Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

Purge server cache

November 25

[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 speedily deleted. -- Francs2000 00:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Pelliccia

[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page; very POV. --Ixfd64 00:40, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenologisms

[edit]

The creator of the article made up this word, the content of the article is nothing more than a definition of it. This is all part of a propoganda for spreading High Icelandic and doesn't belong here. Stefán Ingi 00:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I guess the propoganda claim was bit over the top, thanks for taking the time to look into it. Stefán Ingi 10:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to Doughnut Denni ☯ 21:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Police officers and donuts

[edit]

Is this article useful in anyway? If not, then I'd say delete it. Foogol 00:38, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there's some speculation in there doesn't mean we shouldn't document the stereotype. We can leave the speculation out of the merged material. - Mgm|(talk) 22:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Possible source -> Brehm, John and Scott Gates. 1993a. "Donut Shops and Speed Traps: Evaluating Models of Supervision on Police Behaviour," American Journal of Political Science 37:555-81 IanBailey (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice research you've got there. Good job! Merge to donut. Jacqui★ 15:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, but it is still a very weak merge. Turnstep 15:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slang and offensive terms for police officers

[edit]

What usefulness is there in having this article? I'd say it should be deleted. Foogol 00:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus, Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThereIsNoRadio and The Asylum and DJNewStyle

[edit]

Non notable pod-cast style internet radio station and shows that are on it. ThereIsNoRadio.com has an alexa rank of 1,572,444. ThereIsNoRadio gets 333 hits on goggle. But does not appear to have gained the intrest of any major media. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Indigo Kitchen which I submitted before I knew about these other articles. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:46, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Close to the City of Brisbane

[edit]

An offshoot from Brisbane, unencyclopedic, delete.--nixie 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Geogre - Mike Rosoft 10:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Conetta

[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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SLGames

[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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Www.amazinggames.tk

[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 consensus to delete all articles; Graeme Lawton speedied by JesseW. Johnleemk | Talk 10:48, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Lawton plus

[edit]

Samuel w phillips, Controversy At Belmont, Poésie Sans Frontieres, Sachburg, Daphne Crumble, The Poetry of Graeme Lawton and Ragtime Ragman Back In Rags.

A linked collection of articles all entirely hoax. All, I suggest, written by Graeme Lawton who studies at the School of Economic Science, Belmont House, Stockport. -- RHaworth 01:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note 72.36.253.66 changed Dlyons493's vote to 'keep' in this edit.--Spondoolicks 13:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Had these just been a hoax set, it would be possible that this was a Swiss Knight mistake/high spirits. However, the flood of "votes" from the author above show that it's vandalism. Vandalism can be reverted/deleted on sight. Just more graffiti. Geogre 13:38, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:46, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Leavy

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by Geogre. Content blanked by author. --GraemeL (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheung Hei Shun

[edit]

What makes me suspicious about this entry is that Google comes up with no pertinent hits for the "Sun Yat-sen prize of Oncology" and the "Larry Lam prize in Forensic Biology". Delete as unverified. Pilatus 03:58, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shtickless

[edit]

Vanity page for online community Bjones 04:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad that's a proposed plan, buddy. Shtickless has a big base.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.52.83.60 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comments/votes

One of many keep votes where the only cotribs are here --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, User's only contribs are here, and complaining about here.... --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contribs are mostly this AfD, and the article in question, and vandalising User:Bjones--VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contribs are this AfD, and the article in question,, oh, and shtick is up for AfD Here just FYI... --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User's only contrib is here --VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 07:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • honestly, if i REALLY wanted to, youre right, i could. i just want to see if better options open up. im still being patient for now... maybe ill form a relationship... who knows. i dont wanna get too deep into it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.79.55 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP There's plenty of stuff "in development" on this site. Why be hasty? Give these guys some time, and maybe suggestions as to what might help them keep the entry afloat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achilles11 (talk • contribs)
User's only contribs, again, are here, and at the article's talk --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page should be kept...who are we to deny anybody the right to a fair and impartial website- Ron Mexico...Atlanta, GA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.142.42 (talk • contribs)
'Nother case of User's only contribs are here... --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*) 05:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (by judgment of this admin as G1) --Nlu 08:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bippity bippity bumblebee

[edit]

There are scores of little chants that are used in preschools; this one is not one of the more widely used ones. Joyous | Talk 05:07, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quitecom.com

[edit]

Advertisement Nfreader 05:24, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Resat Pasha

[edit]

nn subject, Delete-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 05:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (by this admin's judgment). --Nlu 09:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DivineOmega

[edit]

A one-sentence article about the author of a blog that has no entry on Wikipedia. WP:NOT a web directory, and also, beyond being attached to this blog, no assertion of notability to satisfy WP:BIO. (Article content: DivineOmega is the author alias of the popular weblog/blog known as 'The Haphazard Happenings Of The DivineOmega') · Katefan0(scribble) 05:37, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NewKadia

[edit]

Advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:42, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In church

[edit]

non-enclopediatic, belongs in a dictionary MAYBE.... Delete-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 05:47, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Oyvind 08:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trendlines

[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: Speedily deleted by User:Jni - Mike Rosoft 20:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CRA MAP

[edit]

looks like spam, Delete-- VileRage (Reply|C|Spam Me!*) 05:59, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social networking service

[edit]

Clear case of original research.


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Over

[edit]
  • Keep as this is tied to the issue of LGBT characters in the Star Trek universe. Perhaps some one might want to track Ernest Over down.

The unusual case where the nominator is voting Keep. I added AfD because there is a reasonable case that it should be speedy deleted as non-notable, but while I think he's notable enough to keep, I think it should be voted on. --Nlu 06:36, 25 November 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 consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 11:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amish Friendship Bread

[edit]

Delete - Nothing vaguely Amish about it, appears to just be a usenet in-joke or something similar. Rename - Having it here is just misleading, as people may assume it is actually an Amish tradition. Sherurcij 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Nlu 08:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mariano Velasquez

[edit]

Delete. If in fact he exists, this is a street musician who makes his living by selling cassettes of his music on the streets. AllMusic never heard of him. 412 Google hits for “Mariano Velasquez” but they all seem to refer to a Portuguese sportsman or the author of a dictionary. Many of the links are in Spanish or Portuguese so it’s not easy to understand many of them. The link to the picture in the article seems to be a picture of the Portuguese sports person. The list of songs provided has the note: “This will be very helpful when illegally downloading bootleg Mariano songs.” •DanMS 06:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Speedy Delete. Ben Aveling 07:24, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mi7.info

[edit]

Not notable website. Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elite forex trading

[edit]

Advertising. (Elite Forex Trading is a premier forex broker, offering unique services you can't find anywhere else.) Delete. · Katefan0(scribble) 07:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by RHaworth as attempt to communicate. --GraemeL (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis

[edit]

Possibly not notable, certainly patent nonsense in current form Vonspringer 07:12, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ananael

[edit]

No content. Not obviously worth a stub. Discussed on another page already. Ben Aveling 07:21, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Auscamp

[edit]

Delete. No assertion of notability for this outdoors company. Google returns 355. A relevant website shows it to be one of 21 of its kind in Australia and thus it does not appear to meet WP:CORP. If an Australian wants to inform that this is the biggest and best of its kind, I have no problem reconsidering. Marskell 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (mmm chicken) 14:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correllus

[edit]

Not notable. No google hits. No text on website 213.179.58.29 08:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by — Matt Crypto - Mike Rosoft 20:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rex curry

[edit]

Delete ASAP. Incoherent original research diatribe by a crank who has already tried spamming this crap onto a multitude of talk pages. Lupo 08:29, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MasterWish

[edit]

Not notable. Advertising. Few google hits 213.179.58.29 08:31, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham The Movie

[edit]

I can find no mention of this movie on imdb, or under the imdb filmography for John Ritter. No Google hits for "Birmingham the Movie" relate to Detroit. Delete as non-notable or hoax.-gadfium 08:41, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Games

[edit]

non-encyclopedic, non-notable


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). After the translation, the reason for deleting based on the article being in German is now mute. Apart from that there is a notability discussion between two people. Ironically, it was Lord Malthusian, who wanted this deleted, who wound up saving it... that's the way things work here. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Durmus Kumdereli

[edit]

Foreign language article; looks like German. I ran it through an online translator, and it doesn't appear to be *that* significant. Depending on its significance, I suppose it should either be deleted or moved to the German Wikipedia. --Spring Rubber 09:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Submit to page needing translation and take it from there. I don't feel comfortable deleting something a nominator can't read themselves. I do know it's indeed German, but I can't get much further myself. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is German, and although I haven't got time to translate it word-for-word right now, it's about a Turkish driver who was supposedly shot in Iraq for not being a good Muslim (he couldn't read Arabic). No sources and WP:NOT a memorial, so Delete. I'll put a full translation up here later for the benefit of other voters. --Last Malthusian 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to German Wikipedia. Now translated, abstain because I can't make up my mind whether it's notable or not.Stifle 11:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Translation:Drmus Kmdereli (sic) was a Turkish HGV driver who transported goods to Americans working in Iraq for his firm. He fell into an ambush, however, and was kidnapped. The fact that he was of Turkish origin and of the same religion as his abductors was at first an advantage. The abductors gave Durmus the possibility to prove that he was a good Muslim, by putting a Koran in front of him and asking him to read a few verses. Durmus, however, was unable to do this, as he came from Turkey and Arabic script was completely strange to him. In Turkey only religious people learn this writing technique, which nowadays is only useful in mosques. This led the abductors to believe that Durmus was a 'bad Muslim', because he couldn't read Arabic. In good humour they fatally shot him instead of decapitating him. Durmus was married with two children.

I've replaced the original text with this translation, but I still think it should be deleted. Sadly, foreigners being kidnapped and murdered in Iraq are too thick on the ground (or under it) to be notable. --Last Malthusian 13:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The man apparently existed. There was a video of his death, circulated by the usual suspects, and plenty of news besides, including on the BBC (from September 2004). If it's kept, it's inaccurate; from the Google summaries it seems he was beheaded, but I am most certainly not going to download the video to check. Still don't think he qualifies as notable. I remember one or two hostages who appeared in insurgency videos and made national news, but not this one. Perhaps he was in the news more in Turkey, in which case a transwiki to the Turkish WP would be appropriate, but we'd need a Turk to confirm that. --Last Malthusian 13:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was much in the news in Turkey, at least if the case caused some significant discussion in Turkish media on the general situation for Turks in Iraq, we should keep the translation in the English Wikipedia, but I can easily see it being merged with a more geneal topic at some point in the future. u p p l a n d 21:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment He doesn't seem to be a particularly high-profile victim. Kenneth Bigley, who was on the news a lot, gets 104,000 hits on Google. Durmus Kumdereli gets a 'mere' 3,410. --Last Malthusian 13:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turkey probably can't compare with Western Europe or North America in terms of internet access. We would really need somebody who reads Turkish papers or watches Turkish TV to comment. u p p l a n d 13:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Turkey probably has fewer Internet users as a proportion of population, but it's hardly a technological backwater. And it has a bigger population than Britain. So if he was as notable as Ken Bigley I would still expect him to turn up more hits than 1/33rd of Bigley's - I admit I'm combining two extremely inexact sciences here, but there isn't really an alternative. If he was on Turkish news to the same extent that Ken Bigley was on English news, then I would vote to keep, but I've seen no evidence of that. --Last Malthusian 02:14, 27 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Up in the Corner

[edit]

NN web comic, vanity, not even about the comic in the first place Dbchip 09:17, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Marvick

[edit]

Committed some prank involving reloading another web site's counter. Prank not committed by someone notable or against something notable.


Sorry about this article, Up in the Corner is my comic-website and Michael and I have been working on the Auto-Refresher Program for a little bit. This is not a prank, just an experiment. We wanted to test it out on something, but didn't want to choose a good, legitimate website, so we used my site as the subject. You can delete this article, as we should probably make one on the actual program, instead of Michael. We thought we were going somewhere with his article, but it just turned into the Auto-Refresher 

   -Frojo 1:30, 25 November 2005


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

The result of the debate was consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germans of USA

[edit]

Doesn't really seem to be a topic that deserves its own article. Besides, the title is rather nonsensical I'd try to have it speedied, but it doesn't seem to fit the criteria enough, so I brought it here. --Spring Rubber 09:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Doc glasgow. - Mike Rosoft 09:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sullam

[edit]

Nonsense hoax Dbchip 09:29, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circle of the Silvereye

[edit]

It's a guild in World of Warcraft. Not a part of the game itself, but a group of players who organize events for their members. I'm having doubts whether they're more notable than any other gaming clan and it looks like advertising, thus I bring it here. I'll abstain until I have some feedback. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or possibly merge if there's a lot of guild pages. Stifle 11:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The guild's name is Silvereye, for one. Further, it's not even a very large guild by anyone's standards (latest census at 39 characters), when there's guilds with almost 10 times as many. Also, while they certainly have a more impressive guild website than most, I'm not certain they have the notability of other WoW guilds, like Ascent (first guild to defeat Ragnaros). It's certainly difficult to maintain focus on RP as diligently as they have, but that probably doesn't rise to standards of notability. Baryonyx 10:00, 26 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CAGS

[edit]

Article states: This article is based on the theories and speculations of two university students in California. If this article has offended you in any way, go get a sense of humor. Delete as unverifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note:The above Keep vote contributed by User:66.122.245.126. -Rholton 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI've known a lot of Asian girls (many of them crazy), and this is only comprehensive theory on the subject that really makes sense.
Note:The above Keep vote contributed by User:204.210.24.61. -Rholton 05:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, by the way, Delete. -Rholton 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patent nonsense. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i was under the impression that all people are entitled to freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of press (such as stated in a little document called the Bill of Rights). Although a theory it is still their right to post it and explore it. There was once a man who had a theory and was censored and put under house arrest b/c it offended some, you may have heard of him his name was GALILEO!
The above unsigned post contributed by User:70.187.149.151. -Rholton 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: Being a Caucasian female who has experience first hand with friends that are Asian American women who have developed CAGS, as well as white male friends whose girlfriends have developed CAGS, I believe that this is legitimately posted and should be further researched.
The above unsigned post contributed by User:128.195.103.179. -Rholton 19:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I signed your post for you (again). It's clear you have a few misunderstandings about Wikipedia. You might want to review Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Note, however, that your rights (1st amendment or otherwise) will not be violated if what you post on Wikipedia is removed, just as your rights are not violated if a newspaper does not print your letter, or a building owner washes off your graffiti. You may also want to look at Wikipedia:Rights. -Rholton 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's no 1st amendment rights here. Wiki is a privately owned enterprise. It's like being in someone's house--if they don't like what you're saying, they can boot you out. Wiki is under no obligation to keep pages. A claim to 1st amendment rights is ignorant. And as for the comparison to scientific theories, it's just a little bit different. This isn't a theory by a reputable scientist. It's a joke theory cooked up by a couple of college kids. Sarah Ewart 05:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sarahe's is right on target. Even theories by reputable scientists are not accepted here unless they are first published elsewhere. See Wikipedia:No original research. -Rholton 05:14, 28 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On-the-job Dictatorial Training

[edit]

This article is flooded with POV, which wouldn't be cause for deletion by itself, but even the title is derogatory. Parts of this might be merged into Meles Zenawi, heavily modified, but the rest needs to go. Deco 11:01, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Barclay

[edit]

Hoax - doubt this person is real. She has no IMDB listing and no characters with the names claimed have ever appeared on Coronation Street or Eastenders. Neither does the album Confessions of a Red Head Diva exist. no references to the actress or her death on Google


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, not notable. Thue | talk 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Allard

[edit]

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doing this speedily is fine by me. Sliggy 18:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Jni - Mike Rosoft 20:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iain moore

[edit]

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:14, 25 November 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:40, 30 November 2005 (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 deleted by Johnleemk. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalism

[edit]

Non-notable. 2 pages of Google results. Homepage on Geocities. utcursch | talk 12:13, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudonomenalism

[edit]

Unverified original research. The only reference given is to a Wikipedia mirror, with the exact contents of this article. Cleanup date expired. Google shows 739 links, most of which are also from Wikipedia mirrors. Sikon 12:41, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of cocepts in science

[edit]

Redundant list. The concept of the list is covered much better in list of science topics. Graham/pianoman87 talk 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I make this typo a lot; of course, I doubt anyone will be searching for this article so the need for a redirect is still questionable. Peyna 05:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

> *Vote changed to redirect. A redirect should also be created from list of concepts in science, and both articles should redirect to list of science topics, which is better organised. If I was looking for an overview of the science articles, I would look by the area of science, not by a list of concepts in only alphabetical order. \This is how the other fields are structured in wikipedia. Definitely keep the history though, as it could be useful in other future articles. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:12, 27 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amust registry cleaner

[edit]

Just an advert, based almost wholly on http://www.amustsoft.com/registrycleaner/ (though not by the looks of it enough to be flagged as copyvio). Tonywalton  | Talk 14:18, 25 November 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 consensus to redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Toupé

[edit]

Delete - fails to meet WP:NMG based on my findings. PJM 14:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by User:Jni

Urban faeries

[edit]

Is this a real topic? Nv8200p talk 15:00, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Picture rating

[edit]

Dicdef / neologism, with promotion. And it sucks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:22, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu (Mortal Kombat Character)

[edit]

An article about something that was rumored, but from the article doesn't appear to actually happen? A brief search on Google didn't turn up anything to back up that this was even a popular rumor (but it is possible I'm just not using the right keywords). —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 15:23, 25 November 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 consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian federal parliaments

[edit]

This list is the same as both the category and the template. -Arctic.gnome 21:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pitelu Chowdaiah moved to Tirumakudalu Chowdiah

[edit]

No google hits whatsoever. I am not an expert on African classical musicians, but this strikes me as non-notable. --Maru (talk) Contribs 17:45, 24 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silvereye Elves

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete by JoJan, article contained only external links. --GraemeL (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

WP:ISNOT a link farm. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Özhan Öztürk

[edit]

Vanity article, the author is also listed in the list of polymaths!

  • Keep, a published author is generally notable enough to be included even if he's written his own Wikipedia article. Stifle 15:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. So all published authors should have their own articles? --Hottentot 02:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tried cleaning it up a little bit, but what it appears is that this person (whether the author or not) has created this page, as well as replicating many articles from his book as Wikipedia articles. Questionably copyvio, but the other articles might be worthy of keeping if they're verifiable. The book itself might be worthy of an article, but the author probably isn't noteworthy on his own to warrant one. Peyna 05:54, 30 November 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 consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning

[edit]

This is really two articles: an article on unaccredited higher education, mainly in the US and Canada, which is a useful adjunct to School accreditation and the like, and a more questionable list of red Wikilinks inviting creation of these. In my view the few blue ones could be handled through a category, the encyclopaedic content moved to Unaccredited institutions of tertiary education or some such, and the list (which the article acknowledges has issues of verifiability) is of no encyclopaedic value. That is my view, anyway. But I don't want to just hack at it, and once the article is split I don't think the redirect is required. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Watching for links here turning blue is actually a useful way to monitor the creation of new articles on diploma mills, provided they are in the list to begin with; if the creator is particularly clumsy, he will also try to remove the name from the list. I have a few articles on diploma mills on my watchlist and revert them whenever somebody tries to turn the text into an ad blurb or just blank a too critical text; as Wikipedia articles usually get decent placement in a Google search, this happens quite frequently. Some of the degree mills in the list are or have been notorious frauds with press coverage; I added a couple of new names and links to articles on the BBC website just the other day. Please note that there is also an article called "diploma mill". u p p l a n d 16:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied by JesseW. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whining

[edit]

dicdef


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:RHaworth. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación

[edit]

non-encyclopedic; not in English


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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stopper (war)

[edit]

A term used in a blog. Claims to be "widely popularised" by it, but even if it were true (which I was unable to verify), then Wikipedia is not a dictionary. POV content. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 16:25, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fennocentrism

[edit]

Neologism/OR, gets exactly one unique Google hit. It's not very original either, for that matter, since most of that could probably be said for any similar country. - ulayiti (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge most of the meat to Fennoman (if there is anything to take), junk the excess baggage, then Transwiki the bones to Wiktionary. (Not really a neologism either, merely a derived word - if there were such strong issue with fennocentrism, that's the word I'd use!) This is such a general concept that it doesn't warrant its own article apart of a brief dictionary definition, and the current article is just too wordy. "Fennocentrism", in my opinion, isn't particularly different from any other <country>centrisms. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem suitable for WP. Stifle 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 02:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article isn't NPOV, and I doubt that it can be modified to fit the wikipedia standards. Let me give a quote: "It is always a great national news in Finland when Finnish athletes, artists or beauty queens gain success and fame on an international level". Now, how is this ethnocentrism or in any way racist or anything? Don't they celebrate in every country when one of their athletes wins? --85.49.229.165 19:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be borderline attack. MONGO 19:09, 28 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Santry

[edit]

A footballer who helped win the FA Youth Cup in 2001. There is no indication, however, that he ever played professional senior football. Punkmorten 17:02, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiu wrestling

[edit]

Non verifiable on Google - searching for "Tiu wrestling" (with quotes) returns zero hits (without quotes there are numerous hits due to a wrestler called Tiu). The two referenced people in the article, Danikko and Reamonn (both tagged for speedy as nn-bio) appear per deleted edits to be aged about 12 and do their wrestling on their parents' bed. Cute, but NN and OR. Tonywalton  | Talk 17:10, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crawline

[edit]

Having released one (relatively unknown) album and sold "hundreds of EPs", this band doesn't quite meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 17:22, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Bentzen

[edit]

Claims notability as a member of the band Crawline, who are nominated for deletion. May be vanity. Punkmorten 17:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American terrorism

[edit]

This was written entirely by one editor and includes loads of original research, such labeling the JFK assassination and support of Israel terrorism. Carbonite | Talk 17:57, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:


--Striver 19:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


As I play with this article, I think it is the foundation for an article that has real merit.... Terrorism committed by US citizens or the US government. Maybe we could call it Terrorism in the US. "American Terrorism" is just such a loaded term.

  • Rename Terrorism in the United States and expand. FCYTravis 03:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised the American attack on Grenada is not mentioned, nor is the blatant American funding of the Contras in Nicaragua. I do not support renaming this article - it does not talk about terrorism in the United States, it talks about terrorism by the United States. Denni ☯ 04:01, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I contend that this article is in need of so much improvement that it would be easier to start over at a new title such as Terrorism in the United States or Terrorism by Americans (depending on the focus of the article). Remember, substantially different content can not be speedily deleted. Carbonite | Talk 15:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One country attacking another country is not terrorism. One country supporting counter-revolution in another country is not terrorism. You just want to add more POV to this already POV-laden article (and not the balancing POV either).  Grue  06:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the surface what you are saying is accurate. However, is supporting terrorism terrorism? For example, funding insurgents in foreign countries, as the US has done, or let's say we had concrete proof that a foreign goverment aided the people who carried out the Sept.11 actack. Would the support of the terrorists be terrorism? I don't know! There are a lot of definitions of terrorism, one being: acts of violence against civiliians for the purpose of creating social change. How does funding/training people to do the acts of violence to that create the chang YOU want fit in? I don't know... Sethie 07:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, maybe a whole seperate article on terrorism committed by US citizens

Sethie 04:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Has about a grain of truth in a 10000000000000 grain article. Absolutely hopeless.

Coment "Terrorism and American Foreign Policy", —by Robert Elias September 25, 2001, Professor of politics at University of San Francisco, California.

See section "US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction"

See also:

Specific Torture Campaigns
Creation and launching of direct US campaigns to support torture as an instrument of terror and social control for governments in Greece, Iran, Vietnam, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama

--Striver 13:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I put up the initial NPOV tag; this is more a polemic than an article. The factual content is covered by State terrorism#United States. (Click on the "Israeli terrorism" link above and see where that goes.) With regards to the Iraq War, see that article for an encapsulation of criticism, plus the seven or so other articles it Wikilinks to which are dedicated to criticism in and of themselves. The source of the term itself is spurious--a lone column on CNN. If you bother to read the CNN column, you'll discover that it actually discusses acts of Domestic terrorism. As for assassinations, those generally are not considered to be terrorist acts. (See the UN definition of terrorism, for instance.) Torture does not fall under the auspices of terrorism. The author seems to have unilaterally decided that there is no difference between war crimes and terrorism. (The UN sees a difference!) The use of weapons of mass destruction is not automatically a terrorist action. (And as for the U.S. being the only country to use WMDs: not by a long shot. The author doesn't seem to understand what constitutes a weapon of mass destruction; the definition changes every time the guns get bigger, so to speak.)
I'm a little uncertain about the logic supporting a redirect to a separate article, as you suggest above. The term is clearly notable and in wide use. BrandonYusufToropov 17:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty damned liberal and open to criticism of the United States, but not in this format and not on Wikipedia. It's soapboxy, often factually questionable, redundant when factually accurate, and structurally appalling in all cases. Tom Lillis 19:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
coment This article is not about disscusing what of the actions of the USA that comes into the domain of Terrorism, rather, it list those actions of the USA that have been labeled as "Amerrican terrorism". In other words, its has nothing to do with if it is terrorism or not, rather if it is called terrorism. A Professor of politics at University of San Francisco, California is a good source for finding out what things are called "Amerrican Terroris". Look at Islamofascism (term), it does not give on single evidence of actions that are terrorism and sanctioned by Islam, rather, it talks about what people use the term, against whom, and what the cirtics respond.

Everything you listed belongs to a "critic" section in this article. --Striver 13:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, though it certainly needs cleanup. Not yet NPOV, but that's not the issue. Whether an idea offends us or seems (in some subjective way) inherently contradictory is not the point. People are using this term, including [prominent journalists]. Google hits: 77,000. Clearly over the threshold of notability. BrandonYusufToropov 17:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could a NPOV article be written on American terrorism? Sure. The issue here is that this article needs so much work that it's just easier to start over. If someone wants to write Terrorism in the United States or Terrorism by Americans, no one is stopping them. Keeping this specific article doesn't make any sense because it needs a complete overhaul. Deleting this article doesn't mean that a substantially different and much better article can't exist. Carbonite | Talk 17:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm afraid I have to disagree. We're talking about the term, and this locution wouldn't be covered by Terrorism by Americans. It looks like some people with ideological motives wish to whitewash the term, despite the fact that this phrase is manifestly notable in usage. That's not the way we do things here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, it appears that this article was made in bad faith. The author (User:Striver) created the article with the edit summary "So, now im just waiting for the VFD, POV tag and such...)". He removed a NPOV tag placed by another user and stopped editing completely after it was put up for deletion. There's no sign at all that he's interested in making this a good article. Carbonite | Talk 17:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, so delete the article and rewrite it, starting fresh. How can anything in the current article be of help to other editors? Remember, another article created with the same title can not be speedily deleted if the content is substantially different (which any good article on the subject would be). Carbonite | Talk 17:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again, we disagree. The principle here is important. If the article needs revision to get to basic NPOV standards, other editors, including me, can help to do that. The fact that you believe nothing on the current article is salvageable is subjective and (if I may) only tangentially relevant to the question of whether this title for an article should be rejected here. BrandonYusufToropov 17:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The Google test is a wee bit skewed here. A search for "American terrorism" yields 77,000 results, sure. Remove "Latin," "South American," and "Anti-American" from the search, and it drops to 14,000. If you cut "expert" (as in "American terrorism expert"), it gets even lower. At that point, an astonishing number of the results are, in fact, copies of that article by Robert Fisk and many more are articles directly relating to the Attacks of September 11, 2001. The duplication is vast. Google test, therefore, is something of a canard and hard to apply in this case.. (Google for "Presidential blowjob"; I bet that'll meet the standards for a notable term, too.) Additionally, I second the on the article's creation being in bad faith on the grounds previously stated: it might as well be titled "Things the Original Author Does Not Like About the United States, So Come and Argue With Him About It." The argument that this article is validated by the fact that it is Wikilinked to on the State terrorism article and therefore is an expansion on the topic is ridiculous; I think we can all agree on that. The issues, as I see them, are then: 1.) The article is fairly clearly advocating a certain point of view. 2.) The article contains a very large amount of original research. 3.) The factual material present is listed elsewhere without the rampant POV. 4.) Personal opinion: We don't want to promote this article model. If we let this one go for whatever reason (be it belief that the article is suitable or personally held anti-American sentiment), we'll shortly have other articles like it for dozens of other countries. For instance: French Terrorism (They colonized Vietnam and oppress Muslim citizens.) German terrorism. (Battle of Britain, the Holocaust, et cetera.) Japanese terrorism. (The occupation of Korea, perhaps.) These examples are more or less in line with the material presented here. I have no doubt that a.) we don't want this kind of deliberately inflammatory rhetoric on Wikipedia and b.) that if we used the arguments against deletion being put forth here, the existence of these hypothetical articles could be justified. That's all. Tom Lillis 18:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're obviously better at disentangling Google results than I am. That said, 14,000 hits is 14,000 hits, and there are literally hundreds of WP articles that deal with topics of considerably lower notability.
  • 14,000 hits with considerable syndication and duplication, note. And in many (possibly most) of those results, the term is not being used in the context discussed in this article.
  • I'd like a clearer explanation, please, of precisely why this is relevant to our discussion:
4.) Personal opinion: We don't want to promote this article model. If we let this one go for whatever reason (be it belief that the article is suitable or personally held anti-American sentiment), we'll shortly have other articles like it
  • What I'm trying to get at is this: if we keep this article on the merits argued here (and I feel those merits are being overstated), we've set a very low standard for the inclusion of politically inflammatory neologisms. For the life of me, I have no idea how the hell Islamofascism has its own article, for instance--it has an ephemeral meaning and is little more than a venomous epithet.
Perhaps my aside about possible motives for advocating the retention of this article was inappropriate. I should have been more forthright: I'm increasingly suspicious that this is a violation of WP:POINT tying intoWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamofascism (term). Please forgive my sudden break in formatting, but...
Note the following from the previously linked Islamofascism AFD debate:
comment American fascism [1] 78 000 hits, enough to make a article about it. --Striver 20:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Lol! There already was one! --Striver 20:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

christian fascism [2] 22,900 hits. --Striver 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
'Summary and timestamp for the creation of the American terrorism article:
08:14, 23 November 2005 Striver (So, now im just waiting for the VFD, POV tag and such...)
I'm sorry, but that is blatantly bad faith and (in my opinon) in violation of WP:POINT. I am fairly convinced at this point that this whole thing is a stunt to make a point and push a particular point of view. (Striver, I hasten to add, has something of a prolific history of disputed edits and heated arguments for someone who has only been here five months...) If this one gets by, a weak de facto policy decision has been made saying that this sort of article is okay, and it opens the door for the retaliatory creation of a mass of other pages in its vein.
I hope this makes my position clearer.
Tom Lillis 20:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It does. For the record, I have had my own (amply documented) problems with Striver in the past. Neither those problems nor the points you raise above, however, demonstrate for me that there should never be an article about this term's usage. In this case, we may well have an example of bad faith editing that has resulted in an article title that does not merit deletion, but rather rewrite and/or redirect. For now, I'm leaning toward rewrite, though I certainly respect other opinions on the matter. BrandonYusufToropov 20:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Going down that route, then, requires some kind of consensus on what direction such an article would take. Again, I challenge the notability of the term in and of itself as merit for a Wikipedia article. It's a poltically loaded neologism and a carefully conducted Google search will, as noted above, reveal a rather low count of usages in the context primarily being advocated here.
That's what the article talk page is for. (And see the citations below.) What we're talking about here is whether an article title about this term should be removed forever from the WP. BrandonYusufToropov 21:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it an "umbrella term," I think, is rather generous--even then, it's a tough candidate for elevation over a reasonable notability threshhold. At some point later, it might reach a level of notability to merit an article. Right now, though, I don't think it does.
If, as has been proposed above, the article is about "acts of terrorism committed by the United States government," then we have a legitimate extension of the State terrorism article, which would more properly be termed "Terrorism Sponsored by the United States." To maintain NPOV, however, actions taken by the United States would have to be judged as terroristic or conventional by the standards used to judge other countries discussed in State Sponsored terrorism. Neither the current article's title nor its content serve that purpose or meet those (reasonable) conditions.
If the article is to discuss domestic terrorism in the United States (which has also been suggested above), then the article would rightly be named "Domestic Terrorism in the United States." (Incidentally, that would be more in line with the CNN article currently being used as a source for the term "American terrorism.") As it stands, the article almost seems to suggest that the Ku Klux Klan and the Beltway Sniper were inventions of the U.S. Government.
As for the list of Wikilinks at the bottom... I don't even know how to classify those. The Klan belongs with Domestic Terrorism, but the other three are spurious. Operation Northwoods was a suggested idea that never went anywhere. The CIA's experiments with LSD were unethical, but I have never heard them referred to as terroristic. I suppose they more rightly belong with a list of proven conspiracy theories, but certainly not here.
If we keep this up, I think we'll have to move the conversation somewhere else---we're crowding the vote page.. Tom Lillis 21:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, BrandonYusufToropov 19:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused as per Tom harrison. As an article about the term, it is largely devoid of content, so if that was the intention of the article, then delete. As an article about the thing the term refers to only, it needs to be renamed as per the above suggestions (state terrorism enacted by the united states etc.). Really, it can and should be about both, but then needs to be much more informative about the reference, as a bare minimum for achieving NPOV about the referent. In its present form, whatever the intention, I vote delete. Also, this may full under "don't disrupt WP to make a point." Dsol 00:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - On second thought, I guess it's not "supposed" to be anything other than what we the editors make it. The article was written to prove a point, and the present content reflects that. But American terrorism, as terrorism by Americans directed at other Americans, is a reasonable title and topic for an encyclopedia article. I'm thinking of Oklahoma City, the Klan, the abolitionists, maybe tar-and-feathering loyalists during the Revolution. Hmm...What about native American raiding parties? That could get interesting. American terrorism as a term is also legitimate. Obviously all the content there now has to go; Whatever appears under the title has to fit the title. It should be an encyclopedia article, not a place to spew anti-American venom. I think the title is legitimate as long as the content matches it. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since all the content there now has to go, isn't that essentially a deletion? Wouldn't it be easier to start from scratch? I fully agree that an article can, and probably should, exist there, but this is a complete tear-down job. Why not delete until such time that someone decides to write a real article? It's not as if anything in the history is going to be helpful to future editors of the article. Carbonite | Talk 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It probably would be easier to start over, but I would prefer to keep the name if we can. I guess that makes me guilty of trying to prove a point just like Striver. Is there a technical reason why it's easier to take it down and then put it back up under a similar name? If the names are similar enough it's all one to me. Could some minimal stub go up, or a redirect to domestic terrorism? Would it accomplish anything to make a new page now and redirect the present page there? You've probably already considered these. Tom Harrison (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re: This whole "then why aren't you working on the article" thing -- I believe there are many editors who have never worked on this article and are postponing doing so, pending the outcome of this vote. (I'm one of them.) We don't want to be labeled as partisans just now, which is what would perhaps happen if we started working on the piece, and we believe the term is notable and mainstream. Rest assured that it's on my to-do list.BrandonYusufToropov 12:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read your arguments before commenting. You obviously have a misplaced sense of loyalty. Blinding yourself to growing problems in the government doesn't strengthen the United States; it weakens it. Supporting policies of terrorism by calling them something else doesn't help our men in uniform; it makes them targets. The first step in solving a problem is to admit that it exists. --Peter McConaughey 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This sounds vaguely like a suggestion that I am an unworldly idiot. Once more, with feeling: as an article on the term in and of itself, I don't feel that the TERM is widespread enough to merit an individual article. (Mr. Toropov and I have gone up and down and left and right on this issue; it's covered quite thorougly elsewhere in the discussion.) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Rehashing facts about American transgressions that are covered in detail elsewhere on Wikipedia then and terming these transgressions as "American terrorism" because classifying actions as terroristic is trendy is merit enough for a new article. I'm not some flag-waving boob who doesn't see what happens in the broader world. When politicians, newsmakers, journalists, and academics begin to trot out this term with enough regularity to make it a concretely-definable neologism and for it to pass a reasonable notability test, I'll start the bloody article myself. But as for now, it is nothing more than a soapbox with which to say "I don't like the United States and this is an eye-catching way to make that known." Tom Lillis 03:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "American terrorism" is more than a trendy term. It's a term that encompases modern American foreign policy, U.S. war policy, U.S. influence on other nations, and increasingly, the relationship between civilians and government officials inside the United States. It's all terrorism. It's all the American government saying, "Be good, or bad things will happen to you," and then backing that up by making all manner of bad things happen. Those inside the box have no idea what I'm talking about, but most of the world lives outside of the U.S./U.K. punishment box and will do anything to keep it that way. --Peter McConaughey 04:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sigh. Yes. Domestically, I like to call that "American fascism." The laugh-out-loud absurdity of this whole thing is beginning to drive me batty. You and I would probably end up at the same damned protest parade, I think. The problem is that here on Wikipedia, we have to have our discourse within the consensus-derived policies and guidelines. This article doesn't mesh with those rules because it simply isn't encyclopedic. It's the soapboxy discussion of a term that doesn't meet notability guidelines. Your outrage is noted and appreciated and agreed with; this is just not the place to advocate it. Tom Lillis 04:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point (as I think you know by now, Tom) is not that any individual has outrage, but rather that the term itself has become a globally notable one.
  • As for whether the term has been used widely enough to be encyclopedic, I find it very hard to believe that it is less notable than, say, Unitarian Jihad. See the multiple representative mainstream sources I have referenced below, which are only a very small sampling. BrandonYusufToropov 12:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of published mainstream use of this term, in this context

[edit]

War on Terrorism and the Terror of God

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing

by Lee Griffith - 2004 - 399 pages

Page 81 - ... Walzer's description of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as American terrorism cannot be dismissed as the rantings of a pacifist. ... [[11]]


Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism

HarperCollins

by Sean Hannity - 2004 - 352 pages

Page 166 - ... militarist leaning' in the US media, and what he described as the history of American terrorism in Nicaragua, Chile, Costa Rica, Honduras, Argentina, ... [[12]]


Race Matters

Beacon Press

by Cornel West - 2001 - 144 pages

Page vii - 'The unique combination of American terrorism—Jim Crow and lynching—as well as American barbarism—slave trade and slave labor—bears witness to the ... [[13]]


There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, of such published uses I could post here, but this clarifies what I'm talking about. It is clearly notable and clearly mainstream. BrandonYusufToropov 21:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens, perhaps. You have to massage Google to get at what you're after. I get 119 references in 58 books looking for mentions where American terrorism isn't prefixed with "anti." I couldn't cut out other limiting factors because of a risk of culling legitimate results in the process. I question the standard of notability you are employing: broadly speaking, I think this is a fairly paltry result. Perhaps some effort should be put into developing a consensus on notability rules? Tom Lillis 21:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC) Wee addendum: I think you're slightly confused about delete policies. The rules do not say "forever." And a discussion about the content of the article in question is valid: determining notability is largely guided by determining definition and intent.[reply]
That's through Google Books. There are other resources with much bigger universes of references -- academic journals, for instance -- and it was those to which I was referring. I stand by "hundreds," and by the term's notability and mainstream usage. You are correct on the "forever" thing; my bad. BrandonYusufToropov 22:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, another prong. Using LexisNexis (full database access, mind), a search of all news items over the past twelve months reveals 49 results, with AP-repost duplications left intact and without boolean screening for context (removing incidences where it references an American terrorism expert or anti-American terrorism, et cetera). Using JStor and excluding "anti-American terrorism" (retaining mentions of experts, as that would be sort of an idiotic term to exclude in a journal search), I came up with three journal items. (Restricted to the English language.) Tom Lillis 00:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It is used, in addition to all the other citations I have given, in this morning's [San Diego Tribune]. Do you mind if I ask you why you keep trying to raise the bar on this? Is there something about this term that you find ideologically objectionable? BrandonYusufToropov 11:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. I don't necessarily dispute the idea of the article (anymore than I'd dispute Soviet Terrorism), but this is lacking in objectivity and scholarly references. Moreover, the term American Terrorism is linguistically broad. "American" can refer to much of the Western Hemisphere, not just the United States of America. Moreover, the term does not distinguish between foreign and domestic terrorism, or the nationality of the perpetrators of domestic terrorism. Finally, the term "terrorist" is inherently POV especially when applied to a sovereign entity. Mackensen (talk) 13:16, 30 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream conspiracy theories

[edit]

This poorly written article attempts to give more credibility to certain conspiracy theories by labeling them "mainstream". The article is full of original research and is highly POV. There are already numerous conspiracy theory articles, such as List of alleged conspiracy theories and Conspiracy theories (a collection). The information in this page is already covered in a much more NPOV manner in other articles, so a merge isn't necessary. Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Per nom. Carbonite | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs improving, yes. And it does not "attempt" to give more credibility, it reports on conspiracy theories that are talked about in mainstream media. The Bush ploting to bomb Aljazeera is certanly a mainstream theory, and does not deserve to be bundled with the goofy "elvis is alive", "The earth is flat", "Moon hoax theory" and "Hitler is alive" thereories. By the way, how is it pov? It does nothing more that cite Newspapers, how could that possibly be POV? Also, is citing newspapers original research? really? --Striver 18:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's inherently POV because it asserts that certain conspiracy theories are "mainstream", while others are not (by their exclusion). Linking to an article or two doesn't show that a theory is mainstream. There's no reason to create an entirely new article when we already have several conspiracies theory lists (see above). Also, I fail to see how several of these are even conspiracy theories. How is "is bin Laden dead?" or "is al-Zarqawi dead?" a conspiracy theory? Carbonite | Talk 18:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If a theory is not mainstream, then that should be disscused, that has nothing to do with deleting the article. Those two can be discused in the article talk page and have nothing to do with this VFD. --Striver 18:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The Bush ploting to bomb Aljazeera is certanly a mainstream theory, and does not deserve to be bundled with the goofy..." That statement right there is why this article shouldn't exist. Everyone has a different POV on what theories are goofy and which ones are "legitimate". If you want to better source conspiracy theories in other article, go right ahead, but there's no need to have this one. How many mentions does it take to become mainstream? 1? 10? 100? By which news agencies? It's simply not an encyclopedic topic and shouldn't have its own article. Why not work on improving other conspiracy theory articles? Carbonite | Talk 18:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is mainstream or not follows the same paterns as anyting else. It depends on how reputable a source is. You know, simple source evaluation. I dont care about POVs, we are talking about wheather its mainstream or not. And that is easy to evalate. Something like CNN = Mainstream, Blogs = Not mainstream. You get the idea... --Striver 18:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Tabloid rumours and speculations are not conspiracy theories. u p p l a n d 20:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Then delete inaccuracy, not the article--Striver 20:55, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Weirdo

[edit]

A cocktail invented by a group of friends that doesn't seem to have caught on outside their lunch table. Joyous | Talk 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; article redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 13:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Et Tu Brute

[edit]

Article about a band that are "unsigned" with their "first full-length LP is set to release independently in January 2006". Delete, do not meet meet WP:Music. Sliggy 18:19, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Hulk

[edit]

Not merely not notable, but non-existant. Someone's having a laugh... - SoM 18:52, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flat T'owt

[edit]

Article on a “newly created organisation that has almost 400 members” [14] Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:13, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flaccidware

[edit]

This is a neologism with no currency. I have been working in this industry for twenty years and I have never come across this phrase. Nothing links here. Best deleted. Gaius Cornelius 19:47, 25 November 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foreverworld Designs

[edit]

This design community is quite small, there is nothing notable about it, and the only source of "history" I can find is from their own website. There are only a handful of Google links [15], and the Alexa rating is pretty low too [16]. That said, the real reason this should go is that there is nothing special about it, it's just another design community and there isn't much mention of it elsewhere on the internet. Also, a valid article can't be written because there are no third-party sources of information and history. I vote delete as not notable and unverifiable. Foofy 20:05, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Leborg

[edit]

A google search for "Alexander Leborg" with the language set to English reveals twelve articles, none of which are in English. Therefore, for English readers, I think the article would be non-notable. I'm honestly not sure if this is a good reason for deletion, but that's why there's a vote. Some guy 20:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE (as nonsense) --Nlu 20:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snuzpuffin

[edit]

I believe this creature and all the information given in the article is entirely invented. "Snuzpuffin" generates no Google hits. Deco 20:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as nonsense or vandalism or something. Some guy 20:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to move page to Choose Life Inc. Johnleemk | Talk 09:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Choose-Life.Org

[edit]

This page was proposed for speedy deletion. I removed speedy tag as I think it is clearly not a speedy, but I can see the proposer's point -- it's largely, but not completely, advertising, even though I think the organization itself is notable enough. Neutral. --Nlu 20:29, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be part of a larger national movement and therefore notable--maybe not notable enough to have its own page, but can't we find some other page to merge it into? (preferably not an afd). And its status as a non-profit argues against the claim that it's simply advertising. I think this article just needs to be cleaned up (which I already started after finding this article last night... it had some definite POV issues) and properly categorized. I don't like the moral/ political stance very much, but that's no reason to delete something.--Hraefen 22:35, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It amounts to political advertising, which I oppose as policy whether or not I like the politics. I'd delete an equally insignificant abortion rights group. Durova 22:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a real movement going on in at least 8 states (I'll return with data) and the license plate fee arrangement had to pass through the Florida state legislature (I think this is true of other states...I'll find out). That alone should be enough to be considered notable.--Hraefen 23:18, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name change


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Matin Azad

[edit]

"Ali Matin Azad is one of the most famous refugees in the United Kingdom." Yet, I was unable to find him on Google. Delete unless verified. - Mike Rosoft 20:30, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hendricks fusion tornado surfer

[edit]

original research

Correct. Original thought. Not sure why that is a problem. The professor of physics at the University of Arizona wasn't sure whether the notion had merit or not and I haven't the time to do the research or the math. Looking for comment.

When I envisioned the Bussard Ramjet, I wondered what could go wrong beyond the obvious. That's when I thought of the possibility of swirling or a vortex forming interrupting the normal flow of interstellar gas. What might be the implications of this.

So, you won't find anything on Google. Not until someone does the math and can yeah/nay the concept. Is this grounds for deletion?

Thanks for your consideraiton. posted by 80.80.170.248 Sliggy 21:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : This research may or may not have its merits. It's not up to Wikipedia to decide. Continue your research, do your maths and get it publicised in a scientific paper. Only then Wikipedia will be interested. Good luck. JoJan 10:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm afraid that being original research is grounds for deletion; more detail is available at Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is also not a free host or webspace provider on which to broadcast research ideas, or requests for discussion. Delete. Sliggy 21:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • 80.80.170.248/136.216.75.2, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and is right at the other end of the process that you are embarking upon. Ideas belong here after they have been conceived, refined, published, fact checked, subjected to the praise and lambasting of the community, and finally (if they make it this far) accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance for new ideas. It is neither intended nor equipped to perform the peer review that you seek. Please look elsewhere. Delete. Uncle G 01:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Stifle 01:55, 26 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russ Amerling

[edit]

I think notable enough (and certainly not a speedy), but only marginally so. Very weak keep. --Nlu 20:34, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TkChat

[edit]

Non-notable article on incomplete instant messaging program. Article admits developers don't have required skill to finish program. Some guy 20:43, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pruden Computer Ranking

[edit]

Original research, created by the subject of the article User:Keith pruden. -- Francs2000 20:45, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some guy 20:51, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Daertaesh

[edit]

Hoax. The searchable archive of Orwell's works [17] show's no such word being used. Joyous | Talk 20:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thinking about it, "dintae be daertesh" sounds more like a rude mechanical out of DH Lawrence than somebody Spanish. Tonywalton  | Talk


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas accent

[edit]

There is no sourcing of the information in this article. I'm a lifelong Dallas-area resident, and I've never heard anyone, elderly or not, use language like "hockey disk" or "waint." "Y'all" is more widespread in the Southern US, rather than just in Dallas. I've asked for verification from the article's author, who removed the "verify" tag, but didn't provide any sources. Joyous | Talk 21:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Most of the information I found doing research showed nothing different than a general Texas accent, and even a few sources suggesting there is no such thing as a Dallas accent. Anyway, without sourcing it can't stay. I re-added the verify tag. Peyna 05:18, 30 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tug Jobs

[edit]

Last I checked, we don't do individual porno sites. Some guy 21:10, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii-sur-Rhone

[edit]

The article is just an advertisement Some guy 21:22, 25 November 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainians/temp

[edit]

The article is redundant, as it essentially copies List of Ukrainians Pecher 21:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You explicitly stated that if I wish I could make another list which only contained ethnic Ukrainians - now that I have, you put it up for deletion. You leave me no option but to continuously revert the main Ukrainians page.
You shouldn't use a temp page on a permanent basis. You should have called it list of ethnic Ukrainians, though I'm not sure if that would be considered a legitimate article. CalJW 23:47, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Odom

[edit]

Not quite an nn-bio speedy. The article is attempting to assert notability, but the claim is just a few bit parts. Joyous | Talk 21:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable vanity.Some guy 22:12, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charge_decay

[edit]

No original research (personal theory on charge decay) --Heron 21:39, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cork Drug

[edit]

Apparent hoax. No references. Unable to Google as "cork" is part of proper name of research body as well as city in the UK. Ifnord 21:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Cork is in Ireland, but not in the UK. Stifle 23:13, 28 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Yaun

[edit]

Vanity page, basically just a link to subject's website. Some guy 21:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted as G3 silly vandalism and G4 recreation of previously deleted content.

Scooby murders

[edit]

Hoax article by an editor with a number of questionable edits. Joyous | Talk 22:03, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy: Article was created and speedied earlier today. Some guy 22:06, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wobbleman

[edit]

Advertisement for incomplete game. Some guy 22:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC). Withdraw nomination as per Hibana. Some guy 23:10, 25 November 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, then redirect, as the article is about a completely unrelated subject. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley riot

[edit]

Fails to establish significance or notability of the band. Bandcruft. Some guy 22:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a non-notable bio/attack page combo. Joyous | Talk 23:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Ciaran Hyde

[edit]

Wikipedia has been honored by the presence of this article for over six days now, and I don't doubt at all that its subject is extremely intelligent,funny, attractive and a great athlete, however there is the possibility that it might be non-notable. May I also point out that some people are of the opinion that Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles. High on a tree 22:32, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Karate

[edit]

Fails to establish significante or notability of the band. Bandcruft. Some guy 22:36, 25 November 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. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiccup fetishism

[edit]

del. zero google hits. mikka (t) 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete; editorial decision taken to merge and redirect to Paula Zahn. Johnleemk | Talk 09:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Cohen, husband of Paula Zahn

[edit]

Main claim to notability seems to be the destruction of the nest of a Red-tailed Hawk. The article appears to claim he settled out of court with the bird.


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

elittletokyo

[edit]

A small website with an Alexa ranking of 2,089,518. Does not appear to have much impact. Joyous | Talk 23:38, 25 November 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. Shortly after it was tagged for moving to Wiktionary, the original author posted a copy of this at Wiktionary, it can be found at wikt:Aitheehyam. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aitheehyam

[edit]

Tagged for transwiki for most of its life. Could become the first word entered properly for Category:Malayalam language, in Wiktionary! Only one article space reference and that seems redundant (repeats English with no benefit from having Malayalam). --David Woolley 23:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. RoySmith 00:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AirTraffic

[edit]

The textbook example of non-notability, with a bare minimum of content. Deltabeignet 23:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 02:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Steward

[edit]

This dab page was marked for cleanup. In attempting to perform said cleanup, I realized that not a single entry on the page meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), so by the time I was done cleaning it up, there would be nothing left. Therefore, I bring it here for consideration of deletion. --RoySmith 23:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_25&oldid=1234127221"