Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 26

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< December 25 December 27 >

Purge server cache

December 26

edit

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiskers (Owned by Erin W. of NC)

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

The result of the debate was MERGE. Jinian 14:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asrock Graphics Interface

edit

Advertizing. This so called product is a low volume irrelevance. A PCI port that works with AGP cards, except ATI (the leading supplier of discrete graphics cards) card's do not work. So hardly anyone has heard of this product, its not notable, and it does not really even work. So why is it in the WIKI? Timharwoodx 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into AGP. I use a board which uses this port and was stumped on what it was until I searched the wiki.. And the Radeon 9700 core does work on it as far as I know. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 203.120.68.68 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 29 December 2005
  • merge or keep, product from a large manufacturer. Kappa 05:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly of American Unionists

edit

No evidence of its existence; if not hoax then non-notable. Rd232 talk 00:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nonsense. I've also deleted some other similar ones- watch out for any Googol-related matters; they're probably fake. Ral315 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Googolunvigintiplex

edit

This is not a standard number recognized by mathematicians. It got zero googles. It's basically something someone made up. RJFJR 00:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by someone else. Ral315 (talk) 11:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Outspoken

edit

This page seems to be a hoax, since it lists future dates. I am also sure it doesn't meet WP:Music criteria for notability.Esprit15d 00:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British Government Simulation

edit

This is a forum on a free forum host with 86 members. No evidence it meets WP:WEB proposal. Interesting looking site though, I suppose. W.marsh 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied r3m0t talk 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC) ===TCity=== Delete karmafist 09:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Non-notable website (100 users), possibly spam Rd232 talk 00:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete There are a lot of web sites in the Wikipedia and tcity is growing at a fast pace. They shouldn't be deleted. If you were actually a member, you'd understand. -Member of tCity (Guest) 8:15, 26 December 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 delete. —Cleared as filed. 02:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workaurant

edit

Non-notable, I think, term from a commercial for an American restaurant chain. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cristobal Ortiz

edit

Hoax. Cristobal Ortiz is a fake player in a baseball simulation game. See http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/board/archive/index.php/t-51933.html, and its home page, http://www.ootpdevelopments.com, where it says "Welcome to Out of the Park Developments the home of outstanding sports simulation games for the PC". User:Zoe|(talk) 00:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hee. One thing I just noticed. This article claims, "Cristobal Ortiz learned to play baseball from his father who was on the Brazilian oylmpic baseball team". Brazil has never had a baseball team in the Olympics. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigdor Schreibman

edit

Who? What? 9000 google hits, mostly related to some webdesign mailing lists. Non-notable/vanity. Timecop 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google and DogPile are good at what they do but browsing my website at FINS GLOBAL INFORMATION AGE LIBRARY will go right to the heart of this discussion. (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnicapital (talk • contribs) 09:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And wikipedia is not a place to advertise your horrible site. --Timecop 13:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is significant discussion about who Vigdor is, for people who are just getting started, and questions about what I do in the land of bloggers. A visit to my website is the most authoritative way to answer those inquiries rather than the all-inclusive attacks and "horror" stories that one sees from the largely uninformed censors who inhabit this domain. I am not a person who is especially sensitive to the quality of the technology over the quality of the content but I did make a quick check on my code for the FINS website using TIDY, my favorite authority. They report 0-errors! with a negligible number of warnings, despite the alarming report by the "Timecop" authority. --Vigdor 10:01, 26 December 2005 {UTC}
  • Strong keep. This guy was a pathbreaker well before Drudge and is a figure in the internet revolution. Suggest the nom read the NY Times profile from 1996. Vanity? Sounds more like jealousy to me. -- JJay 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If it's jealousy on Timecop's part, why is someone breaking 3RR to plop this tripe into the Blog article? Reeks of vanity to me. Thesquire 04:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thesquire works hard at his job, I'll give him or her credit for this. He enjoys vandalizing my article on blogs, with page blanking, then posts warnings to me and fanciful "Comments" here and there demanding that users join his masquerade. It looks like the latest career move for the "mind guards" that use every form of coercion to get their way. In a society that is locked in gridlock of complex and conflicting ideas, the technique of coercion that is known as "Groupthink" is working overtime. Wikipedia is the made-to-order site for this destructive cabal. Reworking the meaning of the world guided by the standard of "Neutrality"! Organization of knowledge and approximation of a "world encyclopedia" have flourished since ancient Greek and Roman times. This new venture based on the standards of "Neutrality" is going nowhere. Knowledge organization requires, above all, engagement of the striving human spirit. To say that all we can be is what we are, which is what you get with the direction of "Neutral" ideas is a breakthrough to nowhere. The net result is a war of censorship, something that died a natural death in the Dark Ages, reborn in the 21st century at Wikipedia. Vigdor 11:27, 26 December 2005 {UTC}
  • I have no idea what motivates stupid behaviour or vanity. What matters is the issue at hand- the article raises a relevant historical question, particularly considering that this is an internet encyclopedia. The references I added to the article confirm that Schreibman started an Internet news service and was denied press credentials in Washington. His case may be one of the early precursors in the ongoing confrontation between the old and new medias. -- JJay 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have never engaged in page blanking, so I frankly do not know what Vigdor is talking about. Also, I would remind him of the Wikipedia policy of No Personal Attacks: a line which I think he's definitely crossed.. I personally know little about the very early history of blogging myself, hence my reluctance to make an actual vote on this article, but I do not appreciate attacks upon my character. That he's resorted to making these false accusations against me rather than argue his own case only points to the weakness of his position. Thesquire 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe, but you could have avoided the reeks of vanity comment above as well. Every statement here seems to call for a reaction that quickly spins out of control. If the nom had mentioned that there was an edit war at blog, I would have understood the real motivation for this nom and not remarked on what I perceived as jealousy. Anyway, I do find some of the delete votes from new users/infrequent editors a bit strange. -- JJay 03:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't a first blog. Nobody heard of this dude or his blog until the article appeared a week ago and someone started spamming half of it into Blog.

((User Rodii makes a relevant inquiry, which certainly should be explored. In a genuine dialogue the first stage of idea generation requires that "Every person matters, so it is necessary to protect the autonomy and authentifity of each observer." In the second stage of idea synthesis, a model of influence and importance of each idea can be produced with the support of computer methodology such as Nominal Group Technique (NGT) or Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). The approach followed in Wikipedia is very destructive, inviting vicious attacks by opposing partisans. No sane and reasonable person would call this a "collaborative system." The facts that I have stated about my experience in Internet-based news are accurate. The documents that I have cited are true and accurate. My entire library is open to public inspection. You will see, for example, the first edition of the Federal Information News Syndicate: in the directory on News Columns, the first article on "Participatory Democracy in the Information Age," which FINS published on January 11, 1993. The search engines may not pick this up because the text of my early reports were not HTML. I am pursuaded that my claim of being the first "blog" is valid, albiet open to challenge, based in large part on my experience at the Periodical Press Gallery of the U.S. Congress during the period from 1993-1996. During those years no one at that venue had the least clue what Internet-based news reporting was. In fact, when I started reported via Internet, the Manager of the Gallery, David Holmes, held a meeting with his colleagues to consider terminating my Press Pass; they were all terribly concerned about what I was doing, which they thought must be illegal. These are all seasoned Journalists, completely mystified by the whole idea of Internet-based news. My news column was clearly a first among that leadership group! There certainlly were others using the Internet, many Universities, including, of course, the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), but it would surprise me to learn that they thought of themselves as a "blog"! User:Vigdor 4:13, 28 December 2005 {UTC} User:Vigdor does not exist, this comment was by anon user 141.156.19.61 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not your blog. This is an AfD page. You bloggers never learn. -- Femmina 09:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Actually, one of the major points being made right now in Talk:Blog is that Vigdor is not a blogger. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now included above is a link to an image of The Washington Post story where critics can examine the top treatment given to the public service of Fins Information Age Library in August 1994. This article also conveys information about numerous Government Documents "Gophers" but does not include the NCSA site that brother Rodii mentioned as a possible contender for "1st Blogger" credit.[User:Vigdor]{UTC}
  • Keep: I have rewritten much of the article. Because of his legal struggles in Puerto Rico and his shunning by the congressional press, he is important enough to have his own article. He should not feature in the blog article, however. He didn't do anything truly original in blogging and he has never played well with others. Because of his vain efforts to vandalize the blog article, his contributions to Wikipedia should be viewed in terms of how those contributions can rightly be interpreted by others, whether or not that is in Schreibman's interest.

User:Anthony717. {UTC}

  • Comment: There is a difference of opinion about who is vandalizing whom. The "rewriting" that User Anthony refers to was not to correct any inaccuracy or prejudiuce but simply to continue a mad attack and smear mode of Wikipedia consensus building. While I am perfectly willing to abide by a consensus decision to delete my blog article and my bio I find it unethical and unacceptable to have an avowed enemy "rewrite" my work without my consent. Anthony is perfectly free to write up in his own article all of his criticism of my work. That will help distinguish what is intended. [User:Vigdor] User:Vigdor does not exist, this comment was by anon user 138.88.187.100 -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) He isn't an "avowed" enemy--at least, I have seen no such avowals. Can you point to any? (2) There is no reason to take him as an enemy at all: assume good faith. (3) It isn't your work--when you contribute to Wikipedia you give up ownership of your work; it is the community's to modify and improve. That you may not consider some other editor's changes an improvement is an issue to be worked out through discussion and a consensus process. The mindless reverts you've been doing--which, incidentally, have been wiping out the good work of other editors that has nothing to do with this dispute--are damaging to that process; try taking part instead. At the very least, try to learn how this project works; in particular, try reading this. The people you imagine to be your "enemies" have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, not some animus toward you. What are your motives? rodii 01:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I now have a fairly good idea of how this project works. It is a project derived from the mode of Groupthink governed by the values of slease, attack, and smear. Will this mode of association for the "World Encyclopedia" be sustained? A little consultation with the outsiders should tell us something about this question. [User:Vigdor] 09:00, 29 December 2005 {UTC}
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burrito Brava

edit

One menu item at a restaurant we don't have a page for. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oilfight

edit

Does not meet WP:WEB, barely exceeds WP:CSD for db-empty. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article should not be deleted. It is informative. Other websites have their own wiki's as well for information on their sites. If this one is deleted. All must be deleted. [User: thewird] December 25th, 2005

It is my opinion that this should not be deleted for the reasons shown by thewird as well as the fact that KoC clone games are an important thing of note when discussing Kings of Chaos as well as MMO's in general, and that no other such KoC clones are represented in the wikipedia. [User: funkywizard] December 25th, 2005.

  • Delete per nom. If KoC clones are important when discussing KoC, then that deserves to go in the article. IMO, the single sentence mentioned there is enough to say that. If any of the clones are notable in themselves - by having a large userbase, some kind of media interest, or a high Alexa rating (142,000 is a long way from the WP:WEB guideline of 10,000). I would recommend anyone trying to save the article read the guideline in question, as well as the seciont on meatpuppets in Wikipedia:Sock Puppets, and maybe even tracking down an AfD that went in favour of a website's entry to see how an argument should be organised. Confusing Manifestation 08:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, because the previous nomination was earlier today. Please don't do that.--Sean|Black 01:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

War on Christmas

edit

I know it was nominated a month ago yesterday, but it's fallen apart even worse since then, and since the war on christmas implies, that there is, somewhere, an active war being faught against christmas, I find it odd, that not one single source can be found that shows the existance of this "war" -- 205.188.116.72 (talkcontribs) 00:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - This is absurd. The article makes it clear in the very first sentence that we're not claiming that a "war on Christmas" is actually taking place, simply that it is alleged to be happening. This article is being worked on heavily right now. Rather than wantonly re-AfDing it, a good-faith editor should try to help that process by making constructive suggestions. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply, It exists. And I'm an Editor too!!! Chooserr
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Black

edit

Weak Delete Neither this page nor the self bio page linked to it are enough to convince me that this guy is notable. However, I could see myself being persuaded by facts not in my possession, which is why this is only a weak delete. Caerwine Caerwhine 01:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copious

edit

This is better as a dictionary entry, enhancement to an encyclopedic entry is not realistic Note that I have reviewed the existing Wiktionary entry and somewhat enhanced it, but some of the content here is not verifiable in other sources, and hence is not included in the Wiktionary entry SailorfromNH 01:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a recreation of content deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AirLex Animations. If anyone disagees, take this to WP:DRV, please. DES (talk) 02:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AirLex Animations

edit

NN, vanity, only google hits are on Wikipedia, was already deleted once. Qutezuce 01:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Article has undergone substantial change during the debate. -Splashtalk 00:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three-star restaurant

edit

A pure dictdef. Was tagged for speedy, but foes have context. however it has no content beyond a dictdef. Delete. DES (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - FrancisTyers 02:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not a "pure dictdef". The content has now been expanded to stub-grade. There is much potential for development. For one, the Michelin Guide, widely considered the top of the heap for high-end gastronomy, gives a very limited number of its highest, the three-star rating (I believe, currently only 50 in the world). So, there is a clear distinction between a "three-star restaurant" and any other star rating. A top chef in France recently committed suicide, with some news reports citing the rumored impending demotion of his restaurant from Michelin three-star to two-star as the reason. Some people take their (three) stars more seriously than simply a dictdef. --Tsavage 03:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Restaurant Rating System; otherwise delete. Flyboy Will 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Tsavage said everything I was going to say, only better. Endomion 04:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Tsavage. Well known, important concept, quite worthy of expansion. Smerdis of Tlön 05:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. Sure, it's notable but I don't see what content beyond a definition will ever go here. Ifnord 16:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Keep this rewritten stub. Good job! Ifnord 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content in the current stub has already gone beyond a dictionary definition. For example, the Michelin three-star rating is a big deal in the restaurant world; naming and discussing the impact of three stars on those restaurants is one obvious expansion direction. In any case, I suppose I should read up on whatever specific definition of dictdef you're using, but a phrase almost always seems like it would NOT be simply a dictdef, a phrase stands for something that usually can be described, and has a story. This is Wikipedia, the open, anyone-can-edit, interactive encyclopedia with tens of thousands of active contributors and nearly a million articles on the Web, I don't see why we're trying to limit this, rather than see if it can go somewhere? What is the point? If there is a chance for expansion, as demonstrated by the stub, give it a break!?! --Tsavage 18:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You know, AfD is often a good way to improve articles. Myself, I have rewritten articles because I saw them listed on AfD and thought they deserved a chance. Ifnord 21:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Restaurant Ratings - this is the start of a worthwhile article that should include Michelin's three star system, AAA's and Mobil's five star system, Sagat's and Fodor's systems, and any other internationally-recognized system... and then have lists of the restaurants that made the top ranking in each of those systems. B.Wind 21:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't a Move be beyond the scope of this particular AfD, since this stub is not equivalent to a restaurant ratings article? If that article were to be created, this content could possibly be merged there, and if so, this article then turned into a redirect. But as it is, while this article may be a future redirect or a subarticle of a currently non-existent restaurant ratings article, a Move doesn't seem to make sense. Or is this just another way of saying that "three-star restaurant" shouldn't have its own encyclopedia listing, i.e. it should be deleted? --Tsavage 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is improving the article in question "beyond the scope" of an AfD? I say not --I contend that "three-star restaurant" without context is an improper title for what is clearly an article that will delineate exceptional restaurants. A Michelin guide's "three star restaurant" is supposedly superior to a "three star restaurant" as listed in a Mobil guide or the New York Times. A rename is definitely needed here to provide context for the search as well. The stub is good, but it cannot stand alone with the current name. It would be far better to change the name (with Wikipedia, that's a "move") and allow the expansion into a solid all-around article encompassing more than the Michelin guide (and if it's only supposed to cover Michelin three star restaurants, then a move to that page would be best). B.Wind 06:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm brand new to AfD so perhaps bear with me. I understand what you (and the other Move/Merge proponents) are suggesting. It sounds quite logical, and I understand the appeal of "let's just clean it all up in one bureacratic move." But I'm also interested in how procedures like this can work without contributing undue bias from relatively tiny minorities within the "community" (like a decision voted on by a handful of people). Flexible interpretation is great, but makes it all the more necessary that the "rules" are continually made clear. Here, if the orginal AfD was based on an article being no more than a dictdef, and that condition has satisfactorily been changed, is that not the end of that particular AfD? On one hand, we don't want to get mired down in endless bureaucratic detail and red tape, on the other, there should be quite clear scope for each procedure and process, else it becomes difficult to participate without getting mired in dealing with extraneous aspects. In this case, if three-star restaurant is (now) a proper stub, what are the grounds for AfD, and where are they stated? --Tsavage 19:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - In the AfD nomination, what does "foes have context" mean? --Tsavage 01:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was just created and has already been nicely expanded. Give the users some time to write the article. SandBoxer 04:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is a good stub right now, and looks like there is potential for growth, Four-star restaurant looks like it's spun off of this one, if signifigant development does not occur, merging would be called for to a new article encompassing rating restaurants, but there is not one to merge to yet, perhaps several stubs will combine in the future. xaosflux Talk/CVU 04:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Four-star restaurant should be incorporated into Restaurant ratings as I explained above: the name itself provides no context. Ultimately, Three-star restaurant, Four-star restaurant, and Five-star restaurant will have to be merged and expanded together. The sooner it's done, the easier the transition to the united article will be. B.Wind 06:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems to be an arbitrary way of determining how content evolves on WP. I think that, despite all types of not-getting-the-concept entries, vandalism, stupidity, whatnot, any entry that someone took the time to make has potential value. I can understand deletion when no case whatsoever can be made for an article (but that would be rare). Here, I can easily think of circumstances: An American traveller goes to France, encounters a ton of conversation about "three-star restaurants" (referring to the distinct, rare Michelin award), and wants to know, "What's up with three-star restaurants?" Well, he could get redirected to and have to read through a restaurant article, or a restaurant guide article, a restaurant rating system article, a restaurant review article, a restaurant criticism article, or whatever. Or, if there was sufficient topic-specific information, he could go directly to a three-star restaurant article that would proceed to quickly and efficiently, in an encyclopedia-like manner, answer the question. Isn't that part of the boundless electronic Webness of WP, the potential for things to be made more accessible than before? (I realize I may be exaggerating for this particular instance, but it's really the principle...) --Tsavage 19:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the other appropriate article(s) into Restaurant ratings or something, until such point as it gets too big for one article (I don't expect that soon). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Restaurant Ratings per B. Wind. This article realy needs to be expanded to include other well-known rating systems, but that cannot happen under the existing title. Denni ☯ 20:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Restaurant ratings with a redirect. A "three-star restaurant" is of considerable significance if you know the speaker is referring to the Michelin Guide, or it's of jack-shit significance if you know he's referring to AAA's ratings, or it's of completely unknown significance if you don't know the intended context. I could post a website with three asterisks next to the McDonald's name, but it wouldn't confer widely notable prestige. Barno 21:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you merge an article with something that doesn't exist? --Tsavage 21:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Create the new title, copy relevant content from the old article, and copy relevant content from other articles on restaurant ratings systems. Then delete-with-redirect the old articles. Not a logical contradiction in Wiki terms, regardless of how you might interpret the English. Barno 22:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I see it (and please correct me if I am misguided), had the article been originally written as the acceptable stub it is now, instead of as a dicdef, then there would have been no basis for submitting it as an AfD. Since that is in fact the current situation, how can a now-invalid AfD be used as justification for deciding how to title and organize articles in the general subject area of restaurant ratings...? In any case, all of that can be done as a matter of course in normal editing, so why is it being discussed here under AfD? --Tsavage 15:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • There would have been no basis for submitting it as a dicdef, but there may still well have been those concerned that the topic was restrictive, since (as per much discussion abouve) that three-star rating is not the only one in existence. I have moved this article to Restaurant rating, where it can be updated to include other rating schemes. Denni ☯ 01:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, so it is as I thought. Once the article was turned into an (acceptable) stub, this AfD was closed. All the rest of the votes are essentially irrelevant, since there was no longer a basis for deletion, and what you did with the move and redirect could have been done by anyone, at any time... Thanks... --Tsavage 01:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grenta Crossing

edit

Extremely nn, shows no results on Google spelled as is. However, when the Did you mean: "Gretna Crossing" link is clicked, there is nothing relevant there either. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 02:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ro Locastra

edit
Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lady and her Steel Tiger.

Character from non-notable stories. That series of stories previously had an article, but it went through AfD and was deleted. Delete. Joel7687 02:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense by banned vandal. - Lucky 6.9 02:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remington and the Rattlesnakes

edit

I can find no proof that this is actually real. The picture is from American Dad. אריאל יהודה 02:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armifulation

edit

Neologism. Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_in_school_one_day אריאל יהודה 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as nonsense - Lucky 6.9 03:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of movies set in Taylor, MI

edit

A list of one. Do we need this? אריאל יהודה 02:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen R. Gyurke

edit

per WP:NOT a memorial. I hate voting to delete this type of article. I hate nominating them more. Most of all I hate saying goodbye to this when people vote to keep entries for murderers. It's a clear rule that this has to go, but I'm really not proud of the standards we set. Durova 02:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierson B. Reading

edit

Too nn, with only 173 results on Google. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brutality (band), Screams of Anguish and When the Sky Turns Black

edit

Non-notable band, their own website indicates most albums only had 1000 copies made (though one album allegedly had 5000 cassettes created). Google doesn't turn up a whole lot either (at least in my limited research). I've included the two articles about their CDs in this AfD as well (if the band isn't notable, the albums definitely aren't). Thoughts? Locke Cole 03:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worth of chins

edit

Appears to be nonsense, no online refs apart from copy of this article - SimonLyall 03:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Cobra 10:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kwekwe High School

edit

Definitely not notable; only 32 Google results. Delete. Scottmso 03:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If a school article meets one or more of the following criteria, it should be kept:
  • It has 3 or more full and complete sentences of verifiable, factual information that is not published solely by the school itself, or already included/better located on a district or city wiki article (ie: phone book information does not count toward the sentence total, that includes city, address, district, or phone number(s)). Such information can be included in the article but will not count toward the sentence total.
  • It has one or more interwiki links (e.g. another version already exists in another language)
  • It has one or more PD/GFDL/free pictures
If it meets none of these criteria, it should be merged into the appropriate district (or other higher-level article such as city or education in that city or region, if private), preserving all relevant content, and be redirected.
--Cyde Weys votetalk 05:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Rodham

edit

proposed delete: extremely minor character in a Wing Commander (computer game) novel (IE 2nd-tier canon); shows up the once and then is never mentioned again. Fancruft, in other words. Shall we? Marblespire 03:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Quinson

edit

proposed delete: extremely minor character in a Wing Commander (computer game) novel (IE 2nd-tier canon); shows up the once and then is never mentioned again. Fancruft, in other words. Shall we? Marblespire 03:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with Merge and delete for all the reasons given. --Bhadani 06:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 03:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Hayes

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 keep because the nomination was withdrawn. Mindmatrix 03:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Collection plate

edit

This page is a simple, one-sentence dictionary definition and I really don't see any possibilities for further improvement. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Hudson

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. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Sports Fantasy NBA

edit

Most of this article is incorrect (it bases its material on Yahoo!'s default settings, which can be changed by league commissioners.) It reads as a "how to play" rather than an article on the service. Moreover, we don't have an article on Yahoo! Sports, or on Yahoo! Fantasy Sports, so no reason to merge the little that's correct. Ral315 (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qasimate

edit

This is a page with just a definition, IMO should be on Wikitionary. Delete. Scottmso 04:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Local Trade

edit

Delete. Cannot confirm any of the claims made; if it's true then it's not notable. AxelBoldt 04:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, whichever way you spin it. -Splashtalk 00:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aisha (Romancing SaGa)

edit

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert (Romancing SaGa)

edit

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Seems to be a showcase for fan art (i.e. original research), thus non-verifiable. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gray (Romancing SaGa)

edit

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Seems to be a showcase for fan art (i.e. original research), thus non-verifiable. Cyde Weys votetalk 05:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minstrel (Romancing SaGa)

edit

This is an insignificant character in what appears to be a pretty non-notable video game. IMO this doesn't merit its own article; most other "secondary characters" (according to Romancing SaGa) don't have their own article and they probably shouldn't. Delete. Scottmso 04:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to List of Romancing SaGa characters. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neidhart (Romancing SaGa)

edit

Character simply does not deserve its own page. Should either be merged into Romancing SaGa or merged into the new page Romancing SaGa characters. But as it is each individual character from this game does not deserve its own page. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not "Articles for Merging". If users feel an article should be merged instead of deleted, it's a perfectly valid option; but the nominator should not be bunging it on AfD for the purposes of gaining support for a merge. AfD is congested enough as it is, and that's what talkpages are for. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete as unverified. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comrade Dr. Edward Ikem Okeke

edit

No sources, bad title, no significant Google hits. Non-notable. —Sesel 05:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda wat's sup 06:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Asia

edit

There is absolutely nothing that unifies all the cultures of the Asian continent. One could argue that geography is something that could be considered a link between the numerous (and often times unrelated) cultures of Asia, but the fact of the matter is that very few people who live west of Pakistan consider themselves to be Asian. The average Israeli or Iraqi will not claim to be Asian. At best this page should redirect to other, more specific, cultural articles (i.e. Cultures of East Asia, Cultures of Southeast Asia, Cultures of Central Asia ect...}. Matters are made even worse since this article is now Collaboration of the Week, too much conflicting useless information will be added, causing this article to be one of the worst on Wikipedia.

  • Keep. Should allow collab. of week to finish before having an AfD on this one. Youngamerican 05:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - This seems to be a bad-faith nomination to me. Someone sees it on Collaboration of the Week and decides to axe it. The point of Collaboration of the Week is to make an article better, not delete it. And as long as this AfD stays on the article it's going to discourage edits, thus negating the effect of the CotW. Thus I am voting Speedy Keep to allow the CotW to go back into effect as soon as possible. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporomandibular Repositioning and Physiological Performance

edit

Original Research, Essay Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Cooper

edit

Delete. I always feel sad about nominating this type of article. Yet another victim of a self-publishing scam, in this case of the American Poet Society. No other claims to notability. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted under CSD-A7. Thank goodness for the recent change in CSD policy that allows for groups! enochlau (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American National Front

edit

Can't find anything on this organization or its principals on Google. Seems like it's only notable if you go to high school with these people Daniel Case 06:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Systematic bias

edit

Actually, they are known in my area and I know many of the members. It is also well known across several Internet forums. The founders of this movement are said to spend all of their time talking politics and spreading their message. They are all over the Internet, though for some reason their leader is always changing the name.

Some names he has called his party or group:

Progressive Union Party

Progressive Party

Populist Party

American Nationalist Party

Youth For America

Conservative Socialists of America

Fascist Party

-Axismaster, 1:29pm

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as nonsense, and an apparent attack on this company. Ral315 (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After concerns that this nomination was tainted by GNAA votes, I've relisted this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MOJO Works 2. All the votes as below have been copied to the new entry, but may or may not be counted by the closing admin. Ral315 (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MOJO Works

edit

Non-notable advertising corporation, what makes them any different from 3000 other internet advertising businesses? Timecop 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pelf

edit

Dicdef, unexpandable delete GTBacchus(talk) 06:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Librarians (band)

edit

While page is nicely formatted, band seems utterly non-notable. They only formed a year ago, have a single independently-released EP, and Googling for "The Librarians" + "Morgantown" returns only a handful of pertinent hits.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Wu (musician)

edit

It appears that this is a non-notable entry, as I am only able to muster 19 hits on Google for this musician. [5] It should probably be deleted, but please let me know if you disagree. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Achillean

edit

The article doesn't appear to have enough content to make it worthwhile as an encyclopedia entry, but it had more content in the past (now on the talk page). It appears to have been nominated in the past as a redirect for deletion, bizzarely, since it has never been a redirect. An anon removed the rfd template. User:Niteowlneils commented almost a year ago that there were 925 Google hits on the term, not all of them relevent. I see 14 Google hits for "Achillean Group". Delete.-gadfium 07:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voice of the Borg

edit

This doesn't deserve its own article. Perhaps a merge into Star Trek: First Contact. Delete, JHMM13 (T | C)     07:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Thorstenson and The Elk Hotel

edit

First of all, see Gunk Land -- Gunk land is an obvious hoax.

Skye Thorstenson and Elk Hotel, which is "still in production, scheduled for release 2005", are listed on IMDb, but I'm starting to doubt whether IMDb is reliable in this instance, since Skye Thorstenson and/or his collaborators like to submit hoaxes to Internet websites.

Anyway, even if it was actually "released", it still isn't notable just because there is an IMDb entry for it. The first google hit for "elk hotel" (in quotes) is a consumer review for Best Western Mountain Lodge at Banner Elk. The only related hits are Thorstenson's website and Wikipedia.

I strongly believe the following users are Skye Thorstenson and/or his collaborators. The domain gunkland.com is registered to Skye Thorstenson (since I stated this on afd/Gunk_Land, he has hidden the whois data via domainsbyproxy.com). He/they have vandalized AFD pages: alterning my signed comments, signing incorrect usernames, removing 'disputed' tags, obvious lying ("thanks for the lead to IMDB" even though he already wrote a misleading link to IMDB).

These users are the sole non-cleanup editors of Skye Thorstenson, The Elk Hotel, Gunk Land. (Gunk Land has been deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-30 23:56Z)

If indeed they are Thorstenson, these articles also violate WP:AUTO.

The meta tags for the gunkland.com webpage were "The Elk Hotel, Elk Hotel, theelkhotel, Film, Opera, San Francisco, Skye Thorstenson, Daniel Paul Bates, Veronica Klaus, Mara Luthane" until Thorstenson saw that comment and changed it.

Skye Thorstenson is now mostly a social commentary revealing the motive for creating hoaxes.

Mister Skye, if you're reading this, please try your hoaxes outside of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

Delete --Quarl 08:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 00:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Vearrier

edit

Non-notable autobiographical vanity Malcolm Morley 07:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed and Dangerous (Charmed Episode)

edit

From WP:PNT, been there since December 10. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what language (Slavic?). Came across it. Doesn't look like a major article, but maybe someone can translate it. Sjavitt84 21:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks like Serbian, and it seems to me that it may be just what the title says... To me, this would not be encyclopeadic by definition (i.e. I'd speedy it)... but apparently there are others who won't necessarily share my opinion :) -- there's a link to it from List of Charmed episodes. Perhaps others would have a better suggestion - Introvert talk 06:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like its cut-an-paste from the Zagreb TV guide. I suspect copyvio but can't find it either. I vote to let it die in VfD. --Diderot 21:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fine with me. Thanks! - Introvert talk 23:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
its srbian ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.149.38 (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 00:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ballooning

edit

Looks like a hoax. No references or sources. Somewhat funny material, but probably doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Would've speedied it, but couldn't think how to classify it except as nonsense.TheRingess 08:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well I am a regular player of this game, played it last night and had a great time. We did end up popping our blue baloon when a pot plant bottom fell on it (which was exciting as we havnt had that happen in a game before) but we blew up a red one and carried on. I do not think it should be deleted. I think it is too bad if it was a picture of a scotsman and called irishman, the user obvously must have thought that some pictures were needed and I believe it makes the page look more interesting. It is a great explanation of the game for new players to the game but misses out some great moves for more experienced players. I was interested in the origins of the game but I cannot say I have heard them before.219.89.154.156 21:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatic trail

edit

From WP:PNT, been there since December 10. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Found this loose in Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation. Don't know what language. Jamie 10:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish, according to xrce. — TheKMantalk 07:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Lastiğin zeminle temasta olduğu nokta ile yanal kuvvetin etki ettiği nokta arasındaki mesafeye ingilizce literatürde pneumatic trail ( pnömatik mesafe ) denilmektedir.:kes2005:.
  • Yes, it's Turkish. A rather odd sentence to be floating around in the middle of nowhere though! The sentence is a turkish definition of what we apparently call a 'pneumatic trail' in English -- although, in the parenthesis in Turkish it says "pneumatic distance" to be exact, but it sounds like essentially the same term. The translation of the whole thing is: "The distance between the point at which the tire makes contact with the ground and the point of sideways pull/impact is called pneumatic trail in English literature."
'yanal kuvvet' translated literally means 'sideways pull/force/impact', but in the context of the sentence, I'm quite sure it actually means traction/adhesive friction (you know, such as the tire grip and centripetal force when you're driving on a bend in the road for example). I mean, I'm no automotive engineer and I'm a girl =), but that’s definitely what it should mean. And they also probably meant 'in English' not 'in English literature'!
Still don't know why that sentence would be floating around aimlessly like that though.
--UMich05 09:24, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Heiser

edit

User:71.112.65.188 attempted to nominate this article for deletion. I'm just fixing the nomination; no vote on my part yet. Metropolitan90 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this guy has been published several times from an Amazon search and turned up a few thousand google hits. --Pboyd04 02:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I am the one who wrote this article. If that was truly Mr. Heiser, whom I owe great repsect towards, then right away!). --User:69.248.43.27 03:24, 27 December 2005.
Let me get this straight - You want an article you wrote to be deleted? Why? If there is a problem with it, why not rewrite it? --Barista | a/k/a マイケル | T/C 07:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please keep, incredibly interesting 2/jan 06 T/C 07:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 00:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tolithia

edit

It's a set of un-wikified definitions. Delete, Cleanup, and Move to Wiktionary└ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 08:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, Expand -- A fictional character is not so uninteresting a name as to merely be the subject of a dictionary: the article is a rough equivalent to three stub articles. --Mysidia (talk) 09:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... except that this article is an insider joke article aimed at Tolithia Kornweibel, marketing manager for Esurance, as I discovered when doing the research to try to turn this article into a disambiguation. The "one of the louder Kornweibels" entry gives this away to people in the know. Eliminating that and the "It means 'young girl'." (which is a useless definition) entry leaves just two potential stub articles. But the minor character in Prince of Tides is Tolitha Wingo, not Tolithia, who would be disambiguated at Wingo not here; and I can find no mention of either a Tolithia or a Tolitha being resurrected in any Bible translation that I have so far been able to search. That leaves nothing at all. Delete. Uncle G 09:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, there's only 96 google hits for "Tolithia" altogether, of any kind. On a Tolithia with Jesus, there are no hits at all, and on a Tolitha, supposedly a more common spelling, there are only 86 hits. And most importantly, something begins to smell fishy as we get to the bottom. The article says a Tolithia is a louder type of a Kornweibel; Tolithia Kornweibel, according to google, is a marketing manager for esurance. Might be some weird attack page, or just patent nonsense. In any case, even if expanded, I see no need for this. Flyboy Will 09:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G & Flyboy Will JLaTondre 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Fitzgerald

edit

The article appears to be advertising: an artist striving to attain recognition, no other indication of notability to merit an encyclopedia article... --Mysidia (talk) 08:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smopping

edit

The article is a badly written dictionary article for a word that does not exist. Uncle G 09:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vcms

edit

Not notable, not verifiable. No relevant Google results for "VietNam Content Management System". —Caesura(t) 09:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect to Channel One. Mindmatrix 16:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ChannelOne

edit

Not notable, not verifiable. Doesn't Google. Redirect to Channel One, perhaps (but since it's a substantial article, I thought I should send it through AfD rather than redirecting it myself). —Caesura(t) 10:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izzy Goldrunner

edit

Orphaned article about a fan-fiction character. Not just any fan-fiction, either, but this is from Sonic the Hedgehog! Searches give 2000-odd hits, which Google then collapses down to 10 because they're too similar. Hits seem to have been produced by the article's creator using her character as a pseudonym. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate infodump. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. (There was a stronger preference to keep the list.) Mindmatrix 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewish historians

edit

This article was previously nominated for AFD, with a result of no consensus. All appropriate entries have been put into category:Jewish historians, so this list is now redundant. The only parallel to this is list of Irish historians, and there is no other list of historians in wikipedia categorised by either religion or ethnicity. Therefore, this list should be deleted, along with most other lists of Jews in particular occupations. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, because Wikipedia should not do the dirty work of, and is not a branch of, the despicable Jew Watch. IZAK 09:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Change Vote: Keep per Endomion below. The pros of having a list outweigh the cons of having it. Red links are an invitation to create new articles.
list of Catholic historians; List of Buddhist historians; list of Muslim historians --????? This is not a list of historians who conduct history on Judaism -- I attempted to push for that on the TALK page. I was refused without any viable reason. This is a list of historians who are Jewish -- which is HUGELY different. Antidote 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Observe the ambiguity I noted earlier. There isn't much research value that I can see to a list that covers Karl Marx (with the inaccurate information that he converted), Benny Morris and Thomas Kuhn. Now a list of historians of Judaism, ancient and modern Israel and the Shoah would be interesting. --- Charles Stewart 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I tried to push for on the talk page, but was refused because of some people "obsessed" with keeping Jewish lists the way they are. Antidote 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well I agree that for many occupations nationality or ethnicity is a bit irrelevant, such as opera singer, classical musician, travel writer among others. But as Jews did not have their own state until the creation of Israel and were often denied citizenship or worse in countries in which they lived and most certainly had an identifiable culture of their own it is as justified to allow the Jewish people to have their own categories or lists as it is any other state. Arniep 01:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I never disagreed with that. I believe completely that Jews should have their own lists and categories, but I think that some users a while back seriously OVERDID the listing - and I know others have noticed that too. As a matter of fact, I think the categories for Jews are underrepresented when they shouldn't be. Jews should be treated as an ancestry and should have it's own category under people by ancestry. But the listing is truly overkill. Many other ethnic groups function fine with their own country lists, and Jews have the most country lists of anyone. If a Jewish historian with no article was to be added to Wikipedia, then it takes just as much effort to find out if the historian is Jewish than to find out if the historian is Jewish-German (List of German Jews) or Jewish-Hungarian (list of Hungarian Jews). I can see the rationale behind a list of Jewish historians who profess their Judaism in their writings in some form. That makes sense. The list as it is DOES NOT. If you truly agree with me on the fact that Judaism and being a historian have a connection than you will see that the way they are listed here will not work. If the majoriy of Wikipedian ethnic groups HAD lists of historians, then this list is completely fine, but they don't. Unless it is changed to reflect those who profess their religion in their works, it is truly overkill. I can't see how you can disagree with me. If you do, then please please help me understand because I seriously don't. My efforts here are not to "delete" all Jewish lists as User:JJay and you believe, it is to delete ALL lists that are overkill. Jewish lists, anyone will agree, have been the most overmade. I think LGBT lists are a problem too, but there are less of those. Anyway, please help me understand your vote for keep. Antidote 07:12, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the intent. Many of those working on these lists are Jewish. That Category:Lists of Jews is so much larger than Category:Lists of Christians or Category:Lists of Japanese people I'll admit is a bit odd. I think it's probably more overeagerness to show Jewish accomplishments than an effort to justify idea "Jews run everything." In fact the fear it was turning into that I think is part of why List of Jewish bankers was removed.--T. Anthony 09:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tend to agree with user:antidote that lists should only be created when a person's ethnicity/religion is relevant to their occupation. If list of Jewish historians only contained historians whose Judaism was relevant to their work, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Also, the articles that the list links to should justify their inclusion on the list. To take an example from list of Jewish historians, the article for Eugen Weber only hints that he is Jewish in the works section, and does not make any other connections between his Judaism and his work, so he should not be in the list. I'd probably support the inclusion of this list if it only contained historians whose Judaism is relevant to their work. Or maybe it could be moved to list of historians of Judaism and modified accordingly. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • So when he wrote "Reflections on the Jews in France" from The Jews in Modern France, what was he writing about? Or that his "The Hollow Years" extensively examines anti-semitism? Do you actually know anything about the historians on this list? -- JJay 11:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I didn't notice that. I'll take back the statement about Eugen Weber. I don't know much about the historians on the list. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:09, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. If you don't know much about them you should try to learn more. Most if not all the Jewish historians on the list will have addressed the Jewish condition in their work. In all cases, their relationship to Judaism is relevant. The list, if properly expanded and annotated, can provide context in a way that a category never can. Instead of continually nominating the list, you should help try to improve it. -- JJay 13:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't at all clear that the connection to Judaism is relevant from the description of the list. To cite one of the three examples I picked above, how is Thomas Kuhn (history of science) cogent in this respect? --- Charles Stewart 02:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s relatively facile to cherrypick names from a list until you manage to prove a point. Given the theological impact of Kuhn’s paradigm, I think his relationship to Judaism is relevant. I would also note that a google for Thomas Kuhn + Judaism gives 28,000 hits. Despite the hysterical reaction of IZAK (should we delete African-American lists because the Klan exists?), I'm still waiting for an explanation for the google results I listed above. Either a disproportionate number of Jews are historians, or we should acknowledge that the world at large routinely indicates religion for Jewish historians, despite their focus. -- JJay 19:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No cherry-picking involved. I picked three names I know well from the list: one is a historian of Israel, one did little historical work explicitly on the Jewish people, but is clearly relevant, and one looked to me entirely irrelevant. What theological relevance is there to Kuhn's work? He's a relevant name to invoke on the question of whether science and religion could be counted as having incommensurable domains of expertise, but to say that this says something about Jewish theology is rather strained. Is there more that can be said?--- Charles Stewart 19:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you already forgotten Marx? We could also debate whether Kuhn is a historian or philosopher. These are secondary issues. Why don't you edit the list? Furthermore, when Jewish nobel prize winners are listed, as is routinely the case, what does that say about Jewish theology?-- JJay 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of these historians are NOT scholars of Judaism in any way, it is a mistake to think that they merit any connection with the word Jewish=Judaism to many people. IZAK 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 08:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Roberts

edit

Non-notable, self promo Oscarthecat 10:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Fake DIY

edit

Nn webzine. http://www.thisisfakediy.co.uk/ has Alexa rank of 12,000. Abstain for now. --Quarl 10:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sixth method

edit

Non-notable music group. Delete --Quarl 10:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please put more effort into your nominations. Instead of saying "non-notable", explain why it's non-notable. I suspect your problem here might be that you completely forgot to nominate in the rush to get your nice bolded vote written. What do you think? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've been imitating the amount of explanation other nn-music nominations have. No claimed notability. Unverifiable - no relevant google hits for "sixth method". Formed in 2005. --Quarl 12:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. There are a lot of bodgy nominations on any given AfD daylog. Most of the articles that get nominated are drek, but we owe it to the 5% that aren't to make sure our nominations clearly explain why we believe something should be deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kancer-Kylie: Breast Cancer Fundraiser

edit

Despite being crystal-ballism, this seems like a hoax, as a Google search for "Kancer-Kylie" reveals no results Cnwb 11:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fartinbuger

edit

Delete. Google search for term "Fartinbuger" returns 4 hits, all about medicine, not tugboats. Seems to be a joke that went unnoticed. Only one editor with only one edit, other than myself adding the AfD tag. -Scm83x 11:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and those four hits are for Fartinbuger, and this article says it's about the "Fartinburger". A hoax in the form of a very weak joke. Delete unless someone can find more than the zero references google found for Fartinburger. Grutness...wha? 11:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer2mail

edit

One in literally thousands "programs that download email from mail servers". Do we need to document them ALL? No. Timecop 11:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry dude, but something started in 2004 as opposed to an email program thats been around for over a decade or another decade, does not sound nearly as notable. Not to mention >6million google hits for Eudora (email client), and ~3million for Pegasus Mail, while only 200,000 for Peer2Mail most of which are duplicate links off download sites. My vote still stands as Delete. --Timecop 00:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
well wikipedia is not a comparison site, netiher these programs are the same type, except that they are doing things with mail servers but technically any computer with a modem and telnet can do this. i am going to write a better explaination of what it does, then its up to others to choose. hudd 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ensoniq OPUS

edit

Advertisement for a soundcard chip, ENSONIQ ES-5530, probably copyvio too. Delete --Quarl 11:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Reyk 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advertising. — mark ✎ 11:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, part of my addition to Ensoniq sound card history. Ensoniq is defunct and this is a ~9 yr old chip. Swaaye 16:10, 28 December 2005.
  • I see. I take back my accusation of advertising. It looks like much of the article was copied from the website -- not sure if this constitutes copyright violation or not, but should be expanded and written in prose if kept. I'm still not sure if all of these individual sound card chips are notable enough to warrant their own articles. Unsure of vote now, maybe smerge all of them to one article. --Quarl 23:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret 7000

edit

This looks like a non-notable vanity entry to me. A group of 6 amateur film-makers, who only published their work online. Their website is not too well-known either - Alexa rank 2,526,304. Delete. Marcika 11:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete all. I excluded a number of sockpuppet keep votes, though it didn't make much of a difference. Mindmatrix 20:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakal an-Khâr, Anarikê, Tanturak and Anbalukkhôr

edit

These two articles were created by the same user who gave us Bellakar, which has been repeated deleted. The articles describe lands created in LotR fanfic, and I believe that's probably all we have to say about that. Wikipedia is not a free webhost, nor an indiscriminate infodump. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. From each article: "It is a fan unfinished work" --Quarl 12:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these should of been speedied. They are non-notable fan works from the same mailing list as the first one and by extention of this been should of been speedy deleted. But now they are going to get their five days of fame and there will probably be some keep votes from the sockpuppets who keep reposting these. QQ 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these actually were marked for speedy but the tags got removed before anyone could act on it. In addition to the non-notable nature of the work there are also verifiability issues since the only source is a restricted mailing list. The fact that the articles keep getting reposted in detail also suggests they are being copied from that restricted list, creating potential copyvio issues. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Proposing to delete these articles entirely violates the wikipedia webhost, which IS a free webhost where we can find many interesting articles. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. If these articles are removed, then we can all assume that Wikipedia is a RESTRICTED encyclopedia, where only few articles are admitted. Alcantar (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a webhost, and you do not have the right to post whatever you want here. By the way, I've taken the liberty of altering your .sig on the presumption that you weren't intending to impersonate User:Quaque. In future, please use four tildes (~~~~) to sign your notes, instead of copying and pasting someone else's .sig — signing properly will help you avoid confusion. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alcantar, "only few articles"?? You must be joking. There are currently 6,909,184 articles, and this figure is unlikely to plateau anytime soon. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:43, Dec. 26, 2005

Note: Anbalukkhôr and Tanturak added as of the time in my .sig. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with a plea for speedy deleting any self-identified fan fiction. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:43, Dec. 26, 2005
  • Protect the pages, then slap a big ol' {{deleted}} template over 'em. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete burn, protect, lock, shred and otherwise remove this cruft forever. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What really is cruft ? Not the article itself, but all the nasty comments. And when I hear the comments of some users, I can see they are intolerant.Alcantar (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keep this please, or discard all the texts of wikipedia. Deletion process is really, really bad and means that wikipedia is not free and submitted to the will of few individuals who are true fanatics of what can be written and what can't be written. All these texts should be kept. Fulzin (talk) 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, but not a free webhost. Erase the term "free" as there is nothing free and sympathic there. .Pete Fenlon (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is a 'free encyclopedia' in the sense that you don't have to pay to look things up... as you would for a paper encyclopedia or other electronic encyclopedias such as Britannica's. It is NOT a 'free webhost' in that you aren't allowed to use it to post any material you would like... only material which one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Now, people have made 'encyclopedias of Middle-earth' and thus you see alot of Middle-earth articles in Wikipedia... but nobody would ever make (or buy) an 'encyclopedia of unfinished fan RPG material set in Middle-earth'. It's just not the kind of thing ANYONE is ever going to need a handy encyclopedic reference guide to. What you should do is post your materials to geocities or some other web-host site. --CBD ☎ ✉ 19:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejucide - this is just confusing. This fanboy is trying to alter LotR mythos by creating his own made up locations. This certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyde (talk • contribs) 04:24, 27 December 2005
    • Speaking on Delete ? You'll then prove that wikipedia is no worth, while LotR mythos can certainly be expanded, and REALLY belongs to an encyclopedia. Fulzin (talk) 18:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I would say the LotR mythos shouldn't be expanded. And even if you are going to make stuff up and expand it yourself, it certainly doesn't belong in an encyclopedia of general knowledge, but a personal website. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For God's sake, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general knowledge (or at least an attempt at one). Why don't all of you cruft-fans go to Wikicities and add to any of the wikis there, or start a new one, on any topic that suits your fancy. 131.111.8.103 18:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously. A few hints: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information, which means that stuff you make up should not be included unless it's pretty widely known and somehow significant. As fuddlemark has pointed out, WP is not a "free web-host", and I would also endorse the comment of Cyde above. I do hope you'll all stay and contribute to the The Lord of the Rings articles and any others you're interested in. Bikeable 18:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A free or not a free webhost is not really the point. The fact here is that there are many intolerant people who can't be OK with other people opinion. Delete is their only arguement, and a not really convincing one .Pete Fenlon (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: the two "keep" votes by Pete Fenlon were created in the same edit, which is Mr. Fenlon's first and only edit thusfar. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 19:16, Dec. 26, 2005
      • Haha, I like how he voted twice in one edit. That, errr, says something about him. And his argument basically boils down to us being intolerant of other people's opinions? What? That's not what this is about. This is about determining whether or not content merits inclusion in Wikipedia. This content patently does not belong as it is entirely original research. --Cyde Weys votetalk 19:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that really says something on you. Why couldn't Fenlon post a vote and a comment ? I interpreted the second response as a comment, and not as a second vote. Your argument boils down, intolerant may be you are ... Fulzin (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not only did you "interpret", but you changed Fenlon's second vote to a Comment. Please do not change other people's votes. Bikeable 21:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fulzin is a new user account and his only edits are to this AfD page. This is getting ridiculous. It's a bunch of votes for deletion and then a bunch of sockpuppets for keeping it. And the sockpuppets think we are blatantly stupid ... modifying their own votes? Please, we know how to use a Page History. I trust that the admin closing this discussion will see through all of this nonsense. --Cyde Weys votetalk 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All this discussion is entirely non sense, while there is no real argument against these texts. Sockpuppets for deletion, and others for keeping it. This only proves that wikipedia is not a free encyclopedia, and this can't be trusted for that precise reason. This is dictatorial, and many intolerant views... These intolerant opinions entirely discredit the idea of an free encyclopedia.Alcantar (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a terrible mischaracterization. "Sockpuppets for deletion"? LMAO. Look at my edit history, I am no sockpuppet. You, on the other hand, only have edits on this page and the pages for deletion in question. And you obviously do not know what an encyclopedia is, nor do you understand what the usage of the word "free" means in this context. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can assure you that YOU are a sockpuppet. Your attitude, and your non respect towards others who don't agree with you proves that you are a sockpuppet. And yes, I have no more interest on wikipedia, because of the hostile reception to these few articles that does no harm to the encyclopedia, but improves it. This enriches the encyclopedia, but blatantly you can't see it. Thank you Cyde Weys and some other "sockpuppets delete" (and I was not the one who brought that insult here !Alcantar (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete all per nom - FrancisTyers 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete delete all, pre nom. -- Vary | Talk 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all. Be careful not to tread on the newbies toes - there was a time when none of us knew what Wikipedia was, so the fact that they don't know is only natural. To those who have saifd keep, a question: would you expect to find these articles in Encyclopedia Britannica? If the answer is no, then ask yourself why you'd expect to find them in any other encyclopedia, like Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia stuff is in question, and new pages added CAN BE ERASED WITHOUT ANY WARNING, and every content on a page can BE MODIFIED WITHOUT SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR. Alcantar (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's what Wikipedia is. Yes, anyone can edit any article put here... that's the whole idea. If you want to host a page that only you can change... Wikipedia is not the place for it. Again, I urge you to simply find a web-host such as Geocities for your project. --CBD ☎ ✉ 09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment ... and every user or administrator, can put an AFD on some pages he considers for a speedy deletion, and delete the pages (CENSURE). Alcantar (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anyone can nominate any page for AFD, sure. But as you'll see from a quick glance at the AFD archives, they'll soon get told off if they nominate pages which are encyclopaedic, with the pages so nominated being speedily kept. And a large number of the borderline cases which are nominated survive the AFD process. That's what consensus is all about. And there are very strict rules as to which pages can be speedy deleted, as a glance at Wikipedia:Speedy deletion will show. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most fan fictions are not notable, and these articles do state that it is a "work in progress." Tripod will be welcome to have those pages, but Wikipedia is not the place to host uncompleted fan-fics. Zach (Smack Back) 02:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom --Jaranda wat's sup 02:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, delete, delete with fire. FFINN.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 02:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a article that's something like [Locations in Lord of the Rings]. I believe there is some good content in there but needs to be cleaned up and other locations added. SandBoxer 04:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand. These aren't real locations in the LotR mythos. They're all made up by a small number of fans from a Yahoo! discussion group. This information is patently non-encyclopedic and including it on a page of actual LotR locations created by J.R.R. Tolkien would be doing a disservice to the quality of the Wikipedia encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien. Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta. Sorry, just had to establish my LOTR-credibility there for a second. Now, this is the sort of thing that will not do. Fan fiction is subject to severe requirements of notability before it can reach encyclopedic value, and I do not thing any fanfic, anywhere has ever succeeded in it. This is how it should be. Ergo, Delete. --Agamemnon2 08:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nom. — mark ✎ 11:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an obvious delete. And isn't it an amazing coincidence that all of the "keep" votes on here are written with the same terrible English grammar? ;) Kafziel 14:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all related pages nn fanfic — meatpuppets need to go, too. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 14:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment remove some parts of my earlier comments.Alcantar (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • sorry, no can do. Signed comments to wikispace pages and talk pages aren't removed, since that can seriously distort the sense of a user's comments. Do you really want other people deciding what is to be kept and what is to be removed of the things you said here? Grutness...wha? 00:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stargate Wars

edit

Non-notable, unlicensed online game, which appears to fail WP:WEB. This article has previously been deleted (see previous discussion here), so may be a candidate for speedy deletion. I wouldn't know, because I can't compare the two articles to see if they are the same. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete nothing here - and blanked by sole contrib. -Doc ask? 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Autographs

edit

Firstly, this is unencyclopedic. Secondly, it's fancruft. Thirdly, we should not be putting people's addresses up on Wikipedia. Reyk 12:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Systems management. howcheng {chat} 00:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PC Management Software

edit

Advertisement for Prefixit. Nobody uses the term "PC management software" (no google results anyway) except Prefixit. Delete --Quarl 12:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Homey 16:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of alleged pedophiles

edit

This article is obviously slander and NPOV as none of these people have actually been proven to be pedophiles. Probably CSDable as an attack and slander page and also per verifiability standards, but I'm not too sure. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being gay is not a sex crime. FCYTravis 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being a pedophile is not a sex crime, either. // paroxysm (n) 22:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: thanks for bringing "Persons of debated lesbian, gay or bisexual orientation." to my attention, Proxysm. That list needs to be deleted or extremely cleaned up (you were perhaps joking, but I am serious). I looked at some of the articles linked from that list, and they do not have any explanation for why the person is listed there. Others are dubious "debates", i.e. tabloids. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. The entire article (like List of alleged pedophiles) is one giant weasel word (see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words). --Quarl 00:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smite from face of Earth- this article is everything I hate: listcruft, POV, personal attacks. Kill kill kill. Reyk 01:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate, if desired, as a category with SPECIFIC verifiable sourcing guidelines. See Category:Accused Soviet spies. FCYTravis 02:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, rewrite and constrain I am the person who compiled the list in question. Thank you all for your sensible comments. I would not want the wiki community to suffer any harm as a result of what should originally have appeared in the sandbox. Since wikipedia articles already contain information about people associated with pedophilia I propose the following:
    Title: Change to "People associated with pedophilia"
    Rewrite: Include a discussion on listing of pedophiles
    Rules for inclusion: Restrict names on the list to people who:
    a) Are subjects or are named in existing wikipedia articles (pls follow the links to check),
    b) included in which are discussions of their association with pedophilia

--Suidafrikaan 05:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete inherently POV and attack. In it's early form it was a clear {{db-attack}}. Now, I'm not sure if it's speedy, but its definately in need of deletion. Also, don't think a name like People associated with pedophilia will make this ok, as that just opens the door to more people being added to it. --Rob 06:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    if it is POV then surely all the sections of wiki articles to which it links are subjects for deletion, too. will the proponents of deletion be consistent and follow through with this logic?--Suidafrikaan 06:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    If you put an accused murderer, a convicted shoplifter, a convicted serial killer, and a person accused but never formally charged, all in one article entitled List of alleged criminals I would AFD that too. If you renamed it to People associated with criminality and added a defense lawyer, I would definately AFD that. Meanwhile, I would still keep all those individual bio articles. I see no inconsistency with deleting a blacklist, while keeping the subjects of the blacklist. --Rob 06:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not the articles but the links. I took the link off the pedophilia article. --Gbleem 06:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert, I struggle to understand your logic. For each of the names on the list there is a wikipedia article providing all the details that the list summarizes. Why is it that the facts are fine in an article, but as sooon as one lists them this constitutes a blacklist? Same information, different format. I generally consider myself fairly PC but the blacklist logic is PC elevated to the status of faith.--Suidafrikaan 07:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Context effects meaning. As an example, one of the first people added (later removed) has an article that provides meaningful context of exactly what he was convicted of and what he wasn't convicted of. This list provides little context. The pre-AFD list provided no context whatsoever. Right now, there's a lot of scrutiny, and effort to "clean-up" this thing due only to the AFD. Once the AFD is over, attention will fade, and people will be free to add whatever names they wish. Allegations are closely scrutinized in bio articles, as people familiar with the person review them. But most lists in Wikipedia go largely unnoticed (except by people adding to them), and frequently contain dubeious info, that goes unchallenged. On the pre-AFD article, while it's common to start an article in a low-quality draft stage for its first version, surely something this serious warranted something a little better (there is a "Preview" button, next to the "Save" button after all). If this is kept, we can expect future poorly thought out contributions to the list (as editors will know the article's immune from deletion). --Rob 08:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unmaintainable, POV. — mark ✎ 11:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term 'alleged' makes the article, by its very nature, POV. By grouping those 'alleged' by a few crack-pots with those convicted or sex crimes in a court of law, one clearly enters the region of implying guilt. That, in any jurisdiction, is defamation of character. Besides, even if it weren't, it seems like a pointless article in the first place. What sort of encyclopaedia creates lists of 'alleged' facts (legal or otherwise)? Bastin8 13:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    pedophilia is a sexual preference not a crime, just like homosexuality; hence you're "implying guilt" part is nonsense kthx. and again, it's no more defamation than our List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people. // paroxysm (n) 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Paedophilia may well be a sexual preference, but, then again, so's rape (which paedophilia is, legally, in England & Wales). Both are illegal in just about any jurisdiction that I could ever imagine, including, for the record, Florida, where Wikimedia is based. I don't care what your personal opinion of paedophilia is, because the only opinion that matters is that of the law, which makes this page defamation, hence illegal. Bastin8 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
o rly, Bastin..? Hmmm...
"Pedophilia" is not a legal term. It is a medical term used to describe the sexual attraction to children. Child sexual abuse and et cetera are described in a court of law as child sexual abuse, not pedophilia (for obvious reasons). Tabloids love to use nonsensical phrases like "convicted of pedophilia," though, but uhm, they're tabloids (QED). Pedophilia is not an act, and hence, you can not be convicted of it. Perhaps reading our very own article on pedophilia would be beneficial to you, hmm.. ?
So in the end, I agree, the law is all that matters, and the law doesn't give a damn about pedophilia. You can freely admit you're a pedophile in front of a cop and all he can do is gasp and call you a sicko. Thankfully. // paroxysm (n) 01:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to argue the toss about the differences between paedophilia and actually raping a child, it's best not to do it when arguing to retain this article. After all, most of the people in the list aren't there for reasons of thought, but for the reason that someone believes them each to have gone through with the act. If that is the justification for inclusion, your argument that the list actually concerns a psychological condition is flawed.
Then, the rectification of that 'flaw' (as you see it) leads to further problems. If we keep the list, and it is used to reflect 'paedophiles' in the more esoteric sense, we would be publishing a list of people's thoughts that are inferred from their behaviour. That is far more Orwellian than the alternative.
Moreover, use of the term 'paedophile' is understood by the public to imply that the paedophile actually practises it, just as is homosexual. Since that is the understanding, it is the definition for purposes of establishing whether the article is defamation. Bastin8 12:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block - List of weaselly defamation. Would provide much opportunity for mischief. WP has no place for such a list. --- Charles Stewart 18:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, I sure do love reading. It's great.
    On your "weaselly" part -- I'll add a reference for these supposed "accusations" now. // paroxysm (n) 19:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, somebody's already done a wonderful job on that. Keep. // paroxysm (n) 19:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm having second thoughts about this. This sort of list is very easy to abuse, but clearly efforts have been made to minimise the risk here. The list is still abusable in certain respects:
    1. Two of the sections have rather fluid criteria for inclusion, namely Historical figures alleged to have been pedophiles - what constitutes an allegation? - and People associated with pedophile organizations - what constitutes an association?
    2. The list has four rather different sorts of sections, and there is no clear reason why other sections might not be added. What looks to be a policeable list might easily become unpoliceable in time.
  • So my second thoughts are that the page might not be so unpoliceable in time. I'll vote keep if we can establish some clear discipline for maintaining the list, but I'm dubious now. --- Charles Stewart 03:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


  • For the record, Shreshth91, slander is oral defamation. I think the word you're looking for is libel which is written defamation. If libel is anyone's sincere concern then I trust that you will all be calling for deletion of the articles on Michael Jackson, Gary Glitter, and any number of biographical wikiworks that contain rumours, allegations, and sourced opinions.--Suidafrikaan 05:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all. Mindmatrix 21:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Riotfolk, RiotFolk, Riot Folk

edit

Ad for an anachist collective (which is itself a bit of an oxymoron) that's only particulary notable in a small niche on the US NW. Google search only finds reference to the collective, and not a genre. Only backlinks are hastily added "Some also consider him "riotfolk". Jgritz 05:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 26/12/05, and doing so without buzzwords, too (w00t!). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: I am in Riot Folk and we are just an eight member collective, there's no genre of music called riot folk. (mark gunnery)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 about deletion but MOVE to Jeffrey Schilling. — JIP | Talk 06:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Maundy Thursday Rescue

edit

There are no online references to 'Maundy Thursday Rescue', and the only relevant result for '"maundy thursday" marines' is this page, from which the article here is partly plagarized. I would suggest that this episode is not encyclopedic, so I support deletion; if it is notable and encyclopedic, I would suggest a move to Jeffrey Schilling and some considerable rewriting. - squibix 13:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedied already. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape cat care

edit

Delete nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied already. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Runescape mage arena

edit

Delete nonsense. --Ghirla | talk 14:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. I have taken the liberty of merging the contents into Miniclip, but please note this is Articles for Deletion, not Articles for Merging. If you think an article could be merged Be Bold and do it yourself instead of foisting it off on AfD. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 19:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Bush

edit

Not much information, could be put into Miniclip. Thorpe | talk 14:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Burns

edit
Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Burns

This is a non-notable event, and is effectively a memorial page. It caused no legislation to be enacted, and there were no other long-term ramifications to cheerleading. MSJapan 19:14, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lulu Lamer

edit

Delete not enought to rate a page in my opinion.--Looper5920 09:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 11:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Games

edit

The article has no proper meaning and lists games which are both immature and dangerous. The page is not encyclopediac. Erebus555 16:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Trickster. howcheng {chat} 00:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trickery

edit

Article merely defines 'Trickery using an unattributed quote - nothing of substance, no links - seemingly well-intentioned attempt but ultimately empty - Wiktionary does it much much better Madman 15:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toolstar

edit

Appears to be advertising, particularly since the article attempts to push reader into link right off the bat. Perhaps software is notable enough for encyclopedic entry, but it doesn't seem so to me. Madman 15:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ariel bercovich

edit

If he was really "one of the most prominent israeli [sic] young poets", as the article asserts, he wouldn't have to "publish his divine work on Wikipedia". —Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I was looking at a vandalized revision of the article. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thuan

edit

Patent nonsense. I had nominated it for speedy deletion but for some reason User:Ulayiti decided to keep it. It is patent nonsense, a local gaming in-joke (and rife with spelling errors). Delete Madman 16:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Modern Times Club

edit

The Modern Times Club is a series of real but non-notable and probably transitory events. I found only 151 Google hits, some of which were from Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirror sites Madman 16:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge, move, redirect, and/or clean-up as the move strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The God of Village

edit

Although this article seems to be written in good faith, I cannot find anything on the 'net to directly support this concept. Taoism does indeed support a hierarchy of gods, so perhaps this "God of Village" is instead many many separate "Gods of Villages". In any case, unless the article can be cleaned up by someone with more indepth knowledge than I have, I would suggest a delete Madman 16:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If this article is merged with Taoism make sure it doesn't land in the Tao chia (or Daojia) section of philosophical Taoism, which has no gods. Endomion 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup. Most English-language sources on religious Taoism refer to these local deities as a "Land God" or "Earth God." (Look halfway down this page for an example of a statue of a Land God.) They fit into the Taoist hierarchy of dieties above the Kitchen God but below the City God or Town God. Aside from the name-- which may well be a legitimate translation-- there is nothing wacky about the info in the article, though some of it might need sourcing. I agree that it should be cleaned up rather than being merged into the Taoism article. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    --Oh, and it looks like the article originally had an image of "Tudi Gong" or "Tu Di Gong"-- I have no idea what picture was there originally, but it was probably something like [this]. If I had time to clean this up now, I would, but I don't . . . Crypticfirefly 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this title should redirect to a discussion of village gods in general, or a disambig pointing to Tudi if "The God of Village" is really a specific title for the dude. Kappa 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - not because it's commercial, but because it's an ad. DS 12:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BusinessSeek.biz Business Directory

edit

I would support a speedy delete but the speedy tag has been in place for a while, maybe AfD would be a quicker end if we can show a consensus. Non-notable website +/- spam. Ifnord 16:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am the website owner and I don't feel my link should be deleted. I have added my site to the Directories List - right where my site belongs. I see it's up for deletion because it's commercial - so are other directories listed there such as Yahoo (I have provided over 10000 free links to the internet community). My site is a useful resource for members of Wikipedia and I would appreciate it if my article isn't deleted. I am also open to suggestions on ways I could make my article Wikipedia friendly? Any help would be appreciated. At the end of the day the category is called "List of Web Directories" exactly what my site is - a directory. If my link is deleted so should all the directory links be deleted, plus the category, because that means you cannot add directories to this category - therefore rendering it a useless category. Hope someone can understand, that category is for directories - regardless of whether the listed is submitted to by directory owners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BizSeek (talk • contribs) 26 December 2005

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fretwide

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 keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Horsley Hills

edit

Terribly formatted article, doesn't seem to have much capacity for expansion, doesn't seem notable enough. Cyde Weys votetalk 16:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaakko Peltonen

edit

Film director whose works consist of a couple of 3 minute student films. 740 google results for "Jaakko Peltonen", but none of the 50 first results mention a filmmaker. His imdb link has one entry as a special effects assistant. - Bobet 17:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin_Dewson

edit

this article has so little content i couldnt even say its a stub, and hasnt had an attention really since its creation 20 days ago Benon 17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too short. --Thorpe | talk 21:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cliconnect Internet Telephony

edit

Reads like an ad, probable self promotion (as this was created by User:Cliconnect), wikipedia is not self promotion. W.marsh 17:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 00:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inhospitable

edit

empty, and not likely to be encyclopedic if created SailorfromNH 17:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, empty, dicdef if not Sceptre (Talk) 21:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suasion Resources

edit

This article reads more like an advertiesment. Probably vanity article based on the creator's user name. --D-Day 17:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clesson Robert Jeffrey

edit

Doesn't seem particularly notable Bachrach44 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crocker's rules

edit

Crocker's rules by User:Lee Daniel Crocker (page not created by him). While there is mention of "Crocker's rules" on the Internet, I have not yet found any listing of the rules themselves, just how they are supposed to someome be good guidelines. -- Emact 23:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Set a time limit to add the rules and clean up, say 7 days after the end of this AfD. If there is no change by then, delete as unencyclopedic. Userfy as Crocker's rules deal with editing Wikipedia. B.Wind 01:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undeniablefactology

edit

Hoax, neologism, original research. Google hits? Grand total of zero. Ifnord 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess Who's Back?, No Mercy, No Fear, and 50 Cent is the Future

edit

Same reasons as the stack of Snoop Dogg mixtapes. Unofficial hand-made underground mixtape releases w/ no label. An unwikilinked passing mention of No Mercy, No Fear can be (if it already isn't) merged into the history section of the 50 Cent article, but none of the three need their own individual coverage. FuriousFreddy 17:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. As they say. Pilatus 16:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)Withdrawn. Pilatus 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are obvious keep or merge candidates. "50 Cent is the future" is for instance credited as reviving 50 Cent's career after he was seriously injured in a shooting and then dropped by his record label. From the biography on 50 Cent's official homepage, after recording new material on Guess Who's Back?, 50 Cent assembled a crew G-Unit and:
    Rather than create new songs as they had before, 50 decided to showcase his hit-making ability by retouching first-class beats which had already been used. They released the red, white and blue bootleg, "50 Cent Is the Future," revisiting material by Jay-Z and even Raphael Saadiq.
    That's when the unbelievable happened, and hip-hop history was written. The energetic CD caught the ear of supa MC Eminem, and within a week Em was on the radio saying, '50 Cent is my favorite rapper right now.' Em looked to mentor Dr. Dre to confirm his belief in the young hitmaker, and the good doctor co-signed. Floored by the appreciation of the greats, 50 didn't hesitate in signing with the dream team. [6]
  • We should certainly not delete this kind of material. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Tony Sidaway. Thanks for taking the trouble to research these works. Once again, I would respectfully ask the nom to stop making blanket nominations.-- JJay 01:01, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and then think about merging. Andreww 08:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 50 Cent mixtapes, especially No Mercy, No Fear. Kappa 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California and userfy Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides. BlankVerse can merge the articles as necessary once he's finished with the information-gathering. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 21:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California and Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides

edit

Strangly formatted and strangly coded article, apparently attempting to disambiguate the various meanings of "Eastside" when relating to California. Even stranger is that Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides was also written, and then included into Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California as if it were a template. I'd say delete both, no merge or redirect. --FuriousFreddy 20:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you can come up with a better name, I'll gladly use it. The facts are that there are two very different Eastside Long Beaches and there needs to be some easy way to differentiate them. The "traditional" Eastside has been called that for at least 60 years. On the other hand, the other Eastside is well-known to almost any rap music fan and is the only Eastside Long Beach that is known outside the LA area. BlankVerse 08:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Once I am sure that the text at Long Beach, California/Two Eastsides is accurate and stable, I will probably substitute it into the three articles and then delete it. There seems to be no reason at all to delete Eastside (gang/rap), Long Beach, California except your dislike of the title. BlankVerse 08:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Ryko Suave

edit

Vanity article for nn musician. Even gives himself away in the article: Dj Ryko Suave is the moniker for an underground, not-well known but thoroughly established and in many DJ circles, influential, producer of "ill" beats. Userify if he wants to keep any of it, delete it otherwise. FuriousFreddy 18:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uniting the States Tour

edit

Bands may be OK, but this tour looks like a non-event. Jamie 09:41, 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. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Espaciojapon

edit

Appears to fail the web guidelines, a Spanish language web forum. QQ 13:48, 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. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happyrobot

edit

Bad article on some blogging forum. I suppose every website, being "verifiable" is now considered encyclopedic? Wikipedia needs to get its standards back. -R. fiend 14:34, 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 (I could have sworn I speedily deleted the Planting Seeds article). howcheng {chat} 00:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Planting seeds community awareness project, Basil Shadid

edit

Not sure of the project's notability, nor its founder's. I came across these articles after closing the afd debate (result: delete) on William Maria Rain, one of the co-founders, so I think the Wikipedia community should decide on these as well. RobertG ♬ talk 14:36, 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. However, because the split was between keep and merge, the article will be kept. This should not be construed as precluding anyone from being bold and performing a merge themselves. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triphylactin

edit

Fictional drug from the novel Ninth Day of Creation by Leonard Crane. One edit, in October 2005. No pages link to it. Delete. Parallel or Together? 15:03, 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 and recreate as redirect to Eden (novel). howcheng {chat} 01:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eden:The Novel

edit

A self-published novel from an author not notable enough for an article (or whose article was deleted) and has no notability of its own. I recommend it be deleted. Kit 15:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I now think we should redirect, per Zis Guy. Kit 08:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imageweaver

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:52, 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. --Shanel 07:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOJO Works

edit

I'm relisting this. It was listed earlier today, and I closed it as a speedy deletion. However, another editor informed me that many of the voters in the prior AFD were GNAA members, and the speedy was not valid. I've therefore undeleted the article and relisted it here. All votes from the prior AFD have been copied here; to the closing admin, please make a decision over whether these votes should be counted or not. Ral315 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes as copied from the first AFD

Non-notable advertising corporation, what makes them any different from 3000 other internet advertising businesses? Timecop 06:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted (see top) to December 26, 2005. Insert new comments below.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pasta patent

edit

google search shows the Tuterri is a brand of handmade pasta. This article doesn't explain why it appeared or how it is used elsewhere in Wikipedia. If the recipe or fabrication process is proprietary, then this article serves no purpose.Ariele 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 16:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swedspeed

edit

I believe this is a spurious article; the only referrence I can find to this seems to be a quote from the article itself; the attached photo also suggests this article was created as a private joke. Scix 19:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chocolate balls

edit

Used to be a specific recipe, which was moved to Wikibooks Cookbook, so now it's just: "Chocolate balls are a snack made of chocolate and peanut butter" and a picture. Googling for "chocolate balls" gives me plenty of hits, of course, but to a myriad of different recipes and concepts of what makes a "chocolate ball". I think this concept is too diffuse to merit an article. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC) Update: I think the keep responses below are well-reasoned. I now vote keep. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. enochlau (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The_Ergonomes

edit

non-notable, band don't even have a single/album released Oscarthecat 19:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ames_Tiedeman

edit

Non-notable Oscarthecat 19:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - Guinness Book sites product. Very notable... User:Onenex1000
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Budup

edit

Neologism, probably totally invented [8], not defined anywhere and thus unverifiable. I doubt Wiktionary would want it either, because of that. --W.marsh 19:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - nonsense. --Oscarthecat 19:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sage (Book)

edit

This "book" is not known to Amazon or Google, nor can I find much evidence of its author. Unverifiable/Hoax? Xoloz 20:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 18:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chez Ray

edit

This is a non-notable page about a home winemaker, complete with blogspot. (Mmm, wine...)

Delete as noted. --Bookandcoffee 20:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep QQ 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Louisville Eccentric Observer

edit

Orphaned nomination being properly listed Eddie.willers 22:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 06:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bernward Joerges

edit

I gave this article the benefit of the doubt as far as asserting the notability of this professor, but I find no evidence that he is notable. Xoloz 20:47, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable as far as I can see. --Eeee 23:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, the article isn't very informative but the person has written and/or edited enough books that I'd consider him notable. The linked site has a few under 'publications' and Barnes and Noble lists some here. I've no clue whether the books have been read by 5,000 people but I'd give it the benefit of doubt. - Bobet 00:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV. How do we know he actually countered the argument? Endomion 01:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One does not become a professor at a German university unless one is already a researcher of some note. German professors are by definition more notable than "the average college professor" in U.S. terms. I find eight books (co-)authored or (co-)edited by him in the Swedish national library catalogue, using only the full name (Joerges,Bernward)[9], 329 hits in Google Scholar, allowing for hits using only the first name initial, and 770 page hits on Google Books for the same search. This is not Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, but as long as we keep any 19-year old who gets payed to play baseball or soccer, any obscure musical artist with a couple of albums, or any actor with a few roles on IMDB, not to speak of various fictional characters from video games, a real professorship at a research university is a very reasonable claim to notability for academics. If the article is to be deleted because of lack of content, we should be consistent and do that with obscure professional baseball players as well (and that will never happen, as you all well know). u p p l a n d 10:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, full professor in Germany. Kappa 05:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by request of author. enochlau (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikiDebate

edit

Original research? Test posting? Userfy? Help me out here. Ifnord 20:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't know. Is there a way that I can delete it? Wikizach 23:59, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can add something this to the page:
{{db|article creator requesting deletion. I will put it in my user page.}}
--Quarl 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ca$h (rapper)

edit

I am not speedying this because it makes a plausible claim to notability... except as far as I can tell the claim is not true and he is not famous for that song [10]... but I could be wrong I suppose. --W.marsh 21:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 06:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon Players

edit

Advert for a school play. They sound like nice people, but this is not even remotely encyclopedic. -- Gleaming Throw 21:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 18:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRIPURANENI RAMASWAMY

edit

This article is a near-exact duplicate of the article at Tripuraneni Ramaswamy Choudhury. Madman 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tributary, Georgia, Tributary at New Manchester

edit

There are many such entries within the wikipedia universe including: Celebration and Seaside in Florida, the Cotton District in Mississippi, King Farm in Maryland, Atlantic Station in Georgia, and Cherry Hill Village in Michigan. Each and every one of these developments is similar in scope and none are public housing developments. If this site is to be deleted each and every one of these should be as well, or are these objections purely subjective? Jabix 09:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Advertising of a new for-profit community that does not appear on MapQuest. Madman 22:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note identical text at Tributary at New Manchester Pilatus 23:00, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Country at Point Mallard

edit

Advert for an as yet unbuilt resort development

The object of www.Wikipedia.org is to provide information on numerous subjects. To suggest that this page should be deleted because it has not yet been built is completely against the purpose of this website. The "River Country at Point Mallard" is pure fact, it is in the process of being approved and could become reality. I'm sure that there are other pages on things that have not yet been built or put into action, if this page should be deleted because "River Country" has not yet been built, then I suggest that you go forth and strive to delete those other pages of which advertise some other unbuilt structure, unapproved bill, or project.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No action taken. Mindmatrix 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chi Machine

edit

It's an advertisement about a non-notable exercise machine. I mistook it for non-commercial promotion of pseudoscience, tried to document it, and ended up making it worse. Please delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable Tom Harrison (talk) 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the page is deleted, then so be it rather than allow spam advertising, personal bias, false beliefs and lies be printed. FYI the Chi Machine is hardly non-notable when over 2 million of the original have been sold worldwide. --User:Angel26(Talk) 04:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)--
  • Keep content about the merits of the device but delete any information which will lead readers to an online order form. This is an encyclopedia, not a catalog. Endomion 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pseudoscientific quackery, and that's being generous. --StoatBringer 01:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant advertising for misleadingly named pseudoscientific fad device. --Fire Star 20:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not disagreeing that it's a pseudoscientific quack device designed to fleece people of their money, but the damn thing has sold over two million devices, which makes it notable, and thus encyclopedic. We merely need to phrase the encyclopedia entry in such a way that it is clear that this thing is not endorsed by real science or medicine. Astrology is pseudoscience too - should it not have its own article? --Cyde Weys votetalk 21:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete snake oil. "Passive aerobic exercise" my arse. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even if its claims are dubious, the fact that it's been solid millions of times and there's even a paper written about it PMID 15328757 warrants inclusion. The content of the article is what will need editing, perhaps the title too...it may be more appropriately named "Sun Ancon Chi Machine". Pseudoscience and quackery, etc. are well-referenced in Wikipedia! Andrew73 13:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant advertising. Wikipedia does not need an article about every product in existence. Even if it weren't quackery it would still be sub-notable. Durova 23:50, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, millions of sales, covered in a medical journal... it's disappointing to see so many POV votes. Kappa 05:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per previous keep votes (remove any advertising links and make sure true scientific argument is presented). --Petros471 11:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete MSTCrow 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was all rules ignored so this WP:NOT spam gets speedily deleted. FCYTravis 10:49, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evud

edit

Finishing incomplete nomination. Article is nothing but spam for a website trying to make money by getting people to pay for links. I see nothing that marks it as worthy of an article. GraemeL (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep QQ 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of faux pas

edit
  • Delete. Firstly, this list is not, nor could it ever be, complete, and faux pas change faster than the feasible rate at which Wikipedia could be edited--by the time a faux pas is verifiable or citable it could be on its way out. An incomplete list of faux pas is something more appropriate for WikiTravel to help people get along as well as possible in a new culture. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a travel guide, it seems pointless to have a list of faux pas. A few examples in the Faux pas article should suffice. This article could also be transwiki'd and put it into the Talk section of each country on WikiTravel.

Secondly, this list does not fit the general usage of lists on Wikipedia; that is, a list of links to articles relevant to a particular topic. If someone wants to do important research on cultural aspects of certain countries, they would find better information by starting at List of national cultures. magicOgre 22:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1990s/2000s Identity Theory

edit

Looks very much like original research. FuriousFreddy 23:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 22:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trandoshan Rifle

edit

Little content. No Context. Weapon does exist in the Star Wars fictional universe, but its a game weapon from the Dark Forces series, not a starship. Previously deleted (see here for details). I don't think its applicable for a speedy delete (G-4, recreation of deleted material), as this is a far smaller and 'inferior' article to the previously deleted version. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. --Terence Ong Talk 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newtonmas

edit
Newtonmas was nominated last year, on 2004-12-24. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newtonmas/2004-12-24.

This celebration and the traditions appear to be nothing more than the invention of Gordon Worley. Google shows most mentions are mirrors to wikipedias or sites linking back to Gordon Worley's own site. None of the non-encyclopedia sites appear to have any mention of this 'celebration' dating from the last two years unless they are referring to this Wikipdia article itself. It would appear the article itself is perpetuating the celebration. I vote for delete. Evil Eye 23:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - I do find it worthwhile to celebrate Newton's birthday but I can't say I support this ridiculous name. --Cyde Weys votetalk 23:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. OK, time to come clean. By now I think I probably have as much personal experience with Newtonmas as anyone. Not self-initiated even: When I was a young adolescent my science teacher had an annual tradition of having his religiously diverse class celebrate Newtonmas as a "neutral" winter holiday. There was no "secular" bend to it, just a pro-science one. We had a little tree with apples and calculators hanging from it, and we ate pasta (manicotti I think), which according to our teacher was "Newton's favorite food". It was fun. Maybe I should make a website about it, and then I'll be an expert source like Gordon Whorley!--Pharos 23:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No source cited after all this time means it is original work. Obina 23:33, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, Gordon Whorley's a source. And Robin Zebrowski of Flickr (Newtonmas 2004) (Newtonmas 2005) is a source. And I'll be a source if I have to! This isn't a made-up celebration.--Pharos 23:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Both Gordon and Robin have connections or interests in the academic world of Artificial Intelligence, so maybe one passed the holiday onto the other. Besides, since when has the blog of one person, the picture album of another and the science teacher of the third constituted enough evidence for the notability of a holiday? Evil Eye 00:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; The word seems to be in use. Clean up and cite as necessary. Tom Harrison (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sources seem very problematic. -- JJay 00:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism once removed. Consider this the opening shot in the War on Newtonmas. Endomion 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment.I think a source is something published, not the opinion of any editor.Obina 01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't a neologism; it's a holiday over 10 or 20 years old. Usenet postings go back to 1992, and a user on Talk:Newtonmas very credibly says to have made a radio broadcast about Newtonmas back in 1984. Look, I'm not saying it's the most popular holiday. But many people have heard of it, and a small but real group of people do celebrate it. Unlike high schools or something, there aren't that many small holidays; there's no reason to have an overly exculsive criterion of notability for them.--Pharos 01:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Me and some friends could devise a new holiday tomorrow involving a historical figure. We could celebrate it, tell people about it and mention it on forums we go to, in emails, on our blogs and post pictures of us celebrating it. This will let people beyond the group who celebrate it know about the new holiday. We could do this for several years. We would be a small but real group of people who celebrate this holiday. But would it make the holiday notable? I think not. Also, looking over the edits on Talk:Newtonmas, the person who added the info about the radio transmission appears to be quoting source written by Michael Morotta, who wrote an page linked to in the main article, so this radio broadcast was carried out by one of the few people we've already got associated with NewtonmasEvil Eye 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if it's someone's kooky creation it seems to have caught on some. It may not get that many Google hits, but it gets what(for lack of a better word) I'll call "quality Google hits." The York Daily Record mentions it[11]. At Google News it's mentioned at some Wessex paper.[12] The idea of celebrating Newton's birthday is certainly not this guys invention. If we can actually have Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians this seems a slam-dunk easy keep.--T. Anthony 03:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's doesn't follow at all; the article namespace has very different standards from the user namespace. Doops | talk 06:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From just above-- Not to mention, Newtonmas is hardly a secular holiday when you consider not only was Newton a famous scientist, but he was much more into the (Christian) Bible than science. Also, in accordance with the currently used Gregorian calendar, Newton's birthday should accurately be celebrated on 4 January, not 25 December. PatrickA 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
No, that's not true. It is not customary to recalculate pre-Gregorian dates. Doops | talk 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And even if it was, what difference, would that make? Newton was both a Christian and a scientist; you're just giving your personal criticism of how Newton is commemorated– what does this have to do with notability?--Pharos 22:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the Wikipedia page and wrote my blog entry about it because numerous people had discussed Newtonmas with me. At the original time of my blog article's creation, there was very little you could find on the Internet about Newtonmas. The holiday is becoming more visible on the Internet and I've read several blogs where the writers have mentioned either celebrating it or at least observing it. To me, people are looking for information on Newtonmas, so Wikipedia should try its best to supply that information. G Gordon Worley III 16:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Comments

edit
  • Comment - My High school physics teacher (in Australia) mentioned this well before Wikipedia.. but I might argue it is non notable and should be deleted anway. At best its more of a joke in the scientific community rather than an actual celerbrated holiday. In it's current state the article should be deleted anyway since most of it is based of that silly blog... but on the other hand even bloody Festivus and the Star Wars kid have articles so what ISNT notable? - UnlimitedAccess 12:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just state that it is celebrated, often only half-seriously, by a small number of people around the globe...and is not "notable."

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

The result of the debate was MERGE. Jinian 17:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bill in Portland Maine

edit

Not really notable. I say Delete. Eeee 23:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endomion 03:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, should be listed at WP:CFD if at all. —Cleared as filed. 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books by Haruki Murakami

edit

Redundant Category


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_26&oldid=1234126804"