Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 30 January 1 >

Purge server cache

December 31

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, leaning to merge/redirect. - Mailer Diablo 08:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lindsay Lohan Remixes

[edit]

An article on one of Lohan's songs is good enough. An individual article documenting the remixes of her songs is completely pointless. Remove it. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another needless AfD? Laughable. If this one is needless, then every single other AfD is needless. If I believe that there is an article that is not required on Wikipedia, I will nominate it for deletion. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't appreciate why I said it was needless. I didn't vote a simple keep, I voted merge/redirect. You can place a redirect without an AFD. If this was List of Jo Blough Remixes, an AFD would be warranted. You could put in a redirect by youself, in under a minute. Instead, you'll waste 5-days, and several peoples time. Also, next time you do an AFD, be sure to put the text "AFD" in the edit summary, so watchers of the article are aware of what you've done. Also, as deletion is not "minor" please don't mark the addition of the AFD tag as a "minor edit", as you did. --Rob 20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would rather list it here then start a possible edit war with several other users. A poll is better-suited than an argument. By the way, I will click the "minor edit" if I want to. Please don't start a silly argument with me here. —Hollow Wilerding . . . (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're welcome to use minor edit when you want, and not put in an edit description if you don't want. However, you'll find that others will assume all your edits to be major, and in need of review if you follow such a practice. --Rob 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 20:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge is certainly reasonable. This is not, and doesn't look like it even could be, an encyclopedia article. I'm not sure I agree that the Afd is pointless tho. It gives us the chance to come to the conclusion that this list should not be an entire article by itself. I've no prejudice against some of the content being merged elsewhere, as appropriate. Friday (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. BTW, depending how the Afd goes, it might make it harder to merge. There seems to be a growing feeling that a prior Afd prevents merging after it's over. I don't agree with this even a little bit, but many other editors apparently think that way. Also, I'm not sure this is useful as a redirect, so even if merging is the main goal, the deletion question probably still needs to be resolved. Friday (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge/redirect I agree with Friday. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I though generally merge+delete (combined) is not an option, due to GFDL, which requies retention of edit history of old article, if its content are used in another article, in order to ensure attribution requirements are met. --Rob 20:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be, I'm far from an expert on licensing issues. At any rate, there's no actual content here, so maybe it's not an issue in this case? If the names of notable remixes get used elsewhere, who's to say that it came from this article and not from a CD jacket or somewhere else? Friday (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I see... RadioKirk talk to me 21:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...because like in this case they are prone to error, POV based and designed to influence voting trends. They often lead to bold predictions or statements of fact not grounded in reality. They can mislead or intimidate. In short, they are disruptive and do not facilitate reaching consensus. -- JJay 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to be honest, I find that something of an overreaction. There was no running tally; rather, I intentionally waited until there was a significant period of inactivity before noting the tally. If you wish to see that as "disruptive", well, that's your prerogative; I happen to disagree. RadioKirk talk to me 22:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was this unexplained edit, which was diruptive. The closing admin can count, and won't need your tally assistance. --Rob 22:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. RadioKirk talk to me 22:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

After nearly two days of nonactivity, the vote (including multiple options) stands at 6 for deletion, 3 for merging, 2 for redirection. RadioKirk talk to me 17:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't feel that a list of this type is an indiscriminate collection of information? It sure doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. Friday (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all, this is not a random collection of data, this is a tightly focused list. It certainly does not fall into any of the eight examples on the aforementioned page. Turnstep 18:54, 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 keep. Mindmatrix 01:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Narwee High School

[edit]

A now-closed school whose only claim to fame is that a politician once attended there is not sufficient for inclusion in WP -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's not the point. This school doesn't have much reason to be notable in the first place, so now that it has closed, it loses all real notablitiy. My former schools have no reason to be listed here and I have no rush to add them just to prove a point doktorb | words 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Its entirely the point. Elvis Presley is no longer a singer, should we delete him too? What about Elizabeth I? Or the World Trade Centre? 80.177.152.156 14:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete under CSD G4 (recreation of deleted material) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Day

[edit]

Unferifiable as per WP:V; I googled as best I could and I can't come up with anything referencing a day of commemoration for a prizefight that never happened. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 00:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

**Not Delete' Hmmm, some people waste their time to put important things here, but others say delete it, Rocky day is not a hoax and if you read it its a day of good intentions. Talk about War in Iraq, majority of people believed it was good in usa, now they do not. Now, if something is not popuplar or not known today, that does not mean it will not be tomorrow, simple as it sounds, so if you idiots want to delete it, fine, but when the day becomes popular I will make sure Wikipedia has no right to have these articles, because you people run the way you like it and think the way you like it and in your small minds you think you are rights based on the lousy standards you created.

It would also be good to grow up and realize that google does not carry everything in the world, then again, we may agree with you, you do have a little point, but in that case, instaed of deleting you can always put an asterix to the side that claims that neutrality of this article could be disputed... BUt of course, people with little minds can not think of that...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrazor

[edit]

Note: The author of the article, Neoseeker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has also vandalized this AfD.

Does not exist, other than in a user profile on neoseeker  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    00:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of sexual abuse as a social problem

[edit]

This subject may well be a worthwhile addition to an encyclopædia but the page should not be created and left to hang without including factual information and citation of sources -- (aeropagitica) UK 00:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm point taken. On reflection, I think I agree with it. Article can be remade if necessary. Original vote gotten rid of, new vote: Delete. Batmanand 18:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 18:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of the Sky Galleons

[edit]

Gets 6 google hits which might be mirrors. Looks like something somebody made up. [1]. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Craw's Revenge (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. --Shanel 06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deepdene methodist church

[edit]

Non notable church, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also tens of thousands of schools, and yet they are all classed as notable - even when closed (see VfD about three above this one) Batmanand 12:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will churches be to 2006 what schools were to 2005? I hope not. pfctdayelise 03:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    • Just as noteable as any of the 1000's of other wikipedia articles on schools (example list)/churches/shopping centres/etc all around the world. (see next point)
    • From Wikipedia:Schools regarding which school articles 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.
    • Linked to from A. Harold Wood, who was an advocate and player in starting the Uniting Church of Australia. He was a minister at Deepdene Methodist Church upon retirement (according to the biography). (this is also a reason under Wikipedia:Schools to keep an article relating to schools)
    • If deleting, merge into the A. Harold Wood article instead, to add more information on what A. Harold Wood did with his life?
--Phanton 03:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish Invasion of Cyprus

[edit]

Nominated once before.
Completing nomination started byt another user. Claimed to be fork. Abstain for now. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brnneman nominated on my behalf, thank you. I nominated it because this article is a mish mash of information which already exists in better form in other articles. The history and politics of the invasion is covered in Cyprus dispute, the physical aspects of the invasion are covered in Operation Atilla, the casualties to both communities are covered in Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. The only reason this article exists is because it was a POV fork of Cyprus dispute from a subsequently banned user. If someone can suggest what unique purpose this article can serve in light of the other articles, then I will take note, but at the moment i cannot see a use for it. --A.Garnet 01:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tottaly agree with the above. Merge and redirect with Operation Atilla, also merge with Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict. Michalis Famelis 18:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Cat Dillion

[edit]

Delete Vanity band stub, google test 57. BACbKA 00:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Barton

[edit]

Unverified possible hoax. Have searched on muliple terms associated with this article and can find nothing relevant. JLaTondre 00:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 and protected from recreation. This is content frequently posted by the North Carolina vandal and is a hoax. android79 01:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mean Croboys

[edit]

This article looks to be hoax, has only 85 hits from a google search [5]. Delete as nonsense. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 00:58, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobst Boy

[edit]

This person is not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ragnarok Wrestling

[edit]

Note: This nomination was first made on Dec. 30 but an error kept it from being transcluded onto the page. It has been transcluded to Dec. 31 instead.

This nomination also includes Mitch Brown (wrestler).

This is an independent circuit for wrestling; it was started in 2004 by "the Brown family and friends". Mention is made of the fact that it has "virtually no money" and "an entire roster of wrestlers under the age of eighteen" -- which, personally, makes me wonder how "the winner [of the annual Hardcore Battle Royal, I think] will become number one contender for the United States Championship." In short, I think these guys are working hard, and having a good time doing what they're doing, and they might just end up famous someday -- but that day isn't today, and until that day, there's not enough notability here for Wikipedia. Sorry, guys. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Assmunch

[edit]

Continuing AFD for Assclown. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:18Z

  • Delete as non-notable recent neologism. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 01:20Z
  • Move to Wiktionary. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. mikka (t) 03:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since Wiktionary does not need this crap. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I might be revealing a little POV here, but just because Beevis & Butthead used it doesn't mean it belongs here. I second the above notion, which is that I don't even see why Wiktionary needs this entry. I don't know what the standards are for Wiktionary, whether slang and vulgar terms are accepted, but I cannot see the value in this. GestaltG 18:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most dictionaries include slang words, and Wiktionary is no exception. To know what the standards are, please read the Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion. Uncle G 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Granting that, I wonder if Wiktionary needs to include vulgar slang? Vulgar slang would be different than mere slang; there is a big difference between say, "yinz" (Pittsburgh slang) and the entry in question, Assmunch. I would also challenge the Attestation angle for inclusion in Wiktionary; mention of the term in Friends and Beevis & Butthead wouldn't seem to meet any of the four criteria for Attestation. If it were sent over to Wiktionary, it would be likely challenged there by people who know much more than I do; in that event, it would be like "passing the buck" to Wiktionary GestaltG 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • The term under consideration fails the Wiktionary criteria: (1) it is not clearly in widespread use, (2) it is not used in a well-known work, (3) it doesn't appear in a refereed academic journal, and (4) it is not used in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (as far as i know). —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 20:36Z
        • Whether a word is a slang word, vulgar or otherwise, is irrelevant as far as the Wiktionary inclusion criteria are concerned. You are conflating two different things, by the way. Whether this word satisfies the Wiktionary criteria for inclusion is not the same as whether this specific article should be transwikified to Wiktionary. Sometimes words will satisfy the criteria for inclusion, but Wiktionary already has articles, or simply could do better (than the dictionary articles mis-placed in Wikipedia) from a standing start. Uncle G 05:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Pogoman 21:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism/worthless. Incognito 05:16, 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. howcheng {chat} 18:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Crips

[edit]

This was tagged for speedy, but seems notable if verified. From the talk page, (posted by User:Check two you): "As a gang expert, "Asian Crips" can refer to anybody of Asian descent who are affiliated with the Crips. It's not entirely Hmong. And using Google, none of this info are shown when refering to "Asian Crips." Kappa 01:22, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionated Voice

[edit]

Tagged as a speedy with the justification "just describing a personal blog has no encyclopedic value". WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:31, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Author has requested deletion on the article page. Mindmatrix 15:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaWolf Military

[edit]

"The DeltaWolf military was founded in the year of 2003 on Neoseeker.com." That's probably all you need to know. I hate to clutter AFD with this, but the author removed my speedy-delete tag, and then added a copyright message (!) and the helpful hint, "If the following viewers think this is nonsence, its not really." Delete. bikeable (talk) 01:34, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Team Gizka

[edit]

nn Lbbzman 01:35, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comic Book Rumbles

[edit]

Totally nonnotable messageboard on a website not notable enough for its own article. Vanity fancruft, self-promotional from extended number of links. Board doesn't do anything that hundreds of other boards not listed here also do. DreamGuy 01:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • p.s.: althought the site's 100-odd links in from Wikipedia articles lights up the spam radar, Wikipedia is not the top referrer and its Alexa rank is 8621, so although the forum is obviously not independently notable, and this article is vile, the comicbookresources.com site would almost certainly qualify under WP:WEB (whether it would continue to qualify if the 100+ links were removed is, of course, a different matter). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Entry erased by snob jerks.

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

The CBR Wiki was erased by snob jerks.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Another administrator has already speedied the article, so no further action is required. Mindmatrix 00:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fillie

[edit]

No biographical info or details of notable works. 78 hits in Google, most of those to Wiki mirrors or Barnes & Noble. More detail required to justify this article. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:42, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hair cut fetishism

[edit]

enni ☯ 01:20, 2 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 blanked by creator/sole contributor of content, so speedily deleted. android79 23:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benin Dakar

[edit]

Procedural nomination. This was tagged as a {{nn-bio}}, but it makes a few clear assertions of notability. Bringing it here as a disputed speedy. No vote from me as yet, although it should be noted that this article was created by User:Benindakar. android79 01:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This writer is growing in popularity and should be kept.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wedaconnection (talk • contribs) 17:49 31 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete The writer may grow in popularity but right now she is not popular. - NeoJustin 18:53, December 31, 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 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Winslow

[edit]

This article is on non-notable subject, with only 449 results on Google, most of which actually refer to a poet. King of Hearts | (talk) 01:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Shanel 06:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maiko Joeong-shun Lee, Viscountess Rothermere

[edit]
  • Delete Subject is not notable. Article lacks sources. The links posted contain only photos or name of subject without biographical info. Second wife of a British peer. This entry is first reference I've heard to her. Thesaunterer 02:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a reference: [6]. Not sure about notability. —Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:43Z
Thanks, but reference is from obituary of subject's husband. I could argue that there are many people mentioned in thousands of online obits who are not noteworthy.Thesaunterer 03:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources aren't there? It is difficult to find info on her, but I'm still trying...
  • Keep She is notable in particular for her work in the arts, especially the Philharmonia Orchestra (she is chairman of the patron's circle – the patron being the Prince of Wales!). I tried to look her up in Wikipedia last year after seeing her picture in a programme, but was disappointed to find nothing. So I thought an article was in order. --JRawle 16:31, 3 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 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Davison

[edit]

Hoax. Could find no relevant information via google. However, the giveway is that while a PhD student he "quickly created a name for himself, proving that any 3 points joined in a nearest neighbour manner, whose angles sum to 180 degrees is a triangle." JLaTondre 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry I confused hoaxing and nonsense, although there's enough absurdity to make me label it nonsense. Anyway, even if the article claims subject is important, it still qualifies as a speedy nn-bio. The only reason nn-bio would not be a good reason is if some indication or evidence of notability was presented in article. None is in this case. For example, initiating a reading group is not support for notability, and neither is receiving A levels (not to mention his alleged result). In other words, if you see an article that looks like an nn-bio but it starts out by saying the subject is very famous or important, it's still a speedy under nn-bio. That's my understanding. --C S (Talk) 14:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy criteria disagrees with that. An assertion of notability is all that is required; not evidence. To quote: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead". -- JLaTondre 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, it doesn't. Please take a closer look at Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles. It notes that it is important to consider only significant assertions and the plausibility of an assertion. Assertions of notability should be at least "remotely plausible". Note that the more complete policy (not the snippet you quoted) says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead." It should at least be clear from this that what is meant by "assertion" is quite different than what you mean. Here assertion means a statement of some fact that would indicate notability, not an outright statement such as "he is important". If we couldn't speedy articles that started with "X is notable", simply because it asserted notability in this way, a lot of vanity articles would not get speedied the way they do now. --C S (Talk) 01:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Wikipedia:Deletion_of_vanity_articles: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Rejected speedies show up on Afd all the time because notability was claimed. But we're going astray of the main purpose of this page. If you want to talk further, why don't we move this to my talk page. -- JLaTondre 01:46, 2 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. Yikes, this article was almost three years old! howcheng {chat} 06:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of anti-heroes

[edit]

This list is highly questionable. The criteria for classifying a character as an "anti-hero" are far more subjective than even "normal" heroes. Such a list allows people to add characters willy-nilly. A few readily recognizeable and fairly undisputed anti-heroes could be listed as exmaples in the entry for the anti-hero and serve the purpose much better. This list is unecessary, highly POV, and completely beyond any manner of being proven. CaveatLector 02:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written nomination, CaveatLector. You made your argument succinctly, refrained from voting, and even offered alternatives. Well done. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:23, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 20:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia about The Simpsons

[edit]

Just a collection of trivia about the show. I don't think it can possibly be reformated to resemble an encyclopedia article. Please do not suggest merging into The Simpsons as this page had originally been created by splitting off a section from that same article, which had gotten too unwieldy. Andrew Levine 02:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Cherbi

[edit]

Note: I am relisting this AfD. The page and this AfD were both blanked by the original author, and was brought to my attention when the blank page was tagged for a speedy delete. No vote. --Deathphoenix 02:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish advocate who doesn't seem to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. A Google search for "Peter Cherbi" yields less than one page of results. I'm vaguely suspicious that WP:VAIN might also be in play. Tom Lillis 16:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My response to this :

I am not the person you name but I did the articles based on extensive coverage he receives in the Scottish printed press & television, not just "on a bit of protest coverage by the BBC". Winning Parliamentary debates which turn into successful legislation & changes in regulatory rules, helping users of a required service - that of a solicitor is on the whole, more than 'a bit of a protest'.

You can delete the articles if you like. It is your privilege to do so.

For the avoidance of doubt, in the short statement left in the blanked article, there was no one identified by name who "demanded " that the article be removed.

i note the matter & issues arising. Based on this, I am no longer interested in wikipedia.

As far as Google searches go, Life in Scotland doesn't yet hang on their every reference. I note the reference to WP:VAIN. There's plenty of that around anyway so it will do no good to add to it then. Please therefore delete the articles forthwith.

So, Tomlillis, two days on, the article has not been deleted, contrary to my request to do so, but one of my articles certainly has. What gives ? Since I am happy for the articles to be deleted, along with my userid, quoting Wikipedia's policy on such matters as expressed in the terms of deletion, I don't see why the article should be kept around longer, unless it's just to get some more knives stuck into it.

  • —the preceding unsigned comment is by Lawscottie (talk • contribs)
    • Lawscottie, as a matter of proceedure, articles nominated for deletion and appearing here must remain for a minimum of five days to promote discussion. After five days, an administrator will consider the discussion and decide to either delete or retain the article. There's nothing that can be done to speed it up. Saberwyn - 05:05, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete

Chris Flux

[edit]

This was tagged for speedy delete but I don't feel that it's a A7 nn-bio, since it claims he is a published writer. I am listing it here, with no vote from me. W.marsh 03:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 attack page. Harro5 04:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freak show complex

[edit]

article appears to be a gag KarlBunker 03:24, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinful Retribution

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Delete Tom Harrison (talk) 03:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 07:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Manor

[edit]

A very small residential housing development in a Chicago suburb, no different from the thousands of others. Non-notable. HollyAm 03:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged and redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Fish Called Raven

[edit]

Individual episode of "That's So Raven." Not encyclopedic. Klaw ¡digame! 04:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was User requested speedy delete (G7) WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reductio ad googlism

[edit]

Oh the irony... I'm going to "appeal to Google" on this one... 0 Google results [9] suggests that this is original research (see WP:NOR, and/or a neologism. Could certainly be a real phrase at some point... if it's formally defined somewhere and used in some media. Currently it doesn't seem to be used off of IRC, allegedly. W.marsh 04:10, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smell of Victory

[edit]

Individual episode of "That's So Raven." Not encyclopedic. Klaw ¡digame! 04:13, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign in the Neck

[edit]

An non-notable episode of That's So Raven, see Smell of Victory just above. Dralwik 04:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. However, I'm going to wait seven days for the relevant editors to move the pictures to Wikimedia Commons and determine which ones will go back into the main article before deleting. We'll revisit this on January 13, 2006. howcheng {chat} 07:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maine Coon/Gallery

[edit]

Per WP:NOT: "Collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons." I have tried several times to explain to the two editors on Talk:Maine Coon#Pictures about this policy, and the other flaws with this page; apparently my interpretation is wrong and once "consensus" has been reached on an issue, you can't touch anything. I even spent time creating a gallery on Commons, commons:Maine Coon and linked to it, as is the norm, but my efforts were swiftly reverted (and my other edits unrelated to the issue keep getting reverted in the process, so this may be a case of article ownership instead of objective reasoning). I would like some outside editors to weigh in on the issue. —jiy (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about this the more I realize that the real issue you (jiy) have is that you A. - didn't do the polite thing and then B. - got pissed when the rest of us didn't do the polite thing back. Quite hypocritical and also quite unnesessary. Pschemp 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The proper way to handle this - for whatever "research value" someone's home snapshots of their pets may truly have - is to create a website at myspace.com or some similar site and link to it from the Maine coon article. I think cats are adorable, maine coons especially, but this really doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Durova 05:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

Here's the whole history. Obviously this afd tag is a ploy to force action by user jiy. I noticed you left out a few things about the issue. Nothing like making a whole new page to hash out what has already been decided by consensus because you think you know better. Your know your edits were reverted because they violated a previous consensus, were made without ANY previous discussion or warning on the talk page, and constitute a narrow and incorrect interpretation of policy. Stop crying "poor me!" and acting like you've been wronged. You blatantly ignored the history of the article and when no one agreed with you you started this. If you had used tact and correct ettiquite, maybe people would be more willing to listen. Pschemp 04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The precise numebr of pictures has already been worked out. The issue here is whetehr the gallery page should be kept or ir should be moved tot he Commons. I vote commons.Gator (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep

List of common misnomers

[edit]

Existing article Misnomer is already essentially a collection of misnomers. Suggest any non-duplicated content be moved there. Vary | Talk 04:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 18:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Business Continuity and Sarbanes Oxley

[edit]

orphaned afd request, listing it now (no vote) --MisterHand 05:26, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Separation Anxiety (TSR episode)

[edit]

non-significant tv episode Adam (talk) 05:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shayna Richardson

[edit]

Was in the media breifly in 2005, no encyclopedic value, delete--nixie 05:30, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australian 'jazza' pony

[edit]

Likely hoax and / or total nonsense. -- Longhair 05:35, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similarities and Differences Between DeVito's and Knapp's Model of Relational Development

[edit]

Odd essay, possibly original research- delete--nixie 05:37, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrewCuts

[edit]

Non-notable. Vanity. Article created by creator of show. Drat (Talk) 05:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was A7 Speedy Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skeena Reece

[edit]

Found it thru "random article." Vanity, right? jengod 06:22, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trash on A Platter

[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 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorkfair

[edit]

This website shows an Alexa ranking of below 4,000,000. This is an obvious web-vanity article. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:51, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counterterror Intelligence Failures

[edit]
  • Delete. These items are all covered on their own pages already. There is no reason to duplicate this information (and double the task of changing things when new developments appear - these are all current issues) on a separate page. Perhaps this should be a category that links to the relevant pages? csloat 07:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even understand what "Counterterror intelligence" is supposed to be. Anything in here would redundant and unnecessary. Merge if you must with intelligence failures after 9/11 or with counterterrorism. -- MicahMN | μ 08:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - is there a way to get other people to vote on here? I doubt that 2 is enough to delete this; since it is not linked anywhere I don't know how many will even see it here.--csloat 22:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, people will find it via AfDSethie 22:40, 3 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. Concerns regarding that this term is made up have not been sufficiently answered. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Quinn Syndrome

[edit]

This is an elaborate little article, but it's author seems to have invented the term. For starters, the "syndrome" at hand is most commonly related to a much older incident - the switching of Darrins in 'Bewitched' - but also, Google returns no results for "Jonas Quinn Syndrome", so I'm guessing the term started right here with an enthusiastic Stargate SG-1 fan. relaxathon 07:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this reasoning - Chuck Cunhingham Syndrome is an age-old TV term at garners many, many search results outside of Wikipedia. The link you provide for JQS is from another open-edit Wiki site article that was created around the same time as this one. Should we really open up the floodgates to people inventing any new term that pops into their head and creating a Wikipedia article for it?
The phenomenom is legitimate even if the name isn't. PMA 18:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This illustrates what I mean by the syndrome being insufficiently defined. This Wikipedia article says that Jonas Quinn Syndrome occurs when the original actor/character returns to the role after quitting the show, while the tvtropes.org article uses examples where the original actor/character never returned to the role, including some where the original actor never could have returned because he had died (8 Simple Rules, NewsRadio, Cheers). The term does not have a standard definition yet, nor does that definition have a standard name yet. --Metropolitan90 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point - both the "actor leaves and comes back later" and the "character is replaced with a carbon copy character when an actor leaves or dies" are worthy of discussion because they have happened a lot in TV but without a term like Chuck Cunningham or Cousin Oliver they can't at the moment. PMA 01:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, much of the material is repeated from (and the rest could be allocated to) the Stargate SG-1 article. The huge paragraph at the end is actually cut and pasted directly from a longstanding entry in the Roseanne article, so no loss there either. Isn't that a violation of the guidelines, in fact?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (5d/2k). Mindmatrix 01:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sithlore

[edit]

Non-notable under WP:WEB, as it has approx 1000 users. --Hansnesse 07:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gronholm

[edit]

Nn-bio, only 16 results on Google. Written so unclearly that it is hard to understand. King of Hearts | (talk) 07:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was since nobody has cared to comment, I presume I can ignore all rules and be bold to delete this. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubster

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion under A7, but it's a dicdef, not a person or a group of persons. Bringing it to AfD instead. No vote. howcheng {chat} 07:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff aquilon

[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by StoatBringer but importance is claimed. However, although there are four movies called "Chop Suey," IMDB has never heard of anyone named Jeff Aquilon, so it looks hoax-y to me. howcheng {chat} 07:43, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yipple

[edit]

Neoligism. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:46, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. I will Transwiki to MTG Salvation Wiki. In addition to the votes, I play this game: demons are not highly notable, and even if they where, the game is not notable enough to have such subarticles. I am also an admin at the MTGS wiki, so I will move it there.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demons (Magic: the Gathering)

[edit]

It's just a list of intervidual cards, and description of the monsters you can get in a deck of Magic cards. Not encyclopedic Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 07:51, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matopia

[edit]

Hoax. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:53, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albany Cup, Juan Guillermo Nevon

[edit]

Complete bollocks. No such competition according to Google, nor can I find any hits for Universidad de Corinthians in Wexford (in fact, their article was deleted per this AfD) as well as "Capital City Harriers Dublin." You'd think that there would be at least some news coverage or blog entries, or something else, but you'd be wrong. The second article is a player on one of the teams who collects Playboy magazines, where "each edition is like a new chapter in my life". howcheng {chat} 07:56, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truegrid

[edit]

Advertising a not notable web service. No meaningful content, just a list of links to the company web page. ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 07:57, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Home-Based Bookstore

[edit]

Tagged as a speedy more than once. Looks like spam to me and obvious vanity given the username... No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 13:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aibyouka-kun

[edit]

Character in an upcoming manga published on Geocities by an amateur author. No existing audience seems likely. Kappa 08:05, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Glossary

[edit]

WP:NOT a glossary Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 08:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Think it could be merged into the main debate page, or to Wiktionary? 68.39.174.238 08:14, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dallas BBQ

[edit]

One Line POV on a non-notable restarant. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 08:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First Post!: Delete nn -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 08:09, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 I withdraw. Jaranda wat's sup 03:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubby Bear

[edit]

One line stub on a non-notable restarant Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 08:18, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Ichiro 06:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apatodon

[edit]

Only 76 unique Google hits for this dubious species of dinosaur. Most sources consider this a probable misnomer for an allosaurus. There doesn't seem to be enough information to merge and I have doubts about a redirect because the original bone sample has been lost. Hence, we can't say with any real certainty that this is a misnomer for an allosaurus. Is this sub-encyclopedic? You decide. Durova 08:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark final fantasy characters

[edit]

In addition to duplicating a bunch of info here it's probably a copyvio of multiple url's. Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. Mindmatrix 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark legion, Dark legion medals

[edit]

Tagged as speedies, probably a non-notable online gaming group. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 09:01, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was since all recent votes are deletes and it's time to be done with 2005, I'm closing this as a delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Janzen

[edit]

A Google search for "Scott Janzen" and Green Party produces 37 hits. Future candidate for a small district. Delete. JHMM13 (T | C) 07:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability cited beyond being a (not yet elected) candidate in an election. (As a comment: The article reads like a campaign promo and not a bio.) --GrantNeufeld
  • To help out other admins closing AFDs, delete. Being a mere candidate for public office, unless major publicity is attracted, just doesn't make the cut for notability, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a damn good reason not to. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:51, Jan. 9, 2006
Note: I've redacted it and formatted it so it should be a (more) neutral articel. 68.39.174.238 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. More tag than actual article.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Unverifiable BBS. 13 results in Google; no incoming wikilinks; neglected article submitted by anon editor in October 2005.--  Perfecto 07:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:16, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pedoblog

[edit]

Neologism - nine Google hits. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:22, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE Mo0[talk] 11:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Dolinshek

[edit]

fixing orphan afd (no vote) MisterHand 16:42, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Day Lucifer Won

[edit]

Original research at best. Google's never heard of the term. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 10:00, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as nomination withdrawn. - Mailer Diablo 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Robinson

[edit]

A player in the "second-highest [football] division in England." That's like being a minor-league baseball player right? Sounds non-notable. Andrew Levine 10:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Nomination withdraw, as it seems I know nothing about English football. Andrew Levine 06:53, 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 no consensus --Ichiro 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonated beverage

[edit]

At best a short dicdef, this page has no real future... Usrnme h8er 10:08, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gahtan Law Office

[edit]

Completing badly formed AfD. No opinion GraemeL (talk) 13:29, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

R.C Cosmos

[edit]

From the previous speedy tag - advert for nn company. No opinion Delete fails google test, looks non-notable to me WhiteNight T | @ | C 10:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Deletion I think it is a company that is trying to do something new. J0e 18:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But not a company that has actually done anything new, i.e. non notable. Wikipedia is not engaged in speculation on what a person or company listed in an article might or might not do, or whether they will someday do anything notable. I cannot even tell from the article what it is new that they are trying to do (assuming that even mattered for this discussion, which it doesn't because they haven't done it yet) Delete. GestaltG 05:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Deletion But you see its an open source art project. Not something that "they may or may not do". And the independent film company that is doing this project I think deserves to be on wiki. For the average person to find out about them and support the out, by contacting them and explaing their ideas or something eles. J0e 06:40; 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, you are a registered user, so you are an editor too. Feel free to rewrite the article into something worthwhile if you don't think it should be deleted. It's not a well written article which is part of the problem. Take the time to rewrite the article, clarify what they are doing, supposed to have done, and why they are notable. You obviously have some firsthand knowledge, and I suspect you of being either a puppet or the original author, but take all of this in stride and just fix the article if you can. Convince the Wiki community by actions why this is an article on a notable subject and not just and advertizement stuck into Wikipedia. If you can't do that, then you have no argument. GestaltG 07:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia unleashed

[edit]

Article about a website that has not yet been finished [15], and of questionable notability even if it were. I can't seem to find anything relevant on Google [16]. Megamix? 10:33, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of turbulent years

[edit]

Turbulent is too vague a term, and pretty much every year has been turbulent somewhere. There isn't any useful content to keep, either. Squiddy 10:53, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin Slayer

[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. Makes assertion of notability ("the single I Kill Warlocks With My Bone Spear became popular throughout Scandinavia"), but zero Google hits for the name of this single suggests this isn't true. Delete CLW 10:54, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of films and television shows not available on DVD

[edit]

Unencyclopedic collection of truly unrelated shows and movies ' 10:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Clearly a bad-faith re-creation, as its first edit (summary was "keep this page") is well after the original article was deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Stalk Stress

[edit]

Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gang_stalking. Austrian 11:27, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apnakarachi

[edit]

It's a page to announce a dating website. Mikeblas 11:52, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. howcheng {chat} 18:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

They don't seem to meet WP:music. This also applies to Ace Stroker, Max Reno and Let's Start a Riot. Flowerparty■ 11:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't appear to be a notable band. -- (aeropagitica) UK 12:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It doesn't matter if you know it, other people are fans, give them a chance CSN
  • Keep Isn't the point of an encyclopedia being able to research the unknown. Just because it bears no relevance to you, it may help others. 16:59, 5 Jan 2006 thispersonis
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Animal violence laws

[edit]

This article doesn't discuss the laws in general and hasn't been added to since its creation. -- (aeropagitica) UK 12:46, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wehatetech

[edit]

nn podcast (I know, that's pretty much redundant). A grand total of seven Google hits. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • no no no, theres nothing wrong with it, leave it be, go deal with more important things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticitizen 1 (talk • contribs) (only contributed to Wehatetech and AFD)
  • ""NON DELETE"" Who is to say what is a "notable" cast and "non-notable" cast? NOT YOU. Don't like it, listen to TWIT or something else. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
  • Strong delete - Original research, non-referenced. - Szvest 00:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)  Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Delete quickly as non-notable per above --Quarl 01:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, but if /. and iTunes claims can be verified make that Keep. That's contingent on someone less lazy than I doing their homework though. Haikupoet 04:03, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete random podcruft. Influenced by a large proportion of apparent sockpuppets, unsigned votes, etc. Stifle 00:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE wehatetech.com has been spamming digg.com to get better google ranking.
  • wehatetech has a Google PageRank of 5 (Digg has a 6). 3000 listeners, actually shows up on alexia. Listed on Itunes as perferred technology podcast, most popular anti-technology podcast. It is quite notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerves (talk • contribs)
  • You delete this, then you delete ALL the podcast Wiki articles. There are far more inappropiate pages on here than this one. Gee, so much for free speech. - Kmac1036 (talk · contribs)
  • Delete. Not notable. Other podcasts like This Week in Tech are allowed a Wikipedia article because they are notable due to the fact the hosts are well known. --Peter McGinley 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Includes some pictures/links to backup some statements. More will be coming soon. If the site doesn't meet requirements to stay on the wikipedia based on that then well at least we know. Xerves 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete. "We Hate Tech" has as much right to a wiki as "This Week In Tech". If "We Hate Tech is deleted ALL podcasts, not only the "non notable" podcasts MUST be deleted.Anticitizen_1 00:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.124.163.50 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Undelete Evidence presented on the Wehatetech "wiki" shows a parody site with emphasis on narration and commentary. The websight in question involves more than simple "hate" but, for simplicity sakes "hate" was used to offer a generalization of the stories. The site also contains technical support hints, parody audio (public domain) and various other elements that make this a necessary entry into wikipedia. Please reconsider deleting this or if it's already deleleted please restore Wehatetech. Wiki is in imporant fixture in the internest and Wehatetech would offer value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.101.86 (talk • contribs)
  • Just give us a chance to straighten things up a bit... At least listen to one of the podcasts before you decide to delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.212.158 (talk • contribs)
  • WeHateTech is more legitmet that TWIT anyday. We are the real tech workers and censoring us and keeping TWIT shows Wikipedia has no backbone and does not appreciate the common man's views. Prepackged, witless shows like TWIT are spreading like fungus and are threatening to turn the web into the pile of programming garbage that is Cable and Network TV. The web thrives because it is where you can go for true dissenting opinions, it is the common mans printing press and as such should not be subject to ANY censorship. Wikipedia have some cajones! You know deleting this post is wrong and you will do th right thing because you have not sold out to TWITS and such, have you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.124.18 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete not notable. The sockpuppet spam just seals the deal for me. -- MisterHand
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:14, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete Way too much trashtalk & too many references to their homepage:a Flamer & Spammer. Go away. --Motorbikematt 19:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • You pitiful beings. You just don't get it. This is not about free speech, democracy or making a statement. This is about amassing encyclopedic information. If you do not qualify for encyclopedic importance, no amount of sniveling, threats or irate outbursts will change that. --Agamemnon2 15:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact remains, no matter how much people hate us or what horrible things we did (there are plenty of articles in wikipedia of people who did horrible things) this is all that matters: http://www.wehatetech.com/whtnutshell.htm. Are there guidelines for podcasts yet, I have yet to see one? Anything there can be backed up upon request. Anything else you have to say can be taken to the article about the podcast. Just because I might be a Bush hater doesn't give me the right to delete him off the face of the planet. Xerves 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hard to reach consensus when most posters are literally blowing this article away:

Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda. However, a group of editors may be able to shut out certain facts and points of view through persistence, numbers, and organization. This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing.

We all have agendas, just play this one by the numbers Xerves 23:40, 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. I also moved the article's talk page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Galambosianism (2nd nomination) howcheng {chat} 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galambosianism

[edit]

As someone who's actually read the works of Galambos has pointed out, Galambosianism as we describe it doesn't actually exist. The previous deletion discussion ended up as a keep under the assumption that the few sources we had were accurate about the subject (the actual arguments for deletion centered around notability); as it turns out, they're probably not. Please read the talk page of the article for a discussion on why Galambosianism as a concept is likely someone's interpretation of Galambos' ideas rather than any actual part of his work. As such, whether it's amusing to read or not, it should be deleted as being original research and not verifiable by credible sources, unless someone can show otherwise. Galambos' actual ideas may yet deserve an article, but Galambosianism probably isn't it. JRM · Talk 14:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it's inaccurate then fix it, don't delete it. You can merge to the Galambos article if you want. Gazpacho 00:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't. Dollars to doughnuts almost nobody can, since the topic is so obscure. I dragged this to AfD to see if people agree with the comments left on the talk page. The only "merge" I could perform is replacing the whole thing with a redirect. I don't like that sort of "sneaky" delete. JRM · Talk 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it. My reasoning is on the discussion page of the article. In sum: "Galambosianism" is a non-concept, unrecognizable term to anyone that is even remotely familiar with his work, and who doesn't want to mock it. It is similar to calling Einstein's work "Einsteinianism" instead of Special Theory of Relativity, etc. The article itself cannot be saved or merged because it makes no sense, is not true, is poorly referenced and researched, and would not apply to either Galambos' biography or to his Theory of Volition. I must say again that it is not the oft-referenced, so-called "obscurity" of the works of Galambos that make this article unable to be fixed. Unless of course by "obscurity" you mean that you can't learn about it yourself on the Internet in 60 minutes or less. Additionally, I concur that a "re-direct", along with maintaining this current article, would be absurdity squared. The article on "Galambos" is also almost complete dross too. I would be willing to go into more depth in support of my opinions if anyone would like me too. There are also thousands of normal, moderately intelligent people out there who have read and studied the works of Galambos, i.e. "Volitional Science". Unfortunately for my case, they just don't seem to read or care about Wikipedia. AK 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google again gives little reason to suppose that "galambosianism" exists. Delete. As for "volitional science", the term does seem to exist -- though this page gives me no reason to think that it's more substantial than any of numerous other self-described (fringe) "sciences". -- Hoary 13:45, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McGee

[edit]

Vanity page, apparently written by its subject or a close friend. The sole claim to notability is founding the "Creation Science Institute", an organization with no identifiable internet presence, and no Google hits combining its name with the subject's.[17] Tverbeek 14:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smithers Productions, Dennis Smithers, Jr., Dennis Smithers, Sr., A Bothered Conscience

[edit]

These articles are all being nominated as a group, as they all relate to the same thing and were added by the same contributor. Google searching for "Dennis Smithers, Sr." produces two unique hits (one of which is the homepage for "Smithers Productions"). Same thing applies for "Dennis Smithers, Sr." Googling on "A Bothered Conscience" turns up many hits...of which four hits in the first ten pages of hits from the Google search are unique hits relevant to the movie. The rest of the hits have nothing whatsoever to do with a movie of any kind, be it this one or any other. Finally, Googling on "Smithers Productions" turns up a raft of directory pages (which are trivially easy to get listed on) and their mirrors. This is, in short, Vanispamcruftisement. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:38, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was since nobody has cared to comment (except chime in with another delete vote), I presume I can ignore all rules and be bold to delete this. Johnleemk | Talk 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Revamped

[edit]

NN, ad. Probably made by creators. Drat (Talk) 14:48, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frejia

[edit]

Only two links to nonexistant articles and zero non-wiki google hits Natebw 14:48, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXERCISE1

[edit]

It's an advertisement which doesn't assert notability. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:54, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirected; album article appears to cover single sufficiently. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get Away

[edit]

Songs are not notable - list in album's page Lbbzman 15:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to go if you want to discuss merging. Go to the article's talkpage, or be bold and merge it yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christina Milian (album), which is also a stub. Article fails to establish any other notability apart from "It was a hit". To quote user:FuriousFreddy: if a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explaining that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks, and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Christina Milian fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Milian song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? Extraordinary Machine 04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christina Milian (album). The single infobox is confusing and at first I made a seperate entries as well, but I like the idea of putting it at the album. Looks better as well and there is no big deal if you don't have a cover or tracklist for one single but you do have information for two others. KittenKlub 21:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Ichiro 07:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Manticore

[edit]

Unencyclopedic fancruft. Delete or at most merge and redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:04, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Christina Milian (album). Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AM To PM

[edit]

Songs are not notable - include in album's page Lbbzman 15:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to go if you want to discuss merging. Go to the article's talkpage, or be bold and merge it yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to Christina Milian (album). Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When You Look At Me

[edit]

Songs are not notable - include in album's page Lbbzman 15:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not the place to go if you want to discuss merging. Go to the article's talkpage, or be bold and merge it yourself. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My apologies. The album pages already exist and mention the songs themselves, so I guess I am suggesting that the song pages should thus be removed. I may be mistaken in my belief, though. Lbbzman 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A redirect is perfectly fine, so there is no need to delete a page. We can have millions of redirects. KittenKlub 21:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Christina Milian (album), which is also a stub. Article fails to establish any other notability apart from "It was a hit". To quote user:FuriousFreddy: if a song article is nothing but a recounting of how the song was made, and how well it did, without explaining that it was, in some way, important and influential to the music industry, there's really no reason for it. Just write good album articles, and selected articles on the important singles and album tracks, and let's keep the encyclopedia balanced. Encyclopedias aren't supposed to be "complete"; they are supposed to provide overviews and guide users to further information on a subject if they want to go beyond the standard level. Something like a Christina Milian fan wiki would be a fine place to have an article on every Milian song, but a general-purpose encyclopedia is not. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pop music issues and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Why write dozens of short articles on singles, with no chances of actual expansion short of padding and marketing-report material (chart positions), when they can be combined into one album article? Extraordinary Machine 04:56, 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 no consensus; editorial decision taken to redirect to Combatives, which already covers the same topic. Johnleemk | Talk 14:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military Martial Arts

[edit]

Subject essentially covered in combatives, seems a vanity site for a single individual Prof._Dr._Deepak_Rao_&_Dr._Seema_Rao and product Advanced_Commando_Combat_System. Three articles for one off-site link seems inappropriate. Rorybowman 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete The term "Military Martial Arts" seems at first glance to be nonsense, since "martial" = "military." The article is about a notable subject (assuming "military martial arts" is a subject separate from "martial arts"), and mentions many subjects upon which there already exist Wiki articles, but the article itself is poorly written and of little value as it stands. I note that there is a cleanup tag on the page already but if nobody cleans it up soon (i.e. if the original author doesn't care enough to clean it up), it should be deleted. GestaltG 17:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete This articale has great potential, a collection of martial arts and military history, give them a chance CSN
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom hern

[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've cleaned up the article. No Guru 18:30, 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 speedy keep. Sorry for rolling this one forward; I was a bit distracted. —Cryptic (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Under the Umbrella Tree (1986)

[edit]

Article is of an unsourceable television show in Canada, where there are obviously not much televisions nor television stations able to air any programs. Obviously this show is either nonexistant or American. Vote to remove. Darwiner111 10:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. While it's not the thing I wish Wikipedians would spend their time on, I think it is a legitimate article and show. -- Mikeblas 10:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (strong). As the individual that has recently edited the UtUT article from its poor state to the updated, information and picture-packed state it is now in, I vote for a keep. Also, how is this "unsourceable"? Search anywhere on the internet and you'll see it did exist. There are televisions in Canada by the way, considering there are 33,000,000 Canadians, that would come to about 132,000,000 televisions in the country. (We don't all live in igloos) PatrickA 11:11, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weapon of Choice (music video)

[edit]

This page is copied and pasted nearly verbatim from the Christopher Walken article. Being such a narrow subject, with no references whatsoever, I don't think it really needs it's own article, much less one with so little substance to it.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertrophia

[edit]

Cannot find any verification of this term on Google. Lbbzman 15:21, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 15:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thordis Bjornsdottir

[edit]

Non-notable Icelandic writer. Has one self-published book — the importance of which is exaggerated in the article — and one relevant English language Google hit. I've met her, she's a nice person and I wish her the best. Hopefully we'll have an article on her in the future. - Haukur

As a side note her fiancé survived his AfD. - Haukur 15:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Poet has three poems in legitimate literary magazine Tin House.
And if someone wants to include poetesses, it isn't as if there aren't any. Suggestions would include Hulda, Látra-Björg, Skáld-Rósa, Herdís Andrésdóttir, Ólína Andrésdóttir, Theódóra Thoroddsen, Guðný Jónsdóttir frá Klömbrum and Júlíana Jónsdóttir as well as others who escape my mind right now, just to name the some of the older ones. (The young generation doesn't appeal to me, but others would surely be happy to fill in.) Cheers Io 22:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As for Haukur's side note above, I can't shake the suspicion, that Jesse Ball and Þórdís Björnsdóttir wrote each other's articles. But maybe that's just my character raising its ugly head. Cheers Io 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

M C Puri

[edit]

Bio article for someone who is notably only for being killed, and only from the article pointing out his death. Maury 15:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Article title should at least contain his full name instead of initials. Much too unnotable. He scores seven times less than Brian Peppers on Google hits. --★Ukdragon37★talk 18:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for being in the news, and potentially for academic work yet to be added. Probably redirect to full name unless this is his usual byline. --Hansnesse 19:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Describes a current event. In news [18]. deeptrivia (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe if this Rfa was presented before his death I'd have voted Speedy. I've never heard about this Professor (maybe only a couple of thousands around the world have had) and it's a pleasure that I got to know about him via Wikipedia! This Afd led me to know that "Manmohan Singh (PM of India) has written a letter to the wife of Puri who was killed in a suspected terrorist attack. Worthy! Cheers -- Szvest 01:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  • Keep, it's verifiable, and notability is not a prerequisite for Wikipedia articles, despite common belief Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 07:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If not much can be added about his academic work, it could be merged and redirected to 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting. --Pamri • Talk 14:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A Professor of mathematics, current or retired, at any Indian Institute of Technology would be generally a notable person, and killing of Puri has certainly made him certainly notable. He is more notable than several computer-game characters. --Bhadani 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are hundreds of thousands of professors in the world, and to claim that they are all notable is presumptuous. I cannot find a paper of his that is newer than 1995 (and only two at that), he does not seem to have won any significant awards, and therefore he is not notable. All the Google hits are news articles based on his death. Notability is indeed a factor (WP:Notability IIRC), and since his funeral is over and done with, it is really no longer a current event. There also appears to be no more info available than what's already here, even from news outlets. MSJapan 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Indian Institute of Technology are no ordinary universities. The IIS is one of the most famous institutes in India. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to 2005 Indian Institute of Science shooting. He was not notable enough before he was killed. utcursch | talk 08:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Retired professor; retired before 2000 AD; not surprising that his last paper is in 1995. Also, he pre-dates internet era, hence, hits would be limited. Given the fact that he was professor emeritus at IIT Delhi, a notable position at a notable institution, I'd vote keep for now. It can be merged with the IISc page even later. --Gurubrahma 14:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In general, "emeritus" is a term applied to almost any former titled professor (as it's based on more than a PhD) who has retired and is still alive. That in and of itself is not notable. That is like saying a professor emeritus at a community college is notable - emeritus does not make notability. He doesn't really predate the Internet, and there should be a list of publications available someplace or some citations if his work was really that groundbreaking - that's the nature of scholarly research - and there isn't. I mean, Hawking oredated the Net, and he is heavily cited everywhere. MSJapan 03:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it was a current event.--Kevin Hanse (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – IIT prof on visit to an IIS seminar. I'm sure he must have published something given this background. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - There is nothing here information-wise that isn't already covered in the shootings article already mentioned, and if there's no more biographical info than what is currently available, this will never be more than a non-notable stub. Academic position is not notable; there are plenty of professors (emeritus or otherwise) in plenty of fields who have published seminal works any many papers on their topics in their countries, and almost none have Wikipedia articles on them, nor are they deserving of such, as those pages amount to nothing but vanity pages. I can think of three presidents of the Association for Asian Studies who do not have articles on them, for example, and this is really the same type of situation. MSJapan 07:41, 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 copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 15:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix Holdings Ltd

[edit]

apears to be spam/vanity Happyhaydn 16:06, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smoal

[edit]

This word doesn't need a page on WP; a dictdef at most on Wiktionary. Not notable in its own right. -- (aeropagitica) UK 16:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • smoal is not the stupidest or even the most useless word on wikipedia. in addition, nobody has been harmed in any way by smoal having been put onto this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.247.177 (talk • contribs)
  • I feel that smoal is fast becoming part of the internet vernacular. It deserve to be here just as much as "blog" or "WTF" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.84.192 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-01 00:03:45 UTC
  • Delete as per nom. --Daveb 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Being familiar with the Red vs Blue series and the very, very narrow context in which it's used, I'd say that the corresponding dialogue now over at Wikiquote suffices. The only way that smoal would possibly fit anywhere in WP would be if it were eventually covered in a guide for the special one-off episodes of RvB that exist outside the main storyline. But I don't see such a guide as being necessary, and especially not to the level of detail where smoal is explicitly mentioned. -- TKD 11:18, 4 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pass Out of Existence

[edit]

No context. Nonsense. Mostly likely a cd with a list of unknown songs __earth 16:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy DeleteThis is an obvious case for speedy delete. If reasons are needed, first it's not even an article, it's just a list of song titles or whatever. Second, as mentioned previously, there is no indication to what it relates. This page should quickly "pass out of existence." GestaltG 17:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 recreation of Rajeev Jain. howcheng {chat} 07:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Jain (cinematographer)

[edit]

Its looks like an advertisement for job recruitment. scope_creep 16:39, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 19:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frown Land

[edit]

Non-notable band. -- (aeropagitica) UK 16:45, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 DeathMatch Pro

[edit]

nn HL2 mod? Sceptre (Talk) 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Someone seems to have vandalized this page by removing the header link and Sceptre's originial nomination. I have restored it by copying from the original edit. Don't try it again, don't be a juvenile, even if you are. Be mature enough to have an intelligent debate about this, rather than trying to sabotage the deletion process.GestaltG 14:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Looking at this entry fairly, I don't see why this is an "article" or why it's necessarily encyclopedic. I note the following in support. First, it's written in jargon which is about half incomprehensible to me. Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia, so articles should not be written in jargon, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia for professionals. That at least merits a strong cleanup tag. Second, it seems to be a promotional article for a video game and should be deleted on that issue alone, having no other value. Finally, other than the first nearly incomprehensible paragraph, the rest of the "article" is mostly screen shots from the game and lists of features, programmers, and play testers. All of this adds up to a delete vote GestaltG 18:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it should be deleted at all. Millions of people all over the world play Half Life 2 (HL2) and this is one of many wikipedia entries describing in detail the various modifications (mods) to the game and where they can be found. This mod, along with all the other HL2 mods, is free. Therefore, this is not an advert by any means. It is an informational page for HL2 enthusiasts and is entirely useful as an information source. The jargon you refer to is necessary technical detail and would be understood by anyone looking for information on HL2 mods.
An unsigned endorsement for keeping the page. The game is basically a commercial product, at some point along the line, each of the owners of this game paid money. That makes it an advert, even if you classify it as a free modification to an existing program. I wouldn't write an article about the latest free upgrade to my shareware floating desktop clock program, and if I did, I'd expect a speedy delete. If you want to make an "informational page" of this sort, for "HL2 enthusiast" that belongs on a fan site or a game promotion site. Wikipedia is neither. Further, Wikipedia is a general free public encyclopedia, so saying that the "technical detail" is necessary and "would be understood by anyone looking for information on HL2 mods" is not an argument for keeping an article that consists of one paragraph of technical jargon and a bunch of lists and screenshots. GestaltG 19:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This should be kept. It is a valid mod of HL2, and has as much right to exist here as any other listed mod.
As an evidence it should be kept. How can we imagine to delete it ? It is a full valid mod of HL2 which is free and which is a very good mod. Hey GestaltG, did you read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2_mods ? If you think this mod does not deserve to be listed in the HL2 mods list then why don't you react for Dystopia, Hidden Source, Plan of Attack, or SourceForts?
      • First of all, I didn't put this page up for deletion. I saw it on the Afd list, looked at the page, and voted for deletion. I know nothing about the pages you listed, but if they exist and they are as you represent, then they should be deleted as well. I am advancing as a princple here that individual articles should not exist for modifications to video games. All of the reasons I stated here--they are advertizments, they are not really articles, they are not notable enough to deserve an encyclopedic article, and that they all belong on fansites and game promotion pages, which Wikipedia is not, would apply equally to all of the pages you mentioned. I am not here arguing whether they are "valid mods" or not, since I have no idea what you mean by that, I am talking in terms of encyclopedia content. If these pages are as you say, then I will seek to take this discussion to a higher level and have it endorsed as a principle by Wikipedia that pages about individual video game modifications are not encyclopedic content. GestaltG 14:09, 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star Trek and pedophilia (second nomination)

[edit]

Unencyclopedic. This is an incredibly weak premise for a wikipedia article since it is based on a throw away paragraph in a newspaper article. Yes, it got some attention from a few bloggers but it remains pure speculation based, it seems, on a joke by a few police officers in Toronto. This should not be an article until and unless there is evidence that it's a credible theory ie it's being discussed seriously in academic circles, there are published articles on it in the media (rather than a passing, half-joking reference) etc. Homey 17:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no statistical link between the two, so it's conjecture, not fact. scope_creep 17:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 17:15, 31 December 2005 (GMT)[reply]
  • Delete this ridiculous piece of garbage. --Fang Aili 17:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sceptre (Talk) 17:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 18:31, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep According to an article in Mclean's (May 30, 2005), there is forthcoming research on the subject: "Seto and Eke are continuing their research, and will soon start combing through the police files of close to 400 child-porn offenders across Ontario, searching for commonalities and patterns of behaviour. One of the things they will be looking for is reports of suspects with sci-fi collections, especially Star Trek." I think it should, at present, be rewritten to emphasize the uncertain nature of the research, but a definite keep. Note the McLean's article was 4 pages and dedicated to this topic as well. It may well be conjecture (or better put, a hypothesis), but notable conjecture as it is the subject of current academic research. --Hansnesse 18:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When and if the "forthcoming research" is published there will be a basis for an article. Until then it remains purely speculative without any non-anecdotal evidence to back it up.Homey 19:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not infinite, as this article basically says 'Star Trek and paedophilia are not really correlated'. --Last Malthusian 18:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the McLean's artilce is correct, and there is new research forthcoming on this topic, then we can re-create this article, or add the findings to an existing article. But for the time being, this material is too speculative. -Willmcw 18:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is based on opinion rather than peer-reviewed studies in to the backgrounds of this particular type of sexual offender. Until such peer-reviewed literature is published, this article shouldn't exist. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --NeoJustin 19:01, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. If and when actual research demonstrates a link the article can be rewritten. Per WP:Not, not a crystal ball. Unpublished, non-peer reviewed, unwritten research does not merit an encyclopedia article. Durova 19:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Unproven claims permeate areas like Alternative Medicine on Wikipedia. They are just notable unproven claims. Specifically by pointing out where the research stands I think this would be useful to a Wikipedia user. Truth should not be the criteria for inclusion, since it would eliminate important but false scientific hypotheses (Phlogiston theory for example) or yet poorly supported hypotheses (String theory for example). The question should be one of notability of the hypothesis, not its truth.--Hansnesse 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's just an opinion, original research. Unencyclopedic.--Dakota ~ ε 19:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was a single blurb in a few newspapers, since nothing further has come of it I think it's just a coincidence and it's time to delete now. Ashibaka tock 19:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ridiculous nonsense. Existence of article based upon a throwaway line taken out of context is clear attempt at POV-pushing, with no way to fix without deletion. DreamGuy 21:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not worthy of its own article. --LesleyW 22:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This kind of misuse of information is unscientific, unencyclopedic, and extremely ridiculous. --DanielCD 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is absolutely no science here. Just an urban legend, and one that could be harmful at that. There is not even a statistical correlation, only a speculation of relation!! Passing off entertaining rumors as if they have any credibility at all is something that can hurt Wikipedia as a whole. If it were really notable, it could be mentioned somewhere perhaps, but with the strong caveat added that it's just a rumor. --DanielCD 16:51, 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. howcheng {chat} 19:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nyk

[edit]

nonsense, neologism, Wikipedia is not for something you made up one day at school etc. Kuzaar 17:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No delete. I bellieve this could eventually get around and become a big thing. Yeah, its foolish, but werent all the other 4 letter "bad" words in the dictionary?

I think that the word Nyk should be kept on Wikipedia. I happen to know these kids who put this here and there just trying to do the same thing Paris Hilton is doing with "That's hot." They come from a very small town and have no other way to get it out there.

  • I would note that the previous comments were posted by user Jake Lykins, one of the kids mentioned in the article. Jake, Wikipedia is not a medium for you to try to make a word that you or your friends invented catch on and become a national phenomenon. Wikipedia is in no way comparable to the media outlets available to Paris Hilton, and you certainly are not in the same celeberty class as Paris Hilton. I am sure that you are not nearly as cute, and you probably have a lot more brains. If you want to make a phrase "cool" become famous, but don't try to use Wikipedia to promote words that you made up at school one day. I suggest you read the previous link to understand why this is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about compiling the "sum of all human knowledge" to which your entry does not contribute in any significant way. GestaltG 02:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you GestaltG! I am smarter than Paris Hilton! If you have any idea on how to get Nyk to be a big phrase, other than getting famous, please tell me, because I beleive that it could be a big thing one day. I really don't know any other way to do that. I don't think I could get famous. I'm just an odd kid from Wheatcroft, Ky. I understand that it's not good to try to market Nyk by putting it on Wikipedia after I read all of that stuff. But I have hope in Nyk, and you, yes YOU, will hear Nyk one day or see it wrote on a shirt, and you will remember this. I may not become famous, but Nyk will!
  • In my own personal opinion, there are some things on wikipedia other than "Nyk" that do not contribute to human Knowledge. If you look up "The Game" you will find a useless rule setting for a game that is so simplistic that it must have been made up by someone. Now... If wikipedia is truly the sum of ALL human Knowledge... then even the simple words made up by people were contributed to human Knowledge. "The game" is much more idiotic than "Nyk." So, do not delete.
    • If there is such an entry, then move it for deletion. But don't drag Wikipedia down by trying to twist this argument into something it is not. It may work at home to say, "See, what I didn't wasn't bad because he did something worse!," but that does not apply to this particlar debate here (which is what you are trying to do) because we are not talking about morals or right and wrong in that sense, but rather, what is encyclopedic and what is not. GestaltG 05:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you like me? HUH!? What did I do? I bet you are going to start using Nyk! You know why? BECAUSE IT IS GOOD!

  • um, not to be too contradictingg to what you are sayingg, but if this is not about morales, then take out all the religious articles. They are all about morales, and in my opinion they are not required to be in the encyclopedia. Now, jake is having outbursts, but i am trying to show you that wikipedia does have entries not relevant to human knowledge.
    • I am not going to spend days arguing about this, I am busy editing. But if you think "morals" not part of the sum of human knowledge, whether in the form of religion or philosophies, then you should go back to school and learn something. What I said was that Jake could not use the argument that "you can't delete my article because there are more worthless articles" (similar to "I didn't do anything bad because he did something worse" type arguments you use at home) here because the standard here is what is encyclopedic. If you don't understand what is encyclopedic, do some research on Wikipedia's standards. This argument is not going to go on and on, because, first, this is the last time I am going to respond to your kids arguments, and second, an admin (and I am not an admin, so you are arguing with the wrong person) will eventually make a decision to delete your silly article, and that will be the end of it. GestaltG 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im gonna laugh, when they dont delete it. Cause then you look stupid lol.
  • Delete Shouldn't this be a speedy? Kevin 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I am starting to see why Speed Deletes were invented. However, UncleG pointed out earlier in this discussion that this article doesn't qualify for speedy delete. So, here we are, having a pointless argument with the juveniles who created the article. Hopefully, they learn something from this. GestaltG 23:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol, if it gets deleted... Im jus gonna put it up again. lol, yall wont win... Im too damn stubborn... and uhh... DND AND WAR GAMING SUCKS!!! PARALEGALS HOT CARL THEIR MOMS!!!
    • If this article is recreated, after being deleted according to the deletion standards, it will be eligible for speedy deletion under the 'reposting deleted material' provision of the Wikipedia CSD. If you want to bring a word into common use, do it on your own, Wikipedia is not here to help you start a trend. Kuzaar 13:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 19:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lonely Winds"

[edit]

Looks like self-promotion for a non-notable book. Amazon's page for the book on December 31 shows a sales rank of 915,382 and 7 reviews, all favorable, but all by users who have reviewed this book and no others. Published by InfinityPublishing.com, a pay-to-publish service. Rholton 17:15, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into Grindcore. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Norsecore

[edit]

This article was proposed for merging, into an article it repeats. After some time, the articles creator has then made several personal attacks using the articles talk page. After several warnings to the user about Wikipedia's policies, he has continued to make attacks. Minor edits have also been made to the page, which have been reverted with claim of ownership of the user. This article seems nothing more than a made up genre by one person, that is used as a term to seperate out favourite bands from Grindcore and Black Metal. This article is in need of serious attentnion, and then deleting. If there is any truth to this genre, it needs merging into the Grindcore article, where it so belongs. Leyasu 09:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Main problem is the content and what is written. As i said, if there is any truth to this genre, someone needs to provide it, and seriously edit the article in question, lest it should be deleted. Leyasu 10:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are content problems with this article. I'll attempt to do something if I can find some time. --Stormie 09:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Reliable Source?

[edit]

Description of, and link to, non-notable website. Delete Tom Harrison (talk) 17:31, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuerden

[edit]

nn? My village Rastrick gets a small entry because of its brass band, but I've never heard of Cuerdon, and all I know is that Leyland is near Blackpool Sceptre (Talk) 17:32, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reaverbot

[edit]

gamecruft - NB, this is the my first attempt at nomination under the 'cruft' tag, your comments are appreciated MNewnham 14:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good on yer for asking for comments. So, umm, don't take this the wrong way, but ... no! Stop! BAD! While I'm not one of the "no such thing as cruft" or "cruft is offensive" whiners, frankly, just saying "-cruft" is not a good argument for deletion. When you nominate an article, you should give your argument for why the article should be deleted — is it non-notable (why?), unverifiable (how have you tried to verify it?), a hoax (where's your evidence?), etc. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What you've said clearly contradicts the notes on -cruft in the Guide To Deletion, "This article is trivia of interest only to hardcore fans of a specific film, television series, book, game, pop singer, web forum, etc.", so perhaps you can expand your rationale on the cruft concept. MNewnham 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"-cruft" is like "non-notable". It says nothing more than "I think this article should be deleted". Instead of simply saying "gamecruft", explain why you think it's -cruft. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:39, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. One song like this in a permanent sentence is obviously not note worthy.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly Caught

[edit]

Delete This article has inappropriate tone, is only one sentence in length, has too little info to convey any meaningfyl information, and in short is utterly worthless. Rlevse 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I strongly disagree that most songs should merit an individual entry in Wikipedia, and this is a good case in point. If you cannot write more than one sentence about a minor song by a minor group, then it doesn't belong here. If you could expand this article to more than one sentence, it wouldn't be an article about the song at all, but rather an article about the "modern day cynicsm of the British underworld" whatever that is? If it's not deleted, it should be redirected to an appropriate page on a larger subject. Finally, I also think this one sentence reeks of POV, but I have never listened to this song, or this group, and I don't follow the British underground (whatever that is, I suspect that many different groups could be called "the underground" in any society), so I could be mistaken. GestaltG 18:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Song needs to be placed in context of genre and reasons given for why it is notable. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- Minor individual songs don't deserve entries, but it would still help people to find the album. P.S., GestaltG, I wouldn't call Massive Attack a minor group, since they've sold several million albums and basically founded a genre. Night Gyr 20:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:52, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Home (Angel episode)

[edit]

Fancruft. Unencyclopedic, without significance or possibility thereof. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 18:20, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Note also the article hasn't been touched since March 31, 2005, suggesting it's abandoned. howcheng {chat} 19:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Painkiller (artist)

[edit]

I don't actually see an assertion of notability here, but other editors have apparently disagreed. In any event, I see no reason why this loosely defined "group of DJs" is encyclopedic. Delete Xoloz 18:37, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No Consensus, so Keep. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Calibur mystical weapons

[edit]

subject of article now located at Soul Edge (Sword) and Soul Calibur (Sword). can we delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBH (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 December 2005

Comment - we could salvage this article and use it for the character's legendary weapons (mitsurugi's damascus sword, cassandra's valkyrie, raphael's queen's guard etc.). though we might use it to redirect to a more properly titled article (List of Soul Calibur character's legendary weapons) or something. --Phil 14:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Lets delete those other two articles and do what phil suggested. hateless 08:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete - delete this page. it's covered more specifically in those other two articles --152.163.101.9 16:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just do what Phil suggested. JONJONAUG 15:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to get more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 18:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this page and delete the other two seperate articles. Why are those even seperate anyway..? They are redundant. Also, add more legendary weapons to the this current article (as Phil suggested). However, the slight problem with that is that they don't have pictures like the soul edge and calibur do. Its minor, just a small fact I think everyone should be aware of. Also note that this page was created before the two redundant, seperate articles.-MegamanZero|Talk 14:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's plenty of other pages of similar fictional basis that offer even less information than this one does. But I recommend deletion of the separate pages. In canon Soul Edge and Soul Calibur are polar opposites of each other (in terms of good vs. evil) but due to their nature of origin, noting both on the same page is more useful. TotalTommyTerror 21:06, 6 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. - Mailer Diablo 02:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fletcher bangs watson VI

[edit]

Seems to be utter nonsense Garion96 (talk) 19:01, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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. - Mailer Diablo 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Thomas Floyd III (Texas Lawyer), John Thomas Floyd III (Criminal Defense Lawyer, Houston, Texas ), John Thomas Floyd III (Houston, Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer)

[edit]

These are the autobiographical vanity pages of an individual who probably doesn't pass the noteworthiness test DLJessup (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user (68.93.65.191) just blanked this subpage. I have restored it, but this is completely inappropriate.
— DLJessup (talk) 20:53, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Undercut Productions

[edit]

nn company Sceptre (Talk) 19:27, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 concensus --Ichiro 07:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Childlove movement Pedophilia advocacy

[edit]

moved to Pedophilia advocacy on the basis of consensus forming here. AfD template still directs here -- not trying to circumvent process. James James 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with pedophilia. Neologism. Euphemism for pedophilia coined by Lindsay Ashford. Google shows virtually all the hits for "childlove" are from dupes of the wikipedia article and from Lindsay Ashford's puellula.org website. The article is inherently POV, and largely written by Ashford (who is on wikipedia as User:Zanthalon). The title is non-neutral as it is a euphemism. Homey 19:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep This nom is in bad faith Comment There has been over a year's worth of work done to keep this article NPOV. The points you argue have already been gone through in the previous AfD and you haven't brought up anything new. Ashibaka tock 19:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now that that's settled, I'm going to vote keep. The biggest problem with the article is the name, which I agree is a distasteful euphemism, but it's used by many pedophiles to refer to themselves, and it was already decided that the name should stay. Any other perceived problems can be cleaned up. Ashibaka tock 20:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "it was already decided that the name should stay". Decisions can be revisited and reversed. That we "already" decided it doesn't strike me as sufficient grounds to keep the name if not the article. Homey 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Feel free to revisit the page's name on the talk page... but you're taking this to AfD instead, right? Generally the only reason to exclude something from Wikipedia is lack of verifiability or notability, so let's get cracking on those. Ashibaka tock 21:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 19:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Movement is real. If anything is POV, NPOV it. Clayboy 19:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete title, merge contents with Pedophilia. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We shouldn't have a new article every time someone comes up with a new euphemism. This is a duplicate/fork. Choalbaton 20:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, but this is not a normal "euphemism." It has established usage, and, at any rate, we are not describing this alleged euphemism, but what it refers to -- activism for the acceptance of pedophilia and ephebophilia, a very real and notable phenomenon. // paroxysm (n) 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added comment' I'd like to suggest that the salvagable parts of the article be moved to the "Advocacy of pedophilia" section of pedophilia. I'm wary of simply renaming the article Advocacy of pedophilia as, unless we include an equal amount of information against pedophilia advocacy the article will be unbalanced and POV while including said information will likely end up in a duplication of pedophilia. Homey 20:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What a ridiculous proposition. "Childlove" was not coined by Ashford, it is derivative of boylove and girllove, more specific terms designating a type of pedophilic or ephebophilic attraction. Even if you don't want to believe it, or the thought of pedophilia makes you squirm, that is not relevant here, so I would ask anyone to consider the notability of this subject carefully before kneejerking with delete. To say that this was "largely written by Ashford" is false in itself; it's been edited extensively to keep POV out since its last kneejerk nomination, which, as is apparent, resulted in a keep. Merging this with pedophilia is not a good idea, as the childlove movement is not at all completely composed of pedophiles, but also ephebophiles, and as jd420 tells me at least, normophilic people as well. The "childlove movement" article is already long enough. Moving on... if you're the type of person who judges notability by a quick tap into Google, please note that "childlove" is a rarely used term. "Boylove" and "girllove" are used much more often, so as to segregate the sexual attractions. "Girllove" gets 18,700 hits, if we exclude all pages containing the keywords "wikipedia" and "encyclopedia." "Boylove," seemingly more popular, receives 332,000 hits. These are only pages Google has spidered. There are thousands of websites dedicated to this crusade, several organizations (everyone's heard of NAMBLA or MARTIJN at least). The movement is notable: it has thousands of members, usually well-masked behind a shield of anonymity. Activism happens, whether the public likes it or not; ranging from promoting what they see as the correct use of the word "pedophile," to advocating the abolishment of age of consent laws. To say that "childlove" is a euphemism is POV itself. It is a term invented by the movement to describe themselves (in fact, it's basically just using the root Greek meaning of "pedophilia"). We have articles on organizations within the movement itself. I find it almost obscene that someone would propose deleting this article and not NAMBLA. The FBI has even acknowledged the existence of a large movement working to "legalize child molestion" in a newspeice on Ashford I seen recently. // paroxysm (n) 21:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, by definition, the term ephebophile (attraction to post-pubescent youth) excludes those we commonly refer to as "children" (ie pre-pubescents) so I don't accept your claim that "childlove" is not a synonym for pedophilia and that therefore "childlove movement" is not a euphemism for "pedophilia advocacy" as we don't generally refer to teenagers as "children". The primary definition of child is a prepubescent human hence ephebophiles are not attracted to children and the term "childlove" does not accurately describe their feelings or behaviour. I don't deny that there are those who wish to legalise pedophilia. My problem is in using a POV term to describe that movement. Homey 21:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - there's far too much good content here to simply trash all of it because of a few paragraphs or sections people don't like. I don't think this article is particularly POV, it outlines arguments the movement makes, it doesn't make those arguments FOR them. -Drdisque 21:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork for it's violation of NPOV core policy. --Rob 21:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain how this is a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. //paroxysm (n) 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The title is inherently POV (per Homey's comment below). The opening sentence is POV (you confuse claims with facts). Also, this is clearly a POV fork. It's a way you can put in stuff, that might not get as much attention elsewhere. This whole article is written with the basic, and false, assumption the groups seeks what it claims to seek. That of course is rubbish. I would also vote to delete an equally POV title Childhurter movement, even though it would be more accurate in its description than the current title. Be happy Wikipedia (unlike 99% of society) will let you freely and fully particpate and contribute to articles in an NPOV manner, but don't think for a second you'll be allowed your own little POV fork to promote a movement. --Rob 21:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If there's a problem with the article, fix it. If the name is wrong, now's your chance to get consensus to move it to Pedophilia advocacy. But you can't delete something from Wikipedia and make it go away. If that were true I would nominate Islamist terrorism for deletion, or merge it into Terrorism, because its activist claims are questionable. Ashibaka tock 22:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you changing your vote to rename?Homey 22:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would like to rename it, yes (that would be a nice step towards NPOV-ifying), but you have nominated it for deletion/merging. First things first. Ashibaka tock 22:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • A rename doesn't change the fact it's a POV fork. Many other POV forks have been made for various causes, but removed. Pedophilia is the one NPOV word (as it's advocates and opponents use the same word). We don't have a pro-topicX and anti-topicX article. We have a topicX article. By forcing everybody to edit the TopicX, we ensure people from all sides will work together, counter-acting any one groups bias. The purpose of this article, is to advocate a particular cause. It will never do anything beyond that. --Rob 22:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • I understand you're saying that "boylove"/"girllove" is a useless excercise in euphemisms. Assuming that to be so, I think the fact that pedophiles campaign for political issues is a notable thing which deserves an article, and Pedophilia is very long-- the whole thing won't fit. The "childlove movement" (especially NAMBLA) has a long history tangled up with the gay rights movement etc. There needs to be a general article to describe this, so take this one, NPOV it, and move it to your favourite title. Ashibaka tock 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on euphemisms and "what a group calls itself". Holocaust deniers prefer the euphemism "Holocaust revisionist" or "historical revisionist". Wikipedia, as a rule, uses the term "Holocaust denial" rather than the euphemism. Similiarly, white supremacists prefer the term "white nationalists" but we use the former term rather than the euphemism. If we simply have a default where we use whatever euphemism a group prefers to use for itself that would open a whole POV can of worms. Homey 21:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per the reasons given above 80.177.152.156 21:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: anonymous votes do not count. Log in to your user if you want to be counted. Clayboy 23:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above Strong Keep vote was by me, JCUK. I hereby reiterate it, and attach my name to it. Jcuk 18:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"is what the movement is most commonly known as - not just within the movement but outside it " Really? I've never heard of non-pedophiles refer to this movement as "childlove". Please provide some mainstream citations. Homey 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's normal to break out subarticles. I'd have no problem with a move to paedophilia advocacy if the antis really insisted, but adding it back into pedophilia serves no purpose except to allow outspoken conservatives to direct our editorial policy. James James 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on excellent arguments above. I'm not convinced the nom has really thought this through. -- JJay 03:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. ZERO Lexis/Nexis hits, which means ZERO media coverage employing the term "childlove". NONE of the references use the word "childlove" in the title. This seems to be a POV fork. At the very least a title change is in order. Gamaliel 04:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero hits on all common news sources? Then it obviously should be a sub topic on pedophilia. The article in it's entirity is based on the idea that same childlove movement that isn't covered in that sense by the news. prove it to me otherwise. Lotusduck 04:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you would support it as a subtopic, then vote to rename and rewrite rather than just to delete the information. Ashibaka tock 05:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there isn't any press coverage under the movements prefered name, then it doesn't need it's own article. Lotusduck 05:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is press coverage on the childlove movement; it's just not referred to as the childlove movement in their reports because media can apparently not stand to use the word "love" when describing pedophilic or ephebophilic attractions. As I said above, even the FBI has acknowledged the childlove movement. It has thousands of anonymous members and several organizations dedicated to forwording the childlove agenda. There is even a boylove charity. Come on, what kind of notability are you looking for? // paroxysm (n) 05:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the kind of notability/verifiability of at least the name childlove is per wikipedia standards: it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data has been published by a third-party reputable publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library. So if newspapers have articles but no third party publisher calls the movement what the movement calls itself, then we don't have some verifiable source calling it that, then wikipedia can't call it the childlove movement either, because we can't verify how widespread the term is, or it should be left to publishers of original thought to determine the occurance of the term "childlove" not original research on wikipedia. Lotusduck 07:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So why not just move it to pedophilia advocacy? Tell you what, I'll do exactly that. Surely you accept that some people do advocate for paedophiles? James James 09:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I've moved the page to pedophilia advocacy. Would those who voted to delete on the basis that the term does not exist be willing to reconsider? I think there is clearly a reasonably sized group of people that does advocate for social acceptance of pedophilia, and covering them, and detractors of them, would be legitimate in my view. Lotusduck, you've been fairly outspoken here, and I accept your view that it is pretty much only those within this movement who call it the "childlove movement", but will you accept my counterargument that whatever it's called, the advocacy does exist and is a legitimate subject for the encyclopaedia. The argument whether it should be broken out from pedophilia is quite separate, but would merging such a long article back into its parent be a really good idea? James James 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also per paroxysm's reasoning who cited external sources. It is also in line with the naming of NAMBLA it's the NAtional Men Boy Love Association. If pedophilia advocacy was at all used (and not a neologism) it would've been named NAMBPA (National Men Boy Pedophile Association). It is covered by outside sources, but gauging notability by google or Lexis Nexis hits makes no sense, when you know there's a lot of censorship going on about the subject. - Mgm|(talk) 11:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sorry for the repeated comments, but I've done some Google searches:
    • "Childlove" gets 12900 Google hits [19]
    • "childlove movement" gets 390 Google hits [20]
    • "paedophile advocacy" gets 20 Google hits [21]
    • "paedophilia advocacy" gets 145 google hits [22]
    • "pedophilia advocacy" gets 316 hits [23]
I think that makes it clear the suggested rename is the POV neologism here. - Mgm|(talk) 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "pedophile" isn't a neologism. It's a well established term. "advocacy" is also a well established term and joining them in a phrase is simply done for descriptive purposes. the word "childlove" however does not exist in any credible dictionary. Homey 18:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the search "childlove movement" on Google.com of the 146 uniques, the top hit is Wikipedia, the wiki mirrors domininate the other results (this article itself, plus all the others they've worked the term in). There is little non-wiki serious usage of the term in the results, with much of it being the usual "scraper sights" (e.g. search for anything and you get something on their sight). This actually proves that Wikipedia itself is the biggest promoter of the term. Now, sadly, others will likely follow. This shows the movement had great success with Wikipedia, as we forget how influential we are. Other people doing similiar "Google tests" will now make similiar judgements, to accept this term. Also, I would note, in your first search "Childlove" by itself, obviously has meaningings unrelated to the perverted one being discussed here. Even combined with other words, I expect there are people who use the term in the more literal non-perverted sense it's been used in the old article name (e.g. as in "childlove" means "child love" not sexual abuse of innocent children by people who are mad that I called it abuse). Finally, in all Google tests, keep in mind shorter simpler words, that are easier to spell, always get bigger results, and that doesn't tell you which is the proper term. --Rob 13:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As a patron of the online boylove community for almost ten years now, I had never heard the term "childlove" until Wikipedia renamed its "boylove" article into "Childlove movement" (if I remember correctly). I remember it as a conjured-up term to merge articles on "boylove" and "girllove". I have since noticed "childlove" being used quite often, when wanting to denote the collective boy- and girllove communities (and I've also noted many in the boylove community shunning the term "childlove"). So either I was ignorant of the term before the Wikipedia rename, or Wikipedia itself has contributed significantly to the usage of the term. Clayboy 18:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And does KCTV ever refer to the movement as the "childlove movement"?Homey 19:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am strongly swayed by the Lexis/Nexis result and the fact that no reliable authoritative sources seem to use the term 'childlove movement'. I think that, therefore, talking in detail about the childlove movement breaks Wikipedia's commitment to No Original Research. If there were media coverage or academic discussion on this topic then I'd be saying Keep all the way (and be much less fussed about the name). Yes, it means we miss out on the description of this phenomenon. No, this discussion wouldn't be happening the same way if the topic were Fluffy Bunny Rabbits. However, some reputable source needs to cover this ground before we can. The Land 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think more voters should be involved editors of this topic like paroxy and land. While the article is largely written in a similar voice to encyclopedic articles, the lions share of the article is original research. We would lose basically nothing sourced accurately by deleting this article and starting a fresh pedophilia advocacy section in the pedophilia article. I think so, and anyone who thinks this article just needs a little work should consider working on the article before being sure they want a keep. Lotusduck 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-original research If we remove the parts of the article that constitute original research (more than half the article as far as I can tell) sections 2.1 and 2.2 in particular, the remainder should be short enough to fit into pedophilia. I think there remains a strong argument to merge. Homey 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork, with string suspicions of original research. --Pjacobi 00:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it needs some NPOVing, but I'm not sure exactly what it's thought it's forking? Articles are often broken out of their parent subjects, but they're not considered to be forks. This is not an article about paedophilia itself but about advocacy for it. James James 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination appears to be an attempt to silence highly unpopular political or social views by refusing to allow them to be described on Wikipedia. No matter how nasty a view may seem to us, we are not in the business of refusing to cover it because we don't like it. --FOo 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can make that allegation if you can demonstrate that somebody voted to keep an opposing POV fork, while voting to delete this POV fork. However, that's not the case. Also, you fail to address the serious lack of *reliable* verifiable information to back up this article. Also, we actually do try to "silence" any POV soap-box pusher on *any* side. If somebody wishes to push an agenda, they're free to do so elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. You're partly right though. Their views are highly unpopular, and argueable "suppressed". Hence, they're rarely published. However, Wikipedia does not champion the rights of the unpublished. In fact, we're quite hostile to the unpublished. We don't (or shouldn't) write anything about anyone unless it's been published by reliable sources elsewhere. Is that fair? No. But that's the price of verifiability. --Rob 02:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorten and Merge with pedophilia per User:Thivierr. Seems like a POV fork to me. Jessamyn 02:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A real movement. Denni ☯ 02:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Many of us can agree that this article is filled with nonverifiable information. This article could be uniquely about the activism, but information is continually being added that subtly or not describes pedophilia from an unpublished viewpoint. If this article is not deleted it can be weeded down to its' verifiable components. If the verifiable and scholarly parts of this article don't amount to more than a stub, then Pedophilia Advocacy can be redirected to Pedophilia and the content moved there. People who vote either way should help edit this article, although of course delete voters may have more ideas of what to edit. Lotusduck 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It clearly would amount to more than a stub. There is advocacy, and it's perfectly sourceable. I agree that it should be uniquely about activism, and responses to that activism, and should it survive this AfD, I'm going to work on making it only about that. As I noted on the talkpage, I hope you'll join me in doing so. James James 05:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a real subject, and a real movement so should have it's article, provided content can be verified. if nessacary, remove the unverified sections, but keep the article. Silent War 06:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but fix I'm not sure I like either title but there has to be something about this group of people. I really think the pedophilia article needs to stick to medically defined pedophilia. Please don't merge. --Gbleem 08:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that there probably nees to be separate articles for those who want to support people who have medically defined pedophilia and those who advocate sex with children. --Gbleem 08:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The dividing of the articles should be along subject lines, not along lines of POV. "Pedophilia" should be about the medical and scientific ends, with perhaps a mention of any alternate POVs. Childlove...I think "Ped. Advocacy" or something along those lines might work. But I'm not so convinced "Childlove" is so POV as people seem to make it out, or even want it to be. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think separate articles is a little much, although this article mixes those two issues and several others together rather badly. But I'm unaware of any sources that specifically call for helping people who have medically defined pedophilia in the strictest sense. There are articles proposing possible revisions to how to treat pedophiles in psychology, which is hardly the issue of pedophilia advocacy. I think what you're describing is "Debate over pedophilia treatment" and really there isn't that much of that in the article. Personally, I haven't got the strength. If it is created, I will do my best to read over the peer reviewed journal references and make things as informative as they can be, but it would be better if an article like that was started by someone with the professional expertise to begin with. I mean, it's acceptable to make an article from reliable sources without having the professional expertise, but it's exhausting too. Part of the reason people only read a fourth of most of these journal articles and then make up their own conclusions is because the things are so long. Lotusduck 14:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you consider unreferenced? It doesn't look like "original research" to me, and even if some was removed, there is far too much referenced text to merge into pedophilia. // paroxysm (n) 20:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mixing of issues and definitions is exactly why I don't want it merged with pedophilia. Pedophilia is a condition identified by a process that is standardized by a group people with fancy degrees while the childlove movement as described is more of a political/social movement.--Gbleem 22:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I will give an example: In democtatic contries one can find Nazi and Communsit parties. The reasons for they existance are many, including the right of political freedom and the fact that these parties are indicators of the general political state in a given country (i.e. if their popularity start going up, it means that the mainstream politicians do something wrong). A similar argument can be put in the present case. First, if there are peple paying attention to the childlove movement, it is an indicator that it has a political basis, regardless how small it can be. Second, if the arguments of the "movement" are weak, then it will be easy for everyone to refute them again and again. -User:Nllsq (moved from talk page. first edit)

  • Keep, no valid reason to delete has been set forth. --Angr (t·c) 10:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic topic.  Grue  15:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It never ceases to amaze me how people want to delete articles simply because the content it distasteful. I had a similar debate at the Erik Beckjord article deletion; the man is an obnoxious ass, but that's no reason to delete the article. Perhaps it can use a bit of renaming/defining. To try and delete this as if it is not an issue in its own right...that is simply crass and POV to the point of absurdity. Even if it is deleted, it will just reappear, as the subject carries a great deal of importance to some people, no matter what their intentions are. --DanielCD 16:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Childlove movement was nominated for deletion on 2004-08-03. The result of the discussion was "no consensus" with a default result of "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Childlove movement/2004-08-03.

There is another one that advocates sex between women and young girls. --Gbleem 08:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also MARTIJN. I believe the women/girl organization you're referring to is Butterfly Kisses. // paroxysm (n) 19:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but I might add that this article should be the focus of every decent Wikipedian to crush the POV of sick child molesting bastards. DTC 00:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's how you feel, you should get right on this article eh? I think that this article is about as non-point of veiw as if the Ex-Gay article was composed completely of information found through Ex-gay organizations. That article isn't, and that article is fine. I think a lot of people are confusing neutral point of view with being positive. Lotusduck 02:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. To be considered a "child molesting bastard" you usually have to, you know, molest children. Not just advocate its legalization. Maybe you should read the article.
I would also encourage you to stay away from the article if you're going to let your emotions cloud up your neutrality. All POVs need to be presented, but without endorsement. // paroxysm (n) 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I guess that means you, not being a decent Wikipedian as far as I can see, should probably avoid the article altogether, per your own advice. --DanielCD 02:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you replying to..? // paroxysm (n) 02:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I was talking to Mr. "I'm gonna get my fucking way or else" DTC up there. --DanielCD 03:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per some of the above arguments, changing my vote from Jesus H. Christ to O... M... G!!!!
Carry on! Herostratus 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Thirteens (A Series of Unfortunate Events)

[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. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hasan Abdulhadi

[edit]

This page seems to be complete nonsense. I have never heard of the war of the "eight red days." KI 19:41, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 07:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WAYN

[edit]

Non-notable and appears to be spam. See spam reports at [24]. Ashibaka tock 19:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have been looking into this and all seems very clear:

WAYN allows its members to import their contacts from various address books: for the moment, they seem to have this too working for Hotmail, AOL, Gmail and Yahoo….The process is fairly straight forward and it is made clear what actually happens: by importing your contacts onto the site, an invitation is automatically sent on your behalf – you can check this at the following link: http://www.wayn.com/wayn.html?wci=register2

Their privacy policy is also making this process even clearer – you can check this at the following link:

http://www.wayn.com/wayn.html?wci=StaticPage&page=Privacy – detailed below:

5. Invite a Friend

If a user elects to use our Invitation option to invite a friend to our site, we ask them for the friend's email address. WAYN will automatically send the friend an email inviting them to join the site provided the user agrees to obtain consent from their friends to send them an invitation. WAYN stores this email address for the purpose of automatically adding the respondent to the friends list of the user sending the invitation, and also to send reminders of the invitation. WAYN does not sell these email addresses or use them to send any other communication besides invitations and invitation reminders. The friend may contact WAYN to request the removal of this information from our database.

6. Uploading your Contacts

If a user elects to upload their contacts, they accept that by doing so, an email invitation will be sent on their behalf, to the email addresses of the contacts that are being uploaded and that from time to time, a reminder email could be sent to that contact. By inviting their contacts to join the site, the user agrees that they have obtained prior consent from their friends to send them an invitation. WAYN stores the name and email address of the contacts for the purpose of automatically adding the respondent to the friends list of the user sending the invitation and to send reminders of the invitation on the user’s behalf. The users' username and password will not be saved anywhere on the site. The names of the contacts being uploaded will also be searchable via the name search facility to enable other WAYN users to find old friends. Other WAYN users will be able to send an anonymous email to the user who uploaded the contact name being searched, with a description of the person they are trying to get back in touch with, enabling the user who uploaded the contact to potentially connect the two people together. WAYN does not sell these email addresses or use them to send any other communication besides invitations and invitation reminders. The user or the users' contacts can request the removal of their details from our database by sending an email to [email protected].


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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 07:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Caesar (mini)

[edit]

This page, in general, only has the cast list. It has no information about the series and the body (which is the cast list) is not enough. See Julius Caesar (mini) --User:Alvinrune 20:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a perfectly reasonable stub, although the formatting of the cast list needs cleanup up as of time of writing. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep it. Morwen - Talk 20:28, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete by request of creator and sole editor as an incorrect title. Uncle G 20:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Phenylephedrine

[edit]

Speedy Delete. I didn't do enough research and phenylephedrine is actually Phenylephrine. DirectorStratton 20:39, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. howcheng {chat} 19:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop feehan high school

[edit]

Useless redirect page, which was actually originally a duplicate of the article with the correct capitalization. When this page is deleted, auto-capitalization will direct users to the correct article automatically. skeeJay 20:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be in Redirects for deletion? Or why don't you just fix the redirect, can't hurt right? Keep or re-tag -Drdisque 20:55, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 07:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casati Boya

[edit]

(edit conflict) Nn company, only 16 results on Google. Nominator votes delete because it is not significant enough. King of Hearts | (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else incompletely tagged, so I finished it for him. Personally, I think its a weak keep Drdisque 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Err... when you go to buy "paint" in Turkey this is avalible anywhere. Also there is a closely assosiated italian "Casati". Generaly we give articles a day before we vfd them so that the original creator(s) (me for this case) have the time to expand it. I so hate vfds... --Cool CatTalk|@ 22:32, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 19:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mokitown

[edit]

advertisement, non-enyclopaedic, possibly non-notable Drdisque 21:08, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Vanity, non-notable, not yet at best. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secure Media Flow Protocol

[edit]

Not notable. 13 google hits. Article added by its developer. Haakon 21:10, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finnish-Swedish_relations

[edit]

This article covers topics which are thoroughly addressed in the history sections of Finland and Sweden's articles and uses them in a article which is very soapboxy. Adamrush 21:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up, as I made an attempt to do. Foreign relations are notable; see U.S.-Canada relations or, if we want to get really specific, Mexican response to Hurricane Katrina. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 23:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course foreign relations are notable. However, the future acceptable article is not going to contain any of the present one; it will be a complete rewrite out of POV necessity. That's the issue. Deleting the article doesn't mean that the article isn't warranted, but rather the article's current content. Deleting this entry is clean up. --Adamrush 19:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the name be Finno-Swedish relations? Punkmorten 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and clean up. --LesleyW 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup as per others Scoo 10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this article is cleaned up, it will be content-free. It consists only of a table which is merely a soapbox and, if corrected, would correspond to many paragraphs of as-yet unwritten text. --Adamrush 15:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is unreferenced, contextless POV. There is nothing to cleanup. "Cudgel War: alienation Finns–Swedes" - says who? Why? How? The topic of Finnish-Swedish relations is important and interesting, but this is really not the article which Wikipedia should have on the topic. Any article on this topic has to be started from scratch. If this is kept I suggest erasing everything in the article which is not sourced and properly discussed in its historical context. u p p l a n d 16:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Sorry i'm a bit late in the discussion here (did not notice there are separate afd-talk pages), but even though the decision is already made i thought i'd give it my comments for the record. I agree with Uppland about this article being so bad that there is jsut two choises, deletion, and or re-write pretty much from scratch. I think this is also such a big matther that teh person re-qriting it should have a specific perspective in the area (not just "i feel that..."). SO unless no-one steps forward to edit it throughly deleting it could be a good idea auntil someone does write a better one.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Ad, nothing noteworthy.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Namo WebEditor

[edit]

Possible WP:VSCA, definitely written as an advertisement. I recommend delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 21:17, Dec. 31, 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; redirect technically impossible. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

As per the precedence found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of motorized bicycles this article is also a type of POV fork; unless of course there was some error in the method of the deletion of the article gallery of motorized bicycle. If Gallery of motorcycle trikes is kept, it goes against the aforementioned precedence. That would be logical grounds to commence an appeal for the undeletion of Gallery of motorized bicycles. (Aside: I would like to see the undeletion of that page). --CylePat 21:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment: I must agree with user:Bikeable, It doesn't quite meet the WP:NOT criteria. I didn't think of that. So the above precedence doesn't really apply anymore because that article had text describing the photo's and cross references with the main article motorized bicycle. I'm not sure if it's proper form to vote when you nominate an article, but if I could I guess it would be a delete. --CylePat 00:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 06:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIYJ

[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. Jinian 15:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortified District

[edit]

Unless somebody knows this subject and can edit it I'd recommend deleting. As is, the poor English and insufficient context make it impossible to understand Eagle (talk) (desk) 21:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't see any reason to delete it, as it seems to be a somewhat notable term, but I do see many places for improvement. I think a {{cleanup}} tag is sufficient for this article. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Fix I think the problem with this article is that "fortified district" is a generic term with no specific reference, it is not a notable term at all. The article is apparently intended to be about Japanese fortified districts during the occupation of China and Korea in World War II. The article then goes on to provide a list of fortified districts. I think the starting point here is to change the name of the article to something more specific and descriptive of it's actual content. Further, each one of those fortified districts mentioned in the article could be a separate article by itself if written by someone with detailed knowledge and maps, which I do not possess. After that point, the renamed article would exist as a general text article on Japanese Fortified Districts, with links to specific articles for specific fortified districts mentioned in the article. In the alternative, this article could be renamed Japanese Fortified Districts and a number of articles merged into it, such that each of the named areas is a subsection of this article. I am not voting for deletion here, as it is a notable subject, but I disagree that it's a notable term.GestaltG 16:18, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chesshere.com

[edit]

Non-notable website, Alexa rank > 680,000. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 21:50, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upperhand

[edit]

Non-notable, vanity ike9898 22:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - as per nom, nobrainer. --Oscarthecat 22:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bordering on nn-bio. JHMM13 (T | C) 22:05, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favorville

[edit]

Has been {{notability}} tagged for a few weeks, and not expanded. The website hardly seems notable, and the article admits the service is in beta mode. Alexa ranking of a huge 1,070,422, and appears to fail WP:WEB. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above remark was made by an anon IP who's only contribution has been to this AfD. Favorville still fails WP:WEB as far as I'm concerned, an Alexa ranking of 331,869 is no mark of notability. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 10:33, 4 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 Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 21:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Cry more noob

[edit]

Non-notable phrase.. --Mysidia (talk) 00:19, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 11:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cry more noob

[edit]

kind of neoligism. Then agian, I don't play MMORPGs. Kind of attack as well Sceptre (Talk) 22:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep time has passed since last deletion, usage has spread and evolved


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stina Arnold

[edit]

Although Ms. Arnold is supposedly a "well-known linguist," I can't find a single Google hit for her name, or for the language she has supposedly created (Stinisch). That, and the breezy tone of the article (her fetish for "bald and hairy men," for example) lead me to believe that this is a hoax. Joyous | Talk 22:09, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angpau

[edit]

Has been {{notability}} tagged for a few weeks, and not expanded. The website hardly seems notable, and with an Alexa ranking of a huge 2,998,747, appears to fail WP:WEB. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:12, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 already. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Komi Christopher

[edit]

Non-notable, vanity Oscarthecat 22:36, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 1995

[edit]

One radio station's top hits list for one particular year. Don't see the notability Bjones 23:10, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever the admin who deletes this list is, note that there is one for 91X Top 91 of 1984 ... 91X Top 91 of 2005. However, 91X Top 91 of 2004 already has its on AfD. The author (Tom-see below) has voted to delete so this should suffice for a speedy delete on all the pages.Pepsidrinka 12:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a template just for the countdowns at Template:91X. Don't know if that could be deleted if the lists are individually deleted or if it has to go through TfD.Pepsidrinka 12:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Harro5 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sinead Quinn

[edit]

Non-notable singer who had a minor album once and has since disappeared from relevance. She has no official website (always a bad sign for a newish entertainer), and her amg entry is just two random pics. This article won't expand, as her career seems dead, and there's no reason to keep this article any longer. Harro5 23:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I wouldn't say that her career is dead, given that she was born in 1990, rather it is just taking off. Ms Quinn doesn't appear to have become a notable person as yet. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. I've reverted the mass-deletion of the article which the user who nominated it for deletion carried out when they tagged it for deletion. The stuff they deleted may need a major re-write if the article is kept, but it should remain part of the article or now. I say keep the article as the girl was part of a major UK TV programme and released an album and a single which reached number 2 in the UK chart and singed a £1 million record deal (although it does look like this deal was cancelled before it was fulfilled by all concerned). Evil Eye 00:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you volunteering to do the cleanup? Because the article can't stay in its current condition, end of story. Harro5 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I may or may not have time to do the cleanup in the next few days, but deciding an article is not written well enough is not a good enough reason to nominated it for deletion. It hould have been marked for cleanup rather than deletion. Evil Eye 01:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have had a go at cleaning up the article. In doing so I have 'uncovered, so to speak that at the end of last year she was given a reception by the Irish President for her contributions to music. Added to the fact h was second a major TV talent show and had a number 2 hit single, and has over 80,000 hits on Goggle for `Sinead Quinn` [27], I think that makes her notable enough. Evil Eye 14:25, 2 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USSTC

[edit]

I understand that WP:CORP isn't policy, but this company, offering space transport beginning in 2007, doesn't even begin to come close to the suggested guidelines. They have a nifty website, but I can't find much else going on. Joyous | Talk 23:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_31&oldid=1234126820"