Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 11 December 13 >

Purge server cache

December 12

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Actually, from a strictly vote-counting POV, that may not be the case. But the redirect argument is strong, the delete argument is not ("non-notable"? May as well say "I wanna delete!"; at least one person should explain why it's non-notable), and the keep argument is really very sad indeed. Okay, so a redirect still appears to get rid of the content, so the deleters will be happy nonetheless, but I felt like making a point. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HRTV

[edit]

non-notable Drdisque 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wanneroo lacrosse club

[edit]

43 unique Google hits. Non-notable sports club. Rampart 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-being (E-man)

[edit]

One of several articles created in connection with Alexander Bolonkin. This article, in particular, is pure speculation.

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic immortality, Electronic soul, Electronic civilization

[edit]

Like E-being (E-man), these are almost entirely speculation/sci-fi.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE, since such is the procedure after noone offers to translate, and noone offers to keep. -Splashtalk 00:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Message (Movie)

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 16. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks Arabic - not much else I can say or do. Schutz 16:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it's Farsi. CG 21:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged and redirected into Scrabble letter distributions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scrabble letter values

[edit]

Now successfully merged with Scrabble letter distributions, so can be deleted safely.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, since it was translated subsequent to all the deleters' comments. No prejudice to a nomination on other grounds in future. -Splashtalk 00:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orang Sungai

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Bahasa Indonesia/Malaysia. - splot 04:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is a strange one. It seems to be a discussion of two different ethnic groups, and then purports to prove that they are the same.... so can probably be deleted as it's not impartial. However, not all the words are familiar to me, and the locations mentioned certainly aren't, so a second opinion from someone who speaks Malaysian rather than Indonesian might be helpful.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Radio DGH

[edit]

A hospital radio service of one UK hospital. Really stretching the limits of notability. JFW | T@lk 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Laws of happiness

[edit]

Seems like some kind of joke. No explanation of notability. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment. A reference is provided. If this exists, it may not be a hoax. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The book citation is given as "Van, Bernard , et al. Happiness Quantified. Oxford University Press. 2005". There is a book by that title, but it is: Bernard van Praag and Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2004-04-06). Happiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculus Approach. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-828654-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link) — note the differences in the authors and the year of publication. Looking at the excerpts from that book that are available as tasters, it seems unlikely that it contains anything as superficial as these three laws, albeit that it is possible. Uncle G 00:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further note: There are books that explicitly address "the laws of happiness":
      • Jon Mundy (December 1998). The Ten Laws of Happiness. Royal Fireworks Publishing Company. ISBN 0880924535.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: year (link)
      • Ryuho Okawa (2004). The Laws of Happiness: Four Principles for a Successful Life. Lantern Books. ISBN 1-59056-073-6.
    • They appear to bear no relation to the content of this article. Uncle G 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, doesn't appear to be any AFD criterion by which this should be deleted. Stifle 00:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation in the references section has been corrected. Aerapmcheecephy 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. --YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it seems the source has nothing to do with the content. ESkog | Talk 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Blackcats 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Capitalistroadster 04:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense trying to masquerade as OR. Eusebeus 09:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From the article: Corollary: The change in the total happiness level of the universe is always zero.. I would like to add: the difference between a bird is 10... carotes. :-) Gtabary 12:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonsense, whether the source agrees or not. How does one mathematically quantify 'happiness'?! StealthFox 22:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folquet de Marselh

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie

Romanian. Physchim62 (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, but a merge is clearly needed. It's already tagged. -Splashtalk 00:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Porno Graffitti

[edit]

The article is pretty much all song lyrics, has nothing to do with the band itself, and probably a copyright infringement by posting the lyrics on the article in the first place. Cernen 00:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. As translated, it's an nn-bio. No prejudice to a recreation done properly. -Splashtalk 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Parellada Molet

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Also possbile nn-bio. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie

Spanish bio. Physchim62 (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's not much to this one that's encyclopedic. Not sure he deserves an article. - Taxman Talk 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Spanish bio which has an obituary tone. Not very encyclopic. Will translate it if it's kept but don't think it is notable enough.--Dakota t e 23:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
initially translated, lacking a lot of context -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. I'm going to move it to Laszlo Toth, however. And if'n I catch anyone removing AfD tags from an article still under discussion again, worl ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lazlo Toth, vandal

[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Possible merge to Pieta. Disputed nn-bio. Stifle 00:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Actually, delete and redirect per Eusebeus. Stifle 11:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tydamonic Alliance

[edit]

Uncited; I suspect it's a hoax. Tom Harrison (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - Now some anonymous user has come in and added two "references" (unlinked, naturally) that have nothing to do with "Tydamonic Alliances". Someone is trying to hoax Wikipedia. Maybe they heard about the Seigenthaler thing and thought they could do it too. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Thy pitiless unmanning is most meet / Thinks Ercole, the zany Paraclete." Billbrock 10:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take Back UMass

[edit]

Non-notable student group. The relevent information has already been merged into University of Massachusetts Amherst. This page should be deleted. peachlette 01:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I knew that would probably get suggested. I just think it is incredibly unlikely that anyone will be looking up this organization. As you say, though, redirects are cheap. I wouldn't be opposed to that, I just see no reason to keep it around. peachlette 03:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is another reason why I would argue a redirect is preferred/required here: you say that the information has been merged into another article. Because of the GFDL, a merge requires a redirect - we can't delete the old page because the page history for the merged information goes with it. ESkog | Talk 05:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's reasonable. The only reason I merged it was to avoid upsetting its original author. I don't know that it even really belongs on the UMass page. I think the place for it is really the UMass wiki. peachlette 08:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ballycombe

[edit]

unverifiable [4]. Article even admits it's unverifiable... any questions? --W.marsh 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Julien-K

[edit]

nnbio small unknown band most likely a publicity page Reid A. 01:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete and the closing administrator that there was a consensus to smite this article from the wiki :) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Alternative to Creation and Evolution

[edit]

NPOV & Non-encyclopaedic -Drdisque 01:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main problem with the article is not neutrality. It is the simple fact that the cited source is a book whose publisher is listed as the author himself. Checking, I find that the book was in fact published via a vanity press. Whilst it is present in the author's book, on the author's web site, in the author's web log, and on the web site of the vanity press company, there's no evidence that I can find, and (as usual) no evidence provided in the article, that this concept has gained any traction in the world at large outside of its author. Thus, the article is original research, plain and simple. Delete. Uncle G 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And lo, it came to pass unto Wikipedia that thyne words within tyhne own created article were not good; and lo, said unto Wikipedia editors that thyne article must hence be Deleted from whence it came; and Wikipedia saw this article deleted; and it was good. doktorb 21:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreted as delete by closing administrator JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 08:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fix and Move- This could be moved to Debate over Creation or some such article to allow the NPOV comments to remain useful and encyclopedic. I would suggest as well that all the book hype be deleted considering the plethora of books on Science and Creation or Science and the Bible, etc. that are out there.--eleuthero 04:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Image77 15:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)from the author of this article: I will amp up my entry with the logical argument I offer in my book and link to the sources, such as St. Augustine and Stephen Hawking, from which I derive my alternative to Creationism and the Big Bang. I will remove the link to my blog. Today, many authors have to self-publish in order to get their ideas out there. In my case, I also want to keep the rights to my work and not sell them. It isn't always valid to state that a self-published book has no merit on a priori basis, though of course I can understand the perception. If anyone here wishes, I will e-mail you a free PDF of my book for further review. I do work in science. I am not a Ph.D., but I do work in plasma physics. Let me have a few more days before destroying my article with asteroids, foreign objects, etc. My e-mail is secretsoflight@gmail.com[reply]

  • CommentIf you want to retain the rights to this work, it definitely doesn't belong on Wikipedia, since anything written here is licensed for free distribution and editing by outside parties. I mention this so that you don't end up with an unpleasant surprise in the future. -Colin Kimbrell 17:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Image77-- (from the author) Please delete my article.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:Zoe. Jamie 08:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Quinn

[edit]

Subsubsubsubstub about a pornstar's pseudonym; the pornstar does not herself have an article. YixilTesiphon Say hello 01:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep if someone wants to go to the trouble of at least making it a stub. The more well-known stage name is often the title of an article and not the real name - ie. Sting. 135,000 Google hits [7] (~71 thousand with the word "porn" [8]) seems reasonably noteworthy. Blackcats 02:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Porn stars are as notable as any other movie stars. I'd like to see the article expanded, of course. wikipediatrix 02:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, they are not as verifiable, for the simple reason that, because of the very nature of their work, information about them is usually kept secret, and published biographical information is usually made up. Can you find any reliable sources of information about this person? Uncle G 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted, as there is no reason to have an article which is nothing but a porn actress's real name. If the creator or some other editor wants to write an article which discusses her career, I have no problem with recreation, but this article as it was was an attack page. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Phishing. -Splashtalk 01:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spearphish

[edit]

Non-notable neologism. 2Ghits.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Matter Movement Org

[edit]

Non-notable organisation/website for global transcendence.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos descending

[edit]

An article about a band that has never released any recordings, as the article states. Obviously non-notable. Delete. Hapsiainen 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity. Blackcats 02:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected to Arnold Rimmer; no content untrivial enough to be worth merging, beyond a sentence on the effect of the Rimmer Experience. Johnleemk | Talk 16:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Rimmer Experience

[edit]

Seems non-notable. As a fan of the TV show in question, I've no reason to see that this particular sequence is worthy of a dedicated article. Delete or merge with a to-be-created article on Series 8 of the show. pomegranate 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Heroin Addicts

[edit]

I believe this article is a hoax. Jesus on a Bicycle" "The Heroin Addicts" -wikipedia garners the old google bagel. [9] If this was indeed so popular a track, it might be mentioned somewhere on the internet. Also, I cannot find an allmusic listing. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The merge target suggested is a deleted, protected page at present. -Splashtalk 01:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Murda Murda Records

[edit]

0 Google results. Appears to be a division of a record label with no relevant Google results that had a member of D12 who left in 2001. Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 02:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Asshole

[edit]

Delete. unnecessary dictionary definition of slang term, poorly written, much of the page is off-topic ("Asshat" is not a synonym for "Asshole"). wikipediatrix 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JJay's comment is not terribly helpful without an actual expansion on the part of the editor making the comment; particularly when the alternative is delete! -Splashtalk 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Appliance Technical Conference & Exhibition

[edit]

Delete. Non-notable; wikispam. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 02:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mask fetishism

[edit]

I came across this while scrubbing for unsourced images. While I'm sure there are mask fetishists out there, with sites on the internet to cater to their tastes and everything, I'm also sure there are fetishists who like to strap chicken livers on their chests, too. I did some googling for this and found 148 references to the phenomenon, many of which were wikipedia mirror sites. Fetishes almost by definition are unusual, but this particularly seem to me to be a sufficiently widespread fetish (compared to, say, Foot fetishism), and I am always aware of the likelihood of commercial trawling with this sort of thing. So I'm bringing it here. Nandesuka 03:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lucius Gunn

[edit]

I don't see her meeting WP:MUSIC so Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 03:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO RESULT. It's been deleted already, and is now a dab page....which has only one entry. A new nomination would be needed if a definitive result were sought. -Splashtalk 01:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

deleterious

[edit]

Apparently this is a recreation of a previously deleted dictionary definition. Durova 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Deleterious mutation" is the only encyclopedic context that deleterious is used in. I suspect most people looking for "deleterious" are actually looking for "deleterious mutations". If they are looking for a strict dictionary definition then, well, Wikipedia is not a dictionary! --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 23:31, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

deleterious

[edit]

This is another adjective with no obvious noun target for a redirect and with no scope for expansion into an encyclopaedia article. Wiktionary had had Wiktionary:deleterious for 1 month prior to this article's creation. Uncle G 11:29, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)

  • Delete, agree. -- Infrogmation 17:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, already in Wiktionary. Megan1967 22:58, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleterious. Radiant_* 09:48, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Unsigned anonymous votes were not counted for the purpose of resolving this AfD. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barmax

[edit]

Author admits it's a neologism just used on web-forums. I can't even find evidence of that [14]... --W.marsh 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it all the time. It might be a regional (midwest) thing. Keep it.

I have seen and heard it all the time. Also bar macks.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How to make a burrito

[edit]

It might have potential with the Burrito article but it doesn't really need its own page. Eeee 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was yeah, that's a delete all right. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chek-Point Studios

[edit]

Appears to be non-notable from my research. gren グレン 03:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cum fart

[edit]
  • Delete Gimme a break. I think it is a nonsensical argument that because this activity exists in pornography it should have an entry in an encylcopedia. Not every sexual fetish deserves an unique article (complete with drawing). C'mon people. Maybe this should be a brief description on a sexual fetish page or something. It cant be an article by itself. Consider that there are no articles on "squeezing zits". This is an activity that many teenagers and adults do too. Would anyone think that is a worthwhile encyclopedia entry?

Specifically though, cum fart is more dicdef than anything else. Moreover, it is a made up term used by the pornography industry to market particular types of porn. This term cannot be cross-referenced. It is more of an advertising gimmick than anything else. Dec 19, 2005

  • Actually, I am not sure that a cum fat is the same as a creampie. A creampie is when a man's semen is left inside a vagina (or anus), while a cum fart is the act of squirting it out. Therefore they are complimentary, but are not the same term, and hence a redirect is inappropriate. I will see if I can look it up. By the way, creampie is much more commonly used. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whats an AFD?(nevermind i got it Article for Deletion) and no i did not do all the vandalizing i noticed other people did some too all the time anyway Ive quit but you should know that u still havent fixed the pages completeley. Even I have standards - Vandal
  • Weak keep could be useful to some.  Grue  21:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep in some form. Maybe we can start a "list of common pornographic sex acts" and merge it there? or come up with a more encyclopedic title and redirect? Anyway, it is an extremely common pornographic sex act that deserves mention in wp. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air 20:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. It's amazing that this behavious exists, and I don't condone it, but since it exists, it may as well be documented.

  • comment-I can't believe I am getting into this but as I understand it, a cum fart can't happen without a creampie being there first. Therefor it should be mentioned under creampie and doesnt deserve its own article.-Reid A. 22:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this garbage I can't imagine how in God's name this disgusting article will help anybody, not counting perverts. Please delete this trash.

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslims Interactants with Muslims During Muhammad's Era

[edit]

There were presumably many thousands of non-Muslims who interacted with Muslims during Muhammad's lifetime. Of course, we don't know the names of most of them. If they are notable, they should be mentioned in one of the Wikipedia history articles. If they aren't notable, they don't need to be listed. This article should be deleted. Zora 03:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a misguided and mistitled attempt at something, but I am not sure what. (I am assuming the list is derived from figures mentioned in the Qu'ran?) Eusebeus 10:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep, with reservations. There is something in this list, as in Islamic history there were many notable incidents between Muslims and non-Muslims. It needs massive cleanup though. The title needs to be reworded and the articles on those people listed so far are extremely badly written stubs. Zunaid 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is simply not encyclopedic. Reyk 13:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup for now. Unlike some of the Library of Babel-like lists that one sometimes encounters here, this one actually has got a proper focus (non-Muslims mentioned in the hadith). Pilatus 15:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The list is relevant, there are lots of notable non-Muslim Interactions with Muslims during Muhammads era that is mentioned in the hadith literature. As far as "presumably many thousands", see List of schools. --Striver 15:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- but the article doesn't say that it's limited to non-Muslims mentioned in the hadith. The title, and the article, could refer to any interactions mentioned in any historical source. Nor is it clear how you're going to perform the gargantuan task of combing the many thousands of hadith in the six Sunni collections, and the various Shi'a collections, to pull out the names you want. As for limiting it to hadith -- what about sira? Ibn Ishaq, Tabari, Waqidi, and Ibn Sa'd all mention non-Muslims -- mostly Arab non-Muslims who were either inhabitants of Mecca before the Hegira, or those killed in the course of the ten years of warfare that occupied Muhammad's last ten years of life. Are you going to mention all those names? That's thousands. If the article is only going to mention the notable non-Muslims, then there's no need for the list, as anyone notable is going to be mentioned in the various articles on early Islamic history. Zora 09:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I said nothing about excluding non-hadith literature. If you find anything outside it, then please add that as well. If the list is geting to big, then it can be either split into sub-articles or trimed by notability. Standard wikipedia procedure, in other words. Im personaly not going to sift through hadith literature with the specific aim of finding names, rather, when i make a article or stumble on a notable name, i link it to that list. The list of schools. Also, even if we only had a few notable names, it still would merit a list, lists are useful for finding information, much more than doing timeconsuming searches that are bound to be less complete than a list. I cant belive i need to justifie the reason to creat lists or explain how wikipedia handles large ones...--Striver 13:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sp0rkeh 0wnz y0u

[edit]

Some Counterstrike prank, all that Google shows up is forum posts. Pilatus 04:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Circle your ducks

[edit]

At best a dicdef. But a google search on the phrase "circle your ducks" [18] returns no hits. Either a hoax or a very local usage. Rholton 04:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bear flag revolt (band)

[edit]

Band with 1 release, no label info, no evidence they meet WP:MUSIC. Not on AMG, etc. --W.marsh 04:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because they tend to add at least a shell or blurb after a band/artist is reviewed by critics in notable publications, has a label and releases on it, has major sales, etc. You know, that there's interest out there. --W.marsh 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how is it hurting the encyclopedia to make it more inclusive of smaller musical acts?


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halo.Bungie.Org

[edit]

nn fanforum, doesn't even have its own website. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Meltzer

[edit]

Publisher of some garage wrestling newsletter, WP:BIO inclusion is doubtful. Wrestling cruft. karmafist 04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meltzer's almost as legendary in the pro wrestling community as the wrestlers themselves. -- Grev 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable amongst the wrestling community and possibly meets WP:BIO as the author of a periodical, but I cannot find the circulation numbers for Wrestling Observer. Movementarian 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep has published books, such as Tributes and the recent Tributes II. Lots of media appearances. While I'm not sure what the readership numbers are for the Observer, it's definitely sizable: it's no xeroxed fanzine, and it's been going for more than 20 years. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. He is, quite simply, internationally known as the world's foremost authority on professional wrestling, a multibillion-dollar industry. You would be hard pressed to find a piece of serious journalism about professional wrestling that does not use Dave Meltzer as a source. This is not even to mention he meets several of the criteria on WP:BIO, including being a widely recognized opinion maker, publishing widely circulated books and periodicals, having 62,800 Google hits, and even having a large fan base or cult following. --Masterofzen 16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Certainly notable enough to warrant a page - Wezzo 20:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm curious, can you put everything in up there into WP:V? When reading that article, it was hard to discern everything all of you just said, that's the key there for that article -- notablity is recognized by someone who knows nothing about the subject. Also, some more questions.
  • Who publishes the magazine and the books? Is it a vanity press?
  • He's known as the foremost authority on wrestling according to who? What has made him into the foremost authority? What signifies this other than a few books and magazines?
  • How big is the cult following? Where can I find examples of it?
Ultimately, I think we're more into vetting mode than deletion mode now. When I saw that article, I couldn't help but think "Who is this guy?" You all know him, so please save me and others who don't know about him the trouble and let us know who he is and why that matters, while following WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. karmafist 20:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to out myself here as a wrestling fan, obviously -- everything I said above was off the top of my head, as I didn't think the same exacting standards applied to a discussion like this as would apply if I were actually editing the article. (I am not, by the way, particularly a fan of Meltzer, but everybody who's plugged into the wrestling world knows at least a fair amount about him.) Anyway, let me elaborate and see what I can dig up right now.
  • Meltzer's newsletter is self-published and exact circulation figures aren't available, but this message board [20] puts it at anywhere from 6,500 to 7,500 -- which falls well above the minimum-circulation guideline -- and says Meltzer makes more than $200,000 a year from it. Indeed, I've heard it's been his full-time job since 1988. Meanwhile, his latest book [21] was published by Sports Publishing, whose website [22] reveals it has also published autobiographies by Jerry Tarkanian, Dennis Rodman and Mike Ditka.
  • Meltzer is often referred to as something like "the world's foremost authority on professional wrestling," often by respected media sources. I base my estimation -- which, again, I would not put in the article itself, as nobody can really say who's the world's foremost anything -- on the simple fact that he is the individual most quoted by the media about wrestling. (This is largely because World Wrestling Entertainment, which has a virtual monopoly on big-time wrestling in the U.S., maintains tight media control.) A Google News search for "Dave Meltzer" sorted by date [23] reveals dozens of quotes from Meltzer in non-wrestling media in December 2005 alone. Something I thought was very telling was a Google Books search for Meltzer's name [24]. On the first results page alone, there are mentions of Meltzer in no fewer than four wrestler autobiographies published by WWE. Considering that WWE as a company has a very negative attitude toward journalists like Meltzer who are critical toward them, this is a very big accomplishment. WWE doesn't publish many autobiographies, either, so Meltzer -- who has never been employed by WWE or any other wrestling organization -- appearing in four of them is a somewhat staggering number.
  • A "cult following" is hard to nail down, but nearly every person on the Internet who reviews wrestling matches -- some of whom have, with some success, published their own books [25] -- consciously borrows from Meltzer, the man who essentially invented reviewing wrestling matches. You can't really find a wrestling message board in which Meltzer's name isn't lovingly bandied about, usually stated simply as "Meltzer" or even just "Dave." [26] I've personally heard people tell me about trading copies of Meltzer's newsletter with others, but I can't seem to verify that with any online sources. --Masterofzen 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, from that aforementioned Google Books search, here's a great quote about Meltzer's significance that would be a fine addition to the article. It's from the New York Times No. 1 bestselling autobiography of Mick Foley, the former WWF world champion:

I was at Brian Hildebrand’s in the early summer of ’88, when I saw him reading a strange publication called the Wrestling Observer. I had heard about these “dirtsheets” (inside newsletters) that “exposed” wrestling to its readers, but had never actually seen one. At the time, these sheets were probably read by fewer than a thousand people, but nonetheless carried a lot of weight in the business. Men as important as Bill Watts were known to change the company’s direction if the sheets didn’t like what was going on, while many others swore they’d kill the guy who wrote it if they ever found him. In 1990, the guy, Dave Meltzer, introduced himself to be in Greensboro, North Carolina, and I was shocked that he actually appeared in public. I thought he was like Salman Rushdie of The Satanic Verses fame.

“Hey, Brian,” I said, “could I take a look at that thing when you’re done?”

“Sure,” he replied, “you’re in it.”

“I am?” I asked in disbelief. “For what?” Before he could answer, I changed my mind. “Never mind, I’ll read it myself.” When Brian handed me the sheet, I took it to a place where I could concentrate, and it was there, on the bowl of the Hildebrand house in Pittsburgh while squeezing out a solid Snow, that I read the biggest compliment of my young career. “Cactus Jack, who many consider to be the best no-name independent in the country.”

I couldn’t believe it—as much as the Observer was maligned by people in the business, a wrestler getting a favorable write-up was like an actor getting a good review in the New York Times. Whether it was coincidence or not, I’ll never know, but interest in Cactus Jack picked up immediately. --Masterofzen 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely Strong Keep Dave has an influence on the way wrestling is portrayed to the average fan today. The rise of the internet and along with it the breakdown of kayfabe all helped tear down the wall of "hiding the fake." The knowledge of this type of lingo and news was often brought forth to the fans by Meltzer in the early days.

Here is some further info from sportsbyline.com which is a sports-talk radio network "heard on nearly 200 radio stations and by 2.2 million listeners per week" (http://www.sportsbyline.com/history.htm) on which Dave hosts a weekly wrestling show on Sunday's.

The show, which was the most listened to internet-generated talk show from late 1999 through 2001, moved to radio in March of 2002 and is the place where the most serious wrestling fans in the world talk about the unique sports entertainment form and its incredible popularity. Meltzer is considered the pioneer of pro wrestling journalism. A lifelong fan, Meltzer began writing about wrestling at the age of ten in various newsletters and fan club publications. While attending San Jose State University and reporting for the Oakland Tribune, Meltzer started the Wrestling Observer Newsletter in 1982. It was the first publication that covered pro wrestling that made no excuses about the industry being entertainment as opposed to sport, including coining the term "athletic entertainment" to describe pro wrestling, a term later changed to "sports entertainment" by Vince McMahon. The Observer remains the publication of record within the pro wrestling industry, read by nearly every serious fan and student of the game around the world.

Meltzer is joined every Sunday night by Alvarez, an independent pro wrestler who puts out the newsletter Figure Four Weekly, the most hilarious weekly look at pro wrestling around the world. In recent polls, the Observer and Figure Four were rated as the two most popular pro wrestling weekly publications in the world.Meltzer is considered the leading independent expert on pro wrestling, and has been featured in Sports Illustrated and on Entertainment Tonight. His book, "Tributes," was the best selling pro wrestling book in late 2001 and early 2002. He's been on every major network newscast as well as the Phil Donahue Show, numerous specials on pro wrestling from A&E, Court TV and the Discovery Channel, quoted in publications such as TV Guide, Rolling Stone, New York Times and Newsweek and appeared in the two leading documentaries on wrestling, Wrestling with Shadows and Beyond the Mat. Alvarez adds tremendous insight to the show as well as humor, making the two hours fly by every Sunday night. (http://www.sportsbyline.com/bios/meltzer.htm) Jazzy joe 15:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep I've seen Meltzer on Fox News and other television outlets, he has appeared on a series of wrestling DVD's as a commentator and has written two books on the subject of wrestling, which I have actually used as a reference for articles. --Darren Jowalsen 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 20:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Whoever is trying to consider this for deletion is either joking, bitter, or Hulk Hogan. -- MHeck 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five Star Keep What in the hell? Why on earth would you want to delete Meltzer's page? He's a fantastic man and he's confirmed it! Whatever he says is true. I think whoever deleting this is gay.- Bukkake Theme Park 00:04, 17 December 2005 (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 delete. – Robert 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario RPG Too

[edit]

This does not document an actual game, it is a product of the creator's imagination (unsigned comment from Penguincube)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in English labeled the worst ever

[edit]
List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever was previously nominated for deletion on 2005-11-15. The result of that discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs that have been considered among the worst ever.

Subjective listcruft.

  • Delete as subjective/unmaintainable listcruft. --Nintendude 04:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Amusingly informative in its own way, and about as "objective" as such things can be. AnonMoos 05:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. It's Too soon after last month's AfD keep. -- JJay 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Too soon to renominate Dlyons493 Talk 08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too soon to bring back here, yes, but it should still be deleted. Eusebeus 10:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. It's as sourced as such a list can be. Please, let's spend our time making sure unchecked vandalism doesn't slip onto USA Today instead of rehashing this. Durova 14:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep renomination too soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a too-quick renomination, and a Weak Keep on the merits. CarbonCopy 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the renomination is way too soon - David Gerard 17:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I liked "Barbie Girl" thank you. It's a completely POV list, recent renom or otherwise. -^demon 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There are no citations, only vague mentios of disapprovals from certain groups of people and magaznes. "Citation" means footnotes with page number, publishing company, etc. As it is, there's only a handful of songs on here, and the list could harldy be called non-POV, non-biased, or even a good starting point for a good list. --FuriousFreddy 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bet that half of Wikipedia articles are not documented according your criteria, so why pick on this one in particular? Furthermore, if a radio show compiles a list of worst songs, then in all probability there ain't gonna be no "page number" or "publishing company"! The article does contain a certain amount of subjectivity, and there's room for argument as to whether this could or should be substantially reduced, but in my opinion it forms a great "starting point for a good list". AnonMoos 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm personally wondering how "TOO SOON!" has any relevance whatsoever to the article's worth on Wikipedia. If it sucks, then time spent rotting on Wikipedia will not improve it any. If you honestly wish to keep it, then use reasoning that actually pertains to the article, not calling upon unofficial Wikipedia policy that's only used by keepists. No opinion. --Apostrophe 23:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. Rules are there for a reason. The idea is to prevent the continued and abusive renominating of the same articles. The present nom is abusive and an insult to the AfD process. It should be withdrawn at once. And I voted delete last time, check the debate, which you didn't bother to participate in. -- JJay 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A lot of relevant inof here, plus too soon after the last nomination. - Wezzo 20:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's a big difference between articles that push a POV and articles that talk about what is considered POV. This is the latter. I read the page and it was interesting to me, and it's not just original research - the songs on there have all been identified by large magazine surveys or articles as really bad songs. Certainly it should stay. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep About as well sourced as you're going to get here, and pretty accurate from my POV. Denni ☯ 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic topic, but citations should always be used. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article is encyclopedic and has plenty of potential, and meets none of the criteria for deletion. It is also true that common sense dictates that renominating an article repeatedly is counterproductive verging on abusing the system or pushing for a point. A fair length of time is required between nominations. For example, I'd love to nominate Category:LGBT criminals, Category:LGBT murderers, and Category:LGBT serial killers for deletion this minute, but because two of them somewhat recently survived VfDs, I'll wait until a safer amount of time has passed. And it's even worse in this situation, where the circumstances haven't in any way changed since the last nomination. Where's the justification for attempting to defy a clear consensus like this? Even if you honestly think an article shouldn't exist, you must work within the system to seek its deletion, not try to bend the system to your wishes and force things to go your way through sheer persistence. -Silence 16:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, but require more verification, such as at least two professional reviews and other reasons that a song qualifies to make the list here.--Fallout boy 07:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This list does not cite its sources and does not contain references. It is also a matter of opinion and therefore has little or no relevance to being an article on Wikipedia. In addition, the list only views approximately ten–fifteen songs, making it even less noteworthy. Delete it. Quickly. —Hollow Wilerding 03:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad Anti-semitum

[edit]

This is a neologism with no Google hits [27]. While the concept described by the phrase is believed by some to exist, it should be described in some appropriate article without this pseudo-Latin term. Delete per WP:NOR. --Metropolitan90 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge to Reductio ad Hitlerum. Or just delete this protologism. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If no one actually uses this, there's no reason for it to be here. The edit summary when it was created was "I know, I think it's funny too...especially because it's so true." It might be funny, but Wikipedia isn't the place to create new terms. It looks very much like the author saw Reductio ad Hitlerum, thought it would be funny, and created this one. The user only has two edits, one to create Reductio ad Anti-semitum, and one to link to it from Reductio ad Hitlerum. -- Dpark 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle, The Effeminate Heterosexual

[edit]

character from non-notable SNL skit. Unexpandable, doesn't really need more than possibly a mention at Dana Carvey GTBacchus 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jpl consulting

[edit]

Made by username "Jpl consulting" and thus invalid under WP:CORP YixilTesiphon Say hello 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was move to Longwan District. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

温州龙湾

[edit]

Bare stub, and NN. Found on WP:PNT, been there since Nov 19. Text from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The short text is in English, probably should be merged to Wenzhou. Physchim62 (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to List of painters. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous painters

[edit]

We already have Lists of painters. Everybody in this list is famous. Delete abakharev 04:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slap with a wet fish. You know lists and cats serve different functions right? - Mgm|(talk) 11:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Escape Velocity (band)

[edit]

NN, fails WP:MUSIC.

2 sites link to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Awww.mphase.tk&btnG=Search&meta=

3 sites link to http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.escapevelocity.com%2F

The counter on the band's site reads 5400 hits. Josh Parris#: 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzma scale

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place for original research.

See this LiveJournal entry, this comment "You should add your scale to Wikipedia, thus lending it a veneer of respectability" and subsequent replies.

--Matthias Bauer 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sodhe

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since Nov 25. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 04:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I have no strong view on whether the article is of encyclopedic importance, but it certainly should not be deleted on a language basis. The "Indian" words (all Sanskrit, I believe) look correctly transliterated, and none have English equivalents. If worth keeping, this may call for either links or for expansion by way of explanation, but those words should stay. The article is about a (quite long) line of succession among (presumably Hindu) monks. There are places where it needs commas between names of monks in the succession. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not easy reading and could use some wikifying. List possibly taken from [29] but don't think that constitutes copyvio. Dlyons493 Talk 08:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, tag for expert attention. Seems encyclopedic and factual. --Squiddy 11:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete for copyvio from http://www.udupipages.com/home/temple/sode.html and I am seeing a lot of copyvios from that site lately. But it is definetly a very notable temple belonging to the Dvaita community. BTW, there are 2/3 Indian english words. Rest are names of individuals.

--Pamri • Talk 14:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete (5d/2k). Mindmatrix 16:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Revolution music canada

[edit]

NN. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.revolutionmusic.net%2F shows 11 sites linking to the group in question. Josh Parris#: 05:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to lingerie. No content mergeable, but editors are free to dig up and prune all the POV from the original article to merge (if anything useable exists). Johnleemk | Talk 16:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silk lingerie

[edit]

Article is advertisement.TheRingess 05:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Uncle George's A to Z of Hotties

[edit]

nn site ---- Astrokey44|talk 05:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Economics Congress in Turkey (SEC)

[edit]

It appears this article exists solely to promote an event. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This is not just an event, but an organization that is going to convene international economics congresses every year, publish books, etc.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Precise Gunmen

[edit]

Non-notable and unencyclopaedic: a few short paragraphs describing an internet-based gaming clan/group.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete gaming clan. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hum. Such a precise gaming name deserves a strict Google search on ' "Allied Precise Gunmen" -site:en.wikipedia.org '. Result: 84 non uniq web site hits. add -teamwarfare because many sites like www.teamwarfare.net; www.teamwarfare.org; www.teamwarfare.com. Results: 12 hits. Seams not very notable. Gtabary 19:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there has been some recent vandalism I have been trying to keep the article as accurate as possible with non-POV material. For some reason, people are saying I'm vandalizing (might be a bot) by reverting the damage. The fact is Allied Precise Gunmen has been around for 5 years and in games such as America's Army is fairly well known. While by no means is it a famous gaming organization, it exists and for all interested bodies, should be researchable in Wikipedia. As long as all information is accurate (mind you the recent vandalism) and written in a non-biased perspective, I see no problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.248.150 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 December 2005
  • Delete - Gaming clans are unencyclopedic. FCYTravis 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless there is actually something unique and notable about them that is verifiable. Clans of a handful of young men are not notable unless they achieve great success. For example, Team 3D is a small, but highly successful professional gaming clan that has actually been written about in the mainstream press. We don't even see links to articles on gaming web pages about these guys. If some notability AND verifiability can be established, I would change my vote. Otherwise, come back after you win some big tournaments or expand into hundreds of members over 5 more years. (It's also better if someone other than a member writes the article, as that helps assert notability and is more likely to be NPOV.) --Habap 20:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - excellent explanation, Habap. FreplySpang (talk) 15:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golgothian Sylex (Magic: The Gathering)

[edit]

This article was originally deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golgothian Sylex. The only legitimate user who voted "keep" on that AfD has recreated the article. Precedent (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mahamoti djinn, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serra Angel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juzam Djinn, etc.) has established that individual Magic cards are not notable. Andrew Levine 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Coulod you imagine if Wikipedia had details on EVERY SINGLE CARD in EVERY SINGLE CARD GAME? NightOwl91 11:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Power Nine precedent. If the nine rarest cards in the game (including the infamous Black Lotus) only deserve a combined article, no article on a single Magic card should be kept. I will concede that the backstory relating to the card has been added to the article, making it 'superior' to the other listed examples (which only copied the text and stats from the card itself), but do not believe this makes it any more 'deserving' of an article. Saberwyn - 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Whether it's about the card or the thing pictured on the card, it's not a subject that needs an encyclopedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expansion hose - I used to play MTG when Antiquities was the newest expansion and even I don't remember this crappy card. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 15:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chotch

[edit]

Neologism, dictdef Ronabop 06:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 01:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Gh. Simion

[edit]

Possible vanity article of a non-notable person The user who created the article is Simion.m, so certainly is autobiographical - Akamad 07:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User Brookie. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"videowebgate"

[edit]

Appears to be a poorly written advertisement for software. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combrée

[edit]

Copyvio, and too old to speedy per CSD A8. Also listed on WP:PNT, discussion (to date) from there follows... Jamie 07:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entire article needs translation. Ronnotel 03:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
French. Is this a copyvio from [30]? Kusma (討論) 06:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Brookie. Capitalistroadster 08:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chicken language

[edit]

Nonsense...this is probably a speedy, but best sent to BJAODN--MONGO 07:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. -Splashtalk 01:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aj-2

[edit]

Seems spamish, but retagging from a speedy tag for vote--MONGO 08:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, NN. Jamie 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splashtalk 01:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo Sepe

[edit]

Article was speedy tagged, now bring it to a vote. Some additions have been made and may be of minor importance--MONGO 08:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not very many Google hits, but deffinately notable and verifiable. He was a part of the Lufthansa heist (which happened way back in 1978 - likely why so few Google hits). From the article: "About $5 million in cash and $850,000 in jewelry was stolen from the Lufthansa airlines cargo terminal, making it the largest cash robbery in U.S. history. Most of the stolen goods were never recovered. The planning and aftermath of the heist was depicted in the 1990 film Goodfellas." Sounds pretty notable to me! Also found this interesting link here. I'd say at the very least (if it's not kept) then redirect and merge into Lufthansa heist, but I'd think it'd make more sense just to keep the stub and let it expand. Blackcats 08:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If so, the article needs to be expanded. If that happens, keep. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an alternative, assuming the vote is for deletion, perhaps it might be worth merging all the members to the Lufthansa heist ? MadMax 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain. I originally added the speedy, but I am now convinced that a speedy is not appropriate. I agree with Ben Aveling that this article needs to be expanded, however I will not cast a vote that is conditional.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Althouse

[edit]

Not very notable. Originally speedy tagged, so here now we can vote on the issue.

  • Delete nn.--MONGO 08:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable blogger and law professor highly regarded for her views on Supreme Court issues - the New York Times recently for example. 1.6 million Google results for Ann Althouse see [31]

13 Google News references [32] including references in the Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor and CBS News. There are 25 results in Google Books [33] and 26 Google scholars. [34] Meets WP:WEB.Capitalistroadster 09:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sedu hairstyle

[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is just a page for spam from anonymous users (who also keep inserting external links to bump google hits). I wouldn't be surprised if this term was made up on Wikipedia. Scott Ritchie 08:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belaïd Abrika

[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion. Doesn't look very notable.

  • Delete nn.--MONGO 08:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Notable Berber leaderof Algerian Citizen's Union in complex internal politics of Algeria - see e.g. [36] Dlyons493 Talk 13:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've added some background information to the article. Note that any sites that list famous Kabyles tend to include him. Also, there are 100 Ghits for the highly specific search [37]
      • Especially since no one has explained why i should care about Kabyles, i was disinclined to factor in Ghits, thinking they might be the local equivalent of Ghats (rather than what they are) [smile].
  • Del for now. It was i who tagged it as speedy (& maybe i need to raise my threshhold under A7). If you can't extract 5 words that are more convincing than the article & what you've said from your BBC report, i'm not going to consider going & reading it. There's been no indication of notability other than being arrested, and unless i am mistaken about the chaotic and enormously repressive internal politics of Algeria (where it's claimed rightly or wrongly that the country was saved from One man, one vote, one time) that would make enough Algerians notable as to overwhelm WP. I won't consider him notable if they kill him, if that and "notable IMO" is all that can be said abt him.
    --Jerzy•t 19:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, obviously. No assertion of notability? He's the leader of a significant protest movement. Pburka 01:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 20:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Dylan/Draft

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy delete, and article states that it was to have a playground for opposing points of view and to reach a concenus. The last substantive edit was 2 months ago, so perhaps the issues have been resolved and the edit war is over. This article is almost a carbon copy of Bob Dylan--MONGO 08:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Rallidae. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kicker bird

[edit]

Appears to be Original research, not obviously supported by a quick google search. Ben Aveling 08:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Ntimbanjayo

[edit]

Unnotable, fails google test. Haakon 08:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 03:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anbeysivam

[edit]
  • Don't delete it.

May be it seems like advertising. But it's not a commercial advertising. It's a PSA.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.247.252.205 (talk • contribs)

  • What a wonderful decision. The page must have to delete. I think it's not a good place to showcase such global thoughts. There are some people commented it's a first-person marketing drivel, I am sure these people never find a difference between marketing & PSA.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 61.247.252.205 (talk • contribs)

Delete first-person marketing drivel Drdisque 08:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We think Last Malthusian, lost the Consciousness — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.252.205 (talk • contribs)

We think Movementarian thoughts, moves towards wrong side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.247.252.205 (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lewiis

[edit]

Nominated for speedy. Seems of minor importance though.

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Junker (band)

[edit]

Appears to fail critia of WP:MUSIC and is primarily original research--MONGO 09:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fan Cheung Fung

[edit]

An obsoleted bio article from the Hong Kong Secondary Students Union, which is now voted for deletion as well. minghong 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Houchens

[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy, appears to be not notable so, Delete--MONGO 09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The person is notable. On the ChangeThis website that is referenced in the article, his published manifesto is the 10th most popular in amongst names like Jay Conrad Levinson, Seth Godin, and Malcolm Gladwell. He gives marketing keynotes to companies and groups all over the country. I agree the bio portion is weak, but that just needs to be edited. Keep--17:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete "site:changethis.com Chris Houchens" gives one result. Is ChangeThis (alexa 46,000) considered major media? A blog, a marketing consulting practice, a few nn speaking engagements (that of course come with any marketing consulting practice). No media coverage, not in Amazon, not in Google scholar, not in Google Books, not in Google News. Just a guy. WP:BIO he meets not. -- Perfecto 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of course there's just one result on ChangeThis. He's only got one manifesto. it's veru popular and virally speading across the net. He's top result on Technorati for advertising, branding, et al.139.55.93.119 03:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • One result means no one even mentions him in ChangeThis (unless Google doesn't spider the whole site). Top result? I'm calling your bluff. Can you provide me a link of a Technorati search result where he is "top" (apart from searching Shotgun marketing, his manifesto, or his name, of course)? I'm not even going to say top 10 or top 20. -- Perfecto 00:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you fully understand how the ChangeThis website works. He's currently the 11th most popular manifesto on that site. Poularity is determined by number of downloads and trackbacks on blogs. There are no "mentions" ON the site. Go to the page he's on (http://www.changethis.com/14.DoesAnyoneKnow) and you'll see those numbers. Or you can sort by popularity on the ChangeThis search function. As to Technorati---He's in the top 100 for-
--Advertising http://www.technorati.com/blogs/Advertising
--Branding http://www.technorati.com/blogs/Branding
--Kentucky http://www.technorati.com/blogs/kentucky
--PR http://www.technorati.com/blogs/Public+Relations
--and several of his other Technorati tags http://www.technorati.com/profile/chrishouchens
    • Top 100 Blog, woo hoo! Go add this to the article: "Chris Houchens is notable for being #98 under 'Advertising' in Technorati [39]." The ChangeThis site shows no count of the downloads, i.e., are they unique downloads??, and then, again, is ChangeThis major media? "site:wikipedia.org changethis" has zero results. -- Perfecto 17:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Lopez

[edit]

nn, possible vanity page--MONGO 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The spiky little discussion finishes up sounding like a delete. -Splashtalk 02:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Office123

[edit]

Not notable Sleepyhead 09:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why keep? Merge with which article? Please be specific. --Sleepyhead 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why Not Notable? Please be specific. -- JJay 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't really show any significant results. The company is, like me, from Norway - and I have never heard of this company. --Sleepyhead 08:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll remove my vote. If you had stated things clearer in your nom, I would not have voted keep. -- JJay 08:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:MONGO as "nonsense" (CSD G1). Jamie 10:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marty Schousboe

[edit]

Vanity, stupidity Lancer Sykera 09:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy as attack page, CSD A6.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 User:NSLE. Jamie 10:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelManaloLazo

[edit]

Vanity, belongs on user page Lancer Sykera 09:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Tom Campbell

[edit]

Vanity Lancer Sykera 10:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Cura' and Francesco Curá

[edit]

Vanity Lancer Sykera 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:FCYTravis. Jamie 10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is connected

[edit]

nonsense Lancer Sykera 10:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Seabhcan. Jamie 13:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cpc

[edit]

Dictionary-esque Lancer Sykera 10:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Presumably a copyvio from the now-defunct website. The debate below says all that needs to be said. -Splashtalk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Infotoxin

[edit]

This is either a summary or a direct copy of an article from 1995. It dosen't really have any reason to be in Wikipedia. In my opinion. You may feel differently... Furius 10:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Bird of Youth (band)

[edit]

Ok, this was originally at Sweet Bird of Youth; an anonymous user overwrote the article about the Tennessee Williams play with a music band stub. I had reverted that page, copying the "band page" info to here. Now, in retrospect, I have come to believe that this band is NN, and fails WP:MUSIC, as well as possibly being the object of a crystal ball, so I call for deletion. -- Taiichi «talk» 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POLYGON (lobby group)

[edit]

This sounds like a very sensible idea for the New Universities, however, I can't find any evidence anywhere that this group actually exists outside of the "drunken joke" mentioned in the article. Chris talk back 11:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirucharanathumalai

[edit]

Non-notable Jamie 11:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Debut (Album)

[edit]

Music vanity. Stifle 11:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this AfD was blanked for several days. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing logos of Lorimar Productions

[edit]

This seems strikingly similar to the unencyclopedic logocruft created by Logoboy95. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Door to door storage

[edit]

Non-notable company, unreferenced. Stifle 12:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maayan

[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable magazine. No citations provided to show that it merits inclusion. Stifle 12:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A7, non-notable biography. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cantor Joel Fox

[edit]

Purely a vanity article. Not a notable person. This is obvious self-promotion (by an anonymous contributor), and Wikipedia is not a soap box for free advertising or propaganda IZAK 12:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 02:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mandodi Kannan

[edit]

Mostly is a hoax. On search all entries are from wiki and its mirror sites.--Raghu 11:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent Design or Evolution?

[edit]

The article is an abstract on a book presenting arguments in favour of Intelligent Design. I fail to see any evidence that the book eve made any impact; the Amazon sales rank is somewhere around 200000. Wikipedia isn't an abstracting service. Pilatus 13:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A fork!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 09:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Student LifeNet

[edit]

This is a group of anti-abortion activists. There is no assertion in the article that it ever made any impact. Pilatus 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)s[reply]

  • Keep: They are notable having addressed parliament, and having been quoted/featured in these sites. Chooserr
  • comment - If you follow that link, you'll see that it's the page where they maintain links to media coverage of the group. It's a whole slew of links to media outlets (Daily Telegraph, Liverpool Daily Post, Medical News Today, etc), not just an item on their own site. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This has sort of become tangential, so if there are no objections, I'll move this to the AFD talk page--Aolanonawanabe 02:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree. Whether or not the group is featured notably in the media is extremely relevant to AfD. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mystical Elf

[edit]

Delete. Cardcruft. Stub article on an individual card from a game with hundreds, maybe thousands of these. Doesn't impress me as paticularly notable. AKMask 13:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of clichés in visual art

[edit]

the list is based on NNPOV assumptions about what constitutes a cliche, and thus can never be made NPOV. wikipediatrix 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, It's not strange but very interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.70.1.19 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as A7 non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracey Cox

[edit]

Although well written, vanity nonetheless Lancer Sykera 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged inconsistencies in the Bible

[edit]

There are inconsistencies in the Bibles. So what? Only a fundamentalist of some kind would deny this, or try to explain it away, and only somebody polemicizing against fundies would need to stress the issue. For the rest of us a well-referenced, critical treatment of the Bible is no different from a well-referenced, critical treatment of Homer, Icelandic sagas or any other old literary works containing a mixture of mythology, legend and some actual historical events. u p p l a n d 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with Alleged inconsistencies in the Bible. I agree that the Bible should not be given a special place above other works, but we do have pages such as alleged inconsistencies in Star Wars and Smallville's inconsistencies with the comic books. - SimonP 15:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Don't merge because people reading the other entry may not be interested in the inconsistencies if considering the bible as a monolithic whole. Don't delete, because knowledge of inconsistencies is of assistance to the scholar when analysing the bible as a collection of separate works. 21 Dec 2005 (EST)


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

Central Philippine languages

[edit]

Minimal text, listing information contained in the main Philippine Islands article. A substantial article on Philippine languages is Languages of the Philippines, which includes, not surprisingly, Central Philippine languages. Her Pegship 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secular equilibrium

[edit]

dic def Bachrach44 15:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous sisters

[edit]

Does wikipedia really need another useless list? Bachrach44 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. PJM 16:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
so far the persons are all biologically sisters Doc 23:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
not wishing to clutter this page I've added further ideas to: Talk:List of famous sisters Doc 14:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New London (fictional)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Details of Grand Theft Auto IV have yet to be announced, and no secured source on the city is found using Google. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) ╫[reply]


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

The result of the debate was a general agreement to Redirect to Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic), with no consensus on what to do with the old content, which can be found here. Be WP:BOLD and merge it if you see fit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:50, Dec. 21, 2005

Chef Brian

[edit]

Honestly, as much as I love CAD, I have to say this article should be deleted. Chef Brian is non-notable, garnering only 949 hits on google Kross | Talk 15:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UGS-The Unofficial Gunbound Site

[edit]

Feels like somebody is using Wikipedia to promote a personal website Uucp 15:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IShok Case

[edit]

Sub-stub on a particular iPod case. There are hundreds of different iPod cases available. I doubt any of them are notable. Delete. AlistairMcMillan 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoffel

[edit]

Hoax. No such word (when spelt with a K it is, of course, the German word for potato); I can't find record of any such usage within or outside the debating world Humansdorpie 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete. It is actually a term quite often used in popular debates such as the EUROS (european debating competition) and ESU debates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.254.128 (talk • contribs)

But spelt kartoffel, I think you'll find. Can you cite sources? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wesafari

[edit]

Band fails to meet notability standards on WP:MUSIC. No Allmusic.com entry. Klaw ¡digame! 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was kept; nomination withdrawn. Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Wardell

[edit]

This is a marginal bio. No books. Not a public speaker. (podcaster) Software developer. If we keep him, he should be added to Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles. Fplay 22:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I wrote a significant portion of this article once it was created, I don't really feel justified in voting on it, but I'd note that both Google and Google Groups give quite a few hits (there are even a few on Google News).
Regarding significance, he's probably the person most singly responsible for the development of skinning into a profitable market (where both developers and skin artists can make significant amounts of money). I think it this is "likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field" - he was instrumental in creating it.
Like most CEOs - well, most CEOs worth their pay - he doesn't appear to have had time to do his job, manage a family and write a book. And as for public speaking . . . well, the audience for the things he talks about is online, so online is where he speaks. GreenReaper 03:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN. -- Fplay 18:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus, withdrawn. Rx StrangeLove 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Richmond

[edit]

An active Wikipedian who wrote a Wikipedia article about himself. Somewhat accomplished theatre sound man. He is a Fellow of the United States Institute for Theatre Technology. No books, but a patent in theatre technology. Just want to ensure tha he is "notable". If so, he goes onto Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles Fplay 23:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN. -- Fplay 18:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chey Chettha II

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Ciborra

[edit]

This is a tough one. Lousy obit on dead professor. Fplay 00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consumerpedia

[edit]

The page says that the stuff no longer works. Do we keep the page? Fplay 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the owner of Consumerpida, Dan Keshet, says it it dead. I will go for a speedy... Fplay 04:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I am flabbergasted that there was ever an article on this. This was a project I thought was a decent idea for a couple weeks, then gave up on. I don't remember having more than three users! One of them was myself, and one of them was the initial author of this article (hi Juxo! Please don't take this personally!). This is no more interesting than the proverbial article on my breakfast. I cannot stress strongly enough how silly I think it is to have an article on this. DanKeshet 19:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another note: the article, as it is, is a POV mess. "problematic"? I don't want to edit it (as it involved myself), but there is literally virtually nobody else in the world who can. Unverifiable to the extreme. And trivial. DanKeshet 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. This debate was weird... :-{ Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Crossed Realmz 4

[edit]

I am making this page go through an AfD because it refers to User:VoodooKobra's software. Fplay 02:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is BULLSHIT. Excuse my language, but seriously... there's no reason for it to be considered for deletion. You have to have more of a reason than THAT Kobra 05:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Kobra, can you offer evidence of notability? Delete vote withheld for now but I found no evidence (may have searched poorly). ++Lar 16:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • changed suggestion to Delete based on material below, site is non notable. Further, article author seems to be trying to set up a web of articles referencing each other, many related articles seem to have come up for AfD today. ++Lar 12:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article asserts that the game is still in development, the screenshots are all missing, and the game is being developed using an illegal software package. This points me in the general direction of WP:NOT a crystal ball. --Stephen Deken 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Stephen_Deken. The "Game description" and "Project summary" are unavailable, as well. Even it they were available, I find kobrasrealm.com to not be a credidle reference for claims made by Kobra. -- Dalbury(Talk) 18:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • One can apply the WP:CORP criteria for products and services to softwares. Searching, I find some stuff written and published about this "still in development" game (mainly posts on discussion fora). But it is all written by the author of the game xyrself. No-one else has published anything about it at all. There are no independent FAQs, manuals, guides, in depth reviews, news articles, or books. The criteria are thus not satisfied by a huge margin. (Contrast this with EverQuest, which even has news reports written about it.) Indeed, as pointed out above, there is scant evidence that this purported game even exists in the first place. Delete. Uncle G 18:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. The fact the game is "still in development" with no release date mentioned in the article suggests crystal ball also should be considered. 23skidoo 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, at the current stage at least. Whatever happens to this article, its companion (Crossed_Realmz_Echo_Realm) needs to be either wikified or also deleted.AustinZ 21:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the screenshots are unavailable is that the site they're hosted on got deleted awhile ago and I have not had a chance to recover them yet. The same thing applies for why Kobra's Realm doesn't have any verifiable references. The simple fact is that I haven't had time to get my site back and there's no reason you guys should hastily DELETE something of mine when I haven't been given a chance to work the problems out. Kobra 20:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You've provided the reason yourself: the thing doesn't exist. --Calton | Talk 00:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean it doesn't exist? I didn't say that. I said the stuff the article LINKED TO doesn't exist right now. Can you guys be fair for once?! Kobra 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I'm sorry you feel this is unfair, Kobra, but the facts are that there is no verifiable information in the article, the game is unfinished and unreleased, and there has been no third-party discussion about the impending release of the game. This is just plain and simple not a topic that belongs in an encyclopedia. --Stephen Deken 18:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when you put it that way... I can see your guys's side of the argument. Tell you what: when I finish it, I'll re-post this article if it's fine by you... you can delete it until then.Kobra 23:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: OK, OK. I am being a political worm: I do not want User:VoodooKobra to be sore at me forever because I originated this AfD. Also I want the vote to be unanimous because maybe his feellings might be hurt. (You know, "YOU KILLED MY BABY", blah blah blah). -- Fplay 01:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about it... I already said you guys can delete it for now, but know that when I get my shit together I will make it again. Kobra 06:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you userify the whole lot of it, that is, move the content to your user page or pages... then if something DOES come of it all and you're rich and famous, have one of your minions move it back for you instead of having to recreate it. That's assuming that you don't add a lot of stuff because... WP:NOT a hosting provider, so it's not a blank check to create as much stuff as you want. For THAT your own site is better suited. Hope that helps (not changing my delete feelings, just sayin..) ++Lar 12:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I said delete it. End of discussion. Kobra 06:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was userfy. This was done before this AfD was closed - no further action is required. Mindmatrix 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Czech Resources

[edit]

Maybe this belongs in Wikipeida: somewhere... or back in the User: space...Fplay 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESOLVED: User:Caroig copied to his area. In retrospect, I should have communicated with him first. -- Fplay 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Forum

[edit]

This was founded by Kevin Byrne . Notable? Fplay 05:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ecnalubma

[edit]

Ecnalubma is what is painted in ambulance so that you can read the work in a rear-view mirror. This is the source of several jokes and a TV commerical. Notable? Does it belong elsewhere? Wikipedia is not a joke book. Fplay 06:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Example Scrabble tournament game

[edit]

The software was written, in part, by John Chew . It is notable? Fplay 07:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom Wank

[edit]

DELETE IT. It is a bunch of stupid people making fun of other stupid people. It is STUPID!

What the hell? Don't delete this entry. Fandom_Wank is great. However, it is addicting. Hmmm.. Don't delete it anyway. -Lurker

It is big online community, but it is also quite rude and, in my opinion, dull. Notable? Fplay 07:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Find a Business opportunity online.

[edit]

Reads like an email spam for "get rich by working at home on the Internet". Fplay 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet/Ways to view a freesite

[edit]

This configuration file was written by VolodyA! V Anarhist . I thought that Wikipeida was not a place for tutorials. Maybe Wikisource or something? Fplay 09:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonism Resorts

[edit]

This is at the border to advertising, imo. While it is not advertising per se, an aricle detailing that there are two (holiday) resorts for nudists & other open-minded poeple does ont belong in wikipedia, esp. if both resorts are operated by the same company.

I therefore propose that this entry be removed

Eptalon


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter/Gwin

[edit]

This is a vanity page Author previously vandalized Phillips Academy page See also Mastermind Media


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Martin (writer)

[edit]

Vanity page started by and edited exclusively by article subject James Martin (writer) by User:Jcmartin. Claims about self "Thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John and his brother Bobby. Nothing was ever proven." Jokestress 22:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Xbox games that will not work on Xbox 360

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Manske

[edit]

We all love Magnus, but does he get a page?

For perspective, how many of the "maintainers" at Comparison of wiki software deserve a page? As usual, I note Wikipedia:Wikipedians_with_articles

Fplay 01:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. Rx StrangeLove 03:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding as a Ministry

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tour d'Afrique

[edit]

Vanity Page. Page advertises a very expensive holiday. At this point there is a very short track record and an entry here would be seen to be promotional in the furtherance of extending the short life span of this trip. As a general rule a cycling event should have a minimum track record of at least 10 years before being considered for an encyclopedic reference. For example Boston-Montreal-Boston has been running since 1988. This is a randonnuer challenge event which is similar to Paris Brest Paris - PBP. PBP is included in Wikepedia however BMB is not and that latter event now has a high profile within the cycling world because it is run annually while PBP is quadrennial. ATA Girl 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both Google and Guiness Book of Records are dubious references for an encyclopedia that takes itself seriously. That hit count referred to on google searches for all phrases Tour d'Afrique, including tour d'Afrique de George Bush. A significant portion of the references on google are to the use of that phrase in a context that has nothing to do with this trip. As for the Guiness publication, let's not lose sight of the fact that this book was originally designed as a promotion to sell beer. What measures do you have to gage its popularity in Southern Africa? As far as I can tell this trip is largely a vanity exercise by well-to-do people from first world countries and not from Southern Africa. ATA Girl 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can point you to reports on the race by the Times of Zambia and Mail & Guardian (South Africa); the M & G report says that 8 of the 60 cyclists are South African. (Anecdotally, I've seen at least one S. African TV report on it on SABC or E-TV in the last 2 years). You seem to have created your account yesterday for the purpose of listing this article for deletion, so you may not be aware that Google is often used as a broad measure of the notability of a Wikipedia article's subject. I have no view on the stature or otherwise of the Guinness Book of Records as a reference tool, simply passing on a claim on the Tour d'Afrique's web site. Humansdorpie 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let's not lose sight of the facts that the Guinness Book of Records has been a standard reference work for decades, that google is the most frequently cited reason for keeping articles, and that ATA Girl's 10 year rule has absolutely no grounding in policy. Bhoeble 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - 35,000 non-Wikipedia Google hits [47] is pretty notable - especially for something in Africa, where far fewer people have internet access. Blackcats 18:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Apparent bad faith nomination. There's no advertising on the page and few people would describe a grueling bicycle race as a holiday. I've added the press link that downloaded when I checked. Durova 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes this is my first proposal for deletion. I have made contributions before but a profile was never required as is the case when proposing a deletion. And I take this quite seriously. The rebuttal doesn't deal with the issue raised about google, nor does it deal with the vanity issue. The M and G article is quoting the company's press release when it says 8 of the 51 (not 60 as is misquoted) participants are from South Africa. The reference to 60 is the maximum they can take so obviously the intent of the article is to sell spaces. The M and G itself describes it as pretty much what it is, a sight seeing trip. . ATA Girl 19:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am aware of no definition of "sightseeing" that includes 150km a day by bicycle from Cairo to Cape Town. The entrant limit probably represents the resources of the organizers to provide water and possible emergency care across the length of the Sahara desert. The event also provides bicycles as transportation to health care workers and promotes ecologically conscious transportation methods. Whether one views this as a distance race or a charitable tour, analogous events in my own country are noteworthy - and cover only a fraction of this distance. Just to make sure I checked several South African sightseeing tours. [48] [49] [50] Whatever you've been smoking, you should sell it in Amsterdam. Durova 08:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There are lots of sightseeing trips around the world of that daily distance. That is not a particularly grueling distance nor are the conditions when you compare it to riding in other regions. The living conditions are likely quite gruelling but that is not about a bike race. The fact of the total distance is interesting (for the few who complete it), the location is interesting.
The article quoted above in the M and G says "Cyclists will witness amazing sites on their journey and travel past game reserves and ancient temples, across the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro, and along the ancient landscape of Ethiopia’s Simian mountains and the edge of the Botswana’s Kalahari.". This is a travel promo. There is no emphasis on the competitive element in that article. The article explains the range of participation methods, racers, non racers, part way participants. In reviewing the company's web page (which now links to another vacation)it's clear that only a few participate are racers and even fewer complete the whole distance. It is described as a charitable tour and and promotion of ecological transportation (by you and others). The only qualification for participating is that you be over 18 and pay the freight. There appears to be no standards, disqualification rules etc. And it's not cheap. The racing component is minor. The fact that it is included under cycling race is not in my view appropriate. Frankly I don't know where it would belong which is why I proposed it for deletion rather than suggesting a move. If there is no home for it then it seems to me to be a vanity article.


I don't appreciate your throw away remark at the end of your comment. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility moving forward there must be proper debate. Policies such as the 10 year policy I suggested are worth investigating. Otherwise Wikipedia will become captive of the marketing and promo professionals. It's time people polished up their b.s. meters.ATA Girl 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unstriking speedy and bad faith per nominator statements. Durova 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely bad faith that you do not respond to the arguments and instead attack the person making the argument. This is not a good sign for the future of WikipediaATA Girl 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed responded to arguments, researched your assertions, and posted the results of my findings. You disregard customary Wikipedia standards for notability and substitute your own opinion as if the community should adopt it uncritically. When other users locate additional evidence of notability you dismiss all such information on fatuous grounds. Your assertions are farfetched and unsubstantiated, such as the claim that "There are lots of sightseeing trips around the world of that daily distance. [150km/day]" If you want to become a respected part of this community I suggest you change your approach. Durova 05:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Luigi30 (vanity). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SECOR International

[edit]

vanity, spam

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orangeglue

[edit]

Relevance not stated. Just an advertisement as it stands. QEDquid 16:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. This debate is a great example of why AfD isn't a vote, by the way. Johnleemk | Talk 09:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SASE Sports Sigs.com forums

[edit]

Violation of proposed WP:CORP/non-notable company that probably doesn't need to be listed with Wiki. Vortex 16:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jorvis

[edit]

Neologism, nearly nonsense. FreplySpang (talk) 16:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada dry (slang)

[edit]

if this is a neologism it is a very minor one, and WP:ISNOT a slang dictionary either. I don't suppose Wiktionary want it, and I don't think we do either. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farmhand

[edit]

Seems to be an article telling people not to write an article. I don't see the point of it. Gurch 16:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cajun Nights MUSH

[edit]

Well, it exists, but evidence of notability is a bit hard to come by> Associated forum has only around 120 members, this article is the top of the 300 or so Google hits. I say it's cruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Borderline Keep I think the article should be kept. Well written, not a promotion. --Computerjoe 17:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ten years is unusually durable for this genre. Durova 19:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is its TMC details [51]. Average players on at a time is 25-49. We established through AFD discussions on talkers that you need about 100 players on at a time to be suitably notable for Wikipedia, unless there is another good reason for its inclusion. Note that it is ranked around number 225 in the world for MUDs, yet we only have 46 articles on MUDs here (actually probably around 30 actual MUDs) and until recently we didn't even have the number 1 most popular MUD in the world, Aardwolf MUD listed on there (average 600 players online at a time). 600 vs 25? Hrm. Best they get another claim to notoriety here. Note that we also voted to merge Crystal Palace (chat site) which was a talker that averages 15-51 users online, because it wasn't popular enough, in spite of it being amongst the most popular talkers about right now. MUSHes are similarly popular to talkers, and hence are comparable. 25-49 users on at once equates to a probable user base of around 2,000. Wikipedia requires 5,000 for forums. Just not enough users. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 10:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of SWIFT codes

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a data dump. This is original data, and of no interest to anyone except people who are going to transfer some money. Those will get an up-to-date SWIFT code from their bank. Pilatus 17:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The list is neither complete nor authoritative. The December update to the printed SWIFT directory runs to sixteen pages, and that's just the changes. The full database is not available for public download from the authoritative source (the SWIFT BIC Database) -- this database with its lookup facility is already linked from the article on ISO 9362, the formal name for the standard. This vote is not on a full, authoritative list of codes, it's on a partial and manually-updated list which anybody needing a SWIFT code is unlikely to use as they can look up the code for their bank free of charge from an authoritative source linked in the main article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or at best userify - unencyclopedic list and there are better ways of determining the info if you actually have a need to know (not trying to argue from authority but I have some SWIFT experience). ++Lar 23:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. SWIFT codes are useful, and most (US and Canadian) bank branches don't have a clue how to look them up. On the other hand, this list is woefully incomplete. Jamie 03:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment IMHO, Bank branches don't have a NEED to look them up, their SWIFT department should be doing it for them when there is a need to transfer funds (and people in that department already know the codes for their correspondent banks). it is my view that this list can never be 100% complete and accurate, and there are better sources for this information. The main SWIFT article should reference them and this list should be (at best) userified, again, IMHO. ++Lar 16:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that something is useful does not mean it should be included in Wikipedia. Phone books, dictionaries, and thesauruses are all extremely useful, and all outside th realm of Wikipedia. The SWIFT list is fully available online, anyway, and it's linked to from ISO_9362 (and therefore SWIFT code). -- Dpark 14:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why expand? It is trivially easy to find a code from the linked source, which is (unlike Wikipedia) authoritative. If you were going to look up your bank's SWIFT code would you go to Wikipedia, to your bank's websiote, or to the SWIFT BIC database? Which is the odd one out here? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks pretty useful to me! Nfitz 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless you can be certain that the information will be transferred to the appropriate article for each bank. —Phil | Talk 07:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At least as useful as IATA airport codes, these are encyclopedic in my opinion. -- Marcika 01:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yet another one of those cases where we have argument by assertion that information is unencyclopaedic. Just not good enough, I'm afraid. If proponents of deletion can give a convincing argument that this information a) has no potential to be useful or b) belongs at one of the other Wiki sites, then we might have a good basis for a deletion discussion, but as it stands ... yawn, next! The potential for illegal use of this information is, pretty obviously, a big stinky red herring ... SP-KP 19:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This list is functionally equivalent to a telephone directory. The existence and use of SWIFT codes is encyclopaedic, a mirror of a subset of the list (the full list runs to 16 pages of small print) on an arbitrary and unstated date is not. Nobody is going to rely on a non-authoritative source for a code lookup, and finding a specific code is trivially easy with reference to the linked source. What encyclopaedic purpose does this list fulfil? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, not convinced, sorry. To my mind this meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria; don't forget that our definition of encyclopaedic here includes almanac-style material such as this. As regards the potential for this list to get out of date, most lists of information have the potential to change over time; I don't understand what marks this list out as special. Your objection re: unstated date can be dealt with by the citing of the source as per Wikipedia policy; I find the argument that the arbitrariness of the date of sourcing invalidates this information curious; most information in Wikipedia first appeared on an arbitrary date, to some extent, and if it goes out of date, we update it. I still 'vote' to Keep. SP-KP 18:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If individual SWIFT codes (or a collection of them) are encyclopedic, then would a collection of DUNS numbers be encyclopedic? I don't think so. How about ABN tax ID numbers? Again, most would agree not. What about ABA numbers? Again, most would agree not. This despite the fact that knowing them is key to getting a lot done! Why aren't telephone numbers listed here? See the pattern? These are all numbers by which data or information can be obtained or transmitted, numbers that are subject to change, numbers that by their nature cannot be accurately maintained here, and numbers for which authoritative sources exist elsewhere. I suggest you may want to review WP:ISNOT more closely to see why this info is not encyclopedic before you claim that others are just asserting it isn't encyclopedic, there is, IMHO, sound reasoning behind their assertions. ++Lar 05:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing two issues - whether the information itself is encyclopaedic, and whether presenting it in list form is the best way to include it in Wikipedia. DUNS numbers sound like pretty encyclopaedic things to me, but a page of 2.7 milion of them just wouldn't be practical. The telephone number comparison is just muddying the waters; most telephone numbers belong to non-notable private individuals, so why would we want to list them here? There is most definitely argument by assertion going on in the top part of this page. There is also some more detailed reasoning, true; however, we should be able to audit our deletions back to policy, and just giving reasons which are, or appear to be, plucked from thin air, is just as bad, IMO. SP-KP 10:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confusion in my mind at all. The existence and usage of SWIFT numbers in unquestionably encyclopaedic, a list of them is not. The difference is the same as that between Yellow Pages and the contents of the Yellow Pages. Bear in mind, too, that the December 3 update (changes and additions only) runs to 16 pages, and the full list is available only by subscription (read: original research). What we have here is a small and random sample of SWIFT numbers allegedly correct as of an unstated date. Verification requires visiting each bank separately or querying the BIC database separately for each entry. We are not a mirror for the SWIFT BIC database, the database is linked from the article on SWIFT codes, and this list is functionally indistinguishable from a telephone directory. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yellow Pages is a good analogy, thanks for bringing it up. I think that not only is the existence of the Yellow Pages encyclopaedic, so is much of its content. How we include that content in Wikipedia is the issue i.e. presentation. I don't see anything in the original research policy which says that material which is best obtained through subscription doesn't count as a valid source. Almost all scientific journals operate on a subscription basis, for instance. Where would we be if we deemed articles based on material in scientific journals to be original research?! SP-KP 16:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think then you may want to consider working to get WP:N and WP:NOT changed (NOT is where it says WP is not a collector of telephone numbers, which I think clearly rules out Yellow Page derived information), rather than arguing for retention of this article. I suspect that this is fairly clear cut to most. ++Lar 16:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're misrepresenting my comment about the content of the Yellow Pages. What I said was that much of the information in it is encyclopaedic. I don't believe you doubt that, surely? Yellow Pages is not just a list of telephone numbers; if it was, I'd agree with you. I'm happy with WP:NOT and have no interest in getting it changed, and WP:N is a proposal not yet adopted. Suggesting to people that they don't have a right to respond to a deletion proposal borders on uncivility, so please don't do it. SP-KP 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no confusion in my mind either. Individual bank branches are not considered encyclopedic by most (see WP:CORP), so their phone numbers are not either. Nor are lists of their phone numbers. Small banking companies are also not typically considered encylopedic (see WP:CORP again), so their DUNS numbers are not either, despite your assertion, even though DUNS numbers as a topic, are. I feel this proposed deletion (should it happen) is "auditable back to policy" or at least back to guidelines, CORP is just that, a guideline. You may not agree which is fine but hopefully this discussion will help other editors formulate their thinking and comments. NB, I am pretty inclusionist and I STILL think this ought not to be included. Also, were I to stipulate your assertion that SWIFT numbers were encyclopedic I would still argue that your second issue/question: "presenting it in list form is the best way to include it in Wikipedia" is answered "no". This list is large and changes rapidly, and the fragment here is out of date and not amenable to keeping up to date.++Lar 16:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are misrepresenting CORP: It is a proposal, not a policy or guideline. To clarify re: DUNS numbers, I do not have an opinion myself on whether every DUNS number is worthy of inclusion (apologies if I appeared to suggest that I did) - my position is that I trust Wikipedia editors to make sensible decisions about which ones should be included. I am sympathetic to your suggestion that the SWIFT list might be presented in a better way, BTW. SP-KP 17:17, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These codes can be found from your bank but staff are often know very little and takes much longer to get. (unsigned comment by User:202.7.183.131)
  • They can also be found at [52]. More importantly, the list there is (a) accurate and (b) complete. This is an incomplete and non-authoritative mirror of the codes, and nobody in thier right mind is going to use Wikipedia as a source. The SWIFT database is already linked from the article on SWIFT codes. I don't do WP:POINT as a rule, but would you vote keep on a single page of the telephone directory? That's essentially what this is.- Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boogerhead

[edit]

Not on allmusic, not on Amazon, article is quite likely nonsense but not patent nonsense. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

[edit]

A not-yet-released album by a minor English band. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, etc. Tim Pierce 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Arctic Monkeys had a number 1 single in England not too long ago. Verifiable information exists about this album with 15,000 Google hits see [53]

Capitalistroadster 17:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have referenced the article and added information about #1 single. Capitalistroadster 17:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC
  • Keep. A band with a number one single is certainly noteworthy, and this album is already tipped to win the Mercury Music Prize. --Kafuffle 17:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "minor" band are of some large repute, and have had chart sucess with their singles. Possible merge for now with the band article though? doktorb 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY KEEP - this is one of the worst deletion propositions I have ever heard. The Arctic Monkeys have had a UK number one. They have already had a sell-out world tour. This album is guarenteed to go Top 5, if not Number One. The band are the most hyped group in the UK. "Minor English band"... just you wait. Deano 18:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The band have had a number 1 single. They sold out a 2000 seat venue in London. They are not a "Minor English band" J250x 17:59, 17 December 2005 (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 Speedied by User:Jossifresco as nonsense. Jamie 03:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bothermahovem

[edit]

I don't think Wikitionary will want this as it appears to be complete bollocks. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blended Learning Rationale

[edit]

This is clearly original research - but actually I think it's someone using WP as a host for their internal discussion. I'd suggest it is userfied, since there is no evidence it extends beyond the single (unnamed) faculty discussed. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and possibly userfy... definently original research as it's written now. *I was hoping some sources would be cited or the article would otherwise be improved, but that doesn't seem to be happening. I have left a note on the author's talk page about the problem. --W.marsh 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our intent is to link this yet-to-be-finished page into the Blended Learning topic. Our thought is that somebody studying instructional methodologies might be interested in rationale and some real-life examples. Msass 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can somebody point me to where there are guidelines for the timing of Wiki contributions, editing, discussions? If one has a fulltime job, it is tough to be reading content/discussions, contributing, and editing every day. Since your comment implies some timeframe for improvement of the page in question, I'm thinking that there are time guidelines and expectations somewhere that you might be able to share with me. Msass 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information in Wikipedia has to be verifiable and thus backed by citations from reputable external sources. It must not be original research, and it should document things of demonstrable significance. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Basic source info should be provedied as soon as an article is posted, at least ideally. It would be better to write offline and not post without at least basic source info.) In this case, since the article has been nomiated for deletion (a process that normally lasts 5 days) if source info in not provided before the AfD closes i would expoect the article to be delted. Of course, if rewritten with sources, it could always be reposted at a later time. DES (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Golden drummers and chips

[edit]

dic def Bachrach44 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note added stub. Bjelleklang - talk 09:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 00:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blargh

[edit]

Borderline speedy (nonsense). Blargh is a made-up onomatopoeia. Some currency for "an exclamation indicating that one has absorbed or is emitting a quantum of unhappiness" (emanating originally from MIT and/or a blogger by the looks of it) but this definition is (a) apparently spurious and (b) a neologism which is unlikely to be welcome at wiktionary. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Beer truck test

[edit]

Spurious neologism (11 Google hits) describes what most consultants would refer to as "what if your CEO were run over by a bus" rather than the article's beer truck. I don't think Wiktionary would want this non-notable neologism, and I'm pretty sure we don't either. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Class Action

[edit]

Abstain. The page originally had {{db|this has got to be a hoax}} on it, but I don't think it applies for CSD. Also note there's a redirect to the page, which should be deleted as well, if this one does. Interiot 18:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oops ... I didn't know this article already existed and I started Wikipediaclassaction.org So ... they should be merged, or whatever. --Nerd42 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem notable, but it makes some people nervous, so it does merit a response. But by keeping a real link to their ad-driven site, we're basically paying them for their service, which seems inappropriate. Sanbeg 22:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I am what some might call an "Inclusionist". I found the article to be informative, and after finding the subject website, wikipedia was the first place I looked for info. I feel that the diversity of information and inclusion of obscure entries is one of wikipedias strengths. I have never seen a more complete rundown of the Star Wars universe than on wikipedia, if random charecters mentioned briefly in one of a multitude of extended universe books deserve to be here, surely this article does too.-- forgot to post my username when I posted this yesterday-- Drn8 20:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or possibly merge. I saw the original post on a mailing-list, the reply pointed to this page on Wikipedia. This page is the only source I've seen giving a (counter-)balancing point-of-view---that is likely a hoax and backing them up with suitable references. Sladen


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Sandwich. – Robert 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open face

[edit]

dic def Bachrach44 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinks

[edit]

This is a non-notable band with an article written either by a band member or a friend or one of them (since the main contributor also took the photo in the article) BCorr|Брайен 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terrasoft CRM

[edit]

Non-notable company according to WP:CORP. Google finds it only in directories, etc. S.K. 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotype records

[edit]

Delete non-notable, no artists, no records Drdisque 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

updated info. Proof of relevance : http://www.stereotyperecords.com Dylan@stereotyperecords.com 21:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Scientific method. Owen× ☎ 18:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientifically proven

[edit]

A dictdef, and very nearly a tautology, and I see few prospects for useful expansion. A previous version of this topic by the same editor was speedy deleted, adn this was tagged for speedy as "nonsense" but i don't think it qualifies. However, Delete. DES (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fran's_Restaurant,_Toronto

[edit]

I suspect this is a vaniety page, living in Toronto for 20+ years I've never heard of this place, and it contains only a vague assertion of noteworthiness with no real evidence, a quick web survey reveals nothing to distinguish it from thousands of other random restaurants in Hogtown WilyD 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A nice restaurant, I'm sure, but Toronto must have hundreds of nice restaurants. JoaoRicardo talk 20:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment been in operation for 65 years so might be of note. However, the article needs verifiable references to establish that it is a notable restaurant.

Capitalistroadster 22:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Fran's was a chain of 24 hour diners, something like the Golden Griddle. Used to have about half a dozen restarants around town. I remember at least Yonge & College, Yonge & St. Clair, and Yonge & Eglinton branches. Last time I was in Toronto only the Yonge & College remained. Jamie 03:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Fran's is a very well-known institution in Toronto, and is a piece of local history. It went bankrupt a few years back, and was reduced to one location. When a second location opened last year at Shuter and Victoria, it received a fair amount of media coverage. The chain has a lot of local notariety -- people either love it or hate it. The article right now is just a stub, but could be made into something quite worthy. Skeezix1000 22:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    I just noticed that the external link in the article (which links to a piece in Eye, a local paper) even says the following in the first line: "For 52 years, Fran's Restaurants has been a Toronto landmark, as much a part of the city as the Leafs or High Park." Skeezix1000 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I was nine years old, growing up hundreds of miles from Toronto, I already knew what Fran's was. It really is that famous. To have lived in Toronto without ever having heard of Fran's, when I'd heard of Fran's before I'd ever been here for a day, frankly suggests that someone — either the nominator or me — is living in an alternate version of reality that doesn't even faintly resemble the one most people live in. I'm not entirely sure that things of purely local notability really deserve articles, but when an article is nominated for deletion based on reasoning that's so wildly out of accordance with my own understanding of things, a keep vote is really the only thing I can do. If I'm the one living in a weird mirror universe, so be it. Bearcat 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To suggest that its as much of a cultural institution as the Leafs are is pure patent madness - doing a quick survey of a half a dozen friends who all lived in Toronto for 15+ years, not a single one had heard of it. I just made the natural assumption upon seeing a random looking article about a restaurant I've never heard of that's in the city I grew up in and live in - that it was a vaniety article placed there by someone affliated with the restaurant. With a number of Torontonians (and non-Torontonians!) having at least heard of it, it may be worthy of an article, though it'd be nice if the article somehow distinguished its importance compared to say, Hollinger's or Ted's Restaurant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) JoaoRicardo talk 16:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep I find the comments that Torontonians haven't heard of it to be suspect. Keep in mind that these comments come from an anonymous editor, and the nominator, who seems to be new to Wikipedia. Fran's is a Toronto institution, and anyone who has lived here for any period of time will know of it. New arrivals may not know it because the chain was shrunk down to one location recently. It is the sort of place that I take out of town visitors to for a diner breakfast because of its heritage. Ground Zero | t 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to disagree here. The fact that someone is new to Wikipedia does not mean we shouldn't trust this person's capacity to know what is and what isn't notable. Let's assume good faith. JoaoRicardo talk 17:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll withdraw that comment on the basis of WilyD's comment below, which show that the nomination was made in good faith. I don't think that it is unfair to point out that a nominator is new because a new user may not be familiar with the deletion process. Furthermore, new users may, in some cases, be sockpuppets. In WilyD's case, however, I am sure that s/he is legitimate. I will point out, however, that notability has not been accepted by the Wikipedia community as grounds for deletion, no matter how much people keep using it as their reason for deleting an article. Ground Zero | t 17:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You mean lack of notability has not been accepted as grounds for deletion? Why do you say so? JoaoRicardo talk 21:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • See the grounds for deletion at Wikipedia:Deletion policy, and, for interest, Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. Ground Zero | t 21:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, but I haven't found any mention to notability on the first article you indicated. Could you please point it to me? Thanks for providing the link to the poll, I wasn't aware one had ever ocurred. However, Wales' opinion, with all due respect to you, is a) irrelevant, since I don't work for him and neither follow his guidance in any way; b) not suited to this occasion, since he talks about fame and importance, and we were talking about notability, which is a diferent concept. What is being discussed here is not wether Fran's Cafe is famous (ie, lots of people from Toronto have heard about it), but wether it is notable (ie, it stands out from all the other hundreds or thousands of Toronto restaurants). I don't mean to be rude, Ground Zero, and I hope you don't take offense on what I have said. JoaoRicardotalk 22:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I guess that I should have been clearer: you didn't find any reference to notability at Wikipedia:Deletion policy because there is none. Another way of putting it is that lack of notability is not an accepted grounds for deletion -- it's not in the policy on deletion. The Jimbo Wales thing was for interest only, and not intended to be for guidance. "Fame and importance" and "notability" were being used interchangably in that debate, I think. I don't see how you've been rude, and I haven't taken offence. If you'd be so kind as to point out how you've been rude, however, I'd gladly taken offence since I am so accommodating. ;-) Regards, Ground Zero | t 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a somewhat notable restaurant, with significant local history. Cleduc 16:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, the unsigned comment was my bad Ground Zero. It is true that I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, having joined only a couple of months ago. This is, in fact, my first nomination under AfD. It certainly seems fairly certain the consensus will be to keep, and I'm not particularly opposed to it, given the large number of opinions that it has significance. However, multiple users making the assertion that one can't live in Toronto and be unaware of the place is awfully strange - maybe it's a generational thing? I'm 23, and no one I asked about it was older than about 27 - mayhaps I should ask my grandparents if they've ever heard of it? If it historically was a somewhat big deal, but is just faded into obscurity, that would make more sense to me - but to claim is as much of a landmark as the Toronto Maple Leafs or the Toronto Maple Leafs is pretty absrud - I'd even find it tough to believe it has as much cultural significance as the Toronto Lynx. WilyD 16:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You could ask your parents, too. They should know. If they don't, they should get out more. The Wikipedia article makes no claim to Fran's being on a par with either Leafs. The Eye article calls it a landmark, and "as much as part of Toronto as the Leafs". This may be an exaggeration, but I'm not here to defend Eye. The Eye reference serves only to support the claim in the Wiki article that Fran's is a "historic restaurant chain". Ground Zero | t 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seeing as how Fran's has been at Yonge + College for ages, just a block or two away from Maple Leaf Gardens, hockey fans likely filled up Fran's before and after the Leafs games for decades. As much of an exaggeration as the Eye reference might be, I am sure that there are thousands of older hockey fans in this city who think of Fran's when they think of the Leafs. So, the reference might not be as absurd as some people are suggesting. Skeezix1000 22:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and enhance) This is a notable chain of restaurants in The Big Smoke and deserves an article (and requires sources). Though not a reason to keep the article, I periodically make my way to the one on College St. after slovenly pleasures ;)) (As per Bearcat, there's at least another one at the Pantages Tower; more ... posh.) If it must go (shame!), there should be a unified article created detailing substantial regional chains (Lick's, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in, anytime. :) The Yonge & College location's not far by TTC. Cheers, Madmagic 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in, too (6 blocks from my house) Cleduc 19:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Keep I have been going to restaurants in Toronto for upwards of 30 years, and I have not been to Fran's, but I do know of it, however it's not famous to suburbanites. I've been here so long, most of the great restaurants of Fran's age have all closed down leaving me in the lurch. I would guess downtowners would make more of a historical fuss about it. I've had to move on to the newer restaurants, very few of which are here on Wikipedia. I'm not sure if that's important to the issue at hand, however. Jok2000 18:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Understood. I live in Hell, so it's not merely a downtown ... idiosyncrasy. :) E Pluribus Anthony 18:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not from Toronto, but have visited there several times. Frans is so much of an institution that it appears as a recommended eatery in many travel books on Toronto. I've been there a few times personally. If the foreign press travel guides thinks it merits inclusion then I think it really should stay. Ben W Bell 18:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I ate at Fran's for the first time on Friday and I must say that it was the best diner food I've ever had, especially the fries. I've known of the resturant since I moved here almost 1 year ago. (though that's because I live just a few blocks away at church/Gerrard) Anyways, given the history of the chain and the quality of the food there I would highly recommend that it stays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.93.183 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Keep My parents ate at Fran's when they were dating in the 1940s. It was a Toronto institution even back then. In the 1960s Fran's was noteable for being one of very few restaurants in all of Toronto the Good which were open all night, and those of us who (ahem) had cause to be up late knew it well. The chain has grown small; but there's still the sense of an institution when you walk past the College Street location. Franfries! With gravy! Cheers, Madmagic 18:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I hate Fran's, but it's definitely a cultural landmark. Speaking of the Maple Leafs, my memories of Fran's are intertwined with Hockey. My dad used to take me to Frans for a milkshake after taking me to a Leafs game at Maple Leaf Gardens. It was open 24 hours at the time, and I think in many ways, Frans was to our parents something similar to what Sneaky Dees or the Green Room are to us. Fade 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still is open 24 hours, actually...I've done the occasional 3 a.m. "can't sleep, need milkshake" run myself. Not that I particularly like the place, either, but you can't be too picky at 3 in the morning when everything else is closed. Bearcat 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Kirill Lokshin 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Console

[edit]

delete written in first person promo format & unencyclopaedic, largely non-notable although some could argue that they are Drdisque 19:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. —Kirill Lokshin 01:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Philotic Web

[edit]

Not sure about this. Was speedied but it isn't a CSD. It's pretty sketchy and there probably isn't a lot to say about the website. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*This is a forum with some accompanying essays. But what did this website actually do? Delete, because this isn't a web directory. Pilatus 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NIMTO

[edit]

Original research, neologism, previously deleted. D-Rock 19:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Not a neologism, see below. D-Rock 23:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways I would say that terms like NIMTO and CATNIP are part of 'gallows hummor' which exist in some parts of the waste, chemical and nuclear industries. Cadmium 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the article is not original research, NIMTO might be a new word to many people but it sums up something which many people have experienced in their lives. I have added an anylisis which considers the possible origins of NIMTOism, the anylisis is based on S. Freud so prior art exists. Hence it is not original thought being presented here.Cadmium 12:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fenrir (band)

[edit]

This band is not notable yet Bill 19:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirected to The Adrenaline Vault. – Robert 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Avault

[edit]

self promotion, a nickname for a website only. Bachrach44 20:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CBC buildings

[edit]

A list of the buildings of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with their addresses and phone numbers. Is Wikipedia a phone directory? JoaoRicardo talk 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was disambig. Johnleemk | Talk 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Lights

[edit]

This article appears to describe an event in Ladysmith, British Columbia ([62]), though I do not know if this itself would be considered notable, even if the article was written above a 2nd grade level. I abstain from voting until feedback is posted. Fang Aili 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by Luigi30 (vanity). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyghtan

[edit]

this article does not meet the criteria of WP:Music

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

The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinks

[edit]

This is a non-notable band with an article written either by a band member or a friend or one of them (since the main contributor also took the photo in the article) BCorr|Брайен 18:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Propheteering

[edit]

Similar to Power-laundering. Neologism Woohookitty(cat scratches) 20:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is important, yes, but there is no evidence that this word has ever been widely used to describe the phenomenon. MCB 07:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean no evidence? I see 433 hits, including these gems here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and there's more where they come from. You should note that most psychics are considered to be propheteers, since they ask you for money in return for your fortune. The phrase, which is a combination of "prophet" and "profiteering" is a way of describing a false prophet who makes money out of it. Sometimes it is used to refer to people who are real prophets but make money out of it anyway. For example, someone who can read tarot cards might well be real, but they are still making money out of it when they perhaps shouldn't be. This is actually a HUGE debate in the pagan community as to whether or not people should charge for their "gift". Propheteering is, obviously, a derogatory term. The term is usually used to refer to Christians, but the meaning is used to refer to pagans a lot more than christians, and indeed Christians use the meaning of it as a derogatory way to be dismissive of pagans generally. There was a movie which went in to this concept quite well, and used the word "propheteering". The movie, now, I have to remember it. It had Sean Connery in it and was about a dragon. Ah yes, Dragonheart. That movie was basically 90% about propheteering, and it used that word too. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Rx StrangeLove 03:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Allison ‘Tootie’ Montana

[edit]

Article on obscure person. Unworthy of encyclopedia article Mecanismo | Talk 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you seem hell-bent on trying to prove that you did not research this, fine. There is no AMG entry because Montana was not a musician. He was a folk artist, cultural icon, integral part of New Orleans culture and traditions. He was celebrated and received grants. -- JJay 18:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geek girls

[edit]

page of personal opinions which contains no useful encyclopedia content. Any relevant information on geek girls would belong in the geek entry anyway Ocicat 20:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was speedily deleted by Luigi30. --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solo Market

[edit]

no content

solo market in springfield missouri...Maoririder 18:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) keep[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Jmabel as copyvio. Jamie 03:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antigona

[edit]

Article appears to be a Polish description of the play Antigone (note references to "Edipa" and "Sofoklove"). Klaw ¡digame! 20:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Ozbolt

[edit]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bum Wine Wednesday

[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a widespread phenomenon; Google turns up no pages whatsoever. Sounds like a hoax. Tim Pierce 20:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~~~~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

Votes

[edit]
  • Delete As the author of the bum wine article (well, stub, for the moment), I am pretty sure that the attested holiday is utter runnish. Delete with a Thunderbird chaser. BD2412 T 21:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable or hoax. PJM 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete probabale hoax/vanity only mention in wikipedia entries, (a reverted edit for Willamette University and other wikipedia section by the same person (158.104.72.33)) -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 08:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC). Also changed to Strong delete for obstinate meatpuppet/sockpuppetry -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 05:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I assure you that this is not "meatpuppet/sockpuppetry." It is true that BWW is being primarily supported by the Willamette Student body, but each student is acting on their own accord. Also, look to the fact that people from other schools have even stated that they know of BWW.158.104.76.254 07:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Recognized (by members of the college) traditions at universities are generally fair subject matter for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.72.16 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep There seems to be little to no evidence that the Bum Wine Wednesday article is a hoax and as a result I see no justification for its deletion.158.104.76.254 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a recognized tradition at Willamette University. As for your comment about the IP being the same as an edit to Willamette University, our University only has a certain number of external IP addresses thus many users operate under the same IP for Wikipedia Ahimsa52 10:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable outside a small University community.--nixie 10:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why is this a cause to delete the article? Almost all wikipedia articles about universities and colleges feature segments that are not "notable" outside the instition's own community. Your vote delivers two messages: 1) BWW is a tradition, just not a "notable" tradition. this contradicts the reason earlier stated for the deletion of this article, because BWW is, in fact, not a "hoax." 2) If BWW is "non-notable outside a small University community," then the easy answer would be to move the article to the Willamette University article; but your reasoning does not justify the deletion of this article. with respect. 158.104.76.254 10:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and to the chorus of comments below, have a look at Wikipedia's policies. Personal testimonials don't help to keep the article. Respectable newspaper coverage - that would be a different matter. Durova 14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Strong delete for obstinate meatpuppet/sockpuppetry. Durova 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Objections base on Wikipedia's policies are unfounded. The only complaint that could concievably be levied is that of original research. Especially now that Willamette's Residence Life department is patrolling the internet and busting students for what they post it is understandable that there is no news coverage. Things that shape the lives of more than a fifteen hundred college kids at Willamette and countless more at other universities mentioned below, add UCSC to the list should be apart of wikipedia. When was the last time you saw beer pong or kings cup in the New York Times. Newspaper coverage is overrated. Long live BWW 158.104.76.84 19:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BWW is a popular event and those who have not heard of it directly or participated in it soon will. For consistency, if wikipedia is going to delete this, it must delete every reference to all traditions, because not all traditions are practiced by everyone. 158.104.76.9 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (Seconded by "Patstaboo")[reply]
  • Delete, only Google hit other than Wikipedia is bumwine.com. Looks like advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Every argument has fallen. This is not advertisement. This is not a hoax. This is verified when you consider the nearly 150 people who have supported it. This is becoming of exponentially greater cultural importance. This is a way to help the homeless by advocating charitable actions. Long live Bum Wine Wednesday. Patstaboo 02:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel that this event has spread to enough schools to justify an independent page, though it is in need of expansion. I would like to reiterate that this is not meat-puppetry, each of these people is a active member in the BWW community. If this page is merged into Willamette, with the understanding that when further evidenced expansion occurs it will again be moved to an independent page I would change my opinion to Delete. Uthren 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sock infested nn holiday.  Grue  21:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no google, no claims to notoriety, and, whilst its nice to see so many meat puppets running around, perhaps they should try to assert its popularity somewhere else first, and then, once its popular, then go to Wikipedia. That's the way around that you're meant to go. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Comment. As a current student at Willamette, I can attest that it is praticed, though in fairly low numbers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.78.74 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I think this is a very importan cultural aspect for west coast college students. This entry should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.125.120 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Are you guys kidding me? This is a big deal at willamette and i hear at other colleges as well. I think its ridiculous that you would limit something just because you don't partake in it. I think this would say a lot about wikipedia and what types of speech are censored. BWW recognizes those that are less fortunate. If wikipedia takes this away, it is saying "impoverished people are not worth our consideration and there is nothing that we, yuppy computer owning, internet surfing people, can relate to them on." Shame on you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.9 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As someone who has participated in bum wine wednesday I can firmly say that it is no hoax. Furthermore, the Wikipedia entry has increased the numbers of participants dramatically. Many of us have this page as our facebook webpages. Additionally, even if only at Willamette, it is still of cultural importance. Only two more days to BWW and you know I'll be there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.84 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - Honestly what kind of encyclopedia nazi's are these people, is this not a site to inform people on all topics all over the world. just because you dont participate in or you frown down upon something does not make it cease to exist. Maybe there is no huge cultural significance behind bum wine wednesday that shapes the greater american society, but does that mean that there is not a group of people in this world who every wednesday drink a bottle of bum wine? yeah there are, your stuck up snobbery doesn't change that. so do me a favor next time you feel important about yourself for doing some lame tradition you participate in, just realize i very easily could think your customs are a hoax. dont think for a second that just because main stream society may participate as well that it justifies your actions, hiding among a group is for cowards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.77.77 (talk • contribs)
    Comment I think your stance would be more well received if, instead of calling people cowards, snobs, and Nazis, you responded to this nomination for deletion according to Wikipedia's own deletion policy. It might also be useful to read through what Wikipedia is not. Also, when adding content here on this page, please sign your comments by adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end - the Wikipedia software will automatically convert this into a timestamped signature, which makes the conversation much easier to follow. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 08:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wikipedia must survive as the pan, collecting the tiny pieces of gold that are in eternal passage through Google's sieve. Gold dust is not a hoax! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.72.16 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I too oppose the deletion of the Bum Wine Wednesday article for a multitude of reasons. It must be realized that BWW is in no way a "hoax." BWW is a growing tradition at Willamette University and is spreading quickly. The tradition first began in the smaller WU dorms and houses but is now a wednesday night tradition that is practiced in almost all dorms and now, frats. BWW is also a drinking tradition with a heart. A major part of being a "Bum Wino" is giving to the needy. after buying bum wine at a local store (or what have you) participants are encouraged to give their change to the homeless. Further more, because of the Bum Wine Wednesday article more students are becoming aware of the tradition and as a result it is growing more (for example, students are now starting up "BWW Chapters" in Michigan, Montana and other schools around the northwest. I assure you, this is no "hoax." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I would like to address the "Author" of the Bum Wine article. Your article, while entertaining, does not make you an expert on college drinking habits. Simply because you know what kind of brands are considered "Bum Wine" does not mean that you are an expert in Willamette University's drinking traditions. The fact is that BWW is a Willamette University drinking tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment - I plan on expanding the article later this month. Please do not delete this stub. Ahimsa52 10:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would seem that the only reason that people can "justify" deleting this article is because they cannot find references to it anywhere else. This, of course, is to be expected. I find it very hard to believe that every "certifiable" tradition has a web-site in its honer or is referenced in articles and journals. Do you think it would be very likely that Bum Wine Wednesdays would be featured in a local paper? Probably not. Is it likely that a drinking tradition would have its own web-site? Probably not. Is it likely that a drinking tradition would be talked about all over the web, etc? Again, probably not. I think a much stronger case needs to be made in order to justify the deletion of this article, and the people who want to delete this article (for some muddled reasons that have yet to be fully explained or justified) must also refute the case that has thus been put forward. Additionally, I find the sudden urge to delete this article as random and unwarranted. A few simple searches reveal that much less substantiated claims about other universities and colleges around the US are made on Wikipedia and go unattacked. Examples are: "Rumor has it they have pretty good curly fries too (disputed fact)." - Lewis and Clark College, or "Famous on-campus myths claim there exist an intact MG under the concrete foundation of the college library, an underground primate lab working exclusively with snow monkeys under the Psychology building (the legend states that the presence of this lab was discovered when a snow monkey escaped into the Canyon and necessitated the closing of the facility), and a four-story lab/habitation arcology under the Physics building. There are many other such stories, often referred to as Reed legends." - Reed College... the list goes on, of course. Have any of these "myths" and "facts" been thoroughly checked by those people want to delete this "hoax?" I sure hope so; if not, then it seems that there is yet another reason for why this article should not be deleted. And lastly, if this article is in fact a "hoax," then why are so many people willing to say that they go to Willamette and know that BWW is a true tradition? And why is someone willing to actually do more research and contact alumni about the matter? It would seem that BWW is a Willamette Tradition and there seems to be no evidence to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.254 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment"I was the original author of the article. I've received messages warning me to stop "vandalizing" pages. I apologize for the miscommunication. I was unaware creating wikipedia entries on college traditions was somehow bad. After all, wikipedia happily hosts articles on drinking games like beer pong, kings, quarters, and even dartmouth pong, a derivative of Beer Pong unique to Dartmouth. Surely BWW, spread through several schools around the country (now including the University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and the University of Georgia), is more deserving of webspace than the equally unconfirmable "dartmouth pong". It's natural that BWW would not occur in other mediums. After all, college administrations are not likely publicize the drinking habits of their students. Wikipedia should be the proud host of the first articles on BWW and other growing cultural phonomenon. However, the extent of the debate on this page ought to justify the continued presence of the article. If this many people feel compelled to speak on the issue, there must be some degree of veracity. Veracity to which I, as one of three cofounders of BWW, can personally attest." <nicholas r>158.104.72.33 10:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)</nicholas r>[reply]
  • Comment I'm from the University of Montana, and Bum Wine Wednesday is practiced around here. It's legit all the way around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.131.37.240 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Oddly enough, all of the 158... addresses are from Willamette Univesity. How coincidental. I wonder if John Callahan at jcallaha@willamette.edu would be interested in how the school's computers are being used to perpetrate hoaxes on Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You seem to be suggesting something sinsiter Zoe. We are not denying that 158... is at least the Salem/Kaizer area and includes Willamette. We are Willamette students who wish for a tradition which started here and is at least present at other universities in the western United States to be allowed by a website that also allows such traditions as <Dartmouth Pong> which has no relevency outside the university at all. On a side note, feel free to email John. These are personal computers using the campus ISP. Ahimsa52 00:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this "tradition" is so widespread, how is it that it has no Google hits? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one has claimed that every college student everywhere takes part in BWW. You are simply attempting to create a stick-man that you can discredit, but you seem to misunderstand what BWW really is; BWW is a drinking tradition at Willamette University that is gaining ground around the country. Look the the post from the U of Montana student who says he has heard of BWW. I think that proves the BWW is a growing and well-founded tradition. If your only complaint is that BWW is not celebrated by every college student in the US, then why not just move the article to fit under the Willamette University article and have a segment explaining that BWW is rapidly growing. And finally, Google is not the only source of information that exists. Please provide another reason, other than a simple Google search, that explains why the BWW article should be taken done. Then look to the fact that Alumni, WU students, and college students from around the country have come forward to say that they know that BWW is a tried and true tradition.158.104.76.254 00:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I wish to respond to the comments made by "Zoe." First, Zoe, it is silly to suggest that the Bum Wine Wednesday article is "advertising." Is Willamette University in the pocket of bumwine.com? I doubt it. In fact, that's just not true. To the extent that this is your only reason you give for wanting to delete the article, I would ask you to reconsider. Secondly, your "comment" about how WU computers are being used is offensive at best. First, your analysis is flawed because, as stated above, students all over campus and in the area share IP addresses; not every student is using a WU computer, most are using their own, private computers. Second, even if students are using WU computers, it doesn't matter. There is no policy at WU that states that students can't use school computers to edit, etc. wikipedia. Third, your claim that BWW is a "hoax," but you fail to explain why; you fail to refute any of the claims made by people who oppose this article's deletion, and you fail to explain why a "hoax" would be defended in such great numbers. Lastly, I am both offended and disturbed that you would, in effect, threaten those of us who are trying to have a reasonable ant thoughtful conversation on why we believe the article should remain. I find it hard to believe that you would try to stiffle discourse with petty threats. Please, in the future, try to make a point instead of threatening people with threats that, in fact, have little or no backing.158.104.76.254 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't believe how sinister this has become. Those who oppose BWW are conducting a witch hunt with Google as their Holy Bible. Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.9 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment It seems BWW is even practiced in little old Helena, MT. Yes, it is growing. And I think the fact that "Dartmouth Pong" stays should mean this ought to stay also. BWW even has an activist element to it. Give change to the poor. Patstaboo 02:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So after 24 hours I see: 7 delete votes (including my nomination); 2 keep votes from registered Wikipedia users at Willamette; and 4 keep votes from anonymous users on the Willamette University network. But I still have not seen any source for the claim that this is a widespread tradition. I have no doubt at all that it is a Willamette University tradition, but as such it belongs on the Willamette University article, not in its own page. Tim Pierce 05:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Tim. At least some progress has now been made. I think that it is very important that BWW has now been recognized as a WU tradition and as such is a a true tradition. We know now that, at least, the BWW article should not be removed from Wikipedia. I think that most of us would be content to see the article moved to fit under the Willamette University article. I would still contend that BWW deserves its own article, though; simply because of the fact that numerous people from around the west and north west have come forward to say that they too participate in BWW. I hope that i do not come accross as asking for too much, but I just feel that I should voice my opinion. But, I would be happy if 1) the article was moved (for the time-being until more proof comes forward that BWW is more wide-spread than simply WU) to fit under the WU article, and 2) BWW was allowed a link to the Bum Wine article since it is a related subject. I just want to state, again, how happy it makes me that there is now some signs of progress and compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.104.76.254 (talk • contribs)
    • Honestly, I don't think there was ever a real question of whether this information belonged in the Willamette University article. Please feel free to move the information there and redirect Bum Wine Wednesday to Willamette University. But I recommend including at least one independent source for the Bum Wine Wednesday tradition, or some other editor may think that it's a hoax and revert it as well. Tim Pierce 19:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Odo

[edit]

Non notable and not developed waffle iron 21:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as per consensus. No such group CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Catholic Rebel

[edit]

Speedy delete Re-post of page which was recently speedily deleted: see here --Ryano 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fuck u ya gommy fuck or me n the icr boys will come down and giv u a hidin


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anara: Fati Caminus

[edit]

Article on obscure comic. Top google result is from wikipedia. Article is orphan and uncategorized and it seems like spam/vanity Mecanismo | Talk 21:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hall (musician)

[edit]

Article on obscure musician who is starting out. Article is orphan, uncategorized and it looks like spam/vanity Mecanismo | Talk 21:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nature of the universe

[edit]

Delete original research/opinion Drdisque 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jenn Dolari

[edit]

This is about a Wikipedian who is author of the webcomics. If she is notable, she should go onto Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles. Fplay 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It just was not clear to me that Dolari was notable. I was hoping to help keep the "Wikipedians with articles" list of a limited size (selective, I guess), otherwise, it would tend to become promotional. When someone's main media presence is on the web, you cannot just trust Google counts. -- Fplay 19:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Um, Eusebeus could you define non notable, since her webcomic quite clearly is notable by Wikipedia guidelines on the matter. I'd be quite happy to vote to deprecate the guidelines if you wish to propose so doing? Hiding talk 23:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the notability requirements laid out in the discussion on Webcomics are still in flux and not accepted by everyone. More to the point, even if this webcomic could be considered notable (which I doubt), the author is entirely nn outside of this (she lost her job, she writes a comic), which means this should be either userfied or redirected to the webcomic in question. With respect to the webcomic criteria, I think the gist of concern is that there is an extremely low barrier to entry for webcomics, like podcasts and blogs. As a result, the standards for inclusion as worth encyclopedic treatment need to be correspondingly high. Obviously, however, I understand if you disagree and choose to take a more inclusionist line. Since I have been outvoted on this one, it doesn't make much difference anyhow. Eusebeus 15:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; editorial decision taken to redirect to Wikipedia Class Action. Johnleemk | Talk 17:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikipediaClassAction.Org

[edit]

There appears to be nothing more to this than someone slapping up a webpage. Possibly a hoax? In any case, WP is not a web directory. If this lawsuit is filed or covered in the media, we will then have sources to construct a verifiable account. Until then, delete. Gamaliel 22:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect into John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy, if anything. Tim Pierce 22:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't Criticism of Wikipedia be a better place for this? At any rate, it is unlikely that they have sufficient grounds for a lawsuit (class-action or otherwise) against Wikipedia under current US law. (The fact that a supposed "class action" suit isn't being promoted by a class-action law firm, already filing the complaint and looking for plaintiffs, is deeply suspicious). --EngineerScotty 22:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above. This is a really interesting case of incestuous relationships within Wikipedia, and merely deleting it will fall into the clutches of the cynical. Allow it to exist, redirect to a factual page, and possibly add the webpage as an external link to keep everything fair. The website exists, and whether it's a hoax or not, it shou ld (probably) be linked to, at least for the time being. Budgiekiller 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be even more appropriate, now that I have looked more closely, to merge this with Quakeaid. The WikipediaClassAction.org domain is registered to a Jennifer Monroe of Long Beach, NY, who is already a player in the QuakeAID snafu. Tim Pierce 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I agree (and wrote as much) that this can't be verified as anything more than a webpage, it actually does exist, and the facts are as stated, and noteworthy. We routinely have articles on far less notable stuff. We have plenty of examples where the matter of controversy and the reports and organizations involved in it get separate articles, that are not redirected; for example, in a much larger matter (thus, both articles more extensive, but that doesn't affect the argument), Warren Commission. Bill 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no real-world controversy relating to this. Yes, we have some articles about non-notable subjects, but that's hardly a reason to create more. When you get down to it, this site is one guy considering a lawsuit, and that's just not notable any way you look at it.
-- Adrian Lamo 21:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops - I re-created the article by accident because I didn't see all this. I have since merged my version of the article with Wikipedia Class Action ... delete at will, or keep the redirect --Nerd42 23:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I think all the other articles on Wikipedia Class Action should be redirects to Wikipedia Class Action. --Nerd42 02:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Merge & redirect --Simon Cursitor 08:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as non-notable bio. Mo0[talk] 19:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Arnesen

[edit]

Unnotable photographer. Possibly self-biographical. Most google hits on his name are not about him. Haakon 22:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 08:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as previously deleted content and copyvio. Capitalistroadster 22:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Independent filmmaking

[edit]

A huge article, all original research in the form of a personal essay. Breaks WP:NOT, and is a possible copyvio. Harro5 22:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Massive NPOV problems" - ROFL!!!! Does ANYONE here know what expository... oh, nevermind...


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Lin

[edit]

Article on obscure artist. Article is uncategorized, orphan and it reads too much as a vanity page. Mecanismo | Talk 22:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

12/12/05: Article updated to remove subjective material /cingerto

12/13/05: Page updated with categories /cingerto

12/13/05: updated to include Village Voice link and added quantifiable touring schedule Cingerto 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Cingerto[reply]

12/14/05: added external links showing major press reviews & asian-american songwriters showcase information Cingerto 16:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Cingerto[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KJTaylor

[edit]

While I'm sure Ms. Taylor is a fine author, her book is not yet published and when it is will only be available in Australia and New Zealand [64]. It only secures 6 google hits [65]. I think the article is best removed until the subject has more prominance. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Metzez

[edit]

Neologism, non-notable. Google shows 6 non-wiki sites. [69] D-Rock 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Burlingame

[edit]

Article on obscure lawyer and it reads too much like vanity. Mecanismo | Talk 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Helsinki Code

[edit]

Some "computing urban legend" that I can't find with Google. Delete as nn or hoax. Kusma (討論) 22:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check the usenet newsgroups under "The Helsinki Code". Its there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Panks (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 December 2005
  • Delete I don't think usenet newsgroups are good sources of info -Nv8200p talk 22:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usenet posts were by the same author. Kalle 00:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete And the content is plagarized from the "Message from God". Google search on "My presence in your world is unalterable for I am the sanctuary of both the cosmos and the one soul inside you" --Mensanator 01:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't worth the bandwidth. NoDot 01:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is truly a "Message From God", then what God said cannot possibly be anything but what he really said. And saying what God said cannot be plagarism. Are the Bible author plagarists for interpreting what God said, even if what God said has been taken out of context for years? It is not possible to plagarize God. - Paul

Since God created it, it cannot be plagarism. It is impossible to plagarize God. We don't even know God exists. Plus: The bible writers wrote things that God said. That's plagarism, but I don't see God coming down from the sky with a big lightning bolt or anything. -Paul

  • Don't Delete Humor, satire, and myth are an important part of human discourse. Don't take this project so seriously. A day without a chuckle just adds to your atherosclerotic burden. We have bandwidth to burn. I say burn it to keep ourselves warm.
  • Delete The guy is a crackpot, has some real issues.

Delete It is not humor or satire and to the degree it is a myth it is someone trying to create one. And not doing a very good job.

  • Delete This story is not even a believable hoax.

Again, those words were from God, so it cannot be words taken out of context (e.g. plagarism). - Paul

  • Don´t delete What about trying to reproduce on a running PDP-8? Rainer

Well, Rainer, if it was an urban legend and God wrote the message, it might be an example of EVP, except relating to a computer. I have heard of events whereby God has communicated to people over the old BBC Micro computers in the 1980s, so if it really happened as suggested by the urban legend, then compiling the "@" symbol would not be viable because God himself wrote the message. I am assuming it is not an easter egg left by a PDP-8 programmer, nor it is something a Fortran IV creator would have left in the source code for the compiler. The only explanations which cover this are: Either Gustav was hallucinating (PDP-8 programmers were known to be overworked/taking drugs) or God really did communicate with Gustav. We cannot be certain, however, because his diary of the events has since been lost. Unfortunately, this is just computer lore. - Paul


  • Delete Paul is doing this for attention, he is now talking about God talking to him on his C-64.

Are you suggesting that I cannot distinguish between what is real and what is not? I talked to God a lot in my youth, and just because it happened to be on a Commodore 64 does not detract from the fact that it did take place. - Paul

  • Delete I don't believe discussions about me losing my virginity is appropriate in discussing whether or not just post should be deleted. Therefore, delete the article about the Helsinki code, please. Thanks. - Paul
  • Delete Did he help you insert your penis when you lost your virginity? What was that womans name and number again? She gave you a refernce right? You do think it is appropriate, you post about it on usenet.
  • Delete Would you PLEASE STOP POSTING ABOUT ME LOSING MY VIRGINITY????. - Paul

Hmmmm no I won't. You think it is fit for consumption and have no problem with off-topic posts so deal with it you hypocrite.

  • Delete Above posting is not appropriate for this forum.

Your existance isn't appropriate.

  • Delete Helsinki Code is not a reputable urban legend.

It is something you made up Panks. Now get back to writing programs that finish 36th out of 36.

  • Delete Talk.origins is not an appropriate discussion for the deletion of this urban legend.

You really are cluessless aren't you? Just stop responding unless your compulsive/obsessive disorder keeps you from it.

  • Delete The Helsinki Code does not appear to be anything but a hoax. - Paul

ω Delete the article, but interesting discussion for the most part. With the remaining time maybe we could brainstorm ways to ensure an urban legend is notable, so to bypass future strife. Probably mass emails and some initial groundwork (websites, scopes.com entry). Anything else? This has left me pondering the meaning of a hoax hoax. Thanks.

  • Delete this is a joke, but not good enough to justify the risk of confusing anyone.
  • Delete Rewritten as a record of the joke's existence, it might be justified. But frankly... Wikipedia isn't here to further people's attempts at self-glorification and fame-seeking.


  • Delete the title sounded familiar, so I thought it got to be something notable. And what do I see? The same post that Paul Allen Panks posted in rec.arts.int-fiction not so long ago, breaking his promise to never post here again. But that's not very notable, because he did it about four times already.  Grue  22:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverified, unverifiable and obvious hoax. Sliggy 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don´t delete Saying something like "does not appear" is a good judgement for everything. This and other similar articles should be just flagged with "weird science", "mystical science" or "scientific philosophy". I cannot prove nor disprove anything stated here, but I categorically protest any deleting of any human or computer thought.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aponye Uganda Limited

[edit]

Pure, unadultered, unashamed spam article Mecanismo | Talk 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 00:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arcade Game Construction Kit

[edit]

Pure nonsense and spam on article on obscure construction kit Mecanismo | Talk 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The votes for deletion are supposed to be a discussion about the merits (or the lack of them) of keeping an article. When someone votes without stating any basis on their vote it seems that the votes are...well... baseless. What is the value of a baseless vote? Therefore, what's the point of voting without stating any motive behind it? So, in the next time you vote please consider taking some time to reflect on the subject instead of mindlessly jumping the gun. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • read parent comment above. If someone participates on a public vote and discussion about a change in a community, it is expected that the voter bases his/her/its vote on logical arguments and therefore fundaments his/her/its vote. If the voter doesn't vote based on any logical argument, why is he/she/it voting in the first place? The objective is to induce positive change and that can't be achieved with users casting mindless and baseless votes on the elimination of content. --Mecanismo | Talk 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And apparently you voted without reflecting on the subject and apparently it is something of a recurrent pattern of yours, since you do the exact same thing on other votes. Hence the "jumping the gun". --Mecanismo | Talk 03:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 23:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coverism

[edit]

Hoax religion. Not hits on Google. Kross | Talk 23:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archgoat

[edit]

Vanity article on obscure band Mecanismo | Talk 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there isn't a entry in allmusic guide and according to this] and this, the band formed in 1989, broke up in 1991, rejoined in 2004 and released a 7" EP in 2005. That makes them a non-notable band and therefore unworthy of an encyclopedia article. --Mecanismo | Talk 12:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I noticed you normally disagree with my AFD submittions. I've noticed that you disagree quite a lot without stating any basis whatsoever. But if you wish to cast a vote, please take some time to reflect on the subject and don't let your ego get involved. --Mecanismo | Talk 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ask that to the good people who compiled the WP:MUSIC band notability metrics. They do not list amazon or google as a notability source. On the other hand, they do list album releases and the band in question doesn't even meet that requisite, let alone the others. Therefore it is proven that the band is non-notable and the article on them should be deleted --Mecanismo | Talk 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus keep. While I found the arguments for deletion strong (and struggled to find any arguments for keeping at all), there is clearly a strong contingent of people who feel the article should be kept. It can still be merged with Elvis impersonator or similar at a later date, mind you. Before saving this edit, and getting on with finishing the procedure for closing an AfD, I thought it would be appropriate to clear up some misinterpretations of the AfD process. Ready?

  1. AfD is not a vote.
  2. You are obliged to explain your "votes", otherwise they may not be counted.
  3. A vote tally at the top is inappropriate and silly. It gives the people discussing the article (not all of whom will be experienced enough with AfD to realise it's not a vote) the wrong idea, and puts undue pressure on the closing admin to count votes without engaging his/her brain.
  4. Well done to User:Just zis Guy, you know? for eventually pointing out the exact policy-based reasons for nominating the article for deletion. That's a step most people (myself included) don't usually bother to take, and it's quite refreshing.
  5. Any questions and/or abuse, I have a talkpage. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Elvis impersonators

[edit]

Current: Keep: 7 Delete: 3 Merge: 3

This is liscruft gone mad! A list of fictional characters who impersonate a dead singer at some point, even if they only do it once? Come on, poeple! Homer SImpson is not real! Sorry to be the one to have to break it to you, but in the context of an encyclopaedia the fact that he once "impersonated elvis" is so far below the level of significance as to be indistinguishable with the naked eye! Take it to Wikicities or some place, please! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Clarification: for the avoidance of doubt, grounds for nomination is WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)

  • I think there are valid grounds for deletion - this is (to my mind) an indiscriminate collection of information, and unencyclopaedic in concept. It's trivia. But it's more that there are no valid grounds for inclusion, as far as I'm ocncerned. As to "objecting to my approach", I don't know what that is supposed to mean, other than an assumption by you of bad faith. I'm sure that's not what you're saying, so please clarify. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a list that's been around for 15 months with numerous contributing editors. They evidently saw some significance for the info. Then you show up and nom for AfD, without any preliminary message on talk page, without looking for a possible merge for the info or new direction for the list. This was not a vandal page or hoax, which might justify that type of rush to AfD. I strongly oppose this approach, because it insults the intelligence of certain contributors and drives them away from Wikipedia. I therefore vote keep. -- JJay 19:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point. On the other hand, there is a large community of people who seem to view Wikipedia as a place to store trivia. Out of interest, have you ever tried persuading the contributors on a list-of-fictional-trivia to do something else with it? I'm curious. Personally I could not see anything much which could be done with this, but then I am very much in favour of "real" information and I'm not a fan of WP being primarily an encyclopaedia of teenage male fiction and pursuits. Perhaps I'm pushing water uphill, I don't know. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: there is nothing wrong with trivia. Also those of us who vote 'keep' really shouldn't have to justify ourselves to you. We say yes, you say no, let's leave it at that and see who wins. -Litefantastic 20:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's expected that those who vote, give reasons. And yes there is something wrong with trivia: WP:ISNOT an indiscriminate collection of information. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation to give a reason when voting. You know that. Did you ask Pavel Vozenilek for his reasons?-- JJay 22:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No, because I wasn't trying to find out from him if there was some angle or evidence I'd missed. Believe it or not I do my best to be open minded in these debates, and I do sometimes change my mind. I also don't usually vote on something I've nominated. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Look I respect you, particularly the part about not voting on your own noms. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't. But in the present case, let's not be too disingenuous- nothing will get you to change your mind about this List. -- JJay 23:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right. I don't know, I have a large capacity for self-delusion in that respect. I certainly see no problem with some of these being mentioned in Elvis impersonator. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: of course. Could be useful. Certainly interesting trivia if nothing more. Danny 00:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that there are impersonators is probably the only thing worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. — Jeandré, 2005-12-15t10:56z
After seeing that article, I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect to Elvis impersonator. — Jeandré, 2005-12-15t16:14z
I'd go along with that. Daibhid C 21:00 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually so would I. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not quite worthy of a merge, IMO, as it is a plain old list, and I like to keep those separated from articles whenever possible. Not "indiscriminate", therefore keep.Turnstep 23:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wyldlife

[edit]

Advert page for a probably non-notable organization. Stifle 23:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. The article had already been deleted before this AfD was closed. Mindmatrix 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ham and lettuce sandwich

[edit]

Nothing of merrit. Delete --Walter Görlitz 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ikambokem

[edit]

Neologism based on a non-notable flash game. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 23:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agilefactor

[edit]

One of millions of software developer/consultanting companies. Only 147 displayed hits despite CEO being an active blogger and 'user reviews' contributor on other websites. Both created by User:DamonCarr, indicating likely self-promotion. 24.17.48.241 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily userfied. FCYTravis 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Wilder Carr

[edit]

Non-notable CEO of Agilefactor, above. Gets a few more hits than his company, but again is mostly due to self-created entries such as blogs, forums, and 'user reviews'. Both created by User:DamonCarr, indicating likely self-promotion. This one appears to be been deleted per VfD almost a year ago (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Damon_Carr), but since I can't compare the content and the name is different, I figured I'd list it just to be safe. 24.17.48.241 21:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silver Screen

[edit]

Delete - Not every small firm should have its own Wikipedia article File Éireann 23:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a small company - my article will be expanded (it's 1 AM in Poland :-)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Slotted spoon

[edit]

Dicdef. Content could easily go into Spoon. Klaw ¡digame! 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Cobden

[edit]

No references to claims of this persons activites, and may be vanity Lancer Sykera 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_12&oldid=1081091810"