Web Analytics

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 24 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< January 23 January 25 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] January 24

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 4000 (band)

  • Delete: Non-notable band that broke up five years ago with no mentions on allmusic.com and only a used EP available on Amazon. According to WP:BAND, a band is supposed to have two full-length albums but even this article admits they only have two EPs. This only survived the first Afd because it received so few votes and one of those was the maintainer. Google has a few hits but only a few German-language reviews in magazines that may or may not be notable. This seems like a good article to keep on German Wikipedia only. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band per Wknight94. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:04Z
  • Speedy Delete no assertion of notability. Ruby 04:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. amazon.de has one maxi, which is not enough. Kusma (討論) 04:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delet per nom. --Terence Ong 10:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —This user has left wikipedia 14:20 2006-01-24
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. incog 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Zsinj 03:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC. Stifle 14:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abdijah

  • Speedy Delete: Non-notable band. Almost no mentions anywhere on Google. Nothing on Amazon or Allmusic.com. Nothing even on BNR and they have every band! Article admits to only one six-track CD instead of two needed for WP:MUSIC —Wknight94 (talk) 11:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - No chartbusters, no famous members. Ruby 12:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band - They dont even have a cd out, just a studio recording. —This user has left wikipedia 14:36 2006-01-24
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn band and made up genre. incog 05:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 17:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Bied

Non-notable bio. The author Walsh415bostoncollege has reposted this after it was userfied so I will allow him an AfD. -- RHaworth 23:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Completely and totally non-notable. Powers 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete or re-userfy as non-notable bio. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy and post a note on his talk page informing him of his error and warning him if it happens again it will be deleted. Since you'd already done that the first time, definitely Delete. —simpatico hi 06:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:16Z
  • Speedy delete, warn the user, and {{deletedpage}} it. Stifle 11:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Hyler

Rather unremarkable privateer. WP:BIO Stifle 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Being a privateer is remarkable in itself. Don't send this article to Davey Jones locker. Ruby 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He gets a decent amount of Google results. —simpatico hi 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the guy's a hero. --Oscarthecat 08:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - But just remember one man's hero is another man's terrorist MNewnham 15:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and how about contacting the person that orginates a page (me) to find out how I feel about this? User:Thseamon January 28, 2006


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

The result of the debate was Delete, vanity, nn-bio Madchester 06:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam McCluskey

This sports writer is probably not notable. Only 18 search results outside of Wikipedia for Adam McCluskey +rugby. No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 2 users, and not since 13 January 2006. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 13:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn bio. Maybe the other Adam McCluskey is more notable. Ruby 14:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 14:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to User:Am_rockstar I've already added it to his userpage, in addition to existing content (which left little doubt this article is autobiographical). --W.marsh 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 10:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmad Ghabel

This theologist is probably not notable. Only 25 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Ahmad Ghabel". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 2 users, and not since 24 December 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable, as per nom --Oscarthecat 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no outstanding accomplishments in his field. Ruby 14:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as the bot/nominator hasn't presented any information on search results in Persian, which is undoubtedly more relevant. u p p l a n d 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you? It's not the nominator's place to prove notability, the article needs to present proofs of its existence. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • The existence of the person is not in question, and the few Google hits I can read indicate some notability. u p p l a n d 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Existence in and of itself is not sufficient grounds for retention of articles. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
          • Strawman argument. I never said it was. u p p l a n d 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • A search for his name in Persian gives about 11,900 Google hits, many clearly news sites in Persian. The name gets 32 Google hits (20 unique hits) on BBC's Persian webpages alone.[1]. I don't read Persian and can't tell exactly what these articles say about Ghabel, but I think this indicates notability. I'm sorry, but claiming a certain number of search hits without searching in the most relevant language is misleading (not intentionally, I know, but still). u p p l a n d 17:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep One Ghit says one does not need to study confused and mentally derailed voodoo practitioners such as Ali Shariati and Ahmad Ghabel. So he must be doing something right. Dlyons493 Talk 20:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I added more information. also see Ahmad Qabel -- Sina Kardar 23:46 25 January 2006.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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!) 10:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Al Anees

This software title is probably not notable. Only 29 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Al Anees". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 4 users, and not since 10 November 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: I might add that the search results do not appear to pertain to the software. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:30, Jan. 24, 2006
  • Delete non-notable. --Oscarthecat 14:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DOS based anything belongs in an article about the history of software, if it was notable. This doesn't get its own article. Ruby 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable... I can't find anything about it outside of WP mirrors, can you? --W.marsh 15:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm less willing to just give a computer program the benefit of the doubt than the Persian theologian above, but this is another case where a web search limited to Latin script is obviously insufficient. u p p l a n d 17:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Google produces better results but doesn't allow queries from the command line. I searched Google manually, and (outside of wikipedia mirrors) the closest thing I can find was a "Al-Jazeera suffers DoS attack". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:56, Jan. 24, 2006
      • My point is that, with "an Arabic DOS-based chat program released in 1990", search engine results have to be evaluated based on a search in Arabic script. Anything written about the program is likely to be in Arabic (as it would only be relevant to an Arabic-speaking audience), and whether you search Alexa or Google makes less difference than the choice of language. (Of course, one also need to be able to evaluate the search results, but we do have quite a few Arabic-speakers around to help with that, don't we?) --u p p l a n d 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Ok, let's find an Arabic speaker. I'm curious now whether the topic of the article actually exists/existed. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:25, Jan. 24, 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alfred Staffeld Madsen

This cardiologist is probably not notable. Only 4 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Alfred Staffeld Madsen". No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 3 users, and not since 19 November 2005. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I see 18 hits on Google the surname, 0 on Google Scholar, 0 on Google Book Search. NN and not verifiable. --Lockley 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 20:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified. Founder of a University would be notable but their site [2] doesn't refer to him. Dlyons493 Talk 20:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough and full of possible guesswork or hearsay (that is assuming it isn't a vanity article). Latinus 23:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amateur Hurricane Center

This online forum is probably not notable. Only 10 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Amateur Hurricane Center". For the 1 external link provided, the Alexa traffic ranking is 129,718... and a total of 0 sites link to it, including Wikipedia and its mirrors. No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 1 user, and not since 20 January 2006. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 15:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This amateur article reviewer says delete Ruby 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Since in my estimation there is no such thing as an amateur hurricane, this article should be deleted. Denni ☯ 01:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB. incog 00:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. --Timecop 00:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Anything Besides Delete - First of all, the argument for deletion is not very convincing, as some of the information is not correct. I have never even heard of this "Alexa" traffic ranking. Even if it is a reputable source of information, the current time of year does not accurately represent the site's true traffic standpoint (it is currently not hurricane season, thus making the visitation to the website low). Second, there is an incomprehensible amount of articles on Wikipedia that have only been edited by one user and have not been deleted. And the fact that the article hasn't been edited in the last five days is not pertinent to this deletion at all. Who cares? I'm sure there are millions of articles that haven't even been edited in weeks or even months. Third, there is criteria met under the WP:WEB category. There are links to this site from "significant" weather sites such as Weather Underground (wunderground.com). Fourth, the title does not mean a center that tracks amateur hurricanes - it is a hurricane center run by amateur meteorologists. I am the author by the way, and just about every article that I have written has either been put up for deletion and called a drug dream or rudely edited from a well thought out, comprehensive article into someone else's trashy insult-of-an-article work without even crediting the original author. I am fed up with Wikipedia! Schlockading 01:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This site is notable-can be found on several other websites...31 Yahoo! search results, 14 Google search results. Also is a reliable source of info for hurricane people like us. Hurricane_guy
  • Keep Dont know why, just keep it because AHC is reliable - haev looked at site! Plorstonslinge 18:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amie Ward

This musician is probably not notable. Only 8 search results outside of Wikipedia for "Amie Ward" musician. No other articles link to this, it has only been edited by 3 users, and not since 18 January 2006. This message was generated by a bot. — Catapult 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: looks like a hoax. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:40, Jan. 24, 2006
  • Speedy Delete. Totally unverifiable, possible vanity. This Amie Ward page was started by user LB4. LB4's edit history (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LB4) includes starting a page for a band called First Day and uploading three dubious cover-art images. First Day lists Amie Ward as one of its three members. Although the Amie Ward page claims double platinum sales none of this is verifiable on Google. I'm also listing First Day for AfD below. --Lockley 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete obvious hoax. Ruby 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, nn/hoax incog 01:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete. Looks like an unverifyable hoax. --Timecop 01:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE by community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Applian Technologies Inc.

Blatant advertising, "a great way to download music", for example. Almost every other word is an external link to an Applian product site, no internal links whatsoever. Page is author's only contribution, aside from same content on user page. Delete. AbsoluteFlatness 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep if cleaned up. Lots of Google hits for Applian and "Radio Replay". Traffic Rank for applian.com: 36,181, not bad for a website selling software. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:23Z
  • Delete - non-notable company. Give me one that has changed the world. Ruby 04:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not self promotion/advertising, as this clearly is. We don't owe them a good article because they seem to have spammed WP. --W.marsh 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Deleteper above. --Terence Ong 04:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I cleaned up this article into a friendly stub. — TheKMantalk 04:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • And Keep. Seems notable enough for my tastes. — TheKMantalk 04:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, no claim to notability. -- Kjkolb 05:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No info on turnover or press or anything like that. Merchbow 08:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable company as per WP:CORP and non-notable website, as per WP:WEB.  (aeropagitica)  21:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awkward silence

Somewhere between original research, dictdef, and a joke (the example cited sounds like an inside joke between the author and the other sole editor). OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I can believe that there may be some psycholinguistic research on this topic. But without any references, I have to believe that this article, as written, is a joke. If the authors can provide a citation to a peer-reviewed study, I would change my view. --Thunk 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark for cleanup. Could be good with some references and examples. Powers 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as O.R. Ruby 19:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR/Unverifiable, unless some good citations to this actually being studies can be provided. Peyna 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Can anyone provide a citation to a research paper on this topic? If not, delete the article as a private joke in a public forum.  (aeropagitica)  21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine why this page would be deleted? Awkward silence is certainly a roundly acknowledged concept. Thesham69 02:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baby and brother

Sounds like hogwash, but even if it's true, it's a defunct public access show. Even current public access shows are not encyclopedic. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bacon and eggs

  • Delete - Imformal, not a true entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Schmit (talk • contribs)
  • Keep very common expression, gets 300k hits on google [3] -- Astrokey44|talk 04:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Very common in the UK at least, noteworthy. Watch out for redundancy with Full English breakfast though. Robin Johnson 16:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef. Unless the article can have more content than "It is bacon and eggs and a lot of people eat it." Peyna 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't want an article for every possible meal, not even Steak and potatoes Ruby 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but who cares when it became popular in the US? Jcuk 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Common meal. Englishrose 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep should be included on Wikipedia High Plains Drifter 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Neat little article. Golfcam 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Every possible meal doesn't have to be included but bacon and eggs has enough cultural significance to be included. Crunch 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep very culturally significant here in Britian. Essexmutant 13:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and take Bacon butty and Chip butty with it while you're doing it. I am a Brit but don't believe that putting bacon and eggs together on a plate is "culturally significant". This is cruft of some sort or other, border line orignial research. There is no need for articles like this where regional preferences are given some kind of false prominance. doktorb | words 11:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Baron Merthyr

No notability or relevance. Baroncruft. Stifle 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Oh, Keep. This describes a baroncy, not a specific person, and is relevant enough to the more general history of the British peerage to stay.--Lockley 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. If we were to delete this one, we'd have to delete most of the articles in the whole Baronies category, too. I'm not sure I see the point of having all of them recorded, but this one is no less relevant than the others. Powers 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. Ruby 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Lockley Jcuk 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per above. AndyJones 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all peerage titles should have an article. CalJW 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand with something on geographic location, an explanation of being "sworn off for life" in 1977 (surely this must be rare and noteworthy enough to be documented?), the reason the baroncy was created and bestowed on an old man in 1911, the names of the women who bore the subsequent barons, any occasions where a Merthyr baron led major action in Parliament, something surely must be on record worth encyclopedia inclusion. Barno 00:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as above. Gareth 17:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as near-nonsense and as link spam. - Lucky 6.9 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley California Real Estate

Realtor advertising MNewnham 16:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Probably meets Speedy criteria, actually. Powers 16:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Karpovich

Looks like vanity/linkspam to me. Isn't everyone and thier brother CEO of some tiny company? -R. fiend 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 03:38Z
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz 03:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: per nom. That's quite a list of external links for someone no one's ever heard of. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio. Ruby 04:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. He's the CEO for Zentinel Inc, which isn't even up until February 2006.[4] — TheKMantalk 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 13:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, superfluous with List of Soul Train episodes. --Deathphoenix 15:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bill Withers/ Al Green/ Viola Wills

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. There's already a list of Soul Train episodes, making this one useless. If someone knows enough to type that into the search box, they already know what the article contains. - Bobet 04:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncy Balls (slang)

The article describes what it itself admits to be a neologism. The entire article boils down to "Bouncy Balls is another name for anal sex.". At best, this would be a redirect, and anal sex would either mention the alternative names that it is known by or link to a WikiSaurus entry for that purpose. But after a modicum of research I can find no evidence that this is another name for anal sex. The article cites no sources, and everything that I can turn up turns out to be about ordinary balls, that bounce. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, in any case. Uncle G 16:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable definition. Robin Johnson 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to anal sex or whatever. Ruby 17:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why? What is your evidence, outside of the article (which cites no sources), that this is an alternative name for anal sex? Uncle G 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Bouncy delete --^demon 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per nom. no redirect needed.Obina 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete googling shows the term isn't used that way: patent nonsense. --James S. 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A google search for "anal sex""bouncy balls" shows the two terms to be unrelated in this manner. Denni ☯ 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Denni -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Denni —simpatico hi 17:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep i have heard howard stern refer to this act at least once on his show
  • Comment. Above unsigned comment by User:24.247.29.173. Also has a contrib history containing several vandalisms. --^demon 04:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Urban Dictionary (i.e. Delete) Dbinder 19:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Relisting unnecessary since it seemed a bunch of users voted "redirect (or merge) all" without registering their votes to each individual AfD. --Deathphoenix 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chairmen of the Board/ Rufus Thomas/ Laura Lee

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Relisting unnecessary because it seems that a bunch of users voted "redirect (or merge) all" without listing their votes on each individual AfD. --Deathphoenix 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Wright & the Watts 103rd Street Band/ Carla Thomas/ General Crook

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
D'eathphoenix 15:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense/hoax - Lucky 6.9 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Hobson

Supposed major character in a series of books that don't have their own article. Searching for "Chris Hobson" +nevonia reveals 4 results, 3 of which are this article or mirrors. The fourth is a useless list of graduates for the class of 2006 for Franklin and Marshall. Searching on Amazon.com for "nevonia" reveals only a single book on student life at Franklin and Marshall, while searching on the book in which he was supposedly introduced, "The Fifteen Year Old Mad Scientist", yields 0 results. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. The article is Christianpayne's only contribution, and I will therefore not userfy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Payne

Vanity page written in third person MNewnham 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was that I'm not qualified to euthanize anyone, but I can delete this article. - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cocksmith

Non-notable term. A Google search reveals only two hits, both as slang terms in online dictionaries. No other references either on regular websites or in media. Delete Atrian 05:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as a neologism. NatusRoma 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a dictionary. --Walter Görlitz 06:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It definitely appears on more that 2 pages on Google, but that doesn't change the fact that it's just another neologism, with silly original research. — TheKMantalk 06:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was that there are only two hits within the context of this page. There are other unrelated hits for the same word. Atrian 07:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Fair enough :D — TheKMantalk 07:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a neologism. Rather an archaism. Probably better suited to be under Cocksman anyway. And almost certainly a dicdef. Fifelfoo 07:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOT a dictionary. --Terence Ong 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT the urban dictionary. Although, perhaps the word is really another word for a chicken farmer? Peyna 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP is not urbandictionary, leave thosed "dicdef"'s there. --Lightdarkness 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Euthanize the Author, Delete the Article. That has got to be the most inane drivel I've ever spent 3 seconds of my life trying to read. --Agamemnon2 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Maybe Not Euthanize Me. I understand it's a neologism, I will transfer the article to Uncyclopedia.com. In defense, it is a phoenomena. Russel Crowe has been called one. But the term is still in progress. --Lordmemnon 3:47 25 January 2006
  • Delete and transwiki to uncyclopedia. Stifle 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collectica

NN website not yet open for business MNewnham 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete WP not a crystal ball, etc. Ruby 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete around 300 Google hits, with many of them linking to ebay or other online auction sites.Amcfreely 01:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. What they said. —simpatico hi 06:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:17Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep, but do not rename to Compass (Qibla) because this article also mentions Qiblih. --Deathphoenix 15:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compass (religion)

Delete. Having been convinced to actually buy one of these compasses, I can say that they don't really do what one would infer from reading about them. They don't actually point to the qiblih, they point to magnetic north like any other compass. The buyer is merely given a list of major cities and the corresponding degree heading by which to turn, so there's really no cool technology at work. The design is pretty flimsy as well - just lightweight, easily cracked or scratched plastic. A little research reveals both compasses to be made by the Silva company in Sweden. Being that: 1) the product description is a bit disingenuous, 2) I don't think there's really enough information here to justify a full article in its own right, and 3) this article is essentially an (unintentional, I'm sure) advertisement for one company, I move for article deletion. Keldan 08:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • A deletion decision should not be based on what is there in the article, but what could be there, because each stub is "an acorn from which mighty trees can grow." The subject is clearly notable: millions of people own these things. Can a worthwhile article be written about it? Well, I'd say that what you've just written is interesting in itself. I'd prefer to keep it around for a while. GeorgeStepanek\talk 08:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I doubt very seriously if "millions of people own these things". I'd be surprised if it were over 200 - the product is fairly new. All the same, I see your reasoning, and appreciate your input. I don't mind keeping it around for awhile (I'm certainly not trying to instigate some speedy deletion here), though I think I'll let the nomination for deletion stand. I also think I'll hop over to the article itself and NPOV some of that stuff from the AfD page, since out of the AfD page and in an article context it's rather caustic. Keldan 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What Keldan has written may be interesting, but it needs to be verifiable by readers who do not own these products in order to become part of an article. Uncle G 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither Googles well for a 'clearly notable' subject. "Kalimát Presentations" and "Kalimat Presentations" turn up one Google hit between them that isn't their own site. [5] [6] Silva is more difficult to search for. 'silva Muslim compass' with no ""s turns up lots of hits, as would be expected, but no relevant ones are immediately apparent [7]. A more specific 'silva Muslim compass qiblih -wikipedia' turns up none at all except a couple of straggling Wikipedia mirrors [8]. So no reliable sources. Given that these are just ordinary compasses with a piece of paper attached, there's no reason to mention them in Wikipedia. --Malthusian (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly how are these anything other than ordinary magnetic compasses, for which we already have an article? Upon what basis was this forked off compass? Uncle G 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I find the nomination very unsatisfactory; just because the nominator doesn't like this particular product itself isn't a good reason to delete an article about a class of historically interesting instruments. This is certainly not a new idea; I bought one (much nicer than the Silva one!) a decade ago, and they have been around for centuries (see [9] [10] [11]. Although they function in the same way as a magnetic compass, they are more sophisticated (and elegant) than that sounds; they often have at least one additional pointer, inscriptions indicating major cities around the world, and tend toward the very ornate. A fine article could be written about these instruments (but this is not it). Keep, expand, and rename to Qibla compass. bikeable (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename as per above --Doc ask? 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was ready to vote "delete" per the nominator and earlier votes, then Bikeable went and threw Reliable sources at us. Move to Qibla compass and expand per Bikeable. Barno 23:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The basis of this article is tenuous at best. Yes, such devices exist but they by my means deserve an article of their own. Make special mentions of them in appropriate articles if you will, but polluting the namespace with this kind of insipid drivel is inexcusable. --Agamemnon2 06:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but and do not rename as the page serves two different religions, Islam with the Qibla and the Baha'i Faith with the Qiblih. Qibla Compass would only refer to the Qibla. -- Jeff3000 04:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crooked Zebratry

Crooked Zebratry is a slang phrase referring to referees in American professional football that routinely make bad or questionable decisions. Often, it is seen as a case of bias or, less frequently, chronic incompetence. It usually refers to an entire referee staff as opposed to a specific individual, though it can refer to either. The reference to zebras is due to the referees' distinct black-and-white outfits.

An example would be an NFL Playoff Game between the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Indianapolis Colts on Sunday, January 15. 2006. Troy Polamalu clearly intercepted a Peyton Manning pass in the waning mintues of the 4th quarter. What would have been a game-ending play was overturned and ruled an incomplete pass. Later the NFL addmited it was an incorrect call and apologized

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuddle buddy

This is a term and should be in the wiktionary. Ginar 02:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I dunno, does the wiktionary have "Snugglebunny" too? Ruby 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • snugglebunny! snugglebunny! snugglebunny! sn-
  • Delete improvised slang. Gazpacho 03:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Cuddle buddy was the true cause of the Civil War! Delete and move over to Wiktionary if they don't already have it :-). JHMM13 (T | C) 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • For the love of crumbcake, Delete! Dbtfz 03:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No need to transwiki; no evidence that usage as described in article is notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:09Z
    • To clarify, it's fine as an endearment; the primary dicdef is the one that's unverified/not-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 10:21Z
  • Delete. per Dbtfz Crunch 13:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and don't transwiki, per Quarl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robin Johnson (talk • contribs)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary, but no encyclopedia article needed. —This user has left wikipedia 14:16 2006-01-24
  • I've heard of it, but it definatly doesn't belong. Transwiki or delete. --^demon 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as term definition. --James S. 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. --Zsinj 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dictionary definition. Ask Wiktionary if they want it, though. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 19:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki. --Brian1979 14:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. However, since most keeps were dependent on expanding an article that apparently can't be expanded, I have no objections to a re-AfD in the near future. --Deathphoenix 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy’s girl

colloquialism, not a sociological term, best left in the wiktionary Ginar 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikitionary. — TheKMantalk 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- potential for expansion. Astrotrain 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ginar says that this article cannot be expanded. You say that it can, but don't provide anything, either here or in the article, to support that bald assertion. To convince Ginar and Last Malthusian, please cite some sources to show that the potential for expansion into a non-stub article exists here. Uncle G 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but total rewrite needed! Jcuk 11:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Using what as sources? You can convince Ginar and Last Malthusian by showing what sources a complete rewrite can be based upon. Uncle G 17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • comment there is no opportunity for expansion here. There is no sociological research and I highly doubt there's any psychology research. Just because its a common term doesn't mean it can be an article. Maybe somebody here could suggest how it might be expanded?
    • I see a lot of terms like this that are simply terms but that people suggest could be expanded. This term will never be expanded Ginar 14:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ginar unless someone actually expands it, or at least comes up with some reliable sources to do it with. --Malthusian (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary Delete, per Ginar and Ncsaint. --^demon 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ginar. Since the artical has no merit in it's present form, why bother sending it to Wiktionary? If someone wants to start such an entry there, they can. Ncsaint 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be expanded into something much better (which I doubt). OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Transwiki to Wikitionary anything useful ComputerJoe 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Best term for notable thing; 1.5 million google hits for "daddy's girl" and "daddy's little girl" combined. (Compare jailbait for an example of a similar colloquialism being expanded into a sourced article). IMO burden is not on the keep voters to expand the article, though this article could obviously stand to be improved. Brighterorange 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The burden is on the keep voters to back up their bald assertions that the article can be expanded. Uncle G 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as a bare term. --James S. 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. It should be an article, and the deletion of this definition does not preclude the later creation of a good article if someone wants to do it and source it well. Ziggurat 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in Category:Stock characters and forms part of wikipedia's coverage of film and theatre. Merchbow 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles need to stand on their own merits, not due to being propped up by others. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted - the authors are conducting a linkspam campaign across Wikipedia, and are obviously just gaming the system. Buhbye. FCYTravis 01:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel M. Maggin

I'll allow the article to speak for itself: "self-proclaimed World Renowned Fork Artist." Has a weak borderline claim of notability in that he won something called the It's Academic Superbowl, but other than that, it's your garden-variety non-notable bio. FCYTravis 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Fork this article and the horse it rode in on. Ruby 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per nom. Winning something in a small area does not make you notable; in the SFBA, it's called Quiz Kids, and if someone asserted notability by that... well, let's say most of the Bay Area would know or care about the subject, much less the world. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as vanity.Blnguyen 01:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This article is not even close to being notable. Dr. Cash 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This ain't no résumé shop.--cjllw | TALK 03:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. Dbtfz 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:33Z
  • Delete Non-notable biography. Can another 'fork artist' step forward to defend this man? I thought not.  (aeropagitica)  07:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Appears to be a personal page; Google produces only 9 non-redundant pages.
  • Delete as vanity, nn bio. --Terence Ong 11:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn-bio or, as the man himself would probably say, "fork off!". Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable vanity biography. —This user has left wikipedia 12:18 2006-01-24
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this POV fork!!! What? Oh, sorry, never mind.  :-) MCB 01:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • DO NOT DELETE! let's not be elitists here. this is an encyclopedia. Maggin has accomplished a great amount in a short time, in a variety of fields. this should stay. recap: 1) Headed the #1 newspaper in the country; 2) Won the Championship of the Longest running tv quiz show in the world (according to guinness records) and is a somewhat successful artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmmx3 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006
    • Comment. User:Dmmx3, you might have divulged when voting that 'twas you who created this article, and indeed are quite likely to be Daniel himself- do you deny? At least I gather so, given the equal propensity for hyperbole. For starters, the reference to "Headed the #1 newspaper in the country" is presumably to the Rockville High School (Maryland) student paper- which does seem to at least have been been the National Winner in the "High School publications" category of the 2005 Student Publishing Awards. However, as per your/Daniel's article this was several years after your/Daniel's editorship: the actual editors who won the award could understandably feel a little peeved at this attempt to claim credit. As you note, this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and not some substitute for some (ex-)students' noticeboard. Ring-in anon votes like the one below are unlikely to help, either.--cjllw | TALK 03:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Did maggin head the newspaper? yes. is the newspaper #1 in the country? yes. that said, i understand your semantical point. the phrasing could be confusing. so edit anything you see as untrue/misleading. i dont understand why one would want to delete because of that. when maggin headed the paper it did not compete in the national competition. however it did compete within the state and was not only number one, but receved 98.5 out of 100, the highest score ever for a publication. maggin also won various specific awards that could be included here including awards for layout, news article writing, and headline writing. ill see if this info can be fuond online and include a link.
  • KEEP I purchased one of Daniel's pieces at an art gallery in Atlanta. It currently is the centerpiece of my living room. This man is a true talent, and a heavy hitter in the folk art world. 02:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)~ Dean Kang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.14.172 (talk • contribs) 27 January 2006
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-band. Mushroom 06:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Das Duale System

  • Delete: Non-notable band. Amazon seems to have one CD of theirs but no description of it. Allmusic.com has no mention. Google shows a few hits but none of them look like the band. (Maybe someone who knows German can explain what else "Das Duale System" could mean?). At best, I can only find one CD of unknown length which is a far cry from the two full-length CDs needed to meet WP:BAND. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • "Das Duale System" is a company that manages some sort of recycling tax that has to be paid on packaging, usually known as "Der gruene Punkt", part of the German trash-sorting system. Googling for '"Das Duale System" hiphop' also provides few hits. Kusma (討論) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn-band that the German wikipedia has removed from their list of hip-hop groups (not that that in itself would be a reason to delete things here: the German wikipedia is usually much stricter about including things than enwiki). Kusma (討論) 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - nn band. Ruby 04:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:29Z
  • Comment: I love the speedy idea but the article's been out there for almost a year so it's not that speedy!  ;) —Wknight94 (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear lady

this is a colloquial term. suitable for the dictionary Ginar 02:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete I'm not even sure it's suitable for the dictionary. Ruby 02:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not transfer. Gazpacho 03:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:09Z
  • Delete as per Quarl.  (aeropagitica)  07:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Qural. --Terence Ong 10:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, and Transwiki. Belongs in a dictionary. Ikh (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, stupid. Robin Johnson 13:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not encyclopaedic. Latinus 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, article is too short and has no potential. I doubt this is even appropriate for Wikitionary. --Zsinj 03:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek Fanning

NN author and journalist. Books appear to be self-published. Fails WP:BIO. Delete Kusma (討論) 03:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Well-known family but not yet independently notable. Dlyons493 Talk 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge to Dave Fanning (or is there a better target?) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:03Z
  • Delete nn bio. This AfD stuff is starting to get repetitive. Ruby 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Small time writer, not yet notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Don't see any good redirection targets. — TheKMantalk 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, since its non notable delete it. --Terence Ong 10:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Robin Johnson 13:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete You could merge if there was a fanning family article but... nada. —This user has left wikipedia 14:21 2006-01-24
  • Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per CSD A7. --Zsinj 03:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no article for writers in the Birr area: he is a notable writer. While the books are self published, they sold well and he got good exposure locally.

Writes extensivly in the local media, through his and other papers, and published the "Sliabh Bloom" periodical every 4 months.

Has certainly done enough for Birr to be included. Maybe merge with the main Birr article?

Ojis 13:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Slight merge to Dave Fanning per Quarl and WP:BIO. Relatives of notable people go in the notable person's article unless specifially notable themselves. Stifle 14:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Detva Servis

On grounds of non notable company. 187 Google hits. ComputerJoe 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Non-notable, at least given what's in the article. If some citations can be produced that indicate notability, I'll change my vote. Powers 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete We don't need articles about companies that are "trying to make a difference" Ruby 19:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Latinus 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. --Deathphoenix 15:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Diocesan Synod

This article, while I can see it having a use, is at the moment a total mess and a vehicle for the viewpoints of the user who wrote it, User:Aidan Work, who is now indefinately blocked. A quick read of the article shows that it amounts to little more than what he personally proposes in relation to it. The article is also majorly malformatted. --Kiand 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and clean up. This is about how the Anglican communion governs itself. Ruby 22:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Not right now its not. Are you volunteering to clean it up? Deleting it will let someone actually do a clean start without having personal cruft in its history. --Kiand 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete as patent nonsense per CSD-06. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Ha ha ha, I'm an idiot, it's CSDG1. Speedy delete, though, still. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not patent nonsense. It may, to you, be nonsense, but it is definitely not speediable. Patent nonsense is a random assortment of characters or words with no logic to them whatsoever, for example an article typed by a cat walking on a keyboard. Stifle 23:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Ah, thank you. I'll keep that in mind. Meh...keep. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Does need clean up, but a useful stub. Obina 00:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-28 00:20Z

[edit] DJ Sharkey

Biography of a DJ. Claim to notability as a co-founder of "React Records" (redlink). External link is a 404. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 08:47Z

Delete non notable. --Oscarthecat 11:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep notable DJ in the electronic hardcore movement. Themindset 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Latinus 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, no valid sources and CSD A7. --Zsinj 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable/non-notable. Please note that this is not a speedy delete as the first sentence constitutes a claim to notability. Stifle 14:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I've heard of him, and a search reveals that's he's a fairly leading figure in the happy hardcore scene. A medium sized fish in a small pond - that's enough. --kingboyk 18:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable figure in the happy hardcore genre. Hall Monitor 23:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable figure in genere Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep He's notable enough. Just please edit this article because I do not know much about DJ Sharkey's life; most other people will do a better job than myself. Thistheman 03:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the leading figure and originator of the Freeform Hardcore genre... if we can have an article on the genre we damn well better be able to have an article on its creator. To me its sorta like having an article on Microsoft and a blank for Gates.  ALKIVAR™ 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw my nomination for deletion on the condition that Alkivar et al add this notability information to the article. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 22:40Z


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

The result of the debate was redirect to The Simpsons catch phrases. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't have a cow

not encyclopedic The Simpsons trivia . delete Melaen 11:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete - no point having an article for each of Bart's witticisms. --Oscarthecat 11:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Robin Johnson 12:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Bartcruft. Ruby 12:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all one sentence of it into Bart Simpson since it doesnt seem to be mentioned there -- Astrokey44|talk 15:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or Merge NN on its own. –Shoaler (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A weak vote to merge into Bart Simpson, even though that has too much detail about one-time bits, per WP:FICT. This was the catchphrase which most often accompanied Bart on T-shirts and merchandising when 'The Simpsons' first went from a short cartoon spot to a standalone program. More notable than at least ninety percent of the current article's content, despite its good organization. Barno 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Zoe correctly notes below that this phrase is in the appropriate article (which needs to be sourced). The Bart article has no link to The Simpsons catch phrases so I think at least a small merge should be performed, to keep a reader of the character bio aware that the series' subarticle about catchphrases exists. This is possibly the most notable one, but still not worth its own article. Barno 01:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and Delete unless this article can be expanded in some way it seems that it belongs in the Bart Simpson article. James084 00:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Simpsons catch phrases (it's already there). User:Zoe|(talk) 00:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I will change my vote to Redirect to The Simpsons catch phrases as per above. James084 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Zoe. Stifle 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nom. Don't need to start making redirects for every phrase associated with someone (real or fictional.) – Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dronsfield

This was tagged for speedy deletion as a bio that doesn't assert notability (WP:CSD#A7). I don't agree with that, so I'm listing it here at AfD.

  • As nominator, I Abstain --W.marsh 03:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete clearly as "an article about real persons that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". --Perfecto 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - there's some stuff about the crusades, and knights, and squires, and sheriffs, sounds exciting. Men in tights. Ruby 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Sorry, what kind of vote is that? Please clarify it. -- Perfecto 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. For one, it's an article about a surname, not a particular person. Unless they have some notability other than owning land and dressing fancy, they're not on the same level of other notable families, like maybe the Kennedy family. Peyna 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--Terence Ong 04:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The family owned some land, and a few were associated with royalty, but I don't see anything notable that was done by a member of the family. I do not see the encyclopedic value of this article; does not assert importance. — TheKMantalk 05:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, if the family has notable members, articles should be made about them. -- Kjkolb 05:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment its been moved to the Genealogy wikicities [12] -- Astrokey44|talk 09:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, not a sufficiently notable family, and per the above is on wikicities. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as it has been copied to a more appropriate wiki, see above. --Zsinj 03:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch oven (slang)

This is a poor page and I can find no evidence to back up such usage. It also doesn't saw where it is supposedly a slang term from. Even if it does exist I don't think it's notable enough. Ben W Bell 10:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete couldn't have put it better. Zargulon 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Actually I have heard of this, but it's not encyclopedic and WP:NOT urbandictionary. Robin Johnson 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete is indeed an accepted usage of the term, but doesn't belong in WP. --Oscarthecat 11:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I have also heard of this, but it's more suitable to Wikitionary. Potential transwiki if not already there. Essexmutant 12:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete fartcruft. Ruby 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Yes, it is fartcruft. Tokakeke 17:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough (that is asuming it isn't made up). Latinus 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Expurgate, um, delete. WP is not "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide". Phphhhhrrrrrrrrrt. Barno 00:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

While it's not a particularly savory subject, I am a "knowledge junkie", and this was something I'd never heard of before. It was presented, I thought, as delicately as possible, given the subject matter. I'm not in favor of restricting pure information, honestly presented. I say leave it in.

  • Leave it in. I've heard it (I'm Irish), Dutch Oven is also slang, for a cannabis smoking session in a tent.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EggBlog

Vanity, non-notable: brand new blogging software project, and the developer wrote the article explicitly for SEO reasons, see [13] rodii 21:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Sorry, not brand new.

  • Delete, obviously. Author also spamming the Blog page, [14]. This may eventually be a notable package, so I hope the article can be recreated someday. →rodii 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per the above — what a cheeky blog msg! blatant advertising, for non notable software. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for all reasons stated above. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As of now, not notable.Amcfreely 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per rodii -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Elizabeth James

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Tv316 as patent nonsense, which it isn't, but I judging by the comment he left on the talk page (copied below), I think he means complete bollocks. howcheng {chat} 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Copied from Talk:Elizabeth James: I listed this for speedy deletion. I've looked up "'Mickie James' sister" "elizabeth james wwe" "'mickie james' sister elizabeth" and a couple more, and nothing comes up. Judging by the insane stuff this guy is writing about, I'd say this person doesn't exist. tv316 22:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, sorry about the speedy nomination. It fits better under complete bollocks. Delete per my previous comment. tv316 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete total vanity even if true. Ruby 01:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, GLORY Wrestling, of which she is a member, doesn't have a page, so she shouldn't either. Being a relative of someone notable does not make you notable. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Glory Wrestling does have a page. Click on the external link to her "bio". However, the front page of the Glory Wrestling page says, "The images and text contained on this site should not necessarily be construed as facts pertaining to the real lives of these ladies. Like actresses playing a part on TV or films, these ladies are playing their part in the world of independent wrestling.". This is a farce. Delete. And what does being a valet have to do with wrestling? The Glory Wrestling page calls all of the women on their pages wrestlers and valets. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment Apparently "Valets" are to female wrestling what "Managers" are to male wrestling. Jcuk 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Zoe. Sumahoy 03:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:20Z
  • Delete unverifiable vanity Dakota ~ ε 06:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, either vanity or non-notable. McPhail 09:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the girl looks pretty, but otherwise quite unremarkable. Ikh (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I thought we kept professional sports persons? Jcuk 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifable vanity. --Terence Ong 11:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Extremely weak keep. At least for the time being. After a bit of research, I've found that GLORY wrestling is a notable enough phenomenon to be included here, and she does have a biography on GLORY. For that reason, I vote keep for the time being, albeit very reluctantly. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable vanity, even a complex google search such as "Elizabeth James" -wikipedia ucla wrestling OR wrestler shows nothing relevant. —This user has left wikipedia 12:22 2006-01-24
  • Speedy Delete Vanity, unverifiable, and bio does not assert importance of person. --LeFlyman 23:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 15:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engineering tuitions chennai

Blatant advertisement for a non-notable program. OhnoitsJamieTalk 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Not so much concerned about its non-notability (I don't know anything about engineering programs in India) as about its advertisement point of view. Challenge the author to rewrite it according to NPOV; if that can't be done, merge or (more likely) delete. -- 68.36.214.139 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (oops, that was me -- MatthewDBA 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC))
  • Comment There are a lot of articles that promotes their engineering colleges so why not have an entry for engineering tuitions. I plan to include other engineering tuitions links as well soon. There are a lot of students who desperately need guidance on many engineering subjects. I am not doing anything unique here.--Justayogi 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think Wikipedia is the appropriate place for a guide/collection of links on engineering tuition programs. There are plenty of articles written about notable individual engineering topics. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Advertisement. Ruby 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: The current contents are nothing but plain advertisement. --Bhadani 14:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Test (student assessment). --Deathphoenix 15:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extended Constructed Respose

poor dicdef of term that probably doesnt meet wiktinary criteria. Also note misspelled article name.

  • Delete Supergolden 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is a type of question used in teaching and testing. Google has plenety of results and google images plenety of examples such as [15]. That image is work of the us.gov so the article will grow over time. —This user has left wikipedia 14:47 2006-01-24
  • Strong Delete It's still, if anything, a dicdef, and very crufty. Tokakeke 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's a well-established term in the testing literature.Amcfreely 00:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Standardized testing. --JWSchmidt 00:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Standardized testing or to Test (student assessment). The latter page has a logical place for it, with explanations of other question types. --Lockley 06:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FanboyPlanet.com

Article for a website that is little more than spam/vanity. —Cleared as filed. 22:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Day

Delete as unverifiable and probable hoax. All three 'cover art' images uploaded by original author of this page. See AfD discussion on related Amie Ward. Lockley 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - it's a hoax. Who's their producer? Who laid down their grooves? Who's their label? How high did they chart? Ruby 19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - let 'em come back and have another go when they've been at school long enough to know that "writtern" is spelt "written"! Jcuk 20:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Vizcarra 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete {{hoax}} Schoolgirl fantasy, non-notable band as per WP:Music - albums/singles chart positions; notable members.  (aeropagitica)  21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - funny joke, but not encyclopaedic. Latinus 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to facial recognition system. --Deathphoenix 15:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fisherface

Delete. Topic belongs in a specialist journal, not a general encyclopedia. Previous information has already been removed as a copyvio; pointless to replace it when generic information on facial recognition software will suffice. Stretch 06:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fomalhaut (Fallen Angel)

Delete Stub that has no pages linked to it, and has no sources. It is conjecture.

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Dominick (TALK) 13:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete This content appears on the Fomalhaut star page, with slightly more context.Zeimusu | Talk page 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete background mythology for a star, already documented there. Ruby 14:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not notable. —This user has left wikipedia 14:49 2006-01-24
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frankly, Mr. Shankly Butcher (album)

This is a load of nonsense. No evidence anywhere on the internet, The Decemberists would never title an album thus (so badly or copying The Smiths so obviously), forums on official website deny this absolutely. I've no idea how anyone knows what titles will be on the album given that it's not even set to be recorded until April. Either a hoax or just wrong information. Delete Barbara Osgood 15:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax. Ruby 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete title seems unlikely, but more than that it just isn't verifiable, Brendanfox 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable, probable hoax. Stifle 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Merge not necessary, as other episodes don't have additional information. The votes here seem to indicate that similar episodes should be redirect. In the future, please vote on all individual AfDs no matter how similar, as I can't see all the other AfDs when closing individual ones. --Deathphoenix 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of Distinction/ Clarence Carter

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • All of the above should be merged into either a new article or List of Soul Train episodes (currently improperly named, but name could be changed to Episodes of Soul Train and could include some episode descriptions). —simpatico hi 05:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all to Episodes of Soul Train or some similar article. Please consider this vote as applying to all the above AFDs. Stifle 11:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment some of the above appear to point to valid articles, eg Charlie Wright, Martha. Please chach before deleting :: Supergolden 11:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge all the above into one Episodes of Soul Train article, with synopses of episodes in lists, highlighting significant performances. Iamvered 17:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Strong atheism. There seems to be some usage of this term, but mainly in humourous web pages. Any further attempts to recreate the previous content, however, should be reverted immediately. --Deathphoenix 16:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Delete, upon further discussion. --Deathphoenix 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamentalist atheist

I would say this is a neologism. It gets 354 unique Google hits although a significant proportion of those argue that it is a contradiction in terms. The page as it stands reads as a POV criticism of Atheism and I suspect it would always do so. I nearly speedied this under CSD A6 but given that it makes a serious case thought it should be brought here. David | Talk 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, Atheists tend to have their own POV slant on every article on Wiki, its time someone gave the fuckers like Carlin a taste of their own medicine, if they want to generalize, then they will get it right back at them tenfold. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GreekWarrior (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Especially after researching the article's creator (User:GreekWarrior) edit history and other comments here, I suspect this article is complete bollocks. Peyna 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I wouldn't say it's a neologism or complete bollocks; anti-atheists (such as our unsigned friend above) use it to describe particularly strident pro-atheist activists. While the phrase itself is semi-notable, in the respect that people actually use it, the behavior it describes is not. Powers 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete - but don't just keep either. This phrase is in use, and disparagingly describes certain forms of Strong atheism. Whether it is an accurate description is of course POV, but we should record the use, not the accuracy. I'd suggest either a merge to Fundamentalism (and let the fact that the term has been used of atheists be noted), or a simple redirect to Strong atheism. --Doc ask? 20:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article is fundamentally POV, which violates WP:NPOV. Ascribing hatred as a characteristic of a version of Atheism demonstrates more about the article's creator than about the nominative subject of said article. If Atheism derrives from an emotional reaction of a theistic stance then this should be demonstrated with the appropriate references and citations. As it happens, Atheism arises from reasoning about both physical and metaphysical concepts, both of which are amply demonstrated in Richard Dawkins' work, contrary to the POV expressed by the article's creator.  (aeropagitica)  21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
And your user-page, full of the huffing and puffing and delusions of grandeur one would expect from an Atheist (assumed to be more creative - for example), is a typical example of the Atheistic arrogance from which you suffer, it's ok for you to generalize, but God forbid when a Christian does it, or any Theist for that matter. Atheism must be defeated head on, I would be glad to meet you in battle and slay you myself, you are nothing but filth to me, believe me, you are like dirt to me, you must be wiped out with aggression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.83.215 (talk • contribs)
LOL —simpatico hi 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and above James084 22:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article can be reformed somewhat, and it touches upon an important subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.83.215 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete There are already edits in this or that article that talk about strong or "dogmatic" atheism. Ruby 22:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete actual usage doesn't exist except to disparage the term. It seems to me that the most fundamental view of athiesm would lead to agnostisicm, and not in the direction this POV article suggests. --James S. 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be called "Atheist Fundamentalism" if it were to survive. Although that construction doesn't get much more hits.[16] Also the topic is dealt with at Antitheism.--T. Anthony 01:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV dicdef -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Calwatch 04:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete in light of trolling and threats by author. Gazpacho 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Fundamentalism or Strong atheism per Doc. —simpatico hi 07:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dicdef, irreconcilably POV, and WP:BALLS. Stifle 11:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree with the origninal nominator and many subsequent posts. Article is POV. Ginnna
  • Redirect to Strong atheism-- don't merge. Ashibaka tock 03:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. Delete per nom --rogerd 03:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to an existing article such as Strong atheism or Antitheism iff a scholarly reference can be found that defines the term. Otherwise, delete. --JWSchmidt 22:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy Talk 05:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff shoesmith

Non-notable as it stands. Oscarthecat 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete world renowned cymbalist? It's a joke, like the cowbell thing on SNL. Ruby 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense/bad joke. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - funny joke (maybe it should be userfied). Latinus 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are a couple of people with this name who might be notable - an author [17]and a national youth band member [18]. exolon 21:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for now. Author only has one book - currently nn. Who knows about the future. —simpatico hi 07:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a bit of a mess, and per Geogre's law. Stifle 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes to be consistent with other similar AfDs for similar episodes. --Deathphoenix 16:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gladys Knight & the Pips/ Eddie Kendricks/ The Honey Cone/ Bobby Hutton

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Rename to Soul Train season 1 and merge in the other season 1 pages. There are multiple precedents for individual episode pages, but they are generally better developed than this. Thanks. — RJH 17:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Westboro Baptist Church. --Deathphoenix 20:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Godhatesamerica.com

Non-notable website. This is one of a number of lesser known websites put out by the Westboro Baptist Church (the godhatesfags.com people). There is already a lengthy article for Westboro_Baptist_Church, no need for this one. As there is no significant content here which isn't already on the main Westboro_Baptist_Church page, might as well delete rather than merge this. Xyzzyplugh 00:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hellarity

Unverified residence of some sort. 133 Google hits.-- Perfecto 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. --Perfecto 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, possible nonsense/unverified. Blnguyen 02:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsense. Ruby 02:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:11Z
  • Delete Nonsense or spam. —This user has left wikipedia 12:46 2006-01-24
  • Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 13:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 13:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. --Deathphoenix 20:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of zoology, post-Darwin

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was This is an anachronism. The content has some historical interest but it is not a contemporary review of value.. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep We've got people transcribing stuff from the 1911 Britannica and you want to delete it? Ruby 20:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, needs cleanup - if Encyclopedia Britannica deemed it an appropriate article for an encyclopedia, why should Wikipedia not have it? High Plains Drifter 21:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm new to this process, but I nominated this article as it seemed to me to be an obvious case of an article that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute if read by any serious seeker of information, and which seemed incapable of salvation without starting wholly afresh. I nominated this article for deletion after spending some time trying to edit it constructively; at first I thought maybe it could be cleaned up, but I changed my mind after trying. The problems with it as I see it are multiple. As a review of the "History of zoology post Darwin", it stops at about 1910, it only addresses a single narrow issue (and from a rather strange personal perspective), and it does so in terms so outdated that the discussion is of mere historical curiosity. Anyone reading for any factual content would be very seriously misled. I think that an article on this topic is a fine idea, but I do not think it is possible to use this text as a starting point for an article of any contemporary credibility. I have no idea why you've got people transcribing science articles from the Encyclopedia Britannica of 1911, this seems crazy to me. Gleng 10:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. FCYTravis 04:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] House of Trouser

Nonsense story, presumably vandalism (and candidate for a speedy) but I put it on ordinary AFD nontheless. -- Egil 23:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - whatever it is, it doesn't belong here. Latinus 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Garbage. Golfcam 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete, qualifies as vandalism to me. --Lockley 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very Speedy Delete, the author is busy vandalising other pages like Kray twins to point to this one. Tarquin Binary 02:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • You people are so snobby it's unbelievable. Yeah it's not a very important page and by all means delete it, although there are many pages that are equally as rubbish. I object to it being called 'vandalism' as it is anything but. I would merge it somewhere in the Neighbours page. If you delete it I'll just make another one somewhere! Cls14 00:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humpty

This article describes a neologism. A google for the "Humpty Awards" mentioned in the article failed to generate meaningful hits. Delete. Sliggy 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete and it's wrong anyway, there was a Humpty Hump song in the early 1990s. Ruby 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as OR or neologism. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete anything that starts with "The term 'Humpty' was coined in late 2005 by a group of New York twenty-somethings" per Ohnoitsjamie. Kusma (討論) 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nn neologism (since I'm a twenty-something in NYC and haven't heard of it).Makemi 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Makemi. —simpatico hi 17:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Would Set Myself On Fire For You

Not notable.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as a non-notable band. --Lockley 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn band, another in the screamo series. Ruby 20:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing at Amazon or AllMusic guide. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - hmm... it's not notable enough :-( Latinus 23:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IGadget

  • Delete: As non-notable as I've seen for music-related people. No mentions on either allmusic.com or Amazon. Any mentions I find on Google are for electronics devices, not music people. Only two band articles point to this one and I've nominated both for Afd (here and here). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No chart hits. Ruby 04:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable musical group. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:27Z
  • Delete per Quarl. --Terence Ong 04:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC --Zsinj 03:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. - Mailer Diablo 04:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jackarandah Productions

Non-notable company, violates WP:CORP  (aeropagitica)  07:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hasn't even released any productions yet. Non-notable for now. — TheKMantalk 07:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Question: Why was this speedied? --Rob 18:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure. I've listed it on WP:DRV. Stifle 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobo Ríos

non notable

  • Delete Vizcarra 21:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough to be here. Latinus 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn -- Astrokey44|talk 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity. —simpatico hi 07:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob's Shadow

Fictional book. I like Deus Ex, but this is unneccessary. Drat (Talk) 08:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. It is indeed a great game, but doesn't mean it should spawn a variety of non-notable weak articles like this. --Oscarthecat 11:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete next thing you know, there will be entries about characters and places in this fictional book. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] James Scott Richardson

Useless article. Very little information. Barely worth reading. Only information is that a complaint was filed against him Imstillhere 03:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - This article seems to be a self-serving article to inflate the ego of a self-serving idiot (Richard_Warman)
    • The above comment and "vote" was posted by Imstillhere, the nominator for the AFD. Vote should only be counted once. Homey 06:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this and his buddy to a new section on "Neo-Nazism in Canada" in Neo-Nazism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 03:40Z
  • Merge to Neo-Nazism, per Quarl. ("Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team" - is that an Olympic event now?) Dbtfz 04:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article is about the fact that the website led to their downfall. Ruby 04:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Nominator fails to mention relevant deletion criteria other than the fact that the nom dislikes the article. —Viriditas | Talk 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 05:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - has gotten significant press in London, Ontario. Homey 05:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - references back up statements, the article doesn't do anything wrong if it stays. Ronline ✉ 07:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not only the famous are encyclopedic. So are the infamous. Ifnord 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless we are prepared to accept every gang or political movement leader no matter how small or local as long as some controvery can be established involving him or her. Carlossuarez46 22:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - as per Quarl's suggestion. -Localzuk (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - page is linked to be two other notable pages. Doesn't hurt to keep it. --Zsinj 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Planned to kill the PM. Seems notable to me. - Jaysus Chris 04:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Pah, probably every city has at least one whackjob who's planned to kill the PM or equivalent at one time or another. Planning does not equal intent. --Agamemnon2 06:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Trubunal did not hear evidence of any plan to assassinate the prime minister. Close associate to Richard Warman, Randy Richmond wrote a misleading article with a false title. Imstillhere 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is a waste of time and web space to flatter every individual on the far-right with a Wiki definition. Dogmatic
  • Keep For the love of Pete! I'M NOT RICHARD WARMAN!!!!! In any event while this individual might not warrant a huge entry he is notable enough to have a small one. AnnieHall 03:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

- keep - Richardson was a major figure in the Canadian neo-Nazi movement during his tenure - was charged with numerous criminal offences as a result of material that appeared on the CECT website - subject of a human rights complaint and the decision can be added (or a link) once it comes out (does anyone know if it's out yet?)

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn, keep. Punkmorten 19:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.B. Schneewind

A professor. Not notable. Every single professor with PhD has some publications. That does not make them notable. Also, it was created by an anon who created a whole bunch of articles on Johns Hopkins University faculty. All(?) of them were copyvios from university website [19], but this one got changed, so it does not qualify for copyvio.

  • Verdict: Delete Renata 18:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I withdraw. Please close it. Renata 19:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was 'Delete, nn-bio. Madchester 06:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jessica_Dunton

This looks like a fairly transparent "vanity" case. Bardencj 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn-bio. Ruby 19:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article even uses the term "struggling actress." Pretty much by definition, that's non-notable. Maybe if she was notable for her struggling... Anyway, the heavy POV ("hilarious", "one of the better struggling actresses") smacks of promotion (self- or otherwise). Powers 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Vizcarra 21:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above James084 21:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No case for notability - {{nn-bio}} candidate. She has her own website, so she can post any and everything that she wants on there instead.  (aeropagitica)  21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A significant number of legitimate theatrical credits, including being a contract player in a university-sponsored theatrical company. The article itself is lousy, and obviously written by a fan. But since Wikipedia treats any actress who's been cast three times as "Topless Blonde," every Pokemon character, and everyone who claims to have married a dolphin as notable, it's ridiculous to claim that a working theatrical actress with a clearly nontrivial resume should be written out. Monicasdude 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Blatant vanity. And to Monicasdude, I don't believe anything you listed is notable, myself. --Brian1979 15:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Antandrus —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:11Z

[edit] Jim and the Teenage Kickass

can anyone verify? I found this on a strangecategory where 2 articles seemed like hoax/vandalism-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete W.marsh 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny_apleseed

Speedy Delete: Patent nonsense Flakeloaf 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G4. Mushroom 11:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jokebook:Lightbulb:Occupational

Surely just putting a "Jokebook:" in front of the title doesn't change the fact that it was deiced to remove such jokes from wikipedia? Am I missing something? -R. fiend 17:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I saved the jokes to my harddrive but I still want to delete this article. Ruby 17:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Straight copy from http://www.zodanet.com/lollerpedia/index.php/Jokebook:Lightbulb:Occupational . Not a copyvio since the source is a GFDL wiki but the source should have been acknowledged. -- RHaworth 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I suspect they got it from us, as it seems to match pretty well with what was at Lightbulb joke before it was rightfully purged. My main beef is that this sort of thing belongs in wikibooks, where I believe it was sent, I'm not sure if they kept it, though. -R. fiend 18:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • This sort of thing does not belong in Wikibooks. By order of Jimbo 1, the Jokebook was recently deleted from Wikibooks, after being copied to a non-Wikimedia Foundation wiki. Uncle G 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • There you go. If it doesn't belong in wikibooks, then it certainly doesn't belong here. Anyone object to a speedy as previously deleted material? -R. fiend 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G. Appears correct to speedy delete as previously deleted material, no new need to keep. Barno 00:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as previously deleted -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph And Rosie

Obvious hoax, looks like a series of home movies some kid did and pretending it's a TV show. A Google search for '"Joseph And Rosie" ITV1' [20] reveals 2 results, both Wikipedia. The 'official site' (since removed from the article) clearly isn't, as it's a Bravehost one [21]. Joseph Silcock was speedy deleted in December. Also listing List of Joseph And Rosie episodes for the same reasons, and it looks suspiciously like List of Chucklevision episodes. BillyH 07:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete there is no record of it upon searching the official ITV website. I also think the page Joseph And Rosiet should be deleted as well, same user and obviously a misspelt attempt at the same thing. Ben W Bell 10:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Joseph And Rosie and List of Joseph And Rosie episodes both to be removed. --Oscarthecat 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per what they said. Robin Johnson 11:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete ITV are hosting programme pages on Bravehost now!? I think not.... Jcuk 11:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete both per Oscarthecat. Ruby 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moot. The article was speedy-deleted. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Beyer Films

Vanity. Even if we ignore the tone of this article, I don't think there's enough substance left to justify its existence.

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

The result of the debate was Delete., per WP:NOT Madchester 06:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of 2005 National Scout Jamboree Council Patches

This article is scoutcruft; more specifically it's a listing of poorly-scanned special edition boy scout council patches made for a certain event. This is not notable and unencyclopedic. Also, WP:NOT for collections of photographs or media files. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Actually, this is a gallery, which belongs on the Commons if GFDL, and isn't allowed if it's not GFDL. Ashibaka tock 00:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Dlyons493 Talk 00:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ashibaka. Ruby 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not encyclopedic. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting, but more appropriate for a personal website. Note: patches are "fair use", so they can't be uploaded to the commons. — TheKMantalk 05:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per Ashikaba Jacoplane 08:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ashikaba. --Terence Ong 10:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge each image with the appropriate article if possible. Jcuk 10:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not any more important than the 1998 patches or the 1942 patches... non-notable ! —This user has left wikipedia 16:09 2006-01-24
  • Delete per nom James084 16:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 17:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't delete obviously I am against this deletion. I made this list in an effort to preserve some of these patches in an encyclopedic fashion. I also beleive that this page is useful for showing what a major element patch trading is at the national jamboree and scouting in general. Obviously not all the patches are the best of scans, but this is an ongoing project of mine,(and anyone else if they would like to help) and If I find better scans I would put them on here. I do not know anything about the commons and GFDL so I'm really unsure about all of that. I understand why this is being considered but I'm asking for it to stay because I do think it is noteworthy when you consider just how big an event the National Jamboree is in scouting (think olympics like, considering it only happens once every 4 years) and just how big an aspect patch trading is. --Beefybot 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Truly this is the height of uselessness. --Agamemnon2 06:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dont Delete This is an excellent resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.133.12 (talk • contribs)
  • Merge into state Scouting articles at the appropriate place. He's done a lot of work, it would be a shame to see it lost. Chris 03:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Babajobu 16:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Iranian Air Force aircraft

listcruft, incomplete. A better list is already embedded in the main Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force article. Hirudo 01:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Zsinj 01:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Ruby 01:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and redirect to article mentioned in nom. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Blnguyen 01:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but I don't think a redirect is necessary, since this isn't a title anyone is ever likely to search on. --Thunk 02:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to the article which already has the list, Islamic Republic of Iran Air Force. Plausible search term. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep is it can be improved, or Redirect Astrotrain 10:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete per Hirudo, until such time as someone decies to write a real article on the subject. Ikh (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, and per Ikh. --Terence Ong 11:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect To the Iranian air force article —This user has left wikipedia 12:38 2006-01-24
  • Redirect to the Iranian Air Force article. Captain Jackson 15:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect Per Sjakkalle ComputerJoe 21:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 20:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of redundant expressions

Delete. The inclusion of almost any expression on this list is open to dispute, either about whether or not it is really redundant, or whether or not it is a notably used expression, or both. There is no possibility of this page becoming adequately sourced, authoritative or encyclopedic. I don't see how it can be saved within Wikipedia. I acknowledge there may be other lists about which the same could be said, which I haven't noticed yet. Delete. Zargulon 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - I think it's an interesting compilation. Ruby 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure why that means it should be in an encyclopedia. Zargulon 12:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why it shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. Is there a specific Wikipedia policy that the article has violated? Zarquon 12:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean.. do you really think that only articles which violate specific Wikipedia policies may be deleted? In fact, specific policy violations can often be fixed without deleting articles. If you think this article can be fixed without deletion, maybe you should try it. I genuinely wish you the best of luck and hope you don't waste too much time. Zargulon 13:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No, I don't think that only articles which violate specific Wikipedia policies may be deleted. Zarquon 22:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pointless listcruft, the handful of examples at redundancy (language) are more than enough to give the general idea :: Supergolden 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Guettarda 13:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be original research. The one reference only mentions the existance of redundancy without giving any of these examples. Zeimusu | Talk page 13:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Robin Johnson 13:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename to List of redundant expressions of redundancy. (joke) Actually it's a somewhat interesting list. Perhaps it could be transwikied into a book on the English language? — RJH 19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is deffinitely encyclopedic under English language and grammar, and there is a place where it can be saved otherwise: Tautology which even has a examples section. So it can be merged there.--Vizcarra 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interesting, yes, but completely unencylopedic POV, original research, opinion, what have you. As Zargulon said, almost every item here is open to debate. For example, "12 noon" is not necessarily redundant, it depends on the usage and application. In applications where a numerical time indicator is required, the "noon" or "midnight" (or perhaps a.m. or p.m.) qualifier is essential. "As to whether" is arguably not a redundancy, it's just incorrect grammar. And how about "bouquet of flowers". I don't think that's redundant. Ever heard of or seen a bouquet of balloons? I have. Amusing and interesting, but not encyclopedic. Crunch 00:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Here are more. "It's high time." That's different than "it's time." It's a different nuance. It's like saying "It's about time!" And, "golden wedding anniversary" is different than "golden anniversary." The former is just the 50th anniversary of a wedding. The latter is the 50th anniversary of anything, I believe. See how interpretations can vary? Crunch 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course "12 noon" is redundant. Can noon be any hour other than 12? Denni ☯ 01:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No, but 12 can. Gosh. Crunch 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Which means that "noon" suffices and "12 noon" is a redundant expression. --Vizcarra 03:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
No. Noon has an alternative meaning of the time when the sun is highest in the sky. "12" disambiguates. Zargulon 10:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. It's arguments like this that show this is an essay and not an encyclopedia article. Robin Johnson 10:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
It's arguments like this that suggest that articles like this are desperately needed to educate and to inform. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps, but not in wikipedia. Zargulon 12:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a very useful list and I hope it stays public, but this is simply not what Wikipedia is for, unless every one of those expressions is notable for being a redundant expression, and discussed as such a citable reputable source somewhere. Robin Johnson 14:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Though there is room for dispute on some items, this list contains some of my pet peeves. Denni ☯ 01:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Then perhaps it should go in your pet encyclopedia.Zargulon 01:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This gets to the essence of what's encylopedic. It's not a list of what bugs you or what you find interesting or amusing or pet peevish. Crunch 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Definitely interesting, definitely verifiable, and definitely well-researched. Encyclopedic? Sadly, no. Stifle 14:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    In fact, this also violates WP:ASR. Stifle 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Not certain I understand you: WP:ASR suggests that articles should not refer back to Wikipedia, not that they shouldn't refer to themselves, or talk about doing that: "Avoid self-references within Wikipedia articles to the Wikipedia project". HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep contains useful information, which shouldn't be lost.  Grue  14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, somebody's opinions are not grammatical fact. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand per D. -- JJay 00:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - needs some source references, but it's fine. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per the above comments. Indeed, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. There must be some other GFDL wiki that could serve as a suitable venue. —David Levy 21:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. That being said, this is still an interesting article–it just doesn't belong here.Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and add references. —Phil | Talk 12:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Lukas (T.|@) 16:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Contains genuine insights into the nature of the English language and how it is used in popular culture. Although it could use some sifting, the list shows merit in the field of linguistics if nothing else. I feel the particularities of how symantics, grammar and popular phraseology evolve is of definite Encyclopedic worth. Walrus125 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Even as I readily encounter many of the expressions listed, and even as I am altogether put off by the use of such expressions (de temps en temps), I think this is surely original research. I concur with the assessment of Mackensen. Joe 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Ghost in the Shell. --Deathphoenix 02:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lithium Flower

Delete. Unencyclopedic; song lyrics that are not significant enough to require it's own article. Eluchil 09:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. While I am aware of the song and its significance to fans of Ghost in the Shell I don't think its important enough. Plus when you consider the copyright implications of song lyrics and the trouble they are causing for many sites I think it should go. Ben W Bell 10:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio. Robin Johnson 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes, users voted "redirect (or merge) all" without registering their votes to each individual AfD. --Deathphoenix 21:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lou Rawls/ The 100 Proof/ The Emotions

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Malady

Not notable, one author.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as non-notable band. --Lockley 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nn band. I should set my F10 key to say that to save time. Ruby 20:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. David | Talk 23:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Yardley

Unverifiable [22]. - Liberatore(T) 16:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, nn bio written in peacock language. Punkmorten 16:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn-bio, and WP:NOT a memorial. Robin Johnson 16:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nn guitarist Ruby 17:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per CSD-7 criteria: "non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons which does not establish the notability of the subject. "—LeFlyman 23:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of Soul Train episodes. Users voted "redirect (or merge) all without listing their votes on each individual AfDs. --Deathphoenix 21:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Martha & the Vandellas/ The Intruders/ G.C. Cameron

Finishing of someone elses work, articles for indivdual episodes of this series seems over the top. -- Egil 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge all of these episode articles should be merged. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Deathphoenix 21:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mater Dei High School (Evansville)

This page is about a high school with 613 people in it, a fairly small school. It also has no listed significant alumni or any other information that makes it worth noting. Stellis 20:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, important part of Catholic education in Evansville, Indiana. Also per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Kappa 17:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge w/ town if not expanded to meet WP:SCH.Gateman1997 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kappa. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 19:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep valid High School; not a one-room school house. — RJH 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I went to Catholic School, but there's nothing to make this one stand out from the pack. Maybe if the Pope swings by we can have an article. Ruby 20:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. 80.177.152.156 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep and Kappa's argument. Englishrose 20:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep large enough school High Plains Drifter 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable. If, in all likelihood, kept, do not expand with transient and non-notable information for the sake of expansion. -Rebelguys2 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep All high schools are notable. The last couple of hundred to be nominated have all been kept. A couple of hundred school articles are added each week and in a few years Wikipedia will have an article about every high school in the English speaking developed world and many other schools besides. Nominating schools just wastes time so please don't do it again. CalJW 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Some high schools are notable. A few high schools are notable. The rest are just cookie-cutter entities, another Smartie in the box. As far as articles about every school in the English speaking world goes, I think that's (thankfully) wishful thinking - fortunately, it looks like a couple of the big stub-mill editors have run out of steam and the rate of production of these pathetic little articles is diminishing. Denni ☯ 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think you will find that you are the only engaging in wishful thinking. In the last 12 hours 12 different editors have started a school article. That come to nearly 9,000 a year at the current rate, and it probably hasn't peaked yet. It is neither here nor there whether there are any "big stub-mill editors". CalJW 07:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Great article that makes me proud. -- JJay 02:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Calwatch 03:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per the clear past precedent we have had on high school articles. Might as well be consistent in keeping this one as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. why would it be better to have less information available? i'm sure the school has some notable alumni that have yet to be added. Randella 02:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all high schools. - Randwicked Alex B 04:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and allow for organic growth. Bahn Mi 16:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Babajobu 15:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metafunction

already on wikictionary: delete. Melaen 19:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • weak delete, though only because the article is nonsense (based on my understanding of what a metafunction is; perhaps there are several ways it is used). Having an article in Wiktionary is not a criterion for deletion; as many good articles start with dictionary definitions. Brighterorange 20:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete pre-existing dicdef. Ruby 22:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Userfy to User:Michaeldsherman. --Deathphoenix 21:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael D. Sherman

Vanity page, the only contribution of User:Michaeldsherman. Assertion of notability is that he will publish a book. Fails WP:BIO. Delete. Kusma (討論) 03:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, but since there are more merge votes than keep votes (I count 9d, 7m, 2k), this defaults to merge and redirect to Michael Jackson. --Deathphoenix

[edit] Michael Jackson (personal life)

Delete, or at the very least, merge any useful content and redirect. For the second time, an effort has been made to segregate all details of Jackson's personal life into a separate article, on the pretext of "shortening" the main article. The last time it was tried, this idea was shot down unanimously. The Michael Jackson article, before I reverted it, was little more than a laundry list of Jackson's musical accomplishments with a few personal details thrown in. The only indication that this fork existed was a small notice at the top of the article. Refactoring the content in this way is simply not appropriate for a biographical encyclopedia article. android79 04:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Android79 Ruby 04:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back as content fork. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:24Z
  • Delete as POV fork. Peyna 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article could use a good amount of trimming in all respects. Once that is done in the appropriate manner, I think most of you will see that it is no longer too long. Peyna 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merege per Quarl. --Terence Ong 04:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge back any appropriate content, then delete (since it appears there are no incoming links). I don't like large pages, but I feel his "personal life" should be dealt with on his "personal article". — TheKMantalk 05:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: the article has been edited since it was moved. If the edited content is merged, the article cannot be deleted. A redirect will be necessary to preserve attribution. -- Kjkolb 05:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Fair enough =D — TheKMantalk 05:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Content was not actually "moved" from Michael Jackson, but copy-pasted. Deleting this fork will have no affect on content history, aside from any changes subsequently made to Michael Jackson (personal life) that need preserving in the main article. android79 12:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • That's what I was talking about when I said edited content. :-) Some content has been changed and some has been added since it was copied and pasted. -- Kjkolb 02:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
        • D'oh, I didn't realize that KMan initially voted "merge and delete". My bad. android79 03:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "'Merge'" as discussed in previous AfD Funky Monkey 07:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Michael Jackson article is very long. I think it is better to reduce it to a summary, with more separate articles on subtopics. Thus the Michael Jackson article contains one or more sections on his personal life, while Michael Jackson (personal life) gives details. This is not a fork. If Michael Jackson (personal life) is too broad as subtopic, we can split it up.--Patrick 09:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have split off Michael Jackson home, recreation, friends, charity.--Patrick 11:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I like this new split even less. :( —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 11:46Z
  • Redirect back to main article. I don't see the need for a merge, as the content originated in Michael Jackson (its all either there, or in history). Michael Jackson in theory needs to be broken out, but the problem is, that whenever there are spin-off articles, people insist on writing in excessive detail about it in the main article. I suggest 80% of what's normally in Michael Jackson (which changes day-to-day) is better placed in some sub-article (such as the ones for the individual controversies, trials, albums, individual songs, individual videos, every song he ever wrote, his former pet, his house, his associates, etc.......). Another spin-off won't fix it. --Rob 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. For similiar reasons Patrick gave. The Michael Jackson is too long, and it has been shortened. I think having a main article that explains Michael Jackson's music career and personal life, and then a sub-article that explains his personal life in more detail, and album pages for every album so to explain them in more detail, is a great idea. We need to keep the main article at an appropriate length, and putting in too much information about controversies will only make it longer. Over time we can improve both articles and in particular, improve the main article so there's an even amount of music career and personal life. This could work out really well if you give it a chance. Street walker 11:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. Two articles on Michael Jackson are not necessary. Just clean up the whole thing. Crunch 13:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete This only the POV taken from the main article. —This user has left wikipedia 16:13 2006-01-24
  • Delete per nom; attempt to circumvent previous consensus. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and revert back the identical info on Michael Jackson. Again, his "personal life" should be dealt with on his "personal article". — TheKMantalk 02:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per Crunch. --Zsinj 03:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, or merge anything new and usefull put in here. POV fork.--Sean|Black 04:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Controversy of Michael Jackson, per discussion on Michael Jackson talk page. No need to have this article when the grand scheme of things is to put music career and personal life in the main article but have it flow like a chronological biography. Street walker 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge content back, move to eg. Talk:Michael Jackson/history1, and delete the redirect that this creates. A history merge is not appropriate but the history still needs to be preserved - this will do it. Alphax τεχ 06:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a POV fork. Merge/move/delete per Alphax. Stifle 14:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the main article is long enough as it is. A merge would be inapprioprate --161.74.11.24 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per crunch. - Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A blatant and unacceptable POV fork. Merge and redirect back to Michael Jackson and admins may want to consider checking if User:Patrick and User:Street walker are the same person. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    • We are not the same person. I created the page to recover info that was partly deleted, partly somewhat hidden between music info, by Street walker. Thus my intention is opposite to what you seem to assume.--Patrick 11:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • LOL, we are not the same person. I suggested something in the Michael Jackson talk page about merging the personal life with the biographical details. Patrick then acted on it and split the personal life from the main article (after I had merged the personal life stuff with the music career/bio stuff). Also, people saying the personal life stuff is "hidden amongst" the music career stuff, or saying the main article is like a "glorified discography" is really frustrating me. Read the current article and you'll see there is as much (probably more by now) personal stuff as musical stuff in the biography. Alot of work has gone into structuring the main article like a biography and it annoys me that people think myself and the users who helped edit the article like a bio have some POV agenda. I personally think alot of people who edit Michael Jackson also have a POV agenda, but an anti-Jackson one, as they seem to want to remove all musical stuff from the article and just have personal life. Hello? Michael Jackson is a recording artist. There you go, my rant for the day. Street walker 12:36, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michaella

Google's showing me just 112 hits for "Michaella belly dancer" (without quotes), and many of those are recurring from the same site and many toward the end have nothing to do with her at all. I didn't want to nn-bio this due to the fact that a claim of notability is made about her appearing on television once or twice, but I'm not entirely sure those can be verified or are noteworthy if true. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete TV appearances are not necessarily notable. Ruby 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per PJM. Stifle 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Lucky 6.9 as CSD:A7 (biographical article with no claim to notability). Stifle 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mike campese

Self-promotion/vanity. Violation of Geogre's Law as well. -R. fiend 16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete blatant self-promotion. Not suitable for WP as it stands. --Oscarthecat 17:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten; subject may fulfill WP:MUSIC standards. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Already speedy-deleted. Mods please close. RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 21:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mind children

Confused article that is close to a {{nonsense}} tag. Seems utterly non-notable. Stifle 21:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per CSD G1. Mushroom 11:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Modonna

  • Delete Non-notable artist. Is this even a real artist? Artwork appears to be (sloppily) photoshopped. Flypanam 23:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense; I'm guessing it's an attack page aimed at a teacher. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Yes, this looks like vandalism / attack per Jamie and there's no way it's legit. --Lockley 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Astrokey44|talk 00:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete lame humor. Denni ☯ 02:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete definitely. —simpatico hi 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Maybe redirect to Madonna dab page if anyone thinks this might be a likely typo. 23skidoo 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete nonsense, looks like a personal attack. --Terence Ong 07:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tagged as {{db-attack}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:14Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NanoCAD

Delete. This refers to a software application (applet) that was never even completed. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 09:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. --Oscarthecat 11:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vaporware. Ruby 12:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a software product which was not completed and has no reasonable anticipation of ever being completed, i.e. vaporware. Stifle 14:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New York Post/re-edit

Appears to be some sort of stub left over from an editing project. It appears in Category:New York City newspapers, which is how I stumbled upon it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. All material is reflected in the main NY Post article. --Lockley 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Lockley is right. I checked and it appears that everything here is also in the main article. Herostratus 19:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if all info is in the main article. --DanielCD 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - obviously. Latinus 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Fork. CalJW 00:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Doesn't qualify for a userfy because this doesn't describe the actual band or person, it describes the music genre. --Deathphoenix 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Noodle-rock

This appears to be a vanity page created solely to describe El Kermito. Note that the only user to edit this page is Davekermito. The only page that links to it is El Kermito (Halesowen used to until I reverted Davekermito's changes.) Powers 16:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Incorrect. Check Ryans gig guide for details (available in all good newsagents). Partly correct however is the fact that El Kermito are one of the more famous exponents of the scene (single hitting no 74 in the Norwegian top 75) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davekermito (talk • contribs) 11:43, 24 January 2006
    • Please remember to sign your talk-page edits with four tildes (~). It helps us keep track of who says what. Also, do check out WP:MUSIC for information on the inclusion of music-related articles. I don't think Noodle-rock meets those criteria. Arguably, neither does El Kermito, but that's a discussion for another time. Powers 16:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thats a matter of opinion. Many would disagree.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.77.34 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 January 2006
        • Which is why we're having this vote for deletion. It's used to resolve disagreements. (Adding insults to a user's main and talk pages is generally not as effective, by the way.) Also, don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~). Powers 16:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy to Davekermito. Ruby 17:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Noodle Rock" gets only 120 unique google hits, some of which are not to uses of the term but to phrases such as "...Noodle. Rock is..." and many of the rest are to blogs or similar sites of limited reliability. The current article cites no sources. Unless reliable sources are cited in the article establishing soem degree of widespread usage or other notability for this term this articel should be delted. El Kermito BTW, was recently deleted as non-notable under WP:CSD criterion A7 (non-notable people or groups). DES (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Davekermito has made a claim of notability (namely its appearance in an industry publication). If true, I think that would remove it from speedy consideration, although not from this VfD. Powers 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • To be clear, I wasn't saying that this page should be speedy deleted -- speedys for non notable items apply only to individuals, or to groups of people such as clubs and bands. See WP:CSD#Articles (criterion A7). I was merely reporting that the formerly linked article on the band El Kermito was deleted -- it seems that I made an editing error and failed to copy that link into my comment above. My apologies -- i have not corrected my remark above. DES (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete imaginary music genres —Wahoofive (talk) 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn enough. —simpatico hi 17:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nora reynolds

The subject of this article does not have sufficient notoriety to warrant a Wikipedia article. No Google or IMDB hits come up for the cited comedy program. Takeel 19:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Hoax. No Guru 19:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable. This is supposed to be a web comedy program? --Lockley 19:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The only comedian is the joker who wrote this thing. Ruby 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No hits on Google for this person, smacks of {{hoax}} to me.  (aeropagitica)  21:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - makeup. Latinus 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Odious

Fails WP:MUSIC; this band has only released a demo and a self-released album. - Liberatore(T) 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete --Durin 17:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Odious article. Ruby 19:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - User Bloodyzone is adding a bunch of articles on Egyptian metal music (see also Egyptian Metal, Bloody Zone, and IdleMind). They all seem to be of dubious quality and/or notability, although Egyptian Metal may be salvagable. Powers 00:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Egyptian Metal and IdleMind, in addition to Odious itself, have all been blanked by User:Bloodyzone, most likely in a fit of frustration over the messages I've left on her talk page (which I SWEAR were civil and encouraging). A sad situation, it seems -- or at least, a sad outcome. Powers 00:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, incorret usage of term, correct term already on Wikitionary Madchester 06:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panty waste

I had speedied it but the creator politely asked me to restore it. It's un-encyclopedic, maybe it could be moved to wiktionary. Mushroom 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mushroom 15:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete...or transwiki if someone can confirm this to be a widely-used term. I've never heard of it, but I've also (thanking God right now for this) never had to deal with vaginal smegma. *Shudder*... JHMM13 (T | C) 15:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I would state that a quick google of the term shows that it IS a widely used term (when spelled as it is here)Pickelbarrel 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete, it's a dict def at best, and already at Wiktionary. I suggest future expansion takes place to the article there. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 15:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As UkPaolo points out, the word is actually pantywaist, which has nothing to do with vaginas. The creator of the article is arguing (on my talk page) that the fact that the word has been used in a movie, showing its occurrence in popular culture, makes it encyclopaedia-worthy. That is a patently flawed argument, as there are lots of words that one can find used in movie dialogue. A word being used in a well-known work doesn't make an encyclopaedia article. Quotations make dictionary articles, not encyclopaedia articles. A quotation, showing a word in use in context in a well-known work, is straightforward dictionary article content. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 16:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, with venom and prejudice too. This is vile, badly written trash. It is, at best, a dictionary definition (not that we generally go about defining slang words here... *cough*Wiktionary*cough*). A vulgar attempt at humour. Dan 18:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: an article entitled Pantywaist (spelt correctly) exists on here too. As nothing more than a one line dict def already in wiktionary, I have (temporarily) made it a redirect to Panty waste. Should this article be deleted, the redirect Pantywaist should go as well. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete; first of all; the proper "word" is pantywaist and has nothing to do with what the article panty waste refers to. [27]. At any rate, delete pantywaist as a dicdef/slang and delete panty waste as someone hearing the word "pantywaist", spelling it wrong and inventing their own meaning for it. Peyna 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete'. This stuff belongs on Wiktionary. enochlau (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As has been mentioned, the redirect from pantywaist is going in the wrong direction. The first definition given on this page is competely bogus. The second is a bit more accurate. Pantywaist can stay in Wiktionary with its correct definition. Crunch 01:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
comment: I fully agree that the redirect is the wrong way round, and felt I should explain myself (as the creator of the redirect). I didn't want to move Panty waste as it is up for deletion here, and since it seems likely it will be deleted, turning the duplicate definition into a redirect seemed the best thing to do (since that will be deleted in due course too). I acknlowedge this article is the wrong spelling, however! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep you will never find a better source for Panty Waste matetial than Pickelbarrel

  • comment As the author of of this bit, I have to say I am somewhat hurt with the hostility taken by some(although most have been quite nice) of the other editors here. Pamento thought it would be a hoot to link this page to my home page for an example of panty waste, while Dan stated he wanted it deleted with prejudice(if you have already prejudged the article, should your oppinion even count) both of whom were asked to help me write the article(I guess it was funnier to make fun of my article than to help write an article). But mostly I was shoicked to findAdministrator UncleG making claims that I argued the articles relevance based on it being in a film. I never made this argument and as an administrator(an a man whom I truely truely admire) I would have thought he would have not made the accusation, or at least appologized after realizing that it wasnt the intent of my argument. What I said was that I used the same formula that was used in the zagnut article, telling what the meaning of the word is and then referencing it to a film where people could here the term being used in a film, and also (presumably) see what a person who is considered a panty waste might look like. I was deeply hurt that he never bother to at least appologize for misinterperating me. At any rate I want to at least give the reasons I wrote this article(although it seems at this point that it is unlikely anything I say will change the outcome) so that people will realize I was attempting to make a legitamit article, and while Im sure that the knowing ones will be able to tell me a million different reasons why I was stupid to think this, I wanted to at least make this known. I looked up the term panty waste and found it had 7300 plus entries, that is aproximately seven thousand more entries than the term pantywaist has(about about four hundred fifty). By my resoning I thought that the fact that the vast majority of people refered to the term in this manner it would make the term valid...regardless of weather the knowing ones can prove that NO SUCH TERM EXISTS...to me it seeems that if the vast majority of people THINK the term has meaning, then it therefore DOES have meaning. It seems similar to the case of Emperor Norton WAS the emperor of the United States, at least in the san francisco area, because those in the san fransico area treated him as if he WERE the Emperor of the United States. If a large amount of people Accept that a term exists, I felt that simply the fact that since so many (7300) were using the term, it therefore DID exist. But my friend cenestrad had warned me about such assumptions, stating that while wikipedia has a brain it has no soul, and that regardless of what the average person thinks is correct, The knowing ones will be quick to explain to them that no such term exists has ever existed or ever will exist. It seems as though he was correct, and I shouldn't be suprised by it, but I am a little saddened. I will not vote to keep my article as the KNOWING ONES have already informed me I should have never written it to begin with, but I will offer mya pickle for the knowing ones, or truth in a homespun dressPickelbarrel 20:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because a lot of people can't spell, doesn't mean it's worth an encyclopedia entry. Second, to "delete with prejudice" means to delete this article and any subsequent incarnations of it. Peyna 21:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
comment: i appreciate that you are genuine in your desire to contribute a good article to Wikipedia. However, this article is innapproriate, and from your comments on his talk page I do not think Uncle G is too mistaken in stating that you considered the article had relevance because of film references. Regarding the spelling, I presume by entries you are referring to google search results. In which case "panty waste" give 9840 [28] results, where as the correct "panty waist" gives 17,700 [29] — vastly more. I wonder if you just looked at the popularity of each word individually, in your search. Oh, and I can't believe I've just spent time googling such things! └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
reply I was actually referring to the aol googl search of this http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?query=panty+waste&page=10&encquery=f2f982abf576e6b2124f38d80ce867b6&ie=UTF-8&invocationType=keyword_rollover and this http://aolsearch.aol.com/aol/search?encquery=7c600fe98bc5e6851cb7a70a47a37bff&invocationType=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8 where there is signifigantly more under the term "panty waste" I beleave yous shows to google searches of both using different incorrect spellings and the term painty waist includes every time an article says the term wiast along with panty...mine may include every time the word panty is included with waste but I had no way of veryifing this as I went down the list....at any rate it I would state that at the very least about HALF of all people using the term seem to think it should be spelled the "incorrect way" , but beyond all that, I realize my effort is futile, and DO appreciate you acknowleding my work...for that I thank you, you have been very peasent in you criticisms.Pickelbarrel 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I was told by Pickelbarrel that an article he wrote entitled Panty Waste was the subject of an AFD and he wondered if I could use my powers to help save the article. He had been tireless in the campaign to save the Taint article so I felt obligated to take a look. After reading the article and the debate on both sides I am afraid I have no choice but to side with the argument for deletion for the current article. But before those of you voting delete get excited at having my endorsement my research did turn up several uses for the term and so the current article will not exist for long. It seems located in the City of San Francisco there is a museum dedicated to undergarments named Panty Waste (yes that is the spelling). If the Museum of Bad Art can have its own article I suppose the Panty Waste museum can as well. The museum also sponsors a touring exhibition again entitled Panty Waste. The article is getting larger. Also of note is a line of Adult Movies entitled Panty Waste. So it seems this misspelling (an art Pickelbarrel has mastered) has unearthed a cornucopia of possible new articles. I see a possible Panty Waste disambiguation page in the future. Lastly I would like to ask that more senior editor treat newer editors with kindness. I know that sometimes they can be tiresome but remember it is their boundless energy that fuels the world of Wikipedia. This I order for the common good. --Cenestrad The Emperor of Wikipedia 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - I went the other way on taint, but I don't feel the same about this one. --Liface 18:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dan --kingboyk 18:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all articles where second Google hit for the term begins "I'm an intelligent, caring man who likes to wear lingerie during sex". (Seriously, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary.) --Malthusian (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, nn podcast, fails WP:WEB Madchester 06:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People's Choice Podcast Awards

Podcast award show with 195 Google hits and few to no verifiable and reliable sources reporting on its activities. FCYTravis 21:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I see 293 Google hits, but point taken. Amcfreely 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —simpatico hi 06:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:18Z
  • Excuse me this site has had over 6 million hits in the six months it has been up, it is a ongoing event and was supported by the Podcast Community and given key billing at the Podcast and Portable media expo with over 800 people in attendance. See this flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/52665001@N00/sets/72057594052565517/ page of the event. Obvious heavy editing by FCYTravis on anything that was submitted by me seems some sort of personal bias —the preceding unsigned comment is by ToddCochane (talk • contribs) 12:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The "personal bias" is keeping non-notable stuff off Wikipedia. FCYTravis 00:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. James084 19:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I figured, if they've had six million hits, they should have a high alexa ranking, but it's 2,003,169. nn. User:Zoe|(talk) 19:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete ➥the Epopt 02:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peter j. walker

non-notable bio; possibly vanity, as the article was created by User:Tupetewalker ➥the Epopt 00:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Blogspot links are not real claims of notability, and it seems this is a vanity article. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 00:51Z
  • Speedy delete - nn bio. Ruby 01:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn bio.Blnguyen 02:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 15:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phatfish

Non-notable Avi 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith.

Keep - established band. [30] [31]. Latest album is for sale on amazon [32] --Oscarthecat 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep xian band with many charity gigs. Ruby 14:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Lots of hits in google. -- John C PI 14:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable band with lots of hits. High Plains Drifter 16:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep as per above Jcuk 21:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep One release in Amazon; stub entry in Allmusic. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
They've actually got a few albums on amazon, if you take a look, dating from 2000 to 2005. [33] --Oscarthecat 08:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 21:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - they are of some notability. Latinus 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn podcast Madchester 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast News Network

619 Google hits for something "podcast" seems rather low. Doesn't look to really have gained broad influence at this point. FCYTravis 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Alexa rank 400,798 Ruby 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete throw it onto the podcruft pyre. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —simpatico hi 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable podcast. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:17Z
  • Delete as information relating to non-notable podcasts, i.e. podcruft. Stifle 11:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as hoax. Mushroom 08:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointlessnism

Original research - 1 google hit Oscarthecat 08:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: Very weird - this is the first time I've been edit conflicted for creating an AfD nomination subpage. As I was going to post in my own nomination for deletion: non-notable neologism/philosophical movement that makes no real claim to notability, provides no sources/references, and (as Oscarthecat mentioned) has no footprint on Google [34]. Could very well be a hoax. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. It has been argued that the subject is notable due to the restaurants age, but the article as it stands just states that it's a restaurant and its location. No prejudice against a new article which establishes the notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polidor

restaurant without claim of notability delete. Melaen 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

see also [35], what does make a restaurant notable ? --Melaen 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Polidor is a very old restaurant near Palais de Luxembourg in Paris. It is famous since its interior is kept from the 1800s. I added the Polidor entry after having visited it last year. I was expecting someone to add more information. There certainly is more to say about Polidor. abelson 07:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete as it stands, it's completely non-notable. --Oscarthecat 08:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability is established. Belongs in WikiTravel although we cannot transwiki it there as our licences aren't compatible. Stifle 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, nn forum, vanity Madchester 06:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power Rangers Central

Non-notable forum, vanity Oscarthecat 08:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete- vanity and POV. Astrotrain 10:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete If the site is worth anything, being mentioned as an external link on one of the Power Rangers pages should be enough. Captain Jackson 17:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough and it's obviously biased. Latinus 23:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Rainmaking. Content is already merged (or exists). --Deathphoenix 21:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rain maker

Neologism, possible protologism. LordViD 20:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Merge/redirect to Rainmaking. Not neologic, this is a legit term, but its one word and a listing already exists. Phantasmo 20:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/redirect as per Phantasmo. PJM 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Phantasmo. —simpatico hi 07:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 09:37Z


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Power Rangers. --Deathphoenix 21:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rangerboard

Google has no records of other websites linking to this board. It's a fan board, nn, does not appear to meet WP:WEB. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per my nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 07:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Forum has nearly 10k users, over 50k topics, and 1M posts, but it's Alexa ranking is around 370K.[36] — TheKMantalk 07:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - merge a much-reduced version into the Power Rangers article. Reduce article to a few pertinent lines in the process, as it's a little inane with much vanity at present. --Oscarthecat 08:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete, per WP:NOR Madchester 06:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of Europe

Delete. To have an article about "Republic of Europe", only to say that such a thing doesn't exist... Many things don't exist, should we have them all in Wikipedia? Aris Katsaris 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN by nominator; apparently Results pages are indeed supported by precedent. My apologies. I'm still opposed to carrying any legal threats there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006

POV fork of Canadian federal election, 2006. Designed by User:E Pluribus Anthony to carry legal threats that were removed from the main article. There's no need to have the election in one article and the results in another. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as POV fork and possible violation of WP:NLT -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Perfunctory article consistent with Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 and predecessors and already discussed on the election talk page; will undoubtedly be expanded in time. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The detailed results will belong in a subarticle like this, not the main article. --Aude (talk | contribs) 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia's services are not based in Canada, nor will the editors who will be adding information to this page. --199.44.251.2 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Firstly, as the previous comment noted, Wikipedia is not based in Canada. Secondly, this article is definitely set to be deeply expanded in the very near future. And lastly, it is just the logical successor of Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004. --Angelo 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Of course I support also Speedy Keep for the reasons explained above. --Angelo 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Obviously needed. NoSeptember talk 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep on the grounds that the Election and the Results can exist in two separate articles. However I believe the assumption that Wikipedia is not based in Canada and therefore does not have to abide by certain Canadian election laws is a false one. Wikipedia a worldwide web site and there is no control over the location of the editors who contribute to this page. Will have to operate on good faith as any publication does in these circumstances. Crunch 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The authors who contribute would be responsible for their edits, not Wikipedia. (Not that it will matter in another 15 minutes.) Dcandeto 02:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Strong Keep I'm not sure what the person who nominated this is trying to do. I note that they have now been blocked, so perhap this is vandalism? If this isn't vandalism, I don't know why the user just doesn't edit the article, rather than trying to delete it. I just can't fathom why one wouldn't think this page is necessary, given we already have Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 and Results of the Canadian federal election, 2000. Can we please just end this now and withdraw the AFD? 01:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep, 1) precedent set per above, 2) it is about to be expanded, 3) subarticle will be needed. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: will Abstain until I understand Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Section 329 is only relevent while the polls are open .... i.e. for another 6 minutes. After the polls close, we still need this article! Nfitz 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Back to "Speedy Keep, 1) precedent set per above, 2) it is about to be expanded, 3) subarticle will be needed." since sec329 is now irrelevent. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Is this an attempt to skew the election by posting early "results" ? Ruby 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, because I've been complaining that the ones who started it are actually leaning too far the other way - deleting early results! Not that I've been able to find any real results one way or another (unless you want to believe that NL elected 5 independents! :-) Nfitz 01:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: The publication of results of the federal election on the Internet is illegal until all polls in Canada have closed.

I'm confused, the delete process is week-long process. The polls close in 47 minutes, and your asking the article be deleted because it violates Canadian law for those 47 minutes? Can you do us a favour and in 48 minutes cast a new vote based on the situation then? Nfitz 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in all electoral districts that have access to the information. << what exactly does that statement mean? -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Section 329 of the Elections Act and find out. What you quoted is misleading. --199.44.251.2 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) .. BTW if anyone is interested. Reuters has posted the results. A link can be found on the discussion page for the article.

  • Comment. I read Section 329 and found it unclear on the exact application of the law. Here's an article from the CBC today that sheds some more light: http://www.cbc.ca/nb/story/nb_web_20060123.html. Crunch 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Canadian law does not apply outside Canada. Dcandeto 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

:*Section 329 seems to specifically address the idea of "outside Canada" and I think that's wrong. Besides, Wikipedia is not "outside Canada." What's relevant is that people inside Canada can access the information. It doesn't matter that the servers for Wikipedia or the offices for Wikipedia are located in the U.S. Crunch 02:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC) never mind.

  • Keep. We're going to want this page again shortly anyway. And until an international treaty says otherwise, Canada can't force censorship on the rest of the world. Maybe Wikipedia could block Canadian IPs... but I don't think so :). -Nichlemn 02:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
If Canada wants to come down here to do something about it they can take their best shot. Ruby 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
??? I'm sorry? I just don't understand wher ethis is coming from. There's no warnings up against anyone except Canadians?? Nfitz 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: The publication law has been upheld for now. The Supreme Court may rule on it in the future, but it currently still stands. In addition, I do believe that this restriction of information is justified in the interests of electoral fairness. m. 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

But now it no longer matters; it's safe to change your vote now. (I believe the same things as well, by the way.) -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Since I'm watching the election results on C-SPAN at the moment, I assume that it is now okay to report the election results. I wanted to vote, however, to show support for the creator. There is no reason to delete an article that would need to be created tomorrow. -Acjelen 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous users reasoning.Kiwidude 03:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Riddell/Temp

Duplication of Robert Riddell, no reason to keep this subpage Stifle 18:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete it's an orphaned sandbox. Ruby 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I worked on this and was just about to delete it when...someone else did. Ah, the wonders of wikipedia. Anabanana459 07:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted.  Denelson83  20:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosario Poidimani

Here we go againg. This is the second time user Manuel de Sousa, either declared or hidden behind IPs recreates this article after being decided here for deletion. Now he is making fun at all wikipedia users. Old decisions to delete are in here and here. This user has a history of ignoring community decisions, here and in wiki-pt where he was blocked already several times.

Againg: references to this pretender only exist in three places: 1) his own sites, wikipedia mirrors and wikipedia. Wikipedia can not be used as a platform for this kind of thing. It's not for this that Jim Wales created this project.

Relevant policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. muriel@pt 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • delete again muriel@pt 13:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete: --BBird 13:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I have been trying to make some sense and perspective out of this subject for some time, mostly in vain as it is constantly reedited by MdeSousa and an anon (always the same and whose only contributions are in this and narowly related articles).
  • Delete! The Ogre 13:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, appears to be a hoax/nn person. Google search for "Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança", claimed in the article to be his full name returns only 2 Wikipedia pages, and one mirror from answers.com. Bjelleklang - talk 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as reconstruction of previously deleted content. Ruby 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, and please... Protect the page afterwards. —This user has left wikipedia 14:40 2006-01-24
  • Delete contents and redirect to Hilda Toledano. Choess 18:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


  • keep I see the return of Muriel, the famous Duarte Pio supporter! You affirms Rosario only exists in wikipedia and in his web page... this is FALSE. See : [[37]], [[38]], [[39]], [[40]], and also the administrator of Forum Monarquia Portugal writes: [[41]] and in many other web pages......

Dom Rosario is a pretender of The Royal House of Portugal and so has the right to stay in wikipedia also because he has many supporters and his rights are also confirmed by many impartial judges [[42]] M.deSousa, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete once again, for reasons noted before. A redirect in its place to Hilda Toledano and protection would be ideal. - Nunh-huh 19:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can only assume that this article, in one form or another, is going to be recreated over and over in order to keep the "claim" - in some format - alive on Wikpedia. Hence delete is probably insufficient and some form of blocking should be used. (Quite what I am not sure). Marcus22 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: insignificant nothingness. And it would be impossible to write a fairly non-pov article on that, given Manuel's/Rosario's attitude. Velho 19:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rusi rusu

WP:NFT - Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Powers 21:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was moot (likely outcome: delete). The articles were speedied as hoaxes, their creator indef. blocked. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 06:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiroleptopidia, Schiroleptopidiollogy, Schiroleptopidian

Unverifiable disease, the study thereof, and doctors thereof. No google hits for any of these terms, no references. Most (all?) of John locke (talk · contribs)'s contributions are apparent hoaxes or vanity or vandalism. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 13:34Z

  • Delete, something hoaxy about it.Bjones 13:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, user is a known hoaxer. --Oscarthecat 13:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete zero google, Schiro seems to be a common last name. it's a hoax. —This user has left wikipedia 14:51 2006-01-24
  • Delete as hoax and sanction user who created it. Ifnord 14:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax. -- Dragonfiend 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. - Liberatore(T) 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - hoax (#$%#%#$^%^$@#). Latinus 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, hoax, yawn. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Nothing here really mergable. —Cleared as filed. 02:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SCHUSE

Extremely minor organisation from Deus Ex. Hardly noteworthy. Only brief mention in game. No real information. Drat (Talk) 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete / weak merge - certainly no point in its own article, might be a (weak) case for merging it into the Deus Ex article itself. --Oscarthecat 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Kusma (討論) 14:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge there's no reason to delete it. Itake 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no merge as everything in this article appears to be speculation. If anythign can be verified then a merge is not inappropriate, although it's questionable since this only makes one short para as it is. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Gus Grissom. --Deathphoenix 02:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Grissom

Biographical article, only claim to notability is being the son of some random astronaut. WP:BIO suggests that it could be merged into Gus Grissom; I think it is a WikiNews article rather than a Wikipedia article. Stifle 20:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per Stifle. No need to merge the latest news-speculation, however, any pertinent info on Grissom's son should be mentioned in Gus Grissom (if not already). PJM 21:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Gus Grissom. I think there was a congressional investigation of some sort prompted by Scott Grissom around 2001, so the topic is notable as part of the Apollo 1 disaster, but Scott Grissom himself doesn't warrant an entire article. Crunch 01:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. —simpatico hi 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above, no need for seperate article. --Oscarthecat 08:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge this in to the main Gus Grissom article. Eddie.willers 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Sheesh! Where's your sense of history,Stifle? How can you describe the late Lt.Col. Virgil I. Grissom, Commander of Apollo 1 and the second American in to space (on Mercury 4) as some random astronaut? Eddie.willers 22:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScreamFree

Though it's not clear from the text, this is essentially an advertisement for a "parenting solution" product.[43] Only 996 Google hits. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. obvious ad for a nonnotable product. —simpatico hi 05:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable product. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:14Z
  • Delete advert. Stifle 11:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Being Screamfree is like being drug-free, or smoke-free. It's a lifestyle, and a good one at that. Danam 10:19, 25 January 2006


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

The result of the debate was delete. There was an easy consensus that the content wasn't worth keeping. With the delete done, anyone can redirect to where they think is appropriate. —Cleared as filed. 02:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sets of sets

This article is an explanation of a linguistic convention that, if it were correct, could only properly go in the article set (mathematics). Since it's not, it should go to the dustbin. -lethe talk 08:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Rewrite. Properly changing the content of this article can leave us with a useful one. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article is very confused. This material is covered much more carefully and correctly elsewhere (Russel's paradox, class (set theory)). -- Fropuff 08:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to hypergraph. Charles Matthews 10:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    A redirect from sets of sets to hypergraph could be a bit jarring. In any case, the current content is more related to the "class of all sets" notion than anything like a proper "set of sets". -- Fropuff 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but possibly merge some of the text into something like naive set theory, or other locations e.g. suggested by Fropuff. Dmharvey 13:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete as per Fropuff. Perhaps a sentence or two can be added to class (set theory). Aleph4
  • Delete material already included in other set theory articles. --Pierremenard 17:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lethe and Fropuff, though I'm not deathly opposed to Charles's suggested redirect as a second choice. --Trovatore 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't think anything in this article is useful, correct, and unique to this article. First, the author doesn't know whereof he speaks, since a set cannot contain itself in the modern axioms of set theory. The point of the article seems to be to expound on Russell's paradox, but in such an unsophisticated way that it is entirely superceded by that article. Second, he doesn't understand his terminology and seems to think it makes an essential difference to talk about sets, families, collections, etc. The distinction between set and class is important, but he doesn't even mention the word (even where it would be correct). This article is half in error, half in ignorance, and half in over its head. Ryan Reich 14:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect (without merge) to von Neumann universe hereditary set. Should have thought of that the first time. --Trovatore 14:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article itself could be a reference to Russell's paradox, but there's no content, and an inappropriate name. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect, perhaps to Naive set theory. deeptrivia (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment when redirecting without merging, the target article should be determined by the title, not the content, because the content won't be there anymore (except in the history). I don't think it makes much sense to have "sets of sets" pointing at naive set theory (which by the way is a problematic article for other reasons, but that's not important right now). Von Neumann universe on the other hand talks about sets that consist only of sets. A more specific target would be hereditary set, if we had such an article. --Trovatore 18:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Update I went ahead and wrote a brief article at hereditary set (I haven't called it a "stub" because I'm not sure how much more we really want to say, though there is an interesting philosophical sidelight to mention if I could find the reference). I think it would be a good target for a redirect from sets of sets. --Trovatore 18:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, but add to set (mathematics) a note that a set may sometimes contain itself, which is not intuitive. RayGates 22:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Actually, in set theory as usually studied, a set can't contain itself as an element. (That is, no sets in the von Neumann universe are elements of themselves.) There are alternative versions of set theory in which it is possible; see Non-well-founded set theory. I'm not convinced that discussion belongs in set. --Trovatore 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Babajobu 15:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sexpo

This does not seem to be notable. It is simply a statement of an existence of a sex-shop.Prude 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Just a Comment. This is Prude's only action on Wikipedia. Suspect sockpuppet. Xtra 02:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. A quick Google search turned up statements such as this one that 60,000 people attended the event in Sydney, and this one that more than 1,000,000 people have attended the various "sexpos". That seems to meet the notability threshold. --Thunk 02:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thunk, I Think. Ruby 02:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep If for nothing else, because it's verifiable as this convention has been covered by good sources like The Age. --W.marsh 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Ø tVaughn05 talkcontribs
  • Comment, a little bit of research shows that it is not limited to Australia; however, they are also probably unrelated to each other. Peyna 04:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • IIRC, the New Zealand ones are linked to the Aussie ones - not sure about elsewhere though (Keep) Grutness...wha? 22:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for me. Possibly expand into general "sexpos" held elsewhere. — TheKMantalk 06:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Astrotrain 10:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep notable enough. Looks very Australia centric, could we have a more worldwide view of Sexpos. --Terence Ong 12:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 11:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, whether it deals solely with the Australian version or is expanded to cover other countries, it's notable either way. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly moving to ClubX Sexpo (with a redirect, of course) to allow for future articles on other sexpos. Confusing Manifestation 12:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. No need to move it yet - if it becomes an issue we can move it later. Ben Aveling 13:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Longhair 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep it's not just a sex shop. Has more attendees than hillsong (the cult). --Sumple 22:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Calling an organisation a cult when it's not related to the topic of discussion seems a bit uncalled for.
  • Keep. Australia's most prominant trade-show for the adult industry. Cnwb 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete As Club X doesn't even have its own artical --T-rex 23:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Prominent trade-show in Oz. Metta Bubble 03:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, tasteless and not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. --Agamemnon2 06:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wonder if the original nominator's username is relevant to his/her decision to nominate? -- Chuq 23:51, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Noteworthy australian trade show that attracts a lot of media coverage. Agnte 12:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Taste is not a matter of encyclopedic value. Have you seen how large the article on Fuck is? NOt to mention articles like List of Japanese sex terms--ZayZayEM 06:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Large enough to be notable. Content a bit press-release like though at this stage. Andjam 09:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Some people really should learn how to use Google. Ambi 09:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shiley's Center for Orthopaedic Research and Education

Importance not asserted. 15 unique Google hits [44]. Hurricane111 19:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete says it's "vastly known" but I doubt it. Ruby 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable - it still gets only 119 hits under its correct name Shiley Center for Orthopaedic Research and Education (it's a division of the Scripps Clinic, San Diego). Tearlach 22:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 15:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sketch (restaurant) - Pierre Gagnaire

  • nn restaurant and its chef. delete Melaen 20:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep is a well known London resturant, and French chef. Why delete? Gareth E Kegg 20:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Both of these articles need to be expanded, Gagnaire certainly a notable French chef.  (aeropagitica)  21:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Eminent restaurant. Ranked the 18th best in the world by Restaurant (magazine) - see linked list. And the chef's Paris restaurant is ranked 6th best in the world. CalJW 00:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep renowned eaterie. Have tidied article too. --Oscarthecat 08:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slut night

Slut night, although perhaps popular with the Butch-femme.com crowd, is, unfortunately not in a very large crowd at all. Delete per advertisement. JHMM13 (T | C) 00:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, sadly, as I would have no object to seeing butch and femme sluts sweeping the nation. My office is particularly dusty. ➥the Epopt 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 00:52Z
  • Delete per the Epopt -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep if cleaned up to include much more context. As it is it assumes readers know what "butch-femme" means (I have but a vague idea) and talks in a very parochial sense about "the nation". There is more than one nation. Tonywalton  | Talk 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep 3,770 Ghits for "Slut Night" Ruby 01:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • 35 distinct uses for butch femme events. Most of the hits you got were for swingers' events, college parties, bar nights, biker parties and other generic uses of the term. GeorgeStepanek\talk 14:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So does this mean I can't do a Xena Night article? Ruby 22:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
It certainly seems more notable that this topic according to, for example, this reference. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep, per User:Tonywalton; if no action taken, then Delete. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as above.Blnguyen 01:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per JHMM13. -- Kjkolb 05:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I cleaned this article up a bit, but I couldn't really expand since I am not really an expert in the topic. — TheKMantalk 05:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm not an expert in the US lesbian subculture, but I happen to have staying with me someone who is, and she's never heard of it. GeorgeStepanek\talk 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I know someone who is straight and they've never heard of Wet T-Shirt Nite at Toys Topless. It's not like all lesbians know everything about the meatmarket part of the subculture. Ruby 14:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
True, but this term also gets very few Google hits, and I don't think it's worthy of a Wikipedia article either! GeorgeStepanek\talk 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. My sister, a lesbian since around 9 years now, has heard of but has never been to one of these events. The butch-femme principle in lesbian relationships is a recognized one, and slut night seems to be a generic term for these kinds of events. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Agreed w/ above. —This user has left wikipedia 12:15 2006-01-24
  • Keep as long as I get an invite to the next one... Kidding. Seems legit, again, I defer to those in the lifestyle to determine... Keep for now. Phantasmo 20:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete weak Google showing has convinced me that this isn't particularly widespread. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep as per TonyWalton. Powers 23:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • comment, its on the nightlife wikicities now [45] -- Astrokey44|talk 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless shown to be verifiable. I'm skeptical of the specificity and notability of such an event. (Via mailing lists, I get notices for pretty much every Bay Area GLBT event as well as primarily straight-oriented sex-positive events, and have not seen one -- nor discussion -- for this event. Undoubtedly there are lesbian-only lists I'm not on, but there should be some mention of it in the community.) I have heard of other events -- gay, bi, straight, and mixed -- called "slut night", but can't find verification or sourcing of the one described in the article. MCB 01:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn neologism.  Grue  14:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep and wikify and source it. --Brian1979 15:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep (external link has been added as verification) or merge with Butch-Femme rather than delete.NotMe69 20:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC) (User's first edit.)
  • Delete Event name which will never be more than a stub, which appears tied exclusively to a single non-notable web site (Butch-Femme.com). No reliable sources outside of that web site. As an article, it appears to be little more than advertising, which is inappropriate to WP. It could be merged, if Butch-Femme existed, but it doesn't. --LeFlyman 22:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The article does exist under a different name; I've added a redirect. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-30 13:48Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophia Yan

This sounds like a remarkable young woman and I genuinely dislike bringing this here since she really seems notable, but there are no relevant Googles and the whole thing seems rather self-promotional. - Lucky 6.9 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep Wow look at all those awards. Ruby 17:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — I had considered listing this page for deletion, but didn't because I read the author's statement when he or she created the page. He/she seems to realize that it may be a vanity page. Kareeser|Talk! 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that might have been me, not her. It is grossly self-promotional, but if she wants to put in the time and effort I am happy start with that as a basis for an article. I googled a little and found a few references - mostly high school awards admittedly. She is at Oberon. She works for their paper. I would like more details about her tours and a whole lot more references. I say keep but modify the living daylights out of it. Lao Wai 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. As a new writer/editor to Wikipedia, I have yet to learn the format, rules, etc.! Would appreciate some help in revising the article to "Wikify" the entry. I hope to continue adding to the site with information about rising artists whose contributions I believe have a more far-reaching capacity than they will ever know.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs)
Just be sure that your subjects have received verifiable recognition before posting and always cite your sources. PJM 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm good with that. How about a speedy keep and cleanup? - Lucky 6.9 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Keep as long as it's cleaned up and sources are cited. Tagged.. I'm having difficulty verifying many of these claims. My opinion as of now is Delete. PJM 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. You've got to be kidding me, see 1 - 10 of about 18 for +piano +"Sophia Yan". — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 17:34, Jan. 24, 2006
If all those performances, awards, and write ups can be verified, it's too outstanding to delete, IMO. PJM 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That would be fantastic. I believe links do exist for these awards; however, it seems the pages are updated periodically with a list of the new winners, etc. I am unsure how to find those pages again, if they are even still on the web. Do not know how to link pages!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless proofs are provided (in which case, I would agree for a speedy keep). - Liberatore(T) 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC) I have no idea of what notability those achievements imply, so I am withdrawing myself from this discussion. - Liberatore(T) 14:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The awards put her well above the threshold required by WP:MUSIC ("Has won or placed in a major music competition."). I agree that the article needs some attention to verifiability, though. –Sommers (Talk) 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per various reasons mentioned. Looks like it's already in the process of being cleaned up. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep pending further verification/importance checks, cleanup in progress, editor/s have added some links showing awards meeting appearing to meet WP:MUSIC since nomination and earlier votes. Editor is encouraged to continue, and to refer to WP:BIO for the general biography guidelines. There are templates there where you can copy code to set up information boxes in standard ways, add pictures, and otherwise Wikify it. Barno 00:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Qualified my vote and comments per Crunch below. Barno 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Impressive sounding but further investigations seems to reveal that the awards, competitions and "tour" are all youth student activities. There are lots of these all over the world and lots of kids win these. I don't think participants or even winners of these are particularly notable considering that there are people Sophia's age performing exclusively in "adult" settings with adult peers. Crunch 00:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Update. I do not believe any of the awards, media citations, concerts, etc. meet WP:MUSIC The competitions are either not major enough and/or she did not win or place in them. Again, they sound impressive, but they're not. Crunch 01:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: meets standard of notability. She was featured in the New York Times June 13, 2004; and the front page of entertainment section, East Brunswick Home News Tribune June 20, 2004. Notable enough. Calwatch 03:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. The reason I'm fighting this so much it that I think it sets a dangerous precedent for including articles for every young person who particpates in these young peoples music competitions, maybe wins one and gets written up in their hometown paper. It's easy to make it look impressive and if we allow this, Wikipedia will be inundated with articles of talented kids. This is not Midori or Josh Groban, not even close, and I do not see that she was "featured" in the NY Times. The article was from the New Jersey local news section of the Times (she lives in New Jersey) talking about teenagers that weren't getting into trouble. That's a long way from a feature story in the Arts section of the Times. With all due respect, I really think AfD submissions like this deserve more careful analysis. It's nothing personal against Ms. Yan, who seems like a perfectly charming, intelligent, and talented young lady who will go very far in music, or whatever she decides to pursue. It's about keeping to the WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO guidelines. Crunch 12:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: does this meet WP:BIO and/or WP:MUSIC? If so, keep. If not, delete. Simple. Alphax τεχ 14:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've been on the front page of the Spokesman-Review, but that doesn't make me notable. Likewise, being in the local section of the New Jersey edition of the New York Times doesn't qualify as notable. I will say she sounds like a very talented youth, just not a notable youth. AngryParsley (talk) (contribs) 14:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: There's a difference between the Spokane metro area and the New York metro area in terms of notability. The NYT has a very high standard for news articles, and the article in question was not just a filler blurb, but made its way into the Metro section of the number two newspaper in the country. That says something about the quality of the talent and/or potential. Calwatch 05:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The NY Times article was not about youths not getting into trouble; it was merely an opening. The rest of the article features two young pianists, Dae Hyung Ahn and Sophia Yan, both NJ residents. I believe the same article was later distributed in the Metro section of the Times. In addition, some of the competitions are now registed under a different name, but the winners do not change. From what I could find, she seems to have placed first a number of times in various competitions. You win a Steinway in one of them (cannot remember which) as the first place winner! Also, Midori can no longer be considered a youth. The difference is this -- while Midori and Groban have careers, they are professionals. Yan is a rising star, which is why I am intent on following her career path. Exactly that makes her a notable youth. There are some more details that I suppose can be included to fit the bio requirements. Mozart250
  • Comment. If Wikipedia is about noting rising young stars with potential then we should Keep all the new young rock bands we keep Deleting here. As for Midori, I meant Midori when she was young and competing on the stage on equal footing with adults. Same with Groban. Also, I don't see anywhere that the Steinway Society competition "gives away a Steinway." According to the Web site, "The Steinway Society is a tax exempt, piano scholarship organization" which people pay to join. Also, people pay to attend the conerts. They take the proceeds from the membership and the concert admissions and divide it up into scholarship funds for the winners. Last years it was "$3-4,000" to all the winners. Crunch 18:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crunch. —simpatico hi 17:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Userfy, for now.Bjones 18:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. MTNA Competitions give a piano to first place. User: Mozart 250
  • 'Comment. Thanks. I'm sorry about that. I still don't see anything on the MTNA web site about giving away a piano, but I trust you're right. IN any case, I'm not sure if the value of the prize is any relation to the notability of the perfomer. Speaking of the MTNA competition, it does say that the purpose of the national competition which Yang won is "to provide educational experiences for students and teachers and to recognize exceptionally talented young artists" which again just puts her in the really talented student category, not qute in the WP:MUSIC league. Crunch 21:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. She's hot. --Timecop 02:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete.--Friendofnone 02:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep She's not just won a school talent show, she's won heaps of awards and has received press attention. --kingboyk 19:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The awards she won are not important enough, plus notability is more than what one has won. She has potential, but doesn't deserve to be mentioned in an encyclopedia. --Missmarple 18:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Crunch. It all sounds impressive, but as many have said here, the awards and honors don't meet up to the standard of WP:MUSIC. —Cleared as filed. 02:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spider Ranch

A ranch. Appears to be non-notable. Not a speedy because (for one thing) there's no speedy for locations. 396 Google hits but first 40 contain passing reference at best. If anybody lives in Arizona maybe they have some insight on this? It's near Prescott. Herostratus 17:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. A lot of those Google links actually refer to Spider Ranch Productions, which is not a ranch at all but rather an A/V company based in the rural area south of San Francisco.--Mareino 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (P.S.: I should add that the A/V company doesn't look notable, either)
  • Delete, per Mareino. --DelftUser 18:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I live in Arizona and I have never heard of it. --Athena2006 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not verifiable. I also live in AZ and doubt they can keep saddles on those little brutes. --Lockley 19:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. As an Arizonan, I've been to Prescott a few times but I've never heard of this place. --Beau99 19:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete oh boy, a ranch. What's next, individual articles about corrals? Ruby 19:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Careful, Ruby. WP:BEANS. Herostratus
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- I have never heard of it. Probably it is not notable enough. Anyone begs to differ? Arbiteroftruth 01:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- As an Arizonian, I have never heard of this place. Probably it is not notable enough. Daniel_Hoz 17:10 , 2 Febuary 2006 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Star Trek: Enterprise alleged continuity problems

I've thought about this a lot after cleaning up the article and attempting to monitor it, and I'm no longer sure it deserves a place on Wikipedia. Look at this edit - It may be perfectly valid as a theory, but there's no way to check if the contributer simply thought that up on the spot and added it, thus it's original research it might be original research. The same could also be said about some of my own additions. The article is wide open for original research and in some people's eyes may qualify as Trekcruft. There's also the very real danger that it is succeptable to an easy loss of POV, given the 'soapbox' style favoured by some. The article's talk page demonstrates some of these problems. Hayter 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. I think it's an interesting and encyclopedic article (despite hardly being a Trekkie at all, honest.) I agree that OR is a problem and I agree it's a big one - with a lot of articles - but it calls for discussion and cleanup, not deletion. Someone should certainly go through it carefully and remove the OR. Is there a "This article is suspected to contain original research" tag that can be put on articles like this? Can we have one? Is this the place to ask? Robin Johnson 10:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The trouble is, with something like this, there's no way to determine what is or isn't original research. You can't cite sources for arguments as you would with another article e.g. "The Voyager once docked at Deep Space Nine. (VOY: "Caretaker") Almost all the sections run with "some fans theorise..." With the exception of those situations where the studio has put forth an explanation for 'errors' and this can be cited, this could all be seen as OR. And given that the studio has been largely silent in regards to its alleged violation of the Star Trek canon, except to say "we haven't done it," what does that leave for the article? - Hayter 11:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I've read the article again, and it's worse than I remembered - unsalvageable. Interesting stuff, but that doesn't make an article. Delete. Robin Johnson 12:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually there is, and you mention it yourself: Cited sources. If people have already published books or magazine articles propounding arguments about continuity and self-consistency, then documenting those arguments is not original research. One can cite sources, if they exist. The problem with the article is whether the sources exist, or whether the entire contents of this article are new arguments and theories made up by Wikipedia editors directly in Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        • But you also have the problem of judging reputable sources. I'd hate for the article to be filled up with links to places like Neoseeker where coversation runs in a similar fashion to, "an wat are the romulanz doin wiv warp drive - pissants don't have it yet." And even respected sites such as Ex Astris Scientia are ultimately run by one person so whilst I may find it to be a valid source, User X may not. This is what I see as the main problem with the article. By its nature, it cannot be adequately cited as say, an article about perceptions of FOXnews, which would be covered in national papers and the like. For something such as this, I feel the only options are allowing OR or deleting the article. Clearly, the first is not allowed so that leaves one solution. - Hayter 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- doesn't make sense for a substantial article to be deleted. Post a cleanup tag if it needs work, or a POV tag if necessary. Astrotrain 11:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Very important for WP credibility to delete pages which are unsourceable by nature, especially large ones. Any truly encyclopedic content will find its way into other pages. Must be disciplined.
  • Keep- I tend to agree with Astrotrain. This article does have its merit, it may not be provable that these are discontinuities but the article points to real and certifiable concerns of some of the Star Trek fans about the production of new episodes for the series. Maybe a solution should be to address the article with that in mind. Askewmind | (Talk) 12:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Astrotrain and Askewmind. Has potential. Essexmutant 12:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Even if it had "potential", or parts of it had "merit", do you guys really foresee that the necessary work will be done to source it properly? It seems more likely just to be a persistent embarrassment to WP (like many other pages), not doing justice to the parts of it which are good, which would be far more credible in the context of various other articles. Kill this one and you will benefit from renewal elsewhere. Zargulon 12:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move, interesting article. I'm not sure of the protocol regarding interwiki transfers, but can this just be moved to Memory Alpha, the Star Trek Wiki? It would be a much better place for an article of this length and detail. --Canley 14:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Length and detail are not problems for Wikipedia. Original research is, however. That is what we should be considering here. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's hardly a TV show out there that doesn't have "continuity problems" like this. It's all just made-up stuff, and examining the fiction at this level of detail isn't an encyclopedic thing to do. Monicasdude 14:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC
  • Keep. I disagree with Monicasdude. Details are everything to the harder-core Star Trek fans. Perhaps "Continuity Problems in TV Show 'Family Ties'" doesn't warrant a page, but it certainly does for Star Trek. I sympathize with the people who point out its lack of sources, and the page certainly needs work, but I think it's an important enough topic to warrant an article (or at least part of one). -Bindingtheory 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and Merge most important points into main article. This vote comes after a lot of soul-searching since I was one of the people who originated this article, spinning it off from the main series article. Its purpose prior to May 2005 was essentially to try and provide an outlet for both criticism and rebuttal of a then-current television series which had become very controversial, and the tug-of-war between people who assumed every line of dialogue was wrong and those who actually liked the show had derailed the main article once to often. The series is no longer current, therefore IMO this article's function is at an end in it's current form. Perhaps an article on overall Trek continuity issues could be created from this; after all, Phil Farrand published at least 3 "Nitpicker" books on the subject for TOS, TNG and DS9. 23skidoo 15:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is there such a book for this series? Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep a good article, maybe needs a tag to say it needs more sources - it has some at the bottom, but it could use some more -- Astrokey44|talk 15:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • It has some external links. But there's no indication that they were or are sources. Uncle G 17:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • EAS is maintained almost solely by Bernd on his own. It's an excellent site, but it's not a community - just his POV. - Hayter 09:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Jcuk 21:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Can you please provide motivation for your keep vote? Zunaid 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and WP:V. Comment: I'd like to point out that WP:V says that articles should be verifiable, and according to the research by Hayter it isn't, which is a clear violation of policy. Does this not mean that voting on this is inconsequential? Zunaid 12:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I fully agree with Astrokey44 here. -- JJay 19:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Man oh man, original research up the wazoo. Vulcan eating habits? 100% pure fanboy cruft. --Calton | Talk 20:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Most of the "theories" are unverifable and the article is always going to be filled with original research. What research isn't original to Wikipedia is going to come from non-notable sources. —Cleared as filed. 02:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stergios Roumeliotis

probabli not encyclopedic . Melaen 19:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith.

  • Weak keep Director of a lab. 42 Google Scholar hits. Dlyons493 Talk 20:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete being the director of a lab does not imply being notable. --Vizcarra 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn bio stub. Ruby 22:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Nothing I saw on Google made him look any more notable than the average college professor. --Thunk 23:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete per Thunk. I'm sure a fine asst. prof, but not a notable one.Obina 00:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thunk. —simpatico hi 07:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-bio, hoax. Mushroom 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Cooney

Appears to be a hoax, but the claim this individual has received a Victoria Cross seems to be a claim of notability. The fact that he would have not reached his 16th birthday at the time of the award combined with a lack of positive hits during a web search leads to the belief that this is most likely a fictional article. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article's claims. --Allen3 talk 13:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - Surely this would be in the news, fifteen year old security guard at Heathrow shot to death by illegal immigrants. Ruby 14:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Just delete it. --Terence Ong 14:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- obvious falsehoods Astrotrain 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete- as per Ruby (although "Steven" could have been patrolling the Channel Tunnel when he met his terrible and completely unreported fate). Obviously a hoax. What does a "highly skilled immigration officer" do anyway? Apply the ink to the rubber stamps evenly? --Canley 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- Canley 14:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedily redirected by kingboyk. —Cleared as filed. 02:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Straight Outta' Compton

Delete as unverifiable and probable vanity / vandalism. Already marked as hoax. Page created by user HHH43089 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/HHH43089) also responsible for vandalism on Ritter. Lockley 23:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Everything about the song is at the album page: Straight Outta Compton. BabuBhatt 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sungerton

WP:ISNOT for things made up in school one day, as it sounds that htis game was Drdisque 06:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • sungerton is a legitimate card game played in new england and the midwest. though the article sounds colorful and playful, it does apply to a game i have heard of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.219.77 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-24 07:27:11 UTC
    • If it is a legitimate card game, it will no doubt have been documented in one of the large number of books on card games that have been published. Please cite two or three such books. Uncle G 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Exactly zero Google hits means delete to me. GeorgeStepanek\talk 07:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete too insignificant for an encyclopedia. Ruby 12:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This article cites no sources, and I can find no sources. It is unverifiable. I also strongly suspect from the wording of the article that this card game has been invented and documented directly in Wikipedia by its creator, without it actually having become part of the corpus of human knowledge, contrary to our no original research policy. Delete. Uncle G 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Uncle G as unverifiable. It probably falls under this guideline, too. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable and twee. "Sungerton is a card game invented by the fabulous and strikingly well-dressed Micah Chocolate and swadisht Sarah Healthbuddy Palmsnatcher." --Lockley 23:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Note that GeorgeStepanek's search above is on Google's ".nz" servers. I got zero matches on a USA-based search that wasn't in Google Books. Lots of card games get invented in basements or jails or bars, and attain a little bit of local notability, but not enough widespread notability or media attention to get kept in Wikipedia. Barno 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Is not! Yes, it's searching via google.co.nz but it's searching the whole web, not just pages from New Zealand. GeorgeStepanek\talk 04:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete absurd. Uucp 19:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete if it doesn't have Google hits, it's not for Wikipedia. Funny how google is still our main check on these things. Anabanana459 07:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy delete (non notable)

[edit] Tanners United

Unknown football team. Delete chowells 13:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete nn club. Ruby 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not notable, from a website that sums it up Tanners was set up early in 2005 and we are now looking for new interesting and talented players for the 2005/2006 Season. Our Manager Mike Starkey who is only 19 is competant and will help any player achieve his best! —This user has left wikipedia 14:38 2006-01-24
    • "Wikipedia is not notable"??? What is that meant to mean? Stifle 14:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as {{db-club}}, tagged. Stifle 14:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A local Sunday League team just isn't important enough, website or no website! Keresaspa 14:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete, nn podcast. Madchester 06:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech Podcasts Network

Appears to be a non-notable website. Podcruft. Stifle 21:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Keep, discounting all the sockpuppets and AfD-purposed accounts. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Ratzmann

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

I think this article is POV or does not have enough infomation regarding itself. Adnghiem501 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. Needs work, but bio of a mass murderer is probably notable. Crunch 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, certainly needs work, though I don't see anything wildly POV about it - it's rather sparse on detail. But yes, mass-murderers are suitably verifiable and notable. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up; subject meets notability guidelines for his involvement in a newsworthy event. --Muchness 01:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: You all need more improvement to this article. What is the consensus you all want to keep if not expanding it? Adnghiem501 01:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Muchness. Ruby 01:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per POV UmJamma 03:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - lacks background info - not fit for an encyclopedia Big Bill Saxon 03:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Adnghiem501's logic WPZONR888 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete seems a bit too POVish for my tastes Fapmaster Flex 03:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - just plain not useful BMXJouster 03:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the guy is notable for the same reason Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold are. BTW, POV is not grounds for deletion; see WP:DP. Dbtfz Signing again, this time with timestamp: Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not worth an encyclopedia entry - people kill each other all day, it doesn't make them notable Mike McKenzie 03:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is already covered at Living_Church_of_God and there isn't much more to say about it. Peyna 04:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Redundant as per Peyna Josh Barnett 04:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Non notable psychopath. The world is filled with people like this, and they're simply not encyclopedic in the detail we can cover them. Wikipedia is not and can never become a Psychology Journal MKBR3 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Covered in other articles. Pikachu3 04:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not valuable in present form; little room for expansion. TR90210 04:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - How many people do you have to kill to get your own Wikipedia article? Is there an official policy on this? Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 04:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • One, if you kill the right person. Peyna 04:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Subject is notable, and POV/bad writing isn't grounds for deletion. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we need a set of notability criteria for criminals, much like we have for musicians and public figures. BMXJouster 04:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment, 693 individual google hits, none of which seem to be mirrors or anything, he's rather notable. CNN has a photo gallery dedicated to the shootings. It's crossed my mind that User:Adnghiem501 is a little too zealous to have this article deleted, having only joined WP earlier this month, today he not only listed this article for deletion, but also tried to have the photograph in the article deleted as "No source" even though it had a source listed. (Seems there are multiple sources for the photograph though, some claim AP licensings, others say it was released by police, others say released by family) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment - worth noting that the page is even wikilinked from March 2005 in the United States, so I would assume it is fairly notable if we're marking it as one of the events of that month in history. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment there isn't even a documentary or 60 minutes segment about this guy. Non-notable. MKBR3 05:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • COMMENT TO CLOSING ADMIN: I'd also like to point out to the closing administrator that every user who voted Delete in this AfD, with the exception of User:Peyna and the nominator, seems to have created an account for the sole purpose of voting in this AfD. At the time of this posting, all of them have only 1 edit, while User:BMXJouster has 3 edits. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
(User:BMXJouster, who just created his account today, originally deleted this post, I am restoring it) Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)
Okay, now he has deleted all of these comments a second time, vandalizing the vote. I guess that clears up any doubts. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now a third time that User:BMXJouster has deleted this information. I'm now reporting him for vandalism. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
A 4th and 5th time now, that he's deleted the opposing viewpoints pointing out that they're all his own sockpuppets voting Delete. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 05:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Please give the admins more credit than this. First, you've turned the AfD page into an awful mess. A simple sockpuppet notice at the top of the AfD would have been sufficient. Second, you're also likely creating a bias against a delete vote by your actions, since editors will see this mess and automatically assume that the nomination was in bad faith. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but please bear in mind that closing admins are supposed to look at such things when determining consensus. Also, bear in mind that this is not a vote. Peyna 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. And let me just say that I am incredibly concerned with the vote-stacking and vandalism I am seeing in this AfD. Cyde Weys 05:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Mild delete. As much as it pains me to agree with a vandal and his/her/its sock puppets, I don't think this guy is notable enough. If we list every serial killer in history, this wiki will be full of way too much information on them. --Nlu (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, with some expansion. This guy was notable, and covered by major news networks in the United States (and elsewhere?). Needs a slight expansion since it seems to be more about his actions (the murders), than about the actual person. — TheKMantalk 06:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Wisco 06:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Seems notable. Needs clean-up, and I'll be happy to do that. ComputerJoe 08:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. The subject is notable, it was all over the news some time back (for example, on CNN). True, it needs some work, but it definitely belongs in Wikipedia. Ikh (talk) 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 11:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep cleanup, focus on the facts, I dont see POV in article t this timestamp. —This user has left wikipedia 12:25 2006-01-24
  • Keep - Agree that needs to be cleaned up; however, the story seems notable enough. James084 16:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - notable story that belongs on Wikipedia High Plains Drifter 20:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per precendent; most other mass murderers have entries. OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per previous vote. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Passes the Google test, needs some rewriting to make it not look like a newspaper article, though. Obli (Talk) 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep lots of verifiably important information Ziggurat 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep; seems like your basic notable crime story. Not as interesting as Colin Ferguson, perhaps, since there will be no trial, but rises to the level of other multiple homicide cases. I don't really know why this is controversial. MCB 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, per sockpuppetry and per good taste. To hell with it all. I'm sure Mr Ratzmann himself is heading that way as well. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oops, he already is. My bad. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously notable.  Grue  14:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Assistant (band)

Self Promotion, blatant.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no assertion of the band's importance. Ruby 17:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. No way to verify or establish notability because the name is such a common term; the discography doesn't help. --James S. 23:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. No way to speedy this really, but I'm happy with a slow deletion. Stifle 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - meets criteria CSD A7, "Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." —LeFlyman 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 16:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The chinese pirates

Searching for references for this article, I found this BBC News item. Something tells me that it's unrelated though. -- Perfecto 05:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as unverifiable/hoax. --Perfecto 05:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear to be notable; unverifiable. Ikh (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment perhaps would make sense to establish notability guidelines for gangs? Ikh (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated Comment Do we have an article on Pirates(sea pirates) in China? It's a fascinating subject so I thought I'd ask.--T. Anthony 14:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as patently unverifiable, probable hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-band. Mushroom 05:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The detours

NN band. —Blotwell 03:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:BAND. "The Detours ever growing fanbase will help them rocket to stardom." Great, when that happens you can have a Wikipedia article. Dbtfz 04:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - look, uh, these nowhere bands can get a speedy D now. Ruby 04:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable band. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:25Z
  • Delete per Quarl. --Terence Ong 04:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Quarl. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep. Calton's comment is tantamount to a "keep" vote, and it's a pretty heavy one. --Deathphoenix 03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Empress of the Style Invitational

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete There's no context unless you chase all the links, which I don't want to do. Ruby 17:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Latinus 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: it's a reference to a Washington Post feature known as the The Style Invitational, where readers send in amusing entries in response to challenges by the column's writer, who dubs herself -- wait for it -- "The Empress of the Style Invitational". Worth an entry? You be the judge. --Calton | Talk 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as CSD G8. Mushroom 10:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The Game (game)/Places where The Game is played

Talk page linked from the main article The Game (game). While the location is obviously innapropriate, I believe the page itself has no relevance, either (hence why I brought the issue here). As "The Game" is a meme, there is little to no evidence of "The Game" being played in any of these locations, nor do I believe would such a list be encyclopedic (would "List of places where Monopoly is played be appropriate?). Delete. --InShaneee 20:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unencyclopedic and unverifiable. Punkmorten 21:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unverifiable and one questions importance of listing places where played after reading the original article. Das Nerd 22:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This page is not an article - it is not in the article namespace and is a sub-page of a talke page. I fully agree that the article page "List of places where The Game is known to be played" deserved to be spedied, but this is different. It is not an article. It is not in the article namespace. Its presence as a subpage of this talk page could be useful in terms of seeing how it has spread - looking at the places mentioned currently it would seem that The Game was not been translated outside of English-speaking countries to a wide extent... indeed only the UK and the USA seem to really know about it. Deano (Talk) 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Note that this is the correct place for this deletion discussion - the main talk namespace comes here. Incidentally, it is a talk page of a non-existent page and appears to qualify for speedy deletion. Stifle 23:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unverified, its just a list of places -- Astrokey44|talk 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Stifle —simpatico hi 07:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Great American Sweatout

Unverifiable game (no google hits whatsoever). Looks like WP:NFT. Stifle 16:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete hoax or something kids made up in school yesterday. Ruby 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not a real game, looks totally made up. 64.173.29.133 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - makeup. Latinus 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 01:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete schoolyard invention. —simpatico hi 17:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, nn, fails WP:WEB Madchester 06:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Memo Report

What do you call an online magazine with no Google hits? -- Perfecto 04:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete: fails WP:V -- Perfecto 04:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, does not meet WP:V. --W.marsh 04:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable webzine; it just started. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 05:06Z
  • Delete. Alexa does not give a traffic rank for its website.[46] Non-notable. — TheKMantalk 05:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, does not meet WP:WEB. -- Dragonfiend 15:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 00:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to MySpace. --Deathphoenix 03:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The MySpace Song

This is not notable or of encylcopedic value. Needs to be merged or deleted. -VanillaX

  • Speedy Delete per CSD G1, patent nonsense. If not, then remember that Wikipedia is not for something you made up in school one day. I hate to say it, but I looked into it, and it's fairly popular. It's actually pretty funny, too. So yeah, merge and redirect with the current MySpace. --^demon 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into "Trivia" section of MySpace. Many Google hits indicate that it's a real if ephemeral phenomena perhaps of interest to future researchers looking at impact of MySpace. Assuming that the Google hits are about this song, that is, maybe ^demon knows something I don't know. A song called "The MySpace Song" has just been released on an album, if that's the same song. In no wise should it have its own article, though; delete if not merged. Herostratus 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. It doesn't strike me as a hoax or patent nonsense. However, it's certainly stupid and unencyclopedic. PJM 18:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Herostratus. Powers 19:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete no chart position. Maybe some shock jocks are playing it. Ruby 19:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merege and redirect to MySpace#The MySpace Song --Vizcarra 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/Redirect to MySpace (note for above, redirects can not be made to sections)—LeFlyman 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 16:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The second dimension

recently speedy deleted as "non-notable" and recreatged. IMO this does not quslify under the speedy delete criteria but neither does it appear to meet WP:WEB. Delete unless relaibel sources are cited to estblish notability. DES (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 18:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete advertisement for a nn site. Ruby 19:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Speedy Delete Non-notable website, as per WP:WEB.  (aeropagitica)  21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Further to my previous vote, I have reviewed the site and had a second thought. My first was that the site merited a {{db-empty}} tag for failing to assert the notability of the website, as per WP:WEB. My second thought is to reduce the vote to delete in order to give the author and/or other minded contributors time to review the website and include its notable elements in the article text. I concede that the article informs me of a website of which I was not previously aware. I will also point out that the article is devoid of all mention of the notability of this website amongst its peers.  (aeropagitica)  17:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable. Wikipedia is not the Web Yellow Pages. Ikkyu2 05:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I originally nominated the page for speedy deletion; in hindsight, it doesn't actually meet the CSD, because it does assert notability. -Ikkyu2 01:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nn-group. Mushroom 07:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Sports Central

Just an orphaned article that's an ad to an unimportant website (which has moved, apparently). -- transaspie 05:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy Delete. CSD A7: Unremarkable group. — TheKMantalk 06:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator.[47] — TheKMantalk 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thiosulfate ion

Doesn't assert importance, gives no info besides a chemical formula. NickelShoe 02:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Change to Keep now that someone has given some actual info. Awesome. NickelShoe 05:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Important chemical used in the production of white paper. Ruby 03:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: I'll vote keep but the article should probably state the importance in the first sentence. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Just a quick glance at the article for Hydrogen Cyanide to check the format shows the importance is given in the second paragraph, it may not be the standard format for chemical articles to give the importance before the technical specifications. Ruby 04:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 16:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tim Nyborg

Tim Nyborg ran as an independent candidate in the 2006 Canadian federal election. He received 342 votes, 0.9% of the total. In other words his candidacy went largely unnoted. Punkmorten 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete this is a no-brainer, less than 1% of the total. Ruby 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • delete 342 votes is not enough! Brighterorange 22:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough (imagine that). Latinus 23:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Bye-bye Tim. D-E-L-E-T-E-D. --Ryan Utt 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 16:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TINS

delete advertising. Melaen 22:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete for no context to understand what it is talking about. Ruby 23:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Week keep article could certainly been improved, but not obviously spammish. Amcfreely 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I may be misunderstanding what this thing is, but it seems to be a new way to... initiate sessions...? Anyway, we've got plenty of articles about computer languages, platforms, software, this one just needs some context and a clearer explanation for the non-tech folks. The article needs an expert. —simpatico hi 06:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article fails to establish enough context. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as notability cannot be established without context. I'm open to revising if the article is expanded. Stifle 11:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Jinian 17:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titanic Thompson

Context-free article on some fictional character, all references are redlinks. Stifle 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even the source material for the character doesn't have a Wikipedia article. This might be a speedy candidate. Powers 19:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. As noted above, Thompson was not fictional. A character, yeah, but a real person. --Lockley 19:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment. Apologies, we posted around the same time. I'm keeping my vote as Delete. If this is all that can be said about Thompson, he's not notable. Powers 20:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - When the author gets an article they can talk about Titanic Thompson at that time. Ruby 19:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've expanded the article and hope the article will be kept. Multiple sources found through Google verify this guy's bio. --Lockley 20:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, after Lockley's revisions. I am suitably humbled. Powers 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. Powers s'all good, cheers! --Lockley 20:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toga (penguin)

Unencyclopedic. This is an article about a jackass penguin missing from a zoo in the Isle of Wight. -- Longhair 12:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete -- Longhair 12:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Non-encyclopedic, forgettable news story. Robin Johnson 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikinews or Delete. chowells 13:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Transwikification to Wikinews is not legally permissible. Uncle G 14:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unencyclopedic. --Terence Ong 13:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 15:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom James084 15:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep totally verifiable. --TimPope 18:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. [a] It it verifiable. [b] It represents an insight into the state of UK's love of animals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt.whitby (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator Ifnord 14:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tricks of the Windows Game Programming Gurus

This might be a speedy candidate but I'm putting it here as this is my first AFD nomination and I don't want to do anything stupid. This makes no assertion of notability or encyclopedic content. Raven4x4x 11:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Wait, cancel that. This is a proper article [48] that was just taken over by a vandal. I can't belive I didn't spot that. Great job not doing anything stupid... Oh well, I withdraw the nomination. Raven4x4x 11:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, fails WP:COMIC Madchester 06:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Cent

nn webcomic, no alexa webdata, one google hit. Fails to meet WP:COMIC by a large, large margin. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, per nom. --DelftUser 18:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • "one google hit" argument invalid - specific web links only show one result in google. Searching "two cent comic" in google yields more than one result for the actual comic. unsigned comment by 166.113.26.214 (talk · contribs)
Comment: OK, still one hit. Put "two cent in quotes bu itself and you get two, one self-referential. Those are pretty common words. RasputinAXP talk contribs 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Your link still gives more than one result.(unsigned comment by Toke Hax (talk · contribs))
Only one that references the webcomic in the first five pages. The rest, since they're not actually referencing the comic in question, don't count. RasputinAXP talk contribs 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all this self-published stuff. Ruby 19:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Why shouldn't there be a web-encyclopedia for small groups too? Define popularity. (unsigned comment by Toke Hax (talk · contribs))
There is. There's your own website for that and you can install any wiki you want on it. Wikipedia has requirements for notability. RasputinAXP talk contribs 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I do have to disagree with the basis of deletion because of no data from alexa, as Wikipedia states that can't fairly be used as a basis for deletion. The Google results also isn't entirely valid and can only be used for a rough guess. But, the Wikipedia Comics notability requirements do fail to be met. So, as much as I hate to say it, I have to agree that it needs to be Deleted. Amnesiasoft 05:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Amnesiasoft, not for nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - per WP:IAR. FCYTravis 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uncyclopedia

This page is about a subject that is not notable, it does not reference any media reports or any other proof that the Uncycopedia is notable and that this page is anything more than advertising JK the unwise 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is the sort of nomination that is ill-considered enough to attract averse attention from the other parts of Wikipedia (and indeed Wikimedia) to AFD. Those who don't want AFD dealt with by parts of Wikipedia outside AFD need to solve nominations this bad being possible - David Gerard 22:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, notable. I don't in any way find this article advertising. As for media reports, here's one, from New York Times: [49]. Is that sufficient? - Sikon 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's an important piece of Wikipedia culture, where Wikipedians make fun of themselves. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless Wikipedia is going to delete the article on Encyclopedia Dramatica. --Lugiatm (talk • contribs) 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per above. Jono 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Librarystuff reference. Blog reference. Law librarian blog. Answers.com article. IBM-eye article. Tech Republic discussion thread. OK, enough. You can Google as well as I. The point: Uncyclopedia has been noticed in Internet circles and is not, factually speaking, non-notable. --67.42.193.187 18:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC) (One-eyed Jack)
    • Down goes the answers.com article, it's a Wikipedia mirror. - Sikon 18:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep for above reasons. Stifle 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Per above ComputerJoe 18:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per reasons above. PJM 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep I occasionally try to redirect Wikipedia pranksters there. OhnoitsJamieTalk 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Usually funnier than Wikipedia, although not always.Herostratus 18:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are numerous articles throughout Wikipedia on topics far less notable than this. EpicFantasyStory 18:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this calls for a what the fuck? 86.134.119.187 18:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, google ads site. How many of those voting for keep edit Uncyclopedia?? --DelftUser 18:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when does it matter as long as they are active contributors on WP as well, not a bunch of guys who registered solely to vote? Besides, Uncyclopedia is the only Wikia-hosted project that doesn't run Google ads. - Sikon 18:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Just wondering, no need to bite my head off. --DelftUser 19:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
        What are you talking about, Sikon, Uncyclopedia DOES run google ads. --DelftUser 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, I don't ;-) Kim Bruning 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep as per all above. DES (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and extensively advertise on Wikipedia as a relief valve....a place for people to go who want to be wikisilly. We should have all of the Wikipedia vandalism templates include a link to Uncyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 18:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
As an Uncyclopedia admin, I'm opposed to that latter idea. It may be a comedy site, but I'd rather not have every one of Wikipedia's vandals made aware of it, for hopefully obvious reasons. Codeine 19:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is anyone here opposed to an early close then? Kim Bruning 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • I am, --DelftUser 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    Roger, and lightining fast too! I just clicked to clarify "except for..." and you had already had answered. Can you clarify your opposition? Note that uncyclopedia is not a wikipedia mirror, and is well known to many wikipedians. I keep having to ask folks not to go vandalize there! Kim Bruning 18:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    You want me to clarify why I am for delete or why I am opposing an early close? I've looked at the article and at uncyclopedia and I am familair with wiki mirros (example) and wiki forks and the like (exmaple), so be assured that my vote is an educated one. --DelftUser 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep because of obvious reasons. -- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Uncyclopedia is as much a wiki institution as Wikipedia itself, and I love them both. Can't we all just get along? :-) Codeine 19:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep As a high quality and quantity parody, they actually highlight the notability and the achievments of wikipedia itself. Deleting it would be against wikipedia's own interests. Plus, it's very notable, much more notable than many other small Internet phenomenoms covered here. They are wikipedia's alter-ego. You need more reasons and u happen to read spanish? then read this: [50]--Rataube 19:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that. Try to check the same user name in the spanish and hebrew versions of wikipedia and u'll get different results. Happy?--Rataube 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Go write a personal message to me on your other pages, then come back and give me direct links to then and if your combined edits are more than my total edits, then I'll be happy. --DelftUser 19:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
According to this your combined edits on both wiki's is 30 edits, is that correct? --DelftUser 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
That might be correct. It's also correct that i started contributing wikipedia long before this vote, and i started contributing wikipedia before uncy (same user name if u wanna check). And my last edit here was just a few days ago, so u can see I'm still active here. Not considering my vote would go against your policies. I thought policies did matter over here.--Rataube 19:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this your way of saying you have almost a 1000 edits on Uncyclopedia? --DelftUser 19:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
So what? I'm active at wikipeia aswell, my arguement still stands. Nevermind, It wont get deleted anyway, take a look around...--Rataube 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep although the article could use a good clean-up, since there is a lot of content that there that is not encyclopedic. Peyna 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless made funnier. --maru (talk) Contribs 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep This website is where the articles we delete all go. Ruby 19:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • strong keep notable enough, good article. Brighterorange 20:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Has articles on many of the same topics. Suggest it be merged with Wikipedia. Jimaginator 20:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. ~ For the reasons given by prior voters. --Todd Lyons 20:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. per nearly everyone. Englishrose 20:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, because if you were to delete Uncyclopedia based on the charges of "not notable" and "nothing more than advertising", you'd have to get rid of Memory Alpha and any other non-trivial future spinoff of Wikicities. Did Uncyclopedia kick your kid, or something? --Robertb-dc 20:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine. Oh, and don't delete. Wikka-what? Uncyc is far more notable. --68.160.40.66 21:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per... everybody above. --Vizcarra 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Come on - it's funny! Laugh. It may be a parody, but the articles are hilariously funny and show some exceptional creative comic talent. --Ma11achy 21:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE. Jinian 16:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unicorn chaser

Delete: Completely idiosyncratic non-topic Shoehorn 03:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete probably a hoax. Ruby 03:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge without redirect to Boing boing. Not hoax: [51]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:06Z
  • Smerge With Redirect to Boing boing. — TheKMantalk 06:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight merge as above. —This user has left wikipedia 14:19 2006-01-24
  • Delete, worthless blogcruft. incog 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Slight Merge as per above votes. --Zsinj 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 16:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Unlawful arrest

Not an encyclopedia article; rather, a listing of quotes from various trials (court decisions?) with no context or link to the cases. Delete and redirect to false arrest. If somebody wants to incorporate useful contents to arrest and related articles, I don't want to stand in his way, but I consider it a hopeless task. - Mike Rosoft 10:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Redirect to false arrest Astrotrain 11:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful, otherwise just redirect. Edgar181 12:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and add a paragraph in summary for context. Fix it don't nix it. Ruby 14:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ruby. This will become an article one day. Ifnord 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unlawful arrest should not redirect to false arrest, as it is a much broader concept. False arrest is a common law tort. An arrest can be unlawful for many reasons, such as (in the United States) that it violates the Fourth Amendment. But the article does need serious work, I agree. I'll put it on my list. Delete. On second thought, looking at the page more closely, this is so bad as is that it would make more sense to nix it and start over. The cases cited are so old and obscure that they misrepresent the law in the United States. I don't have time to fix it before this vote concludes. There is nothing useful in here to merge. (I teach Criminal Procedure at a law school, BTW.) Thunk 17:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is being kept (and I'm not voting), it must either be renamed Unlawful arrest (United States Law) or drastically rewritten. --Doc ask? 18:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)--Doc ask? 18:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Anyone who would merge this or clean it up should probably be a legal expert, as the descriptions may omit important circumstances of the case. Gazpacho 18:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to false arrest Jcuk 21:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. To repeat my crossed-out comment: I think Unlawful arrest should not redirect to false arrest, as it is a much broader concept. False arrest is a common law tort. An arrest can be unlawful for many reasons, such as (in the United States) that it violates the Fourth Amendment. --Thunk 22:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The page is not an article that sets out to explain the concepts in a coherent fashion but is a series of points and factual statements without proper context. As an aside, the false arrest page is U.S.-centric and should be identified as such or be recast so that it has more generic utility. David91 01:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Agreed with Ruby here. JONJONAUG 01:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete based on Thunk's comments. The contributor is an adherent of so-called "patriot mythology" [52] as evidenced by edits at Talk:United States Constitution. Gazpacho 06:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedily redirected Ifnord 14:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upper structure

duplicates Upper structure triad

Please remember to be civil and assume good faith. Guy Hatton 13:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Speedy redirect to Upper structure triad. Ruby 14:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why did you nominate it for deletion? just redirect it... —This user has left wikipedia 14:53 2006-01-24


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

The result of the debate was Result : Speedy Delete as non-notable

[edit] Van Johnson (band)

Not notable, one editor.

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete nn band. Ruby 17:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom as NN. --Lockley 18:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete per ruby. incog 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ruby. Latinus 23:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wavedashing

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and should belong in its Wikibook entry or merged into the main SSBM article. Hbdragon88 02:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 02:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Transwiki. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:10Z
  • Delete per above. Nifboy 04:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. —This user has left wikipedia 14:18 2006-01-24
  • Delete, fancruft. incog 19:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Zsinj 03:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wayrttd

Non notable slang term Only 25 goggle hits most from wiki mirrors [53] Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. No results on Google Groups, even. wow. Mangojuice 01:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Zsinj 01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete for not being encyclopedic at the very least. Ruby 01:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 01:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 04:12Z
  • Delete unverifiable. --W.marsh 04:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non- notable, unverifiable Dakota ~ ε 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 12:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Googling for Wayrttd -wikipedia gives zero results. —This user has left wikipedia 12:44 2006-01-24
  • Delete as nonsense which was probably made up at 4am in some nn chatroom. --Lightdarkness 17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, crap. incog 18:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Latinus 00:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weezy and the Swish

Random podcast, no notability whatsoever. WP:WEB Stifle 23:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Ruby 23:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete cast it onto the podcruft pyre. OhnoitsJamieTalk 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 23:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete —simpatico hi 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Stifle. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 11:16Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weka (machine learning)

Software written by some students, does not appear to be notable. WP:NFT Stifle 19:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Weak keep - It looks like it goes back to 1993. There are articles for other open source programs like softsynths. Ruby 19:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Give them a week to expand it, then revisit the delete proposal. Even student projects can become notable (Netscape comes to mind), so I vote not to be too hasty. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 19:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete – Let's not include school projects here. Or if we do, I have about 30 I'd like to include. --Vizcarra 21:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep – I'm the one who created the article, so I might be biased. But I believe the Weka project implementations are fairly well known in the machine learning community and used in contemporary research. Accordingly, I feel this subject matter is encyclopedic. I'm planning on submitting a paper to ICML that cites these implementations for some of the algorithms I tested in the research.--AlphaEtaPi 23:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whipfest

Looks like neologism James084 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted for having no actual content. All it said was "Welcome To Wiki-Hurricane Stop Your Wikipedia Place for Hurricane Info We Would like to thankyou for useing this Wiki-site of the Main site Stuff Coming Soon ". Friday (talk) 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki-Hurricane Stop

Extensive information on hurricanes can be found throughout the hurricane season articles and others about hurricanes in general. No content as of yet, also. Delete - Bootstoots 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I have speedy deleted this. No need for Afd in my opinion, it wasn't an article at all and didn't look like it was trying to be one. Friday (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu