is the source of orrigional and notable content, I request that the article not be marked for deletion, but instead as a stub, whereupon, I don’t doubt, forum members from TFS will expand on it.
This will also be my last attempt at defending, so please, give it some honest consideration--and reconsideration if you've already voted--on the merits I've presented.Worloq 04:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but ebaum reposts just about anything flash. I don't think ebaumsworld means a whole lot for notability.
And I believe you are mistaken concerning "stubbing" a non-notable article. An article is marked as a stub when it is lacking information and could greatly benefit from some extra information. Not when the subject is not notable. -- Rediahs 04:17, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transtopianism

edit

vanity/nn/?: web manifesto copied to WP article; posted by admitted transtopia.org webmaster; google shows only web promotion, no members, no publications about, etc; email to supposedly related orgs resulted in no recognition; no resp to request for notability on talk, despite webmaster edits; btw, does not publicize the white supremacy/etc on the site… Thx, hope this helps, "alyosha" (talk) 03:07, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rooks

edit

Gushy vanity. 1 and a bit pages of Google references for "Mark Rooks" "fire ball", none of them asserting any notability. Gushy "comments" in the talk page are actually by the page creator. Randwicked Alex B 03:21, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contie (snooker, pool, billiards)

edit

Possible hoax or very nn local game, fails WP:V only 52 unique hits mostly from wiki related sites,[9] Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:23, 14 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retorsion

edit

dictdef and probable copyvio Segv11 (talk/contribs) 03:29, 14 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. Good work, people. DS 14:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Mullins

edit

Very sad story but WP:NOT a memorial sorry Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one book about him too. Perodicticus 12:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs complete and massive rewrite so it's not just a memorial. He was notable in the time between his injury and his death, per Perodicticus. He became a bit of a symbol of the effect a completely disabling injury can have on a young man who had nothing in his life but football. I believe a movie was made about his life. Also rename to Chucky Mullins. Crunch 13:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs rewriting, but the subject itself is notable and encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 14:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have rewritten the article in an attempt to make it less of a memorial and more of an encyclopedic article. —Cleared as filed. 14:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well done! Perodicticus 17:42, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essix

edit

Smalltime dj, who apparently has never released any albums. Despite what the page says, AMG has never heard of him under either moniker, and a google search for "DJ Jake" Essix turns up 49 hits, mostly message boards and guestbooks, the only mention of a cd being on his now-defunct personal website. Delete as non-notable failing WP:MUSIC. --InShaneee 03:38, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cinder Block Inc.

edit

Pure advertising, vanity by User:Cinder Block. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7-band Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Fernando

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fly Me to the Moon (Musical Analysis)

edit

Article has no context and doesn't assess importance to somone unfamiliar with the topic. Kerowyn 03:46, 14 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 Speedily Deleted as per nom. --InShaneee 04:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike_Panetta

edit

Speedy Delete - Vanity page, no remotely plausible assertion of notability. Ajdz 03:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete Sceptre (Talk) 10:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryogen Second

edit

Apparent vanity article about a band that is to release a demo in the future Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The band has released a demo and is currently working on their full length release...which is on a lable no different than any other band wiki on this site Assimilat 09:56, 13 January 2006 (CST)

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

The result of the debate was deleted by Jimfbleak as nnbio. Johnleemk | Talk 11:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Steiger

edit

Canadian singer, no album released yet, no entry in AMG. JoaoRicardotalk 03:51, 14 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 G1 Speedy Delete (All it was was a giant ascii heart) WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Food for a pond leech

edit

Speedy delete this junk P0per 04:00, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defining the Beliefs of a Church

edit

Original Research Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:06, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeadMelvin and Butch

edit

Very non notable webcomic, only linked to myspace, I wish this was a speedy Strong Delete than --Jaranda wat's sup 04:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Punkmorten 10:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iftehar Ali

edit

why delete this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Akira kurosawa (talk • contribs)

Fixed Akira kurosawa's Afd listing... -- JLaTondre 04:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 06:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rflan

edit

Non-notable gaming LAN organization, or something? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:22, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in 1994

edit

I'm not sure what this article is supposed to be. It says "Deaths in 1994, then April, then 5, and then it talks about Kurt Cobain for about one sentence. Since there is a list of deaths on the 1994 article, I see no need to waste Wikispace with this. Captain Jackson 04:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, surely it makes a lot more sense for the other deaths in articles to be deleted and merged as well, as doing the opposite (moving all deaths to deaths in articles) would ultimately require a lot more work, which is really unnecessary. Mushintalk 22:12, 16 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of North American football nicknames

edit

Unencyclopedic, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. JoaoRicardotalk 04:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the POV. These are (mostly) very commonly used phrases by football fans. Providing a list, while it does have editorial decisions in it, doesn't condone the nicknames or suggest they are correct, which I would think would be a necessary component of POV. Anyone can add any nickname they've heard of here. Notability should probably be a consideration, but I promise you, most of these are well known. -Jcbarr 02:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Indeed, I can start providing citations if that is absolutely necessary. Zagalejo 23:47, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Goodrem: Remixed

edit

Unverifiable, probable hoax. A week ago I left messages on the article's talk page and the talk pages of the editors (an anon IP and an account which has only made edits about this album) asking for sources but none have been forthcoming. No apparent Google hits for the name or for any new Delta Goodrem album of this description. I can't find any references on Sony's site or Delta's official site. The only reference I can find is a thread (which was started the same day the article was created) on her official forum where someone states there is a rumour about such an album and asks people to make mock-up album covers [13]. The person who started the thread later cites this Wiki article as the source of the rumour. And the so-called album cover appears to be a mock-up of a picture on Delta's official site. Sarah Ewart 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Sarah Ewart 05:12, 14 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 Speedied vanity, userfied Bunchofgrapes 04:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Forgiste

edit

Moved this to User:Forgiste. I think the user meant to create it there. If not, it is simply vanity. –Comics (Talk) 04:53, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Mighty Ducks 4

edit

Will or won't The Mighty Ducks 4 film be made? A question for the ages. I know, let's look at the encyclopedia, that's the proper blog spot for rank speculation about whether a sequel will be made. Fuhghettaboutit 04:57, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Danton

edit

Canadian singer, vocalist for two bands, none have entries in AMG. JoaoRicardotalk 05:08, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crossbreeds cartoon

edit

Vanity for some little kid cartoon, 2 unique goggle hits, [14] fails WP:V big time Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 05:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on. He might someday be the next big thing.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 04:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Te@

edit

Delete because it is irrelevant to the encyclopedia. Splintercellguy 05:41, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Peruvian Channel List including International Channels

edit

Listcruft, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 05:43, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SwapSimple

edit

Nn website. Nn Alexa rank. No major media coverage. Fails WP:WEB. Created by User:SwapSimple. -- Perfecto 05:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 05:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest on the basis that this entry meets standards defined in WP:WEB point 1, if you refer to independant media articles cited below: --SwapSimple 12:11am, 14 January 2006 (CST)
    SwapSimple is an entirely unique peer-to-peer trading concept, making a dramatically positive difference in the lives of students across the United States, and it deserves it's place in the Wikipedia, just as Peerflix, Netfilx, and the like do. SwapSimple's trading concept was developed in 2003, and began providing service in late 2004.
  • This is a book exchange company. Okay, actually book-and-other-stuff, but it's a company. The right inclusion standard is probably WP:CORP. I see no evidence that it meets that standard either. Despite the claim above, I can find nothing "unique" about their business model. Press releases and local news articles announcing the mere existence of the company do not provide sufficient independent converage to verify the article or to ensure that the content is unbiased. Incidentally, a google search turns up a mere 77 unique hits. Delete unless substantially more evidence of notability is presented. Rossami (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - meets criterion 1 of WP:CORP -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as per Thesquire, and evidence above. Mushintalk 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep FYI - all the press coverage of SwapSimple was unsolicited. Just today I (Elliot Hirsch, President, SwapSimple, Inc.) was contacted by the Boston University Free Press for an interview regarding SwapSimple. Also, as mentioned above, the Utne Reader - a large national magazine, chose to write about us in one of their columns because they believe in what we are doing, and understand that we are only in the beginning phases of development. I believe that the value of this encyclopedia would be greatly diminished if you only allow mentions of businesses who are "large" and well known. That would be a very boring, biased, and narrow view of the world. We have already helped hundreds of students afford the textbooks they need for their educations. Because we have not yet helped thousands or millions - does that still diminish the benefit to those who have used the service - or somehow mean that we simply do not exist? --SwapSimple 2:15pm, 14 January 2006 (CST)
    • I understand it's frustrating to spend time and effort on an article that you believe should be on wikipedia, only for it to be listed for deletion. However, please be aware that you cannot argue wikipedia's current accepted policies on the notability of companies here, as it won't help your case. There have already been a majority of keep votes (including mine), not because we disagree with the policy, but because we believe your company is indeed notable enough to stay on wikipedia. Mushintalk 14:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you - I understand your point. Also, thank you for your support. I guess we'll just have to see what happens. --SwapSimple 2:12pm, 15 January 2006 (CST)
        • No problem. It looks like the consensus is to keep the article anyway so you shouldn't worry. On another note, I have edited the article slightly to give it a more neutral point of view - please see WP:NPOV for more info. Mushintalk 20:51, 15 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. Mo0[talk] 04:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club DeLuxe

edit

One line sub-stub on a non-notable club Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 05:51, 14 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 speedied by Jimfbleak as nn-band. Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sefiros

edit

Scotish 20-year-old musician, no claim to notability, sells his albums by a website (i.e. no contract with any record label). Article was created by Sefiros (talk · contribs), which also created an article for each of his albums. JoaoRicardotalk 05:54, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slap and pop balloons

edit

Doesn't google [15] [16] [17], unverifiable. Kappa 05:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 07:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Peanut Butter Gang

edit

This is either a non-notable group or a hoax. A google search reveals nothing about this. Delete Atrian 06:08, 14 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 merge and redirect to Edited movie. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CleanFilms

edit

Advert/spam for a nn company Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 06:13, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of religious leaders in 1946

edit

Non-notable list. There is no significance to the date 1946. If we're going to have a list for 1946, why not 1978, or 1935, etc? Delete Atrian 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I created this just eight minutes before you AfD'd it. Give a guy a bit of time or warning first, will ya?--T. Anthony 06:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree a good-faith article creation deserves more than 8 minutes. But now that it's here... —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 06:58Z
  • Keep - As to the significance of the date, please look at Religious leaders by year. There are lists for every year since 1935, with the odd exception of 1951. All of those articles, as well as lists of state leaders, colonial governors, and leaders of international organizations were created as part of a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject Leaders by year). The reason they are part of separate pages instead of on the year page (as Quarl erroneously claims they are in general--they aren't, and if a specific year page has any leaders, they should be moved off it to the appropriate separate list) because the lists are huge (especially state leaders, which is the set of lists that gets the most attention). -- Jonel | Speak 07:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's two hours after I created it so some of you can check what I've done so far. Anyway thanks Jonel.--T. Anthony 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I filled in 1951. I was being a bit lazy because I think it was a year a Mormon leader died so I had to do one of those twofer things.--T. Anthony 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning towards keep now. BTW the reason I thought years contained political leaders is due to the list in 1 (I was working on math articles). I see now that most year articles don't have the list embedded. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 08:16Z
I've fixed 1 now, or at least as fixed as it gets until there's a C1YearInTopic template. The List of state leaders in 1 is much fuller than what was in that little section. I figured you'd probably ran into one or more that did have the leaders there still--drop a note on my talk page if you know of any more and I'll fix them. Thanks! -- Jonel | Speak 08:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I worked alot on these, but I'd be okay with merging it so it's done by decade instead of by year.--T. Anthony 05:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of maintainability, articles by decade seems like a better idea. For example, in the state leaders series, List_of_state_leaders_in_18BC looks pretty complete, but all the "neighboring" articles like List of state leaders in 17 BC and List of state leaders in 19 BC are practically empty. What was significant abou 18 BC? Whatlinkshere is interesting. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 08:17Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. r3m0t talk 00:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Davis (Telavir)

edit

Not notable. Writing about life on the Internet isn't novel. About 500 hits, looking for Telavir. [18] Mikeblas 06:25, 14 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. JIP | Talk 07:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desert forest

edit

One line sub-stub on a non notable golf club Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 06:25, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang Thi Minh Hanh

edit

From WP:PNT, been there since December 28. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese? I'm not very sure that the subject is notable, and it doesn't seem to be written in an encyclopedic manner (the ellipsis is a dead giveaway). Added here in case someone has some deeper insight into this. - Bobet 19:10, 28 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. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alawar

edit

100% pure advert/spam for a very non-notable company Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 06:33, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Distopija

edit

From WP:PNT, been there since December 31. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian, possibly a redundancy with Dystopia, but possibly not.Bjones 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's no Romanian, no way. Looks more like Serbian/Croat/Slovenian to me.Dunemaire 19:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Croatian, per xrce. — TheKMantalk 19:41, 1 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. Mo0[talk] 04:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyễn Tiến Sơn

edit

From WP:PNT, been there since December 10. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Vietnamese. 20:48, 31 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. Mo0[talk] 04:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeAware Magazine

edit

Pure advert/spam/vanity of a nn magazine. Possible copyvio also Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 06:41, 14 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 merge and redirect to Landing. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alighting

edit

Delete Dictionary Article, no links against it. Twredfish 06:40, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SEMP

edit

Lengthy mess about a Pennsylvania department of transportation program; non-notable Paul 07:06, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Feau

edit

A realtor who developed a golf course that was used for tournaments. I don't think this constitutes notability.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 04:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

0DFx, round 2

edit

It was nominated before, but generated only 1 comment and 1 keep vote (IMHO, it should have been relisted). Google gives 164 unique results, a bunch of them are related to engineering. The band is old, but no releases. I guess it tries to resurect itself and seeks publicity.


Brad Warner, bass player for this band, wrote a major book called Hardcore Zen. So, although the band itself is not a major one, it does include one member who went on to do a major piece of work. And his membership in the band is relevant to the book. So this page should remain.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Court

edit

I can find no evidence that this game meets any of the recommended standards for inclusion. While a google search does confirm the existence of the game, the most neutral description I could find called it "a fun little RPG". The google search returned a mere 489 unique hits (out of 12000 total), mostly blogs and download sites from what I could tell. I can find no evidence that this game is particularly unique or noteworthy. Recommend consideration for deletion. Rossami (talk) 08:21, 14 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. After discounting votes by IPs and new users, it's 21/12 in favor of keeping. howcheng {chat} 18:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of shock sites

edit

KEEP. If nothing else, it will serve as a good warning--how are people going to know about the content otherwise?

Sorry, but I can't believe this page survived the last vote for deletion... looks like a sockpuppet hard at work, all non registered users with one one or two edits in history. This site is disgusting; there is enough crap on the web and wikipedia is meant to break away from that. Strong delete! Dyslexic agnostic 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I've started a new discussion page for this, instead of the editions being made to the previous deletion debate. This debate can be found here, and resulted in a Keep vote. All new votes/content has been pasted here, and the previous page has been reverted to its status at the conclusion of the previous discussion. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 08:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is a repository of information. Just because some people find it squeamish or don't like something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that its history doesnt need to be recorded. Hobbeslover 19:18, 16 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. Mo0[talk] 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Temptation of Christ RE-examined

edit

Original research; unsourced POV. The movie's critical evaluation is addressed in the main article - The Last Temptation of Christ#Critical Reception and Interpretation. --Muchness 09:17, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroes Unlimited

edit

Non-notable site per WP:WEB, does not even have its own domain. No Alexa rank at all [19], very few Google hits [20], only about 400 inbound links [21]. Looks like vanispamcruftisement to me. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 10:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep FCYTravis 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tron (hacker)

edit

Non-notable. His death is sad. The fact that his family is apparently suing Wikipedia does not make him encyclopedic. FCYTravis 10:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Nomination wrongheaded and withdrawn. FCYTravis 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely notable - Even before reading the Deutsch articles, I can vouch for this article being worth keeping. It needs to be expanded a lot more in order to reflect the fact that Boris had a fair amount of fame amongst his own sort of people, and that fame does not entirely rest on the recent inane court case supposedly being brought against the Wikimedia folk. Boris was a sort of celebrity for some of us years ago. If you want a place to begin researching him, you can start here. If you know how to access old phreaker 'zines, you can find a lot more data on the gent. So, no, please do not delete the article. → P.MacUidhir (t) 10:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point, that. :) However, the Deutsch version of his bio article does seem decently balanced in content. It would probably be worthwhile for someone to translate it for the English Wikipedia, at least to expand the content in our own version.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or just computer translation can show enough... See German article in pseudo-English here DreamGuy 11:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could ask User:PeeCee for translation. --ST ○ 13:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The english wikipedia really should not support the nonsense going on about the likewise article in the german wikipedia. The reasons behind all the mess are mostly unclear, most often fatuous economic reasons are cited: The parents make the ridiculous argumentation that keeping the name would harm their business, because they keep getting hassled by customers about the incident (yeah, really, after 7 years!). There is plenty of reason to believe that the parents are misled by one specific person who is involved very much into the case and especially the conspiracy theories and who simply can't retract without losing face and the sad rest of credibility left. -- Kju (de) 13:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Btw his name was widely known before wikipedia. Friends of him even done some kind of memoriam publication that was distributed over the ccc in there his name was clearly noted. helohe (talk) 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keeep He was a famous hacker even he may be never mentioned in the NYT. There are a lot of things never mentioned in mainstream media but interesting enough for a broad audience --Historiograf 14:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 18:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YubNub

edit

Apparently non-notable site. Alexa rank > 100k [22], some Google presence but much of that in blogs, web forums and such [23], ~6000 inbound links [24], lots of which are again blogs. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 10:33, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yehoodi

edit

Non-notable website per WP:WEB. Alexa rank >300,000 [26], Wikipeida is top site linking in [27], <6000 external links [28]. JzG 10:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. - Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I know that I am biased since I'm the one who created this article, but Yehoodi is fairy significant to swing dancers and is well-known among swing dancers internationally. It is more than just a web site, so searches for "Yehoodi.com" are incomplete. It also consists of a jazz music archive and radio station. A Google search for Yehoodi brought in over 76,000 links and a Yahoo search showed almost 29,000 hits, so the <6000 external links listed above is misleading. I think this is worth keeping. --Cswrye 01:46, 15 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. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prom Night (2007)

edit

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. IMDb has no details of a 2007 film named Prom Night. Punkmorten 10:37, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 18:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlecrap

edit

Site appears to fail WP:WEB, Alexa rank 89,000 [31], <4000 sites linking in [32] JzG 10:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wrestlecrap is extremely notable in the Internet wrestling community. You can't go to a wrestling forum and not find a mention of Wrestlecrap. --HBK|Talk 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further Comment: Badger Badger Badger, given on WP:WEB as an example of a notable site, has an alexa rank of 78,383 [33], not all that far ahead of Wrestlecrap. --HBK|Talk 06:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For the record I think badgerbadgerbadger (which incidentally I love) should be merged to Weebl and Bob as they all come from weebl's stuff. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 09:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, The site is relevant enough to have resulted in the publishing of 2 books, both of which were the bestselling wrestling books at Amazon.com, as well as a weekly webcast--Madbeatnik 01:46, 15 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. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze hedgehog

edit

nn person? I'm unsure, but appears to be a lot of fan games, unencyclopedic, and come on, his website is a .tk site, and deviantArt Sceptre (Talk) 10:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 18:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VGMix

edit

Site appears to fail WP:WEB, Alexa rank 323,000 [34], Wikipedia is top site linking in, does have inbound links [35] but lots of them appear to be blogs. I can't make up my mind about this one. JzG 10:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment we've got OCRemix, this is nearly as widespread and as popular as that. However, this doesn't have the sheer forum popularity (OCRemix has thousands and thousands of active forum members and a veritible seaload of posts) and certainly not the forum culture impact that OCRemix does - as techinically besides that even OCRemix probably doesn't meet WP:WEB, as it alexa is still below 10,000 at 50,000. BTW I say this as someone who goes there weekly and has probably listened to every song on that site... WhiteNight T | @ | C 15:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Dragonfiend 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable website. Stifle 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant to the video-game arrangement community, closely tied with other website The Shizz, whose article's existance is not disputed. Starghost 02:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • page linked from this forum - vfdsock added WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep after much thinking. This may not meet WP:WEB techinically - but there are other aspects of the site that are far more notable than sheer numbers, especially the split-off from OCRemix and its success thereof. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for strong connection to The Shizz website and considerable difference in policy and quality control from OCRemix ScrewedThePooch 17:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for overall importance in video game remix community, as well as the vital purpose it serves as a way to improve and receive criticism for music works. If it is removed, OCRemix should not be on here either. Alexa is a poor judge of a website's relevance. Zpatterson 18:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It has a completely different purpose than OCRemix, so it shouldn't be compared as if they were the same. VGMix is extremely important in helping musicians get their work out in the open, and letting people give criticism so that the musician may become better. nickthenewbie
  • Comment As of right now (Jan 19), there are just shy of 11,000 registered users. I'm not sure how many are required before a site is 'notable,' but there it is. It's a niche audience, to be sure, but it's a palpable one.
  • Keep. Not only does this site help less-established remixers get critiques on their work, it was founded as the result of a content dispute over at OCR, from some prominent mixers there. (Note: Not a precisely accurate description, but it can be argued that without OCR, which already has an article, this page would never have existed. Mo0[talk] 23:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. Just pointing out firstly that I was not directed here by anyone. In as much as one would consider the video game music fan arrangement scene notable enough to be counted here (I would argue it is given the fanbase it has), VGMix doesn't seem to fail notability as it's the second most frequented music site in that scene behind OverClocked ReMix. Many musicians at OverClocked ReMix frequent both sites, and downloads for the most popular music there goes into the thousands, possibly beyond the 10,000s. The article is in viable stub condition and should be expanded in order to further establish its notability. - Liontamer 07:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (speedy deletion criterion G3). howcheng {chat} 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Hagstrom

edit

Delete since probably hoax. No sources. Google search finds no non-Wiki articles with similar content. User:66.241.94.190 (a prolific vandal) claims article is a hoax at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=35118829. Wuzzy 11:14, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Raven

edit

Not notable. Low Google, in fact appalling for a porn girl. IMDB shows four films, including Voluptuous Xtra 10, The Boobman's #1 Choice For All-Natural Hardcore Jugs! Delete. brenneman(t)(c) 11:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(can someone correct this for me?)

Keep - Angelica Raven has done several movies for TSG (The Score Group) and is a known face on several "gonzo" sites. Chances are that she's continuing to make movies as it stands, so deleting her article would be a waste of time if she's still actively producing more.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 04:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifestyle Wiki

edit

Started this month, and from the main page: "This page has been accessed 1,751 times." Clearly non-notable, IMO. "Lifestyle Wiki" scores 32 Google hits, and "Singapore Lifestyle Wiki" gets none. Alexa has never heard of it. It should also be noted that portions of the page are a copyvio from the website itself, although the initial paragraph appears to be okay. Johnleemk | Talk 11:23, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Denzil_lacey

edit


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Binge drinking. howcheng {chat} 22:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casual Alcaholism

edit

Misspelled OR about binge drinking with weird "political context". Delete Kusma (討論) 11:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nice that it redirects to something useful, but it's still MISSPELLED. -Harvestdancer 20:44, 19 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CineClash

edit

NN film genre. No relevant google hits. Delete Kusma (討論) 12:05, 14 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. JIP | Talk 07:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fadeout (album), Connected (Sefiros), Deconstruct (album)

edit

Three albums by Sefiros, whose page was deleted earlier today. Personally I'm not quite willing to speedy delete them though. Whoever closes this should also take care of the pictures. Punkmorten 12:06, 14 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MICHAEL C. BURGESS (Byronik)

edit

NN journalist. Somebody disagreed with the speedy tag, so I put this up here for discussion. Delete Kusma (討論) 12:14, 14 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Picard maneuver

edit

This is a redirect page, but all pages linking to it have had the links fixed Jfiling 12:25, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pie-Card

edit

There is some evidence that this term exists, but this does not seem to be the most common (or rather, least uncommon) usage. Article is not quite big enough to call a stub yet... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 20:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority bus routes

edit
  • Delete. This is a linkless (except the TOC to the sections) list that I see no way it can be made into a links list without putting up a ton of ghost links that will unlikely exist. Georgia guy 19:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are links to various neighborhoods that routes serve (East Atlanta, L5P, etc) Jolomo


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 12:06, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Redblock

edit

I would propose to change any links to this page to the Memory Alpha link that is listed here Jfiling 12:45, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 19:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top 5 corn-producing states

edit

Unsourced and unencyclopedic King of All the Franks 13:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep --TimPope 22:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boiled eggs

edit

Saving this from speedy-Hell. This had a {{nocontext}} speedy tag, which didn't seem appropriate. I think this topic, which is no more trivial than some others around here, may well become an article, but abstain for the time being. u p p l a n d 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not to speedy keep this by now? It seems the only one wanting to delete it is User:Haza-w who added the speedy tag, and he hasn't explained why. u p p l a n d 00:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; whole article kept and tagged for cleanup till someone can make sense of it. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quiroga

edit

nn name, but I think it'd be better to run this through AfD Sceptre (Talk) 15:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY A4 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTux 500i

edit

Apparent narrative about a project in which the makers of a camera are trying to develop a version of Linux for it? I don't really understand, but in any case it's all original research and/or advertising and probably not notable. —Cleared as filed. 15:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No its not we came her for help! because its pretty much just like the Ipod linux page. Pocker09 17:35, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristamus

edit

The page appears to be a description of someone's (namely Bahamutzero0o, contribs) Diablo II character. Google turns up no related hits. Delete. Pentasyllabic 16:14, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 19:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wifey's_World

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Unreal II: The Awakening because according to Sjakkalle, this is the only game in which Kai Unreal are present. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Unreal

edit

This article is about a fictional race from a video game series. Not notable. Delete Pepsidrinka 17:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 19:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Perfect 10 models

edit

Whatever Perfect 10 is, this list is pointless and unencyclopædic; it's simply a (very long) list of women's names. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article is a list of models who have appeared in Perfect 10 magazine.

  • Because I can't find this list anywhere other than in the magazine itself (i.e., as a non-subscriber, nowhere). OK, so that's WP:V not WP:NOR. But in any case, it is listcruft. All it tells us is the names of women who have appeared in a soft-porn magazine. Do you really think Britannica would include that if only it wasn't paper? I sure as hell don't. This is "indiscriminate information" per WP:ISNOT. I don't buy the comparison with Playboy lists either because Playboy is a household name and in the 60s and 70s was much more than just a wank mag, it carried short stories by some of the greats of Science Fiction, for instance, so a list of people other than models who appeared in Playboy would actually be interesting in a way that this list simply is not, and if the models list is what you want to go by, here's a quick reality check: consider who is the Marilyn Monroe de nos jours, and see if you can find her in this list. Playboy has featured Marilyn Monroe, Jayne Mansfield and others; in this list I can't even find anyone I've heard of, let alone a household name - like I said above, almost none of these women are notable enough to have their own articles. There is nothing in this list, not even trivia, which adds in any way to the sum of human knowledge either about these women or about the magazine, and anything encyclopaedic which was added would probably be unverifiable anyway. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not even one model you've heard of, let alone a noteable one? If you haven't heard of Marisa Miller, that's not a problem with the Perfect 10 models entry. Lack of personal familiarity with the subject should not be a reason for deletion. Additionally, because you could not verify the list does not make it unverifiable. All appropriate links have been provided. Finally, don't assume that there aren't more models listed with entries at Wikipedia. It's a long list, and models are still being checked. In some cases, model entries may need to be created. Most models on the Penthouse list still don't have entries of their own, and it has been in existence since May of last year. Patience please. --Alsayid 01:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete (A1 and A7). Scott Davis Talk 05:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Nieto

edit

Manga-Man Comics gets 10 Google hits. Most, if not all, hits for "Julian Nieto" seem unrelated. Punkmorten 17:08, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Robertea

edit

This magazine may or may not "stand out among other student publications". The question is whether it stands out enough to merit inclusion. 41 Google hits suggest it doesn't. Punkmorten 17:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP, nominator withdrew, no other delete votes. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lolicon

edit

I believe that the descriptions on the page are wholly inaccurate of the scale of Lolicon. Basically put, this is drawn, simulated Child Pornography. The links on this page go directly to sites where immense amounts of this stuff are available. Lolicon can also be used in the process of grooming children over the net for Sexual Contact by Pædophiles. Whilst I appreciate that Wikipedia is not censored for minors, and is subject to the US First Amendment (Freedom of the Press), there is a line which can be crossed in my opinion, and this article totally crosses it. How would Wikipedia react if someone created an article which linked directly to a site depicting genuine pædophilia? There would be hell to pay, I suspect. I nominate this article to be deleted. Thor Malmjursson 17:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Talk to me[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng {chat} 19:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boulevard of Broken Dreams (location)

edit

completely factually innaccurate and entirely useless as an article- states "Blvd of broken dreams" is another name for 42nd street in manhatten, when the term originally came from the original score for Moulin Rouge, set in Paris; states Billie Joe Armstrong wrote the Green Day song about his failure to make it in showbusiness due to his voice, but that clearly isn't what the song is about, and the guy has sold tens of millions of records. As this article isn't based on anything at all it seems useless to keep it; there is nothing to salvage or fix. Heah talk 17:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is a cliche used to mean all kinds of things, and Heah is quite right that its original context has nothing to do with New York. Even if it's occasionally used to mean 42nd street--and I can find no reference to such a use--that would be one of the less common uses, and unverifiable at that. Chick Bowen 18:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A more appropriate page for a researcher would be a summary of the references made to BoBD in the media, as it is a term that can clearly be applied to physical locations and emotional states. (aeropagitica) 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Would have merit if it were rewritten to avoid the narrow reference to the Green Day song. The phrase "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" is not limited to 42nd Street in NYC and goes back long before 2000s pop culture. It could be useful article if written to reference all the historical and cultural rerences of the phrase. Crunch 20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • e.g. a 1933 song by Al Dubin & Harry Warren entitled "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" made famous by Tony Bennett. See [38] —Wahoofive (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • yes, this was the origination of it as far as i can tell, written for Moulin Rouge and a hit for Bennett in 1950. I certainly agree that the article could be useful, but as this version of it contains absolutely nothing useful, verifiable, or that would remain in a fixed up version, i can't see the point of keeping it- until someone fixed it up it would just have to be blanked, which obviously isn't how things are done. a version referencing all the historical and cultural refereces also wouldn't be "blvd . . . (location)", but rather just "Boulevard of Broken Dreams", sans any qualifier, which is currently a disambig. --Heah talk 20:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is junk; too limited in scope. Other voters have proposed a history of the phrase "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" in popular culture. I support this -- but it belongs in Boulevard of Broken Dreams, which would then become a real article instead of a dab. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 22:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, etc. Stifle 00:09, 16 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 speedied. r3m0t talk 00:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trajve

edit

Non-notable self promotion. The band has not even released an album. --Maitch 17:32, 14 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. If it's Arsenal-related, you can trust Qwghlm's judgement. howcheng {chat} 20:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Traoré

edit

This is a young French football (soccer) player who reportedly signed for Arsenal in July 2005 [39]. However, he is not listed on the club's official website [40], and details on a fan site [41] [42] show that he has not even played any reserve or U18 matches for the club. He is either too young to be notable at this stage, or was not actually signed. In either case, Delete as non-notable. Qwghlm 17:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 16-year-old Armand Traoré, winkled out of Monaco, will observe that, at 20, his fellow left-back Clichy believes in his own prospects sufficiently to sign a new contract extending to 2010.
i.e. it is referring to Gael Clichy, a member of the first-team squad, as the one who signed a new contract; this fact was reported by other news outlets at the time (e.g. [44]). Qwghlm 18:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He may be on a youth or academy contract/scholarship rather than a full professional contract. Alternetively, he might well be a pro, I don't know. I would love to find out, but he is not amongst the 40+ players listed in the club's youth/reserve squad [45] so I can't find out: as I said, there is no evidence that he is a pro. As far as I can make out, there has been no mention of him since July/August 2005. There is nothing on the club website which suggests he is on their books. If Arsenal's own website doesn't have any information about this player, then why should Wikipedia? Qwghlm 19:24, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuri A. Kabaenkov

edit

This article is unverifiable, and the subject seems non-notable. Delete  Grue  17:40, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EPisodeWorld

edit

Nn TV guide website. 155K Alexa rank, nn traffic]. No media coverage. 14 incoming Google hits. Fails WP:WEB. Neglected since November, last edit and only edits were by its webmaster, Wuff -- Perfecto 17:47, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kataris, Alarim, Volatilor, Xasn

edit

Info about a possible future video game, and the origin of the three preceding. Chick Bowen 17:43, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Dr. McNinja

edit

Delete this non-notable webcomic which does not meet WP:WEB. Articles on this webcomic previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr McNinja and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Adventures of Dr. McNinja. -- Dragonfiend 17:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user has been creating attack user talk pages -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable webcomic Incognito 05:46, 17 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. Mo0[talk] 04:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GCA "Global Conservation Assistance"

edit

Page is both an advertisement for a specific group, as well as being blatantly POV. Additionally, a search for the group in question turned up only two hits, the group's webpage and Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (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. JIP | Talk 07:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvan Lanken

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 17:55, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiel design

edit

Somebody should make these companies speedies. Graphic design firm. ~300 Google hits. r3m0t talk 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. I think the determination notability of this person is best left to those who know something about druids. howcheng {chat} 20:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karayana

edit

Non-notable druid. Delete druidcruft. Kusma (討論) 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torc, P.A.C. Bloos

edit

Membership in a "neo-druid" organisation does not make a person notable. Listing here instead of tagging as nn-bio to be sure. Delete druidcruft anyway. Kusma (討論) 18:03, 14 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Machadaynu

edit

Delete. Fictional song performed once in one episode of Look Around You. Essentially an unnotable remark which cant really be made longer. If anything it should be merged into Look Around You. jeffthejiff (talk) 18:06, 14 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 boldly redirected to habit by Stifle, uncontentious action, seems no point keeping this open. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 13:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habbit

edit

First of all, the page is mispelled, as it should at least be Habit. Secondly, it is a dicdef, oure and simple. delete or transwiki. Firestorm 18:08, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Smith (Druid)

edit

Founder of NN neo-druid organization. Delete druidcruft. Kusma (討論) 18:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 20:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Dom

edit

Biographical details of non-notable neo-druid. Delete druidcruft. Kusma (討論) 18:10, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grove of the White Dragon

edit

NN neo-druid organization. Few google hits. Delete druidcruft. Kusma (討論) 18:08, 14 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 SPEEDIED by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as (nonsense) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 22:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Doctrine

edit

OR about picking up girls. WP:NOT a place for things made up in school. Delete. Kusma (討論) 18:17, 14 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 SPEEDIED by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as (nonsense) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanodontics

edit

OR or NN neologism. Delete. Kusma (討論) 18:21, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Orrico

edit

Asserts notability, but doesn't seem notable to me. ~~ N (t/c) 18:48, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WestCon

edit

Non-notable defuct Science Fiction convention, was local intrest only Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 18:48, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Comic

edit

sub-stub for a sprite comic with just 6 issues online. Its site is here –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 18:52, 14 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. howcheng {chat} 20:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Grattan (junior)

edit

NN? ComputerJoe 19:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Brian Francis

edit

Could be a vanity article, but I'm not convinced it's not a hoax for two reasons: the editor who created this article (his/her only edit, incidentally) included an image (now deleted) of Bob Paris, and I can't find any relevant Google hits for Bradshaw Lisenby, the pen name under which the subject has allegedly published "many religious articles". No relevant Google hits for "William Brian Francis". Delete CLW 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Portrait of Dr. Gachet. howcheng {chat} 20:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoei Saito

edit

Really rich guy notable only for paying a ton of money for a painting. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:07, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolsvandia

edit

Decidedly non notable micronation, less than a dozen unique google hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We don't have to wait; the burden of proof is on the creator of the article. If verification can't be provided, there's no official waiting period for removal. It can always be put back up if it's verifiable. Kafziel 20:16, 17 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. howcheng {chat} 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Sinai Lake

edit

Orphan article, zero google hits. Non-notable/OR/made up. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS there are many calls for merge without redirect - but that's not allwed under GFDL. Merging with redirect is nonsensiscal. I'm going to move this to University Singers (Northern Arizona University) if anyone wants to merge from there - do so. -Doc ask? 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

University Singers

edit

Non notable college choir. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:26, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers Insurance Group Sucks

edit

Non notable attack site. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:06, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Fated

edit


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KRML

edit

Non-canon Axeman89 19:24, 14 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 (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non Abbiamo Bisogno

edit

This page used to be a verbatim copy of a text by Pope Pius XI, and was a candidate to be moved to Wikisource. This has been done, thanks to Lacatosias, so the article is now empty. Schutz 19:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to have canceled the page without giving any notice or putting up some kind of stub before doing it. Beginner's error. I put up the softwiki link after I read the policy over at Wikisource. The text is already there. FWIW, I'd vote for deletion unless someone is interested in writing up an artcile about the Encylcical. Not me...too busy just now.--Lacatosias 09:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Doc ask? 10:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Bonjom

edit

Weird little article about some kid who claims to be a demi-god. I'd have speedied this if not for the claim of notability and the one relevant google hit (and that's it, by the way). Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:44, 14 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 SPEEDIED by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as (A7) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 22:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the Vine

edit

Non-notable band, as per WP:Music  (aeropagitica)  20:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the deletion of wikipedia articles

edit

Troll page.  (aeropagitica)  20:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I myself deleted this user's post which he complains about here. It was about a "tech nerd" phrase used for newbies; it was badly written, punctuated and barely a line long. I considered he visit the recommendations on writing a good Wikipedia article. haz (user talk) 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what is your vote? -- RHaworth 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My vote is to delete the article. While its intentions are good Wikipedia is not an open forum, and the primary purpose of the article is an attack. haz (user talk) 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - wrong namespace - ignores the overriding notability rule. -- RHaworth 20:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i did visit the page and after that i remade it following the guidelines. This is a page i was inspired to make after having it deleted. its not a complaint. it is constructive criticism which i myself thanked you for on your talk page. themoomin

  • If you treat all wikipedia users like this, they wont use it! I was trying to improve wikipedia, not attack it!
  • whats a soapbox by the way?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 counted 18 votes to delete, 7 votes to keep, and 2 neutrals. I also discounted the anonymous vote. 18/25 is 72%, but the real kicker is that nobody voting keep (nor anyone contributing to the article) has been able to cite reliable sources. As such, by definition this is original research and is in violation of Wikipedia's verification policy. However, I'll try my best not to be surprised/offended when/if this appears at WP:DRV. Regardless, I'm leavingt the talk pages there for posterity. howcheng {chat} 23:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aetherometry

edit

Previous AFD

Nominated by Januszkarp 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC); reason follows:[reply]

Hi, this is Janusz Karpinski. I decided to start this voting for deletion because of how having the aetherometry entry makes Wikipedia look bad. I think the entry should be deleted until literature about aetherometry appears in mainstream scientific publications, or until aetherometry becomes popular and known and can be found in reliable outside descriptions. Right now it just lowers Wikipedia reputation, at least in my surround.

I give three reason why aetherometry entry should be deleted:

1. Serious not solvable problems with Undue Weight policy
2. Serious not solvable problems with Verifiability policy
3. Because of above not solvable problems, what is done with the entry causes impoliteness, unscientific behaviour from Wikipedia administrators, is unable to get out of same spot ( like wheels turning on ice), and gives bad impression to public.

I will now elaborate these reasons a little.

Ad 1. The Undue Weight policy says:

  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

What I see about the situation of aetherometry is: it has some students and supporters which make very small minority of general population. Outside of this, some neo-Reichian people and some cold-fusion people have said something about it and nobody else. It is not part of culture or counterculture. Nobody in scientific community made an examination or published about it, so none at all majority view is documented. So only thing Wikipedia can say about "viewpoint in the majority" on subject of aetherometry is that there is not any that can be substantiated. Everything else in article would have to be viewpoint of very small minority. How is it possible not to give undue weight to minority viewpoint? You would have to repeat the one sentence about the not being any majority view thousands of times before the policy would let you write even one sentence saying anything about minority view. That's why there is the third point: if the viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. Aetherometry has a viewpoint held by very small minority, and which does not have a majority viewpoint.

Ad 2. The aetherometry.com website is very large and contains many writings by creators of aetherometry. Many one has to pay for. What I saw uses new language and new way of thinking and is very difficult. I think it is impossible to verify without much understanding of some of these writings whether what is written in the Wikipedia aetherometry entry is accurate portrayal or somebody's interpretation, since there is not an accepted interpretation of aetherometry with which the entry can be compared. It is also impossible to sincerely and scientifically put aetherometry in category as science or not science. I see that many Wikipedia administrators want to say aetherometry is pseudoscience. Pseudoscience means it has been alleged by scientific community to violate the scientific method. Scientific method has to do with how you collect empirical evidence and how you make it the basis for theory. Without studying aetherometry materials and even maybe reproducing experiments it is not possible sincerely and scientifically to evaluate how aetherometry does this, and it has not been alleged anywhere by scientific community. Violation of scientific method may be suspicion that these administrators have, and it may be correct suspicion, but it is just opinion and cannot be verified at this time, because of absence of supporting literature. Some administrators say that aetherometry has been around for 5 years and nobody in mainstream science got interested means it is pseudoscience. But this is also only suspicion, not verifiable. Aetherometry is big and does have new language and mainstream science may see no reason to make effort. Nobody pays mainstream science to make such effort, except in military cases and then it is not always publicized. So I am sorry, but silence of mainstream science is not scientific verification that aetherometry is not science. Wikipedia with its own means cannot verify that aetherometry is science or is not science, and no other means exist.

Ad 3. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales in his Personal Appeal writes: "Thousands of people, all over the world, from all cultures, working together in harmony to freely share clear, factual, unbiased informationÉ". This is very different from what work on the aetherometry entry looks to the world. Work on this entry is full of impoliteness, bitterness, non-factualness and opinion. This is on all sides, and is not fault of those sides. It is fault of not solvable problems with undue weight and unverifiability. As a result, the discussions make Wikipedia administrators look as if more interested in sticking opinion-based label on aetherometry than in learning what aetherometry is. This is a bad thing in encyclopedia, because it does not provide for the public a leadership and example of love of knowledge. When public looks at aetherometry entry, the not solvable problems make Wikipedia administrators look unprofessional, not scientific, not interested in knowledge, and just wanting to force into Wikipedia their own opinion, even when unverified. For what have this? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 20:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The following from Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus may apply to this AFD. "For example, administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith. Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Emphasis added. New User:Januszkarp's contributions began January 13 and have been on no other topic than the deletion of the Aetherometry article. GangofOne 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Hi, this is Janusz. I hope contributions are evaluated on such criteria as truth, honesty, accuracy, strongness of argument, not previous edits. I will be happy to make many edits in future, if I see hope that Wikipedia will have serious, honest attitude to verifiability and scientific accuracy . It does not have such attitude now, and without it I will certainly not participate. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, Natalinasmpf! You voted so fast! Did you read my reasons? Could you say a little about how you can impart unbiased information when no literature is available? From where will unbiased verifiable information be obtained? Januszkarp 20:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Currently we have tons of rebuttals as it is. The aetherometrists in fact, (as of the last afd), want this deleted, because it disparages their theory. We even classify it as pseudophysics (by cat'ing it as aether theories)...undue weight can be resolved by cutting down on the material. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 05:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, pardon if I am direct, but I think perhaps you are so wanting to hurt aetherometrists that you forget responsibility as encyclopedia administrator. It is not place of encyclopedia administrators to rebut scientific theory, but only to quote reputable scientific sources, if they exist, that rebut theory on credible scientific basis. Otherwise, it really is simply disparagement. Sorry I have to say this although I am not prejudiced for aetherometry. Disparagement has no place in encyclopedia. To call theory pseudoscience or pseudophysics without quoting respectable sources examining it through credible scientific process is just using power of administrator for own bias. I hope this is not your purpose. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 23:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, we have policies of WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and (absent from this article, I note) a recommendation to WP:CITE. I can't find a policy of WP:TGH (if that's what "top Google hit" would be aliased to); as far as I can tell, being the top Google hit is not a grounds either for inclusion or deletion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Natalinasmpf: Even from half way around the world, I'm sure you can still smell my disgust with WMC. But can you believe it, he and I finnaly agree on something. Although I still taint a few things with my sarcasm once and awhile, I am now being sober in that the reasons for both sides to delete Aetherometry from Wikipedia, are mutually beneficial.
  • Wikipedia can do far better things with its time than fight with Aetherometry.
  • Aetherometry can do far better things with its time than fight with Wikipedia.
I've commented to jossi, that cutting Aetherometry loose for now, would at least give Wikipedia a chance to re-set it calibrations on Varification, Peer-Review, Citation and Reference without Aetherometry screaming in its face about the self-archival system used by the Correas as a necessary building block for scientist, one even ISI is now having to re-consider in its value metric. Until such time, the existence of Aetherometry in Wikipedia is simply and open sore to be picked at by everyone not as familiar as you, with the importance of reference when using such an emotionally evocative word such a pseudo. Sincerely I ask you, please re-consider your vote. TTLightningRod 06:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NOR, because until we can verify both pro and anti cases from reliable sources (which in the case of a supposedly scientific concept means peer-reviewed scientific journals) it can't be anything else, can it? I see no evidence that anyone other than the Correa camp have accepted that this is anything other than complete bollocks. It also appears from the various publications by the Correa camp that Wikipedia is not only the main independent publisher of this theory, it is also the main independent publisher for criticism of it. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 20:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not original research, it reports on it from published sources. It terms of balance, there are articles on all the Physics topics and theories that are inconsistant with this one. This is one page. Wikipedia does say all the other things many thousands of times more. The article does need some more cleaning up. This clean up may be very deep. But that is still different to just deleting the topic.Obina 23:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't discount the above at all, but as a simple matter of fact the existence of numerous articles on well-proven concepts does not mean we are bound to document one which is not absent it passing WP:V and WP:RS; after all, the fact that every article which touches on the subject accepts that gravity exists does not mean I should be allowed to create a page based on the theory that "Earth sucks". Please refer me to the reliable sources for the concept of Aetherometry - specifically the names of those reputable peer-reviewed journals in which this notionally scientific concept has been discussed. Thanks, Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, I read some of the aetherometry web page and these people are clearly nuts. They may have gone nuts because they have discovered something important and no-one else will acknowledge it. Or they may just be nuts. Their stuff about the mysteriously charging capacitor seems to be explained by current scientific knowledge, though. They would be much better advised to write within the canons of scientific method and avoid hysterical ad hominem rantings against people they feel have slighted them. John Cooper - unsigned comment by 81.76.63.221 (talk · contribs)
  • Comment I mean these people claim to have discovered that Einstein was wrong and global warming is a hoax! Hello! Matthew Leeming - unsigned comment also by 81.76.63.221 (talk · contribs)
The point is, nuts or not, we should not include it until they've finally got it published by a reputable journal. Right now not even the April 1 editions look like touching this one. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 00:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For those that have read articles published in science papers; there are many proposing reinterpretations and even unconventional concepts. Wikipedia can not start including every unconventional theories. What Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) is proposing is ridiculous, Wikipedias task is not to 'expose' every unconventional theories. Articles existances can not be justified on the basis that it will balance what there is already. Beside, the last few days when I've read about the subject, I haven't really seen counter answers to the theory, which meens that the theory is not enough known to be criticized. In fact, the citation index, or digital periodicals includes how many times papers have been cited, and this is a good indication of the notability of papers. If we can not criticize papers by using the critics of those in the field, it simply means, that the subject is not notable enought. Fad (ix) 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. Until the concept is published in reputable peer-reviewed journals, followed by criticism and informed debate in thsoe journals, then this article can only be either POV, original research or unverifiable. I cannot think of any way of covering the subject encyclopaedically without violating at least one of those immutable wikilaws. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 22:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I continue to believe, as I did in the first AFD, that this is significant enough as a pseudoscience to warrent a wikipedia article. My basic reasoning for believing so can be read here. In terms of some of the specific criticism rendered here, I would reply that for describing the theory itself there is no more reliable source then the published volumes of its main proponents. I would also object to the standard that describing psuedoscience requires peer review scientific literature. Obviously if something is unfit for publication, it will never be discussed and debated in the peer review context. It is as silly as asking for papers debating the merits of a flat Earth or chiromancy. However, I agree, there is a response problem. How does one deal with a field where there isn't a published literature of criticisms? Well, I think we can all pretty much agree how an encyclopedia article on this subject ought to read, roughly: Aetherometry is a theory advanced by X that claims Y. It has no significant support in the scientific community as verified by its failure to appear in abstract database Z. Some specific claims are A, B, C; as acknowledged by aetherometry's advocates these conflict with established scientific principles D, E, F. I don't really see any reason to go inventing counter-arguments since the supporters themselves admit to requiring changes to the establised views. Having said all of that, I'm not actually going to vote keep, as I have no intention of personally contributing to the further development of this article. Since it is a topic that has generated such acrimony, I prefer to defer to those involved as to whether they want to see the continued existence of this article. Dragons flight 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cut this anchor loose. Either way, it's going to drag Wikipedia down. Wikipedia can not police the world of bad ideas as the Nat fancies, and if it's worse than a dumb theory, "a con", than I'd think some "victims" would have surfaced by now. Please argue this first reason up or down.
Second reason to dump it from Wikipedia is; If Aetherometry is EVER uncovered to contain ANY merit, Wikipedia treatment of the material to-date is a serious black mark (especially considering the two books written already by the targets of this extraordinary Wikipedia bias). I mean think for just a moment, the shear audacity of filling ISBN numbers by the very perpetrators of the "CON". To write letters to CNN after Jimbo made a defense of Wikipedia treatment of the Seigenthaler affair.
So like I said, either way, dump it. Delete any and all history you can from worldwide wiki memory banks. Or if not, open up an article to expose one of the most complex pseudoscientific frauds ever attempted by a few pseudoscientific Canadians. Ya, go get those Wikipedia libelers Nat, you brilliant Legal Eagle. TTLightningRod 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the reason I voted delete is not because of bias, but because the theory appears never to have been published in any reputable peer-reviewed journals. That makes it impossible to verify the article without violating WP:NPOV, since the only reliable sources are the authors themselves. Oh, plus I think it's complete bollocks, but that is just a personal view. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Comment: In the spirit of Bastiat, I challenge your mild comment by taking it to the absurd extremes awaiting you on either side of the fence upon which you sit.
"Keep" the bollocks, and get to work quick on the New Article documenting how it's one of the most complex pseudoscience frauds ever attempted by a couple of pseudoscientests from Canada. Forget Canada, it's actually one of the most complex pseudoscience aether theories of all the world. This new article will be a smash hit for the soon to be faltering popularity of Wikipedia, I guarantee. A most sneaky con, because the perps had been cooking it up for twenty years before they so cleverly pooped it into the Wikipedia. Yes, tens of thousands of carefully crafted pages were used to build the con, that is, before they executed the masterful stoke of offering the bait-n-switch free stuff to Wikipedia. Climbing to the top of the Google charts, where 18 actual people were actually swindled out of 23 dollars and 87 cents Canadian, each! Yes, the greatest con, NOT because of its success as a money swindle, but because so few people actually lost money buying the junk science papers and the perps didn't even recover their cost in staples. The most elaborate con ever, and no one would come forward to persecute the dastardly confidence tricksters after they went to all that trouble.
I'm talking about a darn Hollywood Blockbuster of a story here! A tragic drama of a few people dedicating tens of thousands of hours to build up a pile of bullcappy, and they never once took the time to read how "the scientific method" would have the power to expose their grand conspiracy, instantly.
I'm so serious about this, there isn't an ounce of real sarcasm in my words above. Bastiat would be very disappointed in me.
Or "Delete" because anymore bollocks in this here Wikipedia is just too much for the servers to handle. Jimbo will be making more desperate donation drives so that he can keep the servers running. "Protecting the masses from bollocks is my dedication in life. Please send money this afternoon or the Wikipedia to save the world from bollocks, might suffer from increasing instances of ISP shutdown."
Or "Delete" for that other reason I spoke of. Because the fence post is about to jamb up the kester of this here otherwise fine establishment, because it can't get a grip on why it's reputation is really starting to stink. TTLightningRod 03:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is not your drama-filled teen Livejournal, folks. Some of you need to step away from the computer a while, take a few deep, calming breaths, put down the scissors and stop caring about the internet so damn much. - Randwicked Alex B 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Randwicked: I looked, but I couldn't find any other comments of yours in the talk page other than this one: "Oh God. This is the funniest thing ever..." - Randwicked 07:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC) As for the article space, how many times did you re-insert the phrase Pseudoscience there? You were just joking right? Jokes on me, right?. Goodness, how you revealed me with all this egg on my face for caring "so damn much". TTLightningRod 13:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so I tried to revert to consensus a few times, then lost interest when I realised how Sisyphean that was. And yes, I thought the ginormous persecution complex the authors of that website/book have was funny. Now I feel kind of guilty about laughing; I don't think they can help it.
Chill and you'll live longer, RandwickedAlex B 13:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What's sisyphean, is the idea that Wikipeda will even stick to its own rules... CalvinBall I think you call it. Right? What's ginormous, is the self-righteous ego of that uniformed consensus you were "defended". Are you sure you weren't just a little swept away by some group-think there? Or... are you sure you weren't trying to uphold some group-think there? You shouldn't feel guilty about laughing, a good sense of humor is a great thing. Mockery, on the other hand, is shameful. But what will really help you live longer, is an open mind. I'll have plenty of time to chill when I'm dead, thank you. Passion for honesty, and the scientific method is nothing I'm ashamed of. TTLightningRod 14:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Randwicked, this is Janusz. You say internet is not so serious and to be much cared about. I often hear this view. But you know, many children who want knowledge spend now much time on internet trying to learn, and this is very serious and to be cared about. When my son sees website like aetherometry.com, this is not so serious because he knows this is just point of view and if he has interest he can ask more questions and after while form own judgement. But when he goes to Wikipedia, he wants to take it as model of making of real knowledge. When Wikipedia makes judgement by consensus, what kind of consensus is this? There are very different kinds of consensus. There is consensus of individuals who each judge carefully and in most serious way, from own conscience, own love of truth and own love of justice. This is noble consensus. But there is also consensus of cattle, where people join because of authority of leader or fear. And worse, there is consensus of pogrom, where whole villages by consensus start killing Jews and each individual follows own sadism under excuse that everybody else did the same. These kinds are shameful consensus. When my son sees judgements such as pseudoscience in Wikipedia articles by consensus, I cannot lie and tell him consensus is of noble kind, because I know in my heart that people executing judgement, such as you, did not do it in noble way. I am not saying you are not noble, but these actions in Wikipedia are not noble, and when they influence children and teach them to judge without seriousness and conscience, it is serious and not responsible. I am sorry if I am too direct. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 17:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I fully understand Januszkarp's exasperation over the long list of items and discussions that are unverified and do not follow WP:V or WP:CITE. That was the reason I started a discussion at Talk:Aetherometry#Current_state_of_article. However, the timing of this AfD and this comment in Ad 2: "Some administrators say that aetherometry has been around for 5 years and nobody in mainstream science got interested means it is pseudoscience. But this is also only suspicion, not verifiable." seems to indicate you are unhappy with this effort (I am not sure). Anyway, I just wanted to clarify that obviously all consensus in that discussion needs to be based on verifiable references, nothing was meant to be based on suspicions. Our efforts at WP depend on insisting on that principal, as you correctly point out. What seems to have stirred part of your critique must have been my sentence that a theory can be called "pseudoscience", when it purports to be scientific but "(c) the proponents never seriously tried to have it evaluated" (to quote myself). If this is proven in the bounds of WP:CITE and WP:V, I contend one can call this theory "pseudoscience". This is to close the "loophole" of a theory avoiding exposure to the scientific community so no "scientific verification that this theory is not science" will ever exist. Now, I might be wrong with my definition (and you can change my mind with a good reference), but there is nothing here that is not supposed to be verifiable. To conclude my rambling, we can write a meaningful article even on such a contentious theory, when we do our homework regarding verifiability! It is just more work digging out the sources compared to a simple Google search... I guess, since I looked at this for only four days, I'm neutral on this AfD. Awolf002 23:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Janusz. You taught me very nice new word, "exasperation". Thank you.
The sentence that you quote from my AfD reasons, that if aetherometry has been public for 5 years and nobody got interested, then it is pseudoscience, was referring not to you but to Pjacobi, who said this in response to me on his talk page. This seems actually complement of your argument, which is that if aetherometry did not try to be evaluated, then it is pseudoscience. So in short, by putting your two arguments together, if nobody evaluated aetherometry because either aetherometry was not interested to be evaluated or nobody was interested to evaluate it, then it is pseudoscience, i.e. it violates requirement, essential to scientific method, of proper iterations and interleavings of experiments, quantifications, hypotheses, and predictions. I am sorry, and I hope I dont offend you, but this logic makes me think of Polish word "kretactwo" (written with little hook under "e"), that means twisting, rotating in order to bypass truth. It is creating untruth sideways, not even an honest lie, but a sideways lie. I dont mean that you personally are "kretacz" - twister - but you are not disagreeing to be involved in Wikipedia "kretactwo". I will explain by giving example why I am exasperated. Look at aetherometry history in past few days. What percent of activity is reverting to category "Pseudoscience"? Every day there is reverting several times, except special treatment of Natalinasmpf, who is "insider". And who does reverting? Who is Randwicked, Constantine Evans, Rlove, No Guru, Batmanand, A bit iffy, TestPilot, Calton, El C, Ducharris, Salsb? Why do they revert? Do they know something about relationship of experiment to theory in aetherometry, or about reputable literature discussing this relationship? If they know, why do they not tell, discuss? I think they know as little as I. So why do they revert, on what basis? Why does Wikipedia administration permit them to do this without basis, and not discipline them for unverifiable claims? To the contrary, many Wikipedia administrators, as you know, do same, and perhaps some of names I mentioned are administrators also!
But this is not all. This reversion, every day several times, is now going on many months. It is just matter of fact, as if erasing claim that aetherometry is pseudoscience is like saying that sun rises in west, a vandalism or craziness. And all this time there is not even smallest verifiable evidence that aetherometry is contrary to scientific method! And all these months administrators and almost-administrators come in and make great effort at "kretactwo", at twisting and rotating truth, in order to make category "Pseudoscience" look legitimate for aetherometry. So FIRST they put category in and make sure it stays in, by constant reverting, and THEN they try to bake a justification! Does Wikipedia policy really permit this? And now you join with your complement to Pjacobi, and Philosophus joins with his trap questions, and maybe a new generation will soon join also and have fresh, better ideas for this "kretactwo". For what all this? To hurt the aetherometrists, as Natalinasmpf said? In my opinion, it is hurting a lot more yourself, Wikipedia, and the readers of Wikipedia that trust it for education. It is similar to corrupt polish politics, which most of all hurts country and its people, and gives example to young generation of future corrupt politicians. I hope you do not interpret this as personal offense and understand better now my exasperation. I think in case of Wikipedia it is situation, not individual people, that takes fault for corruption. Perhaps in case of Poland also, I dont know. But situation of Poland is very complicated, while Wikipedia situation is much simpler and can be fixed, in my view, by not accepting such problematic articles. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 06:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've expended a great deal of energy on this article -- one of the prinicple authors of the current version. I don't agree that Aetherometry is at all crazy, but it's certainly intellectually shocking. Whatever my judgement about the subject, Janusz is right. Without secondary literature on both sides there's no way to satisfy WP:V so even if the article was a perfectly accurate description of the subject there'd be nothing to reference against but a complete survey of the primary literature. So this is the kind of article Wikipedia was just not meant to do, and that's alright. I didn't really understand this in the last AfD when I voted to keep. Sometime down the road maybe the situation will be different and whatever Wikipedia editors come along can build an article with literature references. Pgio 07:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi, Psychologesetz. Saying that aetherometry has appeared in peer-reviewed journals is serious statement. If it appears, maybe then I am in error that claims about aetherometry are not verifiable. But statement is a bit surprising after so many months and needs some additional information. What are these journals and who writes in them about aetherometry? Why are they not referred to in Wikipedia aetherometry entry? I would like, if possible, also opinion of Dr. Connolley about this. Dr. Connolley, do you know about these journals, what they are and what they say? Are they reputable and in accordance with Wikipedia verifiability policy of minority and majority view? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, GangofOne. Could you please support with verifiable sources your statement that aetherometry is pseudoscience? Also, to me your point is a little confusing. Why does lineage and being derivative qualify for inclusion in encyclopedia, even if topic contradicts other policy? Maybe this is other Wikipedia policy that I dont know about? Please explain. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi, this is Janusz. I think Dr. Connolley's position is very correct. People who vote to keep article should take responsibility for their vote, otherwise it is just cheap words. They have to be able to make commitment to sanity of article that they vote to include in encyclopedia. "Sanity" means reputability, honesty and verifiability. It means that no statements should be permitted that are not supported by reputable external sources, for both of majority views and minority views. So far, Natalinasmpf, Obina, Terence Ong, Psychologesetz and GangofOne voted to keep article, so they need to make commitment insuring reputability, honesty and verifiability. How will they insure this? It has never been done in this article before. Perhaps I will write to them personally and ask. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi, this is Janusz. I asked the following question here before and Dr. Connolley moved it to the Discussion page. I do not mean to be impolite or violate rules, but I think question should be here and not hidden, so voters can clearly see how much time is left. So I hope you will excuse me for asking this here again:
  • Question to Wikipedia administration. Could somebody inform us when will be closing time for this vote? If it is 5 days after beginning time, then vote will close 20:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC). Please kindly confirm that time, or tell when is correct time. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 16:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The answer is, not less than five days from the start of the debate, but there is no rule saying when it must be closed, and if debate is still going on it is not at all uncommon for AfDs to be left open for longer than the five days. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 17:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. This seems good flexible policy, but puts large responsibility on decision maker for choosing without bias when to close vote. Can you tell us who is decisionmaker for this vote, or is this secret? Excuse me for not knowing answers to these questions. Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jossi. Yes, of course, if 10000s of other Wikipedia entries are full of unverifiable claims that are just opinion and violate Wikipedia policy as encyclopedia, and if this is not solvable, they should be deleted also. Does your vote mean you accept commitment to make aetherometry article reputable, honest and verifiable? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are misinterpreting WP:V and WP:NPOV. My experience is that with time and patience, articles become better. The responsibility of making this and other articles better, lies on all WP editors, not only on those that vote not to delete. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But the responsibility for ensuring that this article discusses a subject which has the potential to be covered from a neutral point of view using only verifiable data from reputable sources is very much the job of this discussion. As far as I can see there is no reputable peer-reviewed journal which has published this theory and as such it is impossible to cover it neutrally without straying into original research. It's quite clear form policy that Wikipedia is not a publisher of firsat instance, either of theories or of their debunking. The most we can say about it from the sources cited in the article (i.e. none) is that it is a theory promoted by a small group of people which has never been subjected to peer-review and is thus not accepted by the scientific community at large. Instead we have this long and rambling argument which belongs on a personal website, like the theory itself. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 19:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as above Vote may be discountable if "being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article." Emphasis added. New User:Januszkarp's contributions began January 13 and have been on no other topic than the deletion of the Aetherometry article. GangofOne 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is Janusz. I hope person who is in charge of evaluating votes will use more serious criteria than number of previous edits. This person has large and heavy responsibility. Forgive again my not knowing, but how is this person appointed? Is there announcement some place about who this person is? Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. As far as I know there is no appointment. Anyone who has been designated "admin" can act as that person. GangofOne 20:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incognito 00:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mostly per Pgio. My reasoning: we don't need to go on about peer-reviewed journals; a quick Google search reveals that no one, except a few bloggers, have written about "Aetherometry"-- and they don't count. Forget science. The article is nothing more than an absurdly in-depth review of a website with an Alexa rank of two million. Melchoir 01:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Google count of 40,000 means it is notable enough. People will look to Wikipedia to find out what is known about this topic, and what is merely asserted or alleged. If we can't verify facts, we can report on their absence. For example, "No paper on Aetherometry has ever been published in a peer reviewed journal", which, by-the-way, is exactly what the current article says. Johntex\talk 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is unfortunate that we can't always write the articles we want. It would be great to educate the public on all kinds of issues, but this here is an encyclopedia. There does not exist the material that would allow us to write an encyclopedia article on Aetherometry; and since we cannot, we shouldn't try. The only kind of Wikipedia article that might belong at wiki/Aetherometry would be an article on the website, which is what we currently have, don't kid yourself. But the website itself is not notable enough to deserve this treatment. Melchoir 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interesting to read about. For those who are concerned with the 'reliability' and 'reputation' of Wikipedia, I see it as a place that has something to say about everything. Now for real information i could reference in a paper, I go to written books and published encyclopaedias. I'm not allowed to reference Wikipedia. But I am appreciative of the things that can be read about, whether or not they are congruent with scientific theory blah blah blah. Shouldn't alternatives be considered, and as such? Anonymous 23:19, 18 Juanuary 200 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.94.191.36 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete, sadly. I think Janusz is right: for scientific topics, if there is no standard, generally accepted literature to work with, the topic does not belong in Wikipedia. I don't understand why the original submitter of the entry was not simply told this, at the very start, and the entry promptly, courteously and neutrally deleted. There is some crucial piece of procedure missing here. FrankZappo 16:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is your answer. People have bent over backwards to be fair to this article, possibly to the point where they can't see the light. For me there is one crucial question to answer: is this about a scientific theory, or about a kook website? If the former, it has never been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal; deletion is a no-brainer. If the latter, it is so far short of WP:WEB that again it's pretty clear-cut. Much of the argument above seems to be defending Wikipedia as a source for publishing critique of the theory - but that assumes the scientific theory interpretation, and not only is WP:NOT a publisher of original thought; as a scientific concept it falls at the first hurdle, well before you get into the merits of how neutral the article is, or the edit wars, or other questions. Even the flat earth hypothesis gets some coverage in the peer-reviewed literature, this appears to have none at all. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi, I would like to make observation/question. With topic such as aetherometry, with no secondary acceptable literature, all information comes from people who read primary sources. It cannot be certain if what they say is not just their interpretation, but it is certain that without them there cannot be entry, because there is no secondary information at all. In case of aetherometry such person now is Pgio. And there also cannot be entry without majority scientific view described. This job in case of aetherometry is completely impossible, but much of it rests on shoulders of Dr. Connolley. There are also people constantly doing work to clean from entry unverifiable bias inserted every day, and FrankZappo is one such person. Here is situation I want to comment about: I see voters on this page coming in and just saying "entry should stay because is interesting" or "entry should stay because is high on Google". These voters do not suggest any solution to problems of verifiability and they cannot do job of Pgio or Dr. Connolley in work on entry. Do their votes count same as votes of people without whose work entry could not exist? If they do, then people like Pgio, Dr. Connolley, or FrankZappo, because they care about quality of entry, are in position of forced labor. Even if they say "we prefer entry deleted because we are in impossible situation", anybody can walk in and say "no, you must continue to be in impossible situation because I think entry is interesting or high on Google". In this way people who have passion to keep entry "sane", as Dr. Connolley said, and who because of passion do work on entry, can become prisoners of anybody who comes in and frivolously says "keep". Sincerely, Janusz. Januszkarp 17:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this per WMC — Dunc|☺ 19:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entry cannot be "kept sane", because it has never yet been sane, is not sane now, and has no chance of becoming sane. Every edit on it just leads to endless repetitious insanity. It may well be that some people, like GangofOne, thrive on creating situations of chaos and insanity, and like to stoke them wherever they see them. But on the side of clarity and sanity, the vote should be to delete. Helicoid 19:39, 19 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. -Doc ask? 10:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish terrorism

edit

A blatant violation of WP:NPOV. Article content is so bad that once the POV is taken out there's not much left. Delete and allow someone else to write a neutral article (preferably under a less charged title) at a later time. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:26, 14 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 SPEEDIED by User:Jeffrey O. Gustafson as "A4"... twice

Badawiya HOTEL

edit

Reads like an advertisement for a hotel in, at, or around the Farafra Oasis. No claim of notability, and no references or sources provided --PeruvianLlama(spit) 20:40, 14 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. Ichiro 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laser scanning at Stonehenge

edit

Non-notable. At very least, merge into Stonehenge and clean-up ComputerJoe 20:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Delete if you must, just don't merge I copied this out of the Stonehenge article as it was getting too big - there is an awful lot to write about the place. Merging it back in would just bulk out that page all over again. adamsan 20:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Is there a limit on article size? What is it? Where can I read more? Why let technical limitations effect the style and organization of the encyclopedia? -- Mikeblas 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, anything c. 30 Kb+ needs to be examined to see if it can be broken up, see WP:SIZE adamsan 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The thing is, Stonehenge is 46Kb even without this. By all means vote to delete it as I don't think it adds anything to the article that couldn't be said in a sentence, merging it back in just wastes a load more valuable bytes I could use to say other things about the monument in my view. Vote changed to reflect comment. adamsan 20:59, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Benjamin Stove?

edit

Non notable blog, only a dozen google hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's only been around a week, it could hardly be considered widely-known or notable. I have changed my vote to strong delete. If it ever gets more than "hundreds of members" (which is very small by Wikipedia converage standards), an article can be added later. MCB 06:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an amusement, and is generally interesting as an online RPG/sleuthing activity.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Doc ask? 10:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two camp thesis

edit

Neologism (sortof) - less than thirty google hits, few related. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:56, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RB Control Systems

edit

This looks like blatant advertising for a non-notable company Tim Fellows 21:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete under expanded A7 - Lucky 6.9 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sons of Alpha Centauri

edit

Non-notable band, as per WP:Music  (aeropagitica)  21:06, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Hodcroft

edit

AfD : Non-notable person. Doesn't appear to be chairman of Hartlepool United either.  (aeropagitica)  21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Warren (convict)

edit

Nothing in this article alleges notability. I speedy deleted it, the original editor objected, so I'm bringing it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for failure to establish notability wrt WP:BIO. Eddie.willers 21:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. -R. fiend 22:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Durova 22:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable. I see that Snottygobble (talk · contribs) has posted a whole string of similar articles from the same Rica Erickson sources. Being a transported convict is not in itself notable. The standard figure is 160,000 transportees to Australia; we can't have articles on them all. The test is Wikipedia:Notability (people): Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field? Tearlach 11:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established. TigerShark 23:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's been fifty years since historians first began to regret the fact that their histories were all histories of the rich and powerful elite. Since then historians worldwide have begun the process of redressing this imbalance. If Wikipedia starts refusing to host historical biographical articles that reference reputable sources, then Wikipedia shows itself to be stuck in the 1950s. It cites a reputable academic source, people! How can it be non-notable? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 06:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drew. Ambi 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Verifiability != notability. While I'm sure it's regretful that we don't have much information on the lives of common people in the past, one's existence and/or the ability to prove that does not qualify one for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I think I've suggested a wiki for people before, a long long time ago, and this is an excellent example of what would be a perfectly decent article there. But an encyclopedia? Sorry, folks. Johnleemk | Talk 06:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the article should be kept now. Ambi's point that "Some guy wrote about him a hundred years later, so he's worth writing about!" isn't really convincing. What is convincing is the article's new assertion of notability. After all, there has to be a reason why the biographer wrote about him, and that reason is usually proof of notability. The article now explains all, so I'm willing to change my tune on this. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Johnleemk. enochlau (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, subject of biographical research. Kappa 06:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. As far as I know, most non-notable entries are promotion, vanity, stalking or the like. This wikipedia entry wouldn't be guilty of this, nor would the person who created the primary source. So that makes more than one person who in good faith considers the subject notable. Andjam 07:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andjam and Drew. Sarah Ewart 07:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep John et al., there is a wiki for people; a couple in fact (however neither is officially associated with MediaWiki or Wikipedia, but maybe one should be). Check the {{badbio}} template. I agree that such a place, and not Wikipedia, is better for the average vanity bio, but Andjam has a point. The individual obviously didn't write it himself.--Wotwu 07:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Drew. Bduke 07:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No assertion of notability. --Carnildo 08:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems nn.  Grue  08:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Possibly to the detriment of the article, I have added an assertion of the subject's notability to the article. Can prior voters on notability grounds please re-consider in the light of the changes and, if you won't change your vote, re-sign your comments with a fresh timestamp. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andjam and Snottygobble -- Adz|talk 09:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Andjam, Snottygobble, Adz; verifiable - Wikipedia's policy is verifiabilty--A Y Arktos 11:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But don't forget Wikipedia:Notability (people), which states a simple test: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" Clearly, the answer is no. enochlau (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. The fact that, more than a hundred years after his death, someone completely unrelated felt that his contribution was important enough to research enough to write about in a book would suggest to me that yes, there has been a recognised contribution to the historical record. It's silliness like this article being put up for AfD that makes me see where the "notability should not be a reason for deletion" folks are coming from. Ambi 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • that his contribution was important enough to research enough to write about in a book. Looks like historical politics to me. [50]: "The publishing of the book coincided with people viewing their convict ancestors not with shame for their crimes but with pride for their achievements". Dull biographies - but hey, it's Heritage. Tearlach 12:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The biography notability criteria are less strict for deceased people: "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?" He was one of only a small number of convicts (out of tens of thousands) to achieve a respectable position in society. Discussed in a book on the topic, that's notable enough for me. --bainer (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject of this vote (i.e. an article about the individual John Warren) seems to be getting confused with the subject of "ex-convicts becoming schoolteachers in Australia". The latter may well be notable enough for an article, and it is this subject that the quoted source relates to. Nobody has written a book on John Warren, rather he appears in a book on the subject of ex-convict schoolteachers. Creating an article for each person mentioned in a book on a notable subject seems to be stretching the notabilty test. With regard to the notability test of "Has the person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field?", in what way is John Warren's contribution widely recognized (as opposed to the contribution made by the ex-convict schoolteachers as a whole)? TigerShark 12:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The above correction from "was" to "field" is mine. I believe this is what you meant?)
  • Why can't I say that John Warren made a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in the specific field of "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia"? On what grounds do you discount "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia" as a valid field in which a person might make a widely recognised contribution that is part of the enduring historical record? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 12:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can say whatever you like. I am asking why he should be considered to have made a widely recognised contribution (i.e. justify it, don't just state it). Also, I am not disputing the validity of the field. Thanks TigerShark 15:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think TigerShark is disputing the validity of the field, just Warren's notability within it. Until he got a bit part in a 1983 book, he seems to have been completely unremembered, in any field. How can that be construed as "widely recognised"? See James Ruse below. Tearlach 13:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so the field is valid. And anybody wishing to do research in the field "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia" would have only 39 individuals to study, and so are hardly likely to dismiss any particular individual as not making a significant contribution to the field. I assert that 100% of people that ever have or ever will do research in the field of "ex-convict school-teachers of Western Australia" will recognise Warren as having made a significant contribution to that field. To the extent that "widely" can be used accurately in what is obviously a narrow field, I should say that 100% is wide enough. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 22:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is sheer sophistry, again based on cherry-picking an obscure non-notable subset of a notable group, then claiming notability for being in that subset. The Brand on His Coat [51] is about "some of the 9,500 convicts transported to Western Australia between 1850 and 1868" so you're selecting a time-slot, a region and a profession, then claiming notabiity for being one of the few in that selection. This is an utter swindle, helped along by soliciting views in the Australian Wikipedians' notice board where there's bound to be a bias toward inclusion. Tearlach 23:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apparent "sheer sophistry" is bound to accur when you're forced to justify the existence of an article against a criterion that you think is rubbish. I have had that blessed sentence quoted at me numerous times on this page; since it is apparently the be-all and end-all of notability, I have no option but to work within its constraints. If you don't think the "specific field" is appropriate, then I'd like to see you provide a definition of "specific field" that doesn't result in a circular definition of notability.
Meanwhile, Rica Erickson thinks that ex-convict schoolteachers in Western Australia is a sufficiently notable group to write a book chapter about them. You dispute this. On what grounds do you claim to be a better judge of the notability of a Western Australian group than the State's most respected social historian?
As for your suggestion that I solicited biased views, I think you're getting dangerously close to assuming bad faith here. In my view, the people who hang around AFD tend to be more likely to have a deletionist outlook. My stated intention was to get input from a wider range of people than the usual AFD crowd. Since the article is Australian, that is a reasonable forum in which to do so. I was very careful to state that I was looking for debate rather than support. What exactly is your objection to that? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 23:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds do you claim to be a better judge of the notability of a Western Australian group than the State's most respected social historian? Ignoring the appeal to authority (a card you've already played when you objected to Zoe's speedy deletion [52]) "the State's most respected social historian" was working by whatever selection criteria she had for writing the book, which doesn't necessarily match Wikipedia's collective notability standards. As for your suggestion that I solicited biased views, I think you're getting dangerously close to assuming bad faith here. All I'll suggest is that you don't seem keen on abiding by the usual procedures for assessing notability and keeping/deletion. Using admin powers to restore your own article from speedy deletion doesn't go down well here. Nor does running to Jimbo Wales because you don't like an AfD. Tearlach 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wholly agree with the views of Tearlach and and TigerShark - he just doesn't stack up to other historical figures we have here, and his only claim to fame is as a member of a group of people. enochlau (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to The Brand on His Coat (book), and expand the article to discuss the published work. If the book already had an article, we'd be clamoring for its merge and redir, no? JDoorjam 20:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very reasoned and reasonable suggestion. My opinion is that this is the best option. The man might not be notable, but the book is. Move. Thanks, Jdoorjam. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a good idea to me, I would vote Merge in that situation (or if an article was created covering ex-convicts becoming teachers in Australia). TigerShark 22:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Move per above --Jaranda wat's sup 22:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely not. Should we then move Daniel Connor to The Brand on His Coat too, or does Connor's money and political standing exempt him? And maybe we should move William Sykes (convict) to Unwilling Emigrants too, right? And then I could create an article on the book Biographical Register of Members of Parliament of Western Australia and merge all 75 current articles on W.A. Members of Parliament into that. I don't think you have thought this through at all. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also very strongly object to said merge. Merging historical figures into books makes no sense whatsoever. Ambi 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree, except there is some question about whether this guy is a "historical figure". --LV (Dark Mark) 23:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I absolutely agree. Merging historical figures into books makes no sense. However, this article is about an individual whose only proof of notability seems to be that he is mentioned in this book. Daniel Connor, if mentioned in The Brand On His Coat, should absolutely be mentioned in the article about the book, though if he's notable enough to have his own article, he should have it. As for the Biographical Register of Members of Parliament of Western Australia, I'd say, knock yourself out! I'd argue only that it would conflict with the current apparent scheme of listing them nationally, and not regionally: here's one for 1998-2001, here's one for 2001-2004.... Not only are they listed here, but many (if not all) of those members also have their own page. This is far more like redirecting, say, Philip Pirrip to Great Expectations: we wouldn't have anything to say about Pip or John Warren if it weren't for the respective books they're in. I must say I also agree with Tearlach's assessment of this being cherrypicking by calling him notable among the ex-convictts during a certain time period who became Australian schoolteachers, and with TigerShark's point that the book that is being used to show Warren's notability isn't even about Warren, but is simply about the group of people of which Warren was a member. On his own, without this book, he's entirely non-notable. The book still doesn't make him notable enough, but the book itself is worth discussing. JDoorjam 23:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Except Pip is faaaaar more notable than John Warren (convict). ;-) --LV (Dark Mark) 00:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Undoubtedly. But Warren is still notable enough. And he was a real person too, which is a bonus. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 00:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, since this is a discussion and note a plain vote, what exactly makes John Warren notable? Surely you are not saying everyone mentioned in any book is notable, are you? So he must have done something that was of note. My question is, what? --LV (Dark Mark) 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm not really a big fan of making such sweeping statements, but in general, yes, I do think that any person who is mentioned in a reputable book is notable. If that is not sufficient for you in this case, I say again that he as one of a very small number of convicts who overcame the social stigma of convictism by obtaining a respectable place in Western Australian colonial society via a job as a school teacher. As I understand it, objections to this are based on the premise that I have only made Warren appear notable by providing a non-notable field in which to assess his contribution. As I've said elsewhere, you never know what fields people will want to do research in in the future, and if there is any field in which a person should be considered notable, then the person should be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 01:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as random convict. Stifle 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 01:33, Jan. 16, 2006
  • Delete. This article fails even my very low standards for notability (see User:Simetrical#Notability). Specifically, if he's only known to anyone because of this one book, no one will have any reason to want to know anything about him unless they've read the book, in which case they know everything that the article has to say about him anyway. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but it's quite possible that you'd also be interested in, say, me, a total nobody, if I wrote a good (and verifiable) article about myself. I think we can probably agree that an article about me doesn't belong on Wikipedia, even if people are interested in it. I don't see much of any consistent standard that would allow us to keep an article about this convict but not me, provided the latter article found some unusual and maximally nonspecific category that I fit into. Your having been on the ArbCom probably makes you more notable than this guy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • I feel like we're losing focus here. I've harvested all the "pro" arguments made so far:
  1. "It cites a reputable academic source, people! How can it be non-notable?" (Then let's make an article about the book, eh?)
  2. This article isn't promotional or vanity. (... which is why it wasn't speedied, but that doesn't make it notable.)
  3. There aren't a lot of ex-con teachers in this particular time period. (Please please please tell me this means I get to write my JDoorjam article because there aren't a lot of quarter-German quarter-Norwegian half-Polish California-born East-Coast residents who went to school in up-state New York, and so I'm pretty sure I stand out in that field... but I digress.)

Are there any other arguments? Because these don't really compel me to say this article is keep-worthy. The delete/merge arguments, meanwhile, seem rather valid: if you zoom out even a little bit, to, say, Australians in that time period, or teachers in that time period, or ex-convicts in history, this individual doesn't really seem to stand out.

Is this how it all breaks down at this point? It seems like an obvious delete/merge, despite the passion from the Aussie Posse here. (Sorry, it rhymed. I had to.) JDoorjam 02:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, your bracketed comments are coming across as ridiculing the "pro" position. If you want this to lead to a productive discussion, I suggest you re-factor. Also, the statement "it seems like an obvious delete/merge" may be your opinion, but it can hardly be considered a statement of how this discussion breaks down. We currently have 17 keep votes, 10 delete votes and 4 move/merge votes. Right now the only thing that's obvious is that there is no consensus. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I apologize for taking this with some levity. With that said, are there more reasons to keep this article than those I've just listed? Again, those three don't seem very compelling. Are they compelling to you? I suppose the first one must be, as it's a quotation of a statement you made in this AfD. Clearly the second one isn't stunningly compelling either (or is that not clear? Please say so), which leaves the third one, that yes, if you apply enough variables, John Warren falls out. Are there any other arguments for inclusion? Do you concede any of the points I've made here? JDoorjam 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You needn't apologise for the levity. I have no objection to your comments per se. I do, however, object to them being presented as a summary of the discussion.
Your response to point one doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I concede your second point as no longer relevant. The third point is an inaccurate representation of my position so you can say what you want about it. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore my proposed summary of the "for" arguments is:
  1. Warren is notable because Rica Erickson wrote about him in a book a century after his death.
  2. Warren is notable because he was one of a very small number of convicts who overcame the social stigma of convictism by obtaining a respectable place in Western Australian colonial society via a job as a school teacher.
Feel free to summarise the arguments against, but please, I think levity is not constructive at this point. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 02:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For point 1, is it really that notable that Rica Erickson, herself red-linked, wrote a book mentioning this individual? For point 2, How many overcame the stigma to become merchants? To become day laborers? To work for city government? To do any job that requires any sort of trust? The way you paint it, you make it sound as though nearly 10,000 people tried to become schoolteachers. JDoorjam 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merchants? - I don't know; a few. Day laborers? - I'm not familiar with the term. City government? - Virtually none. Jobs that require any sort of trust? - In a book I recently read, Brian Peachey said around five percent; i.e. 450. "The way you paint it..." - You can't have it both ways; I was happy for the notability of the article to speak for itself, but that was apparently unsatisfactory. I've now inserted an explicit, indeed blatant, statement of notability, and you object to that too.
Okay, Samuel Périvier was written about in David McCullough's book, The Path Between the Seas, so that automatically warrants him an encyclopedia article? Just because someone is researched for part of a book does not automagically mean the subject is inherently notable. That's why we don't have entire articles about minor fictional characters.
A very small number of sailors came to the Americas with Christopher Columbus, do each of them deserve their own articles? Rarity does not equal notability.
However, the book is notable, so an article would be fine on that. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the first thing about Samuel Périvier, David McCullough or The Path Between the Seas. In my view, every sailor who came to the Americas with Christopher Columbus is notable. Are you through asking me hypothetical questions about my position? - these questions really aren't relevant to the discussion at hand. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 04:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So every sailor that sails with Columbus deserves his own encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not for "Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or off-line). Minor characters may be mentioned within other articles." Please, WP is not a repository of facts. We write things in context of notability. This John Warren is only notable within the context of the book and should be merged there. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't misquote me. What I said was every sailor who came to the Americas with Christopher Columbus is notable. Once again, my opinion on the notability of Columbus' sailors is not relevant to this discussion. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments look as if they were made in jest, but apart from that I think they highlight the problems made by the "keep" people. enochlau (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How does it hurt wikipedia to have well written properly referenced articles about less-notable historical figures? If it was opening the door to vanity or self promotion aritcles I would say no, but as this person lived 100 years ago and is still remembered and written about, I think it is fine. --Martyman-(talk) 03:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep or merge. Everyking 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs rewording a bit but its a viable article. As someone who done quite a bit of research on British convicts in Western Australia, I know that we wouldn't know that much about the guy unless he was notable. You are lucky if you can find out anything more than their name, age, religion, crime and place of conviction. We aren't going to have a flood of these.Grant65 | Talk 04:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some of the arguments for keeping seem to be rested on the idea that, for example, Louis Pasteur has an article but The guy who lived across the street from Louis Pasteur does not, and that is some sort of "imbalance" that needs to be "redressed". Quite untrue. If a book were written about the guy we might have something, but being mentioned in a book really is not. I can pick one of any number of biographies or history books off my shelf and find hundred of people mentioned therein, does each and every one warrant an article? It seems the main argument here is "few convicts became teachers", making him something of a rarity. Well rarity is not the equivalent of encylopedicness or notability. Few common convicts become well-respected people today. When they do they do we writes on them? This seems to be an example of using a semi-random person as an example to write about an important subject (convicts in Australia). It's the subject that's important; he's just an illustration of that. Calling him a "historical figure" is a stretch. If he is, then just about everyone who lived back then was; only no one's mentioned most of them in a book (yet). If someone put their mind top it they could get as much significant information about anyone. -R. fiend 04:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is indeed a book that mentions every one of them: the "Bond" volume of the Dictionary of Western Australians. I'm not proposing to write an article on every one. This is not the thin edge of any wedge. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content but move to The Brand on His Coat. Clearly not notable in of himself, but equally clearly contextually notable. The later edits to the second half of the article make this explicit, in fact. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this John Warren the same person as the John Warren who set up Southern Australia's first brewery (1836... would have been about 10) [53]? The Publisher (1882ish) [54]? One of the first surgeons to use NO for an anesthetic (1846ish in Boston) [55]? The civil rights activist (2005... he'd look good for his age) [56]? Of all the notable John Warrens out there, what distinguishes the convict from Joe Schmo from down the road? He did nothing notable. There is still not a case for notability. It is unencyclopedic. --LV (Dark Mark) 05:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He did nothing notable. So you'll be AFD'ing Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom on those grounds then. Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, John Warren was made queen? I wasn't aware of that fact. In that case, speedy keep. I think you are not quite grasping the concept of notability. Would you care to explain to me what the policy on Wikipedia about notability is, please? --LV (Dark Mark) 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have stated above that you think it is necessary to "do something notable" in order to be notable. The Queen is my counter-example. Your statement that you have to "do something notable" in order to be notable is not in conformance with Wikipedia:Notability. Furthermore, notability is not a policy; it is an essay, and Wikipedia:Notability (people) is a guideline, and a highly contentious one at that. Is there anything else you would like to know about the Notability guideline? Drew (Snottygobble) | Talk 05:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about WA convicts I think the content is valuable, but this guy is clearly not notable on his own. It would be good if we can move all the obscure WA convict bio's (same for other states) into one place. That is also better for anyone who wants to read up /research the area because they are unlikely to be looking up his name. --Sumple 05:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to an article about WA convicts Yes we must move, as the population was small in WA at the time, he would have

more impact on the local community in reducing the stigma of convicts. User:Enlil Ninlil


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Nonsensical title; useless, redundant non-article. -R. fiend 22:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of actress

edit

Delete: Duplicates Rosa Aguirre article, title not suitable for redirection Peter Grey 21:17, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developing a library websites

edit

already Transwikied, not encyclopedic Melaen 21:47, 14 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. -Doc ask? 10:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Stanley Katz 2

edit

This guy narrowly escaped deletion before, though it confounds me how (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Stanley Katz). Here's a guy who got 24 votes in a primary election. I bet any person reading this could get that many votes in an election if they got a handful of signatures and were willing to spend pretty small amount of money. Seriously, if we're going to have an article on him, we should have an article on just about every person on the planet. I got about 50 unique googles when searching his name -wikipedia, and not all of them even appeared to be him. I don't see how this guy meets the criteria at WP:BIO. -R. fiend 21:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination or Smerge somewhere. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 03:15Z
  • Keep. as was stated in the last AfD, Proposer has moved that Katz and other candidates in the June 14th primary be removed on the grounds they did not do well. Katz has an article to make a complete record of the election. It is inherently unfair to decide legitimate candidates for an important office do not merit articles because they did not do well in the campaign. Some people previously proposed for deletion have won local offices (e.g. Eric Minamyer) and if we delete them, then we'll have to prevent nearly all local officials from getting any attention at all. (apologies to pedantically speaking for copying his previous answer and altering it, but I couldnt put it better!) Jcuk 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the notion that we can't delete Arthur Stanley Katz because Eric Minamyer has held another office is a non-sequitur, and downright ridiculous. Merely running for an office is not in itself notable. There is plenty of precedent for this. We don't have articles on every single person who ran for the governor of California last time, and that was a much more notable race. Nor, as you seem to indicate, do we delete people's articles just because they didn't do well in an election. Caleb Carr, I recall hearing, recently ran for a local office and did poorly; we do not now delete his article. We do delete people whose sole claim to fame is that they ran for an office and got a dozen votes (two dozen, in this case). This guy made a very sorry attempt to run for an office. Impact on the world: zero. In addition, we do not have articles on every local officeholder, nor should we ever try to. There are just too many of them, and most don't do anything significant to a large degree. There are thousands of villages, towns, municpalities, cities, etc in the world (54,000 Rambot articles gives you an idea of how many there are in the US alone). Pretty much each and every one of these has local officeholders, from a handful to 50 or more. With a turnover every several years, going back hundred of years in some cases (thousands, in some countries) we're dealing with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. Attempting to cover them all would be a futile attempt to double the size of wikipedia without any increase in quality. -R. fiend 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. 24 votes? Give me a break. Stifle 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Election-cruft/political vanity. A single US congressional election in which he lost the PRIMARY and only managed 24 write-in votes? This is not information, this is noise.--Calton | Talk 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Everything worth merging is in the election articles. NatusRoma 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep." I would quote myself, but it's been done before by Jcuk. PedanticallySpeaking 16:30, 16 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. -Doc ask? 10:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Connector

edit

I don't see how this article is encylopedic enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Its subject is a simple tool, which has little to be said about. Non-notable, delete. SoothingR 21:50, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freak flag

edit

original research Melaen 21:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonnotable biography (blogging is sole source of alleged fame yet fails the Google test). GarrettTalk 04:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick cariaga

edit

blogger, no reliable claim of notability Melaen 21:57, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James D. White

edit

probable vanity Melaen 22:03, 14 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming bilingual

edit

Personal essay, almost a helpers guide. NN. Irishpunktom\talk 22:12, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samrat Ramnik Dhuna

edit

nn criminal Hirudo 22:12, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Damn Independent

edit

Slang term of dubious notability. ThreeAnswers 22:14, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Britainnia

edit

Article was recently created: contrary to its content (a synonym for "America"), it's uncommon and, at most, idiosyncratic. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:13, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bridlewood Community Elementary School

edit

Vanity school page SoM 22:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 05:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rosa Yemen (duo) / Lizzy Mercier Descloux

edit

musician un-notability, non-encyclopedic tone Melaen 22:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS but I shall redirect it to MIDI controller. -Doc ask? 10:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp PC900

edit

does every Sharp Corporation product deserve an article? this one is badly written too --- Melaen 22:26, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reffy (second nomination)

edit

non notable software no longer supported Melaen 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reffy —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 02:34Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Vagus nerve. -Doc ask? 10:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumogastric

edit

dicdef, already in wiktionary Hirudo 22:34, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DX cluster

edit

seems nosense Melaen 22:35, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rocket Crab

edit

non notable web comic [60] Melaen 22:42, 14 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. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ry'n Sabado

edit

non notable dancer Melaen 22:46, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Adult Video

edit

Neologism. As noted in the talk page, there is at least one person who has lived in Japan and never heard this. Likewise, I was stationed there for a number of years, and I've not heard of this; I've also consulted a few other friends who've lived there (including a couple of Japanese natives) and they profess not to have heard of this either. Mitsukai 22:49, 14 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--a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Secret Service

edit

I can find no evidence that this organisation exists. It appears that there is an Irish Secret Service Fund, which is used to fund various security related operations and which may have resulted in the belief that an organisation called the Irish Secret Service existed. Sources have been requested, but have not being forthcoming. TigerShark 23:09, 14 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. —Cryptic (talk) 15:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flying humanoids

edit

All sources are original research (i.e. conspiracy theory and Bigfoot nuts). No verifiable sources. The topic of this article is laughable at best. The article seems to be made because of a single sighting of a "flying humanoid" over Mexico City. Cyde Weys votetalk 23:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think it's funny how you think I'm the one who made a Googling mistake. Here's a hint: you need to put the phrase in quotes. Just searching for flying humanoid gets a lot of irrelevant results. --Cyde Weys votetalk 01:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coment,not vote: The primary information came from the Mexican Media, not from Jeff Rense. Someone gave it to him. This makes Jeff Rense the secondary source, not the primary source. Martial Law 06:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have read indicated link. Does this cover foreign sources, such as the Mexican media, which was the primary media that reported the incident with the flying humanoids ? In the US., it was some of the Texas media that reported the people in the US videotaping these things. Appreciate the reminder Android79. Jeff Rense has both incident reports, videotapes in his archives. Martial Law 06:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Jimmy Wales said there are very few situations in which an article is legitimately deletable, or that only in very rare cases is there a reason for deleting an article, or something like that... yes, this article has no references, along with 95% of the rest of wikipedia: if it wasn't a violation of WP:POINT I would put Augustine Volcano up for deletion because it too has no references, only external links like this article. Both articles need references added, and so do roughly 800,000 other articles on this wikipedia - or do you wanna delete them all instead? I don't think the deletionists do, but all evil is hypocritical and I suspect all deletionists are profoundly evil and growing eviller by the minute as they hunch over their keyboards and stuff good donuts after bad so as to step up their sugar-rush and thus their deletionism. Keep flying humanoids. --86.141.50.205 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appreciate whoever you are for voting to keep this article. The primary sources for the article is the Mexican media and the Texas media. Both sources are found on Jeff Rense's website/homepage. I, in turn, found them on his webpage. The videotape of the one shot in the US has some language issues, since the guy was shocked to see this thing. There are even depictions of these things in Aztec art. No one trusts the mainstream media anymore due to "Rathergate" and similar scandals. Martial Law 07:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do apologise if I caused any inconviences. It is that, since the Rathergate scandal hit, other media scandals hit, people are no longer trusting the mainstream media for their news, etc. Some do not even like the FOX News network at all. Martial Law 09:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This user is anonymous and can't vote, although they can have their say. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment,NOT vote: Can this be merged into the paranormal article ? Martial Law 08:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable; smerge to unidentified flying object would be okay. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 09:17Z
  • Delete as nonsense. -- Krash 16:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN and delete. Totally unverifiable. Stifle 22:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't BJAODN because by golly, I wrote parts of this and tried to bring it up to standard as best I could. You people are so mean! Gazpacho 07:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical bullshit. Incognito 02:54, 19 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, as already in wiktionary. Johnleemk | Talk 11:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchy (word)

edit

entirely unnecessary. Delete this, and put a {Wiktionarypar} template on the anarchy page instead. --Dangherous 23:16, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BAMO

edit

6 hits on a non-Google search engine Dangherous 23:22, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bapticostalism

edit

failed big time google test Dangherous 23:39, 14 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secularization of Christmas

edit

I created this article because of arguments at War on Christmas that there was more to the secularization of Christmas than the Fox News campaign regarding the subject. I thought that, if there were more to say about it, if the topic were worth exploring, the proponents of such an exploration could do so here. They did not, and the article has sputtered into POV original research, if anything. As I said I would upon creation of the article, because the article has not proven its merit or Wikiworth, I hereby nominate it for deletion. JDoorjam 23:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with merging; as for POVness, I don't see how usage of the term by those involved makes it an NPOV term. For example, you wouldn't name the Religion and sexual orientation article a certain phrase just because Westboro Baptist Church uses it. This isn't the place for this discussion though, so I won't say any more. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 13:19Z
  • Merge and redirect, with careful attention and a large can of NPOV-spray. Stifle 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with War on Christmas. It also seems to me that the article is very centred on the USA when criticism that Christmas is being secularised also occurs in Australia and Europe and probably other places too. War on Christmas can be made NPOV, but it might need a change of title. Bduke 02:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. In and of itself, "Secularization of Christmas" may smack of less POV, but since we have only original research to say that such a thing exists, I believe it's actually more neutral to limit the article to what IS verifiable (and largely refutable), which is the description of secularization outlined by FOX, et al. Consider these options for article titles: "Secularization of Christmas", "Perceived secularization of Christmas," "Purported secularization of Christmas," -- these all carry different POVs, whereas "War on Christmas," as the title of an influential book, is undeniably "a thing" which can be discussed without POV. --Dystopos 15:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with War on Christmas as per above. 24.222.79.90 01:29, 20 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eclaire

edit

Apparently non-notable company; 155 employees, <500 Google hits, claims offices in more than one country but I've come across at least one company with "offices in X, Y and Z" countries where those offices turn out to be one guy working on commission from serviced space. No information on turnover or market cap given here or in the company website, list of customers is a veritable "Who's That?" of business. No external sources cited, no evidence of news coverage other than PR. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 23:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-Hood

edit

Apparently non-notable hip-hop/rap musician. No sources/references provided, and fails WP:MUSIC.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 23:53, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude mick

edit

nwer than your average neologism. google finds about 1000 hits but almost none of them are for what this articles about. and even if it was wanted its only a dictdef so shouldnt be in wikipedia. BL kiss the lizard 23:58, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Raab

edit

Non-notable short film director. Google pulls less than 50 unique hits, few apparently relevant. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:07, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ILAS

edit

About the International Legal & Academic Association, which gets zero hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:17, 14 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. Mo0[talk] 04:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stanton

edit

"Actor" of decidedly questionable notability - all credits are redlinked, except for one which was created at the same time as this page. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Credits were mistaken, so I removed links; Some of the credits would be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.240.234.204 (talk • contribs)
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brand New Talents —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-15 00:34Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as nonsense. r3m0t talk 21:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bleargh

edit

passes google test, but is very stupid Dangherous 00:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete the article on the strength of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RP Site. This discussion was never linked into the AfD log and contains no obvious votes. -- RHaworth 07:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The RP site

edit

Delete This site has a small amount of members.Don't let the member count fool you.A lot of the members are inactive.Also,most of the members live in the same area.It's like the early eBaum's world,when it was just for Eric Bauman and a few of his friends from School.This site is hardly deserving of a wikipedia article. 77boy84 00:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello all this is 77boy88 he will be included in our history section and I think if you check your logs you will see he has allready screwed with this page. He has a thing against us as he is one out of three members we have ever banned. You have reviewed us once for deletion and made a desision so please do not allow this resentful child his game. Our statistics speak for ourselves with our post count well above fifty thousand and our member count 6 away from 300. ~Steven Burkeland


I have nothing against the site.The posts may be above 50,000,but does that mean you get a load of posts a day?Also,6 from 300 means nothing,when half of them aren't active members,and when almost all of them are from the same school.If I remember correctly,a few days ago,several Half-Life 2 mods were considered for Deletion.If a Modification,wich takes a lot more effort to make than a site,isn't worthy of a Wikipedia article,neither is a small site on the internet.~77boy84


77boy84 has been banned from the site in the article before for causeing trouble and breaking several rules. I consider this an attack on the site. As a member I am very distraught over this. Thank you. ~Enzeru


77boy is an idiot who just wants to get our wiki page deleted as a personal vendetta against the site. If you allow him to have his way with this, than you might as well let the general public have thier way with the "Religion" entry and see how that goes. He's just trying to get back at us like the petty little kid he is. Please, don't delete our article just because he says. At least take a good look at it, and if you say to do it then, then go ahead, but don't let him screw with it just because he's a bitter little boy. --The Inept Ninja 00:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I'm an idiot? You guys accuse me of making attacks on the site(wich I haven't)and then make attacks on me.Wonderful.I'm not trying to get back at anyone.I'm trying to make sure Wikipedia isn't filled with useless junk like articles about websites,such as the RP site.~77boy84


Oh, so blanking an article we had to fight to get on here, replacing it with insults and shit like that, and then demanding it be deleted isn't an attack? Oh, and I'm sure the fact that we've had to ban you four times is just coincidence. You're doing this for the good of Wikipedia, not to get off on a little power rush because you could inconvenience us. I suppose then that you're upset about the HL2 mods' articles being deleted because you honestly think that those being here is important, not because your a little fanboy.--The Inept Ninja 01:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


How about we stop talking to each other and let a wiki admin decide? They can visit the site and decide for themselves. After all, we know the truth. ~Enzeru


Guys let craer handle this if he needs to otherwise lets just step out and wait for an offical statement instead of making ourselves look like fools. Because when you fight a fool its hard not to sink down to their level. Steven Burkeland


I never replaced it with insults,where are you getting that from? I don't want a power rush,like you're trying to make it look like. Oh,and the HL2 nods weren't deleted,just put up for deletion.I'm suprised you,of all people,would call me a fanboy Craer.~77boy84


Does this look familiar to you? Mayhaps you've forgotten? You've been rather busy, as shortly after that, you blanked it. Wiki records the history on these things, you think you could get away with it and claim to have not done it? --The Inept Ninja 01:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Oh,so showing a few things you don't want people knowing about is considered "replacing it with insults"?:D I didn't replace anything,I just added something.~77boy84


We prefer a factual history. Like how you lacked to mention the fact that after banning you we had an anonomus poll on craer about should he stay an admin and he won by a far margin? But I grow tired of your lies allow us to let this sit for now and see the ruling before commenting further. I do however doubt that it will be ruled against as this happend once before and it seemed they ruled for it to stay. ~Steven Burkeland

Oh, so saying that most of the site is illiterate isn't insults? So giving your own bias as hell views on the staff's actions is just "adding something"? Oh, alright then. If bias is justifiable, I might have to be a bit more creative with my description of the site history, won't I? Oh, and blanking it so many times was also really mature of you. Way to go. That certainly showed us who was the clever one. That certainly helped out the Wikipedia community as a whole. Bravo.--The Inept Ninja 01:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only blanked it once.Of course,egon.I should have added that,even though I was IP banned,wich stopped me from seeing anything on the site.I should add more information the next time I put something in a wikipedia article.Bias?They weren't bias.I made that information as un-biased as I could. But if you want a biased article on the site,then I'm sure I could do something.~77boy84

Seeing as you can't actually SEE the site, I'm sure that that makes you very much qualified to make some comments. Go ahead. Do what you want. I only hope that what you put is as bias and insulting as what you had before, so the Wikipedia staff can see that what you're doing is petty revenge on us.--The Inept Ninja 01:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh,it is as biased before.Trust me.~77boy84

You made some "Misspellings" that I thought I ought to "correct" for the "good of Wikipedia" and the article as a whole. --The Inept Ninja 02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good,wikipedia articles should not have misspellings,even if the articles don't have a place on wikipedia.But smith was a good RP'er. I think it was because everyone said he godmodded.But seeing as the strongest characters at that moment in time were a bunch of squirrels,it's no suprise people called him a godmoder.~77boy84

I'll admit, there were worse RPers than him, and a lot of the members we've had over the years, especially said squirrel, (who egon breifly made staff and I had to FORCE him to remove him) Were a bit out there. But you blame the staff far too much. This site is a great community. It deserves an article. Egonboy got himself in a major article, we got a ton of members, and I don't think that us getting put up for deletion just because you have it out for us is fair.--The Inept Ninja 02:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may have near 300 members,as a member count,but how many are active members? I doubt the other invisionfree roleplay sites with twice as many members have wikipedia articles.300 may seem like a lot,but on the internet,it's very miniscule.~77boy84

However, this site has a lot of unique things. It's a roleplaying site that has its own webcomic. It has a frappr that shows it's membership spans three continents. Of the 300, plenty are active. We get over 100 new posts each day. And like I said, Egonboy was featured on CBS GameCore. The site has a lot of unique things about it, like the "server" system, which, as far as any of us know, is entirely unique to the RP site out of all of the Invisionfree Forums. As well, it is a much more open Community than the typical RP forum, which generally are a lot more xenophobic than we are. This site deserves an article, as it has many unique features that not many other Invisionfree sites have.--The Inept Ninja 02:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article mentions none of these "unique" features. Maybe if the article actually highlighted these features and actually explained in detail what it is,then the article would have a place on wikipedia.He's featured on a site,do you want us to worship him or something?I don't really see how that makes him special.~77boy84


We mentioned in the discussion prior to this one that the article was not finished. Here is a list of reasons why the article should stay:

1. It was already decided by Wiki Staff to stay. 2. Our members span 3 continents. 3. The owner and Site was mentioned by CBS, and many other websites that get over 50k hits a day. 4. We have approximately 300 members. 5. We're actually fighting to keep this up. 6. We have a frappr and a webcomic.


Now about 77boy84:

He has spammed (multiple) forums, and tries to torment us on the daily. He's a 12 year old, immature little boy as he can't except the fact that he is ever wrong, and quite frankly acts like a prick. He simply won't leave us alone and is looking for ways to harrass the RP Site. - Hatiatsu, Administrator @ The RP Site.

I don't torment you on the daily. I do it when I feel like it.~77boy84


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/2006_January_14&oldid=1234127613"