Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 8 January 10 >

Purge server cache

January 9

[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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 04:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Hessburg

[edit]

Delete - Page seems to be Self-Promotion and not appropriate F739 00:09, 9 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 REDIRECTED. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics: the Modern Science of Mental Health

[edit]

This article purports to be about the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health but a look at it shows that it isn't about the book but about the belief system first advanced in that work -- in other words, it's a POV fork of Dianetics, which ends in highly unencyclopedic rambling about supposed supression of the book ("Fascist Germany had its propaganda machines, Communist Russia had its propaganda machines and one could assume any tyranny invented by man would defend itself by any of the means it uses. Dianetics has attracted its share Controversy [sic] from 1938 onward... this book ... sent a message to all that might attempt to enslave mankind.") Such ranting would never have passed consensus at Dianetics and the author should not have created this POV fork to house it.

(Note: Please do not confuse this article with the article Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (the correct capitalization of the title) which is a well-written article about the book itself.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 9 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 Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Stedham

[edit]

94 hits on Google, 0 hits for "James Stedham" Guns roses, also, don't you think he looks a little bit too young to have been a former member of Guns n' roses? I call bullshit... Obli (Talk) 00:32, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki'd to Wikibooks:School Science/Demonstrating the effects of amylases on starch

Demonstrating the effects of amylases on starch

[edit]

This article has been moved to Wikibooks. Tim Pierce 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 23:58, 9 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 by JesseW as a nn-bio. - Bobet 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Forster

[edit]

Non notable biography +/- vanity. Originally tagged by someone else for speedy delete, but was reverted. I thought best to settle via AfD. First Google entry seems to be subject but it is self-listing in free directory.. Ifnord 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought you would be allowing for biographical information on this wiki!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nmforste (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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adapt Technologies, Inc.

[edit]

nn company, advertising. Note that the article was created by User:Alexbacker. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:47, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation Games

[edit]

Seems to be non-notable. No evidence that it meets criteria for either WP:CORP or WP:WEB but I'm open to input on this one. Crunch 00:55, 9 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 Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karen M. Campbell

[edit]

Sad but not notable. Original research, unverified. See Nathalie Forster also on AfD.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ananas Muffin

[edit]

About a band that sort-of claims notability, but it's at best unverifiable and most likely a hoax. 2 google results in English for "Ananas Muffin", not about the band. - Bobet 01:24, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 04:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary urban phenomenon

[edit]

Protologism whose only recorded use appears to be in the Wikipedia article on Burning Man. 361 Google hits, of which essentially all are Wikipedia mirrors. MCB 01:34, 9 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 04:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salsman Driver

[edit]

WP:NOT a collection of original thought. This includes inventions and pseudoinventions. Delete. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 02:07, 9 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 04:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E/pop

[edit]

Blatant advertising. NN. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 02:13, 9 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 Speedily deleted as requested by only author. enochlau (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive1

[edit]

Bonehead error on my part. Speedy delete, please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AaronS (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 No consensus Sceptre (Talk) 10:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer and video games

[edit]

This page is a list of lists that are all included in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_games. -- Wikipedical 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I can see there are many supporters of this page, but I would like to clarify my position. I nominated this for deletion because it is an incomplete and selective list of lists. Categories are useful because they are in a sense 'list of lists,' and they are also more than that. I believe there is no point in trying to revise this page.

In response to recent discussion, I would like to point out that there are zero redpages on this page. -- Wikipedical 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

[edit]
  1. Keep as the gateway to all our game lists. -- JJay 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Keep. There is no way for a category to encompass the existing sub-sections on the page, nor to include redlinks that indicate articles that need to be written. Turnstep 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Keep per Turnstep, looks like a useful list. feydey 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Keep — categories are often useless for multi-variate data. Some of the sub-lists include multiple parameters per game, so they can't be converted to lists without destroying information. This page organizes those lists nicely. — RJH 16:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Keep as this list is specific, contrary to the category which lists List of board games and other topics unrelated to computer and video games. Those interested in CVGs should be able to look this up. Punkmorten 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Keep - Allows more articles from redlinks, which is not possible with categories. Andros 1337 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. keep please this list is useful Yuckfoo 03:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Keep. Good navigation aid. (Also, why does this article's AFD need these non-standard 'keep' and 'delete' sections?) HollyAm 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Keep. It is a useful list. Carioca 03:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Keep this useful list. Categories may not work that well. --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

[edit]
  1. Delete. -- Wikipedical 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete Pintele Yid 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete delist this one please. The Categorization project is a better way to go. Atrian 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Delete - this is what categories are for. Reyk 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Delete categorize WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Delete This is what we have categories for. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Delete horrendous listcruft. Stifle 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Delete. I almost voted keep, but this article really doesn't add anything that categories can't do, other than showing off red-links, which I am generally against anyway. It's easy for someone to add links when they write a new article. —Cleared as filed. 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Delete Perhaps we should have a List of lists of lists of lists of computer and video games? Get rid of this, make a nice new shiny category. And as for redlinks, if you're not willing to get up off your ass and write the article, why throw down a link?--Lairor 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 00:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Delete - Redundant. --J. Nguyen 03:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Delete would be a long list, categorize it --Jaranda wat's sup 00:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Delete. unmanageable list. --Madchester 02:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]
  1. Move to List of lists of computer and video games. This is a meta list but the current article title doesn't make this clear. Cyde Weys votetalk 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very good point although this new page name is somewhat cloudy. -- Wikipedical 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just in case this is ambiguous I'd like my vote to be counted as a Keep if a move action is decided against. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain

[edit]
  1. Delete this list of lists. Better served by a category, and appears to offer no imporvements over categorisation. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:45, 9 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 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiredRed

[edit]

This is spam. Esprit15d 02:18, 9 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 Babajobu 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huron Square

[edit]

Delete because it does nothing to even explain what it is. A Google search reveals nothing more about it, aside from the existence of several other non-notable Huron Squares. older≠wiser 02:19, 9 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 redirected as with any likely spelling error. Further discussion should take place at WP:RFD if needed. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnatine

[edit]

misspelled form of carnitine Andrew73 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should spelling errors though be in Wikipedia? I still favor deletion. 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyuusei hakketsu byou

[edit]

Can't find independent evidence that this entity actually exists. This page furthermore redirected to leukemia Andrew73 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment However, this is a Japanese expression that is not used in English. Should this then belong in the English versin of Wikipedia? Andrew73 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Original article was apparently in response to an obit of a japanese voice actress for Sailormoon who died of the disease. Wisco 03:56, 9 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 Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Cross

[edit]

Claims some notability, but it's very shaky. His imdb entry has one entry, an uncredited role. I can't find anything on the supposed recordings. Google gives 322 results for "David M. Cross", but most of them are about a lawyer. - Bobet 02:46, 9 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zoob

[edit]

non-existant word with nonsensical meaning. Probably a reaction to a patent nonsense deletion of some other page(?) Prashanthns 03:11, 9 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 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical Church of God

[edit]

No idea at all what this article refers to or what it is trying to say. Mostly incomprehensible. Google is of no help clarifying. Possibly POV. Andrew Levine 03:16, 9 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 REDIRECT to Trivium, Babajobu 04:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Gregoletto

[edit]

Delete - not really notable (yet). BD2412 T 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marigold (band)

[edit]

nn band which fails to meet criteria set out in WP:MUSIC -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 03:33, 9 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 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Alert 2: Remix

[edit]

nn mod that's not even out yet Hirudo 03:45, 9 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoagie Haven

[edit]

Non-notable place. cesarb 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above comments. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 00:38, 10 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 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Contemporary Australian Left

[edit]

NPOV, and certainly WP:NOR as stated by author on talk page. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rockbusters complete clues and answers

[edit]

nn listcruft of...some sort of radio show that Ricky Gervais was involved in. Delete, or very slightly minutely possibly merge if you have any clue where this would go.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 04:25, 9 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 06:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krant medium fighter

[edit]

NN AaronS 04:32, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habbohut

[edit]

This internet radio station claims forum 500 users (mostly inactive) and seems unlikely to pass WP:WEB. Not sure how many listeners. Kappa 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed my mind to vote keep if claims that they have guests like Ashlee Simpson and Gorillaz can be proved. Kappa 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. May also be self-promotion / not NPOV. Arviragus 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For anything internet-related, 500 hits on Google is clearly not enough to pass muster. Delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if this is the right place to place this, so please forgive me. I am a DJ on habbohut radio. The original number of 500 forum users was a typo by the original poster. We currently have over 5000 users registered on the forum alone. Average listener number per show is 100-200 and for certain events the number is in the thousands. We've had celebrities grace are airwaves including Ashlee Simpson, VJ Sarah Tyler, The Gorillaz, Sons Of Butcher, and Skye Sweetnam among others. The purpose of our Wikipedia article is not self promotion as Arviragus claims, but a single portal for users to view the history of our radio station, a list of DJ's, information about habbohotel (the video game that we are an official fansite of), and information regarding how and when they can have their chance at becoming DJs themselves. If this is against Wiki policy, please delete our wiki, but the wiki policies that I have researched say nothing about posting a Wiki regarding the history and information of a growing online community, which is what we like to refer to habbohut as. Thank you, DJ-Omega
    • Comment: That's what your website is for. You should have a single portal. WP:NOT a free webhost.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand what you are saying. Since the focus of the site is the radio, there really isn't a spot to post the history of habbohut. Ideally, our wiki would eventually include the dates that various celebrities were interviewed and provide links to where those interviews could be heard. Wikipedia was an indeal medium to branch habbohut out to the web. A way for people who search habbo on wiki (which you can classify as online media, something wiki policy prohibits) they can easily find another related website. Again, if we're in the wrong, delete our wiki. I don't believe we are, however.
        • OK the fact that you have celebrity guest convinces me that you are a legitimate radio station and of interest to wikipedia users. However you still can't use wikipedia as a web host, this has to be an encylopedia article about the station not a "portal". I advise you to list your celebrity guests at the top of the article, with links to prove the claims. Kappa 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you, But a quick question, why was our DJ list deleted? I thought it was a valid piece of information.
          • Come on, now, is there really any point in duplicating the DJ list in Wikipedia? Think about it, would you record this in stone forever? A little proof: Sweetnam interview (listed as Habbo Radio for some reason), on Hotel CA, unfortunately I can't find proof that Gorillaz broadcasted on the Hut but there are lots of pages on the web with news about their tour of the Habbo Hotels. On their final visit to the UK site they popped on air with dileas and Dubya. - worMatty 2256 GMT 2006.01.10
  • Delete per above and WP:NOT a webhost. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:35, 10 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 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flytrap

[edit]

only based on rumors - and the sources are dubious at best Kingturtle 05:00, 9 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Treo Ace

[edit]

this article is based on a Feb. 2005 rumor. Kingturtle 05:04, 9 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pool_ladder_accident

[edit]

Minor part of the game, unnecesary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notovny (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 Speedy deletion for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrium

[edit]

Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. New 'group', no notability. Wikipedia is not a press release forum. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:17, 9 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, nn per WP:MUSIC Madchester 02:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teague Stefan Band

[edit]

Delete - notability? I don't see it. BD2412 T 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Redirect Sceptre (Talk) 10:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilsonville High School Cross Country

[edit]

Shennanigans. NPOV, nicknames for teachers, and so on. Mikeblas 05:41, 9 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 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TRfans

[edit]

Video-game cruft, almost an A7 speedy, but not quite. A video game racing team in Macau, apparently. "TRfans Macau" gets 322 Google hits. Delete per WP:V. GTBacchus(talk) 05:42, 9 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 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VNH

[edit]

Does this really exist? If so, is it worthy of an encyclopaedia article? And should we care about field trips at U Texas? AaronS 05:51, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Douche (Slang Term), Douche (disambiguation)

[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there is already an entry at Wiktionary. Delete. bikeable (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. There is now also Douche (disambiguation), which is not needed if this page goes, so I am adding it to this nomination.
  • Delete, as per nom. "Douche" has got to be one of the lamest insults ever. --King of All the Franks 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete. Douche is a commonly used insult and the information contained on this page is merely transfered from other pages that already contained this information on the Wikipedia.{{subst:unsigned|Madrake}
  • Don't Delete. I helped write this page, and I've been noticing the word crop up more and more in comedy. There is certainly a difference between someone looking for a general definition for the feminine product and someone looking for a general definition on the slang term. Also, Merovingian, your personal feelings on whether the insult is lame is not germane. Finally, Wikipedia might not be a dictionary of slang terms, but includes pages on "batty boy", "breeder", "gimp", all of which are used less often in a public setting than douche. If you feel strongly on that, please also ask for deletion for those pages too. -- User: NYYW
    • And also, I looked at the douche page on wiktionary, and all it has for slang is: "slang an insulting term used to mean "stupid" generally, but also sometimes it is used in reference to an ugly person." It is far outside the realm of the wiktionary to include the myriad links and useful information we did on the douche (Slang Term) page.
      • Useful information like "People who try to use the word portmanteau on Wikipedia pages are lame douches."? hmmmm. bikeable (talk) 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the Wiktionary article is not finished yet. It is nowhere near featured article status. It needs proper quotations for each meaning, etymologies, pronunciations in all relevant dialects, spoken pronunciations, any necessary usage notes, an inflection line for the noun, and (yes) links to related terms like douchebag. If you want to make Wiktionary better, writing articles in completely the wrong project is not the way to do it. Uncle G 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • breeder is about an occupation and gimp is a disambiguation article, by the way. Neither are dictionary articles. Uncle G 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Douche Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just an overgrown dicdef. Gazpacho 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same as above Argyrios 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a dictionary article written in the wrong project, and as Bikeable point out, it's a bad dictionary article, at that. The meanings section is multiply redundant, the article having been padded out in an attempt to make it look like an encyclopaedia article, and whilst the "common uses" would do as examples at Wiktionary, Wiktionary aims for proper dated and attributed quotations from published works (to show the history of a word in actual use) rather than contrived examples where possible (although contrived examples will do until proper quotations come along). Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Uncle G 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Tedernst | talk 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Uncle G. Movementarian 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while this subject may be worthy of an entry, such a thing would look at the origins of the word and some very early uses such as in The Lords of Discipline, no mention of the word "douchebag" is even mentioned which is really where the word came from. I think it would be better to start from scratch than try to salvage anything here, except maybe the links. -Drdisque 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article goes beyond the dictionary definition of "douche." Fuck is also a word in the dictionary, yet it merits its own wikipedia article because of its extensive content. The content in douche is not quite as extensive as fuck but it's enough to distinguish itself from a dictionary entry. DrIdiot 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not go "beyond the dictionary definition of" the word. It contains nothing that a dictionary article wouldn't also contain. You have a misguided notion of what dictionary articles contain, that is apparently that they contain a few sentences or sentence fragments and nothing more. Dictionary articles are not short, and Wiktionary is not paper, either. There are dictionary articles on Wiktionary that bring up the article length warning. Uncle G 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If kept, and I advise against, the original form "douchebag" should be mentioned. Douche is just shorthand for that. Crunch 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mere dicdef. I don't even see anything worth transwiking. Rossami (talk) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those of us who aren't ubernerds, can we please avoid using words "dicdef" and "transwiking" in our discussion of this page? You make it sound like you're planning a sex change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madrake (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: Such words are common shorthand on AfD. They have stable meanings, and are readily intelligible. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Please follow the link and/or read the Guide to deletion which defines many of the terms commonly used in these discussions. The Guide is prominantly linked in the deletion notice on the page.
  • Merge into List of pejorative names or similar Werdna648T/C\@ 09:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hardly notable, just a catch prhase, get it out of here--Nn-user 19:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Re-add to other article.Crumbsucker 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete It is a valid insult/slang term (as much as any other covered on wikipedia) and is well explained in the article, far more so then wikitionary can or is explaining it, more so as a insult/slang it is diffrent enoungh to warrent not being merge into the douche bag (product) article. --BerserkerBen 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have a misguided notion of what dictionary articles can contain. Wiktionary can cover everything covered by this article, and then some. Uncle G 00:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No need to get rude, perhaps if you added the information from the douche (slang) article on wikipedia to wikitionary "and then some" then your argument would be validated and no longer arguable.--BerserkerBen 01:46, 12 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 A7 delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip_Wylie_Leabo

[edit]

NN joke bio AaronS 05:56, 9 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 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yomari

[edit]

Vanity article bordering on spam. Kaldari 06:05, 9 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 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Apathy

[edit]

"Your Apathy is a webpage which commonly uses satire, pop-culture refrences, and toilet humor for comedic effect." Alexa rank 488,887. Google finds 16 links to it. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:09, 9 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 Sceptre (Talk) 10:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

101st keyboarding division

[edit]

Supposed division of US Army serving in the War on Terror; in real life, a small handful of bloggers. Google finds 125 links, less than a dozen unique. Delete. bikeable (talk) 06:12, 9 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 04:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson McCutchan

[edit]

Vanity page / not notable. A whole 79 Google hits, most of which don't seem to be him. Page makes vague statements unverifiable by any search. Fagstein 06:16, 9 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 delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karolos antoniadis

[edit]

Seems to be someone unimportant. Claims he is "well-known" for his domain name business. 23 unique Google hits (mostly copies of a single press release) suggest otherwise. Andrew Levine 07:41, 9 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 10:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breeder (slang)

[edit]

This is a dictionary article written in the wrong project. The dictionary article written in the right project is breeder, which already covers this, and is waiting for quotations, translations, etymologies, usage notes, and all of the other things that a featured dictionary article requires. (So please resist the temptation to waste time doing them here in the wrong project.) This isn't an encyclopaedia article about breeders, of either animals or humans. Those are, of course, breeder and parenting. It's a mis-placed dictionary article about a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 07:44, 9 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.
Note: The page that was formerly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (2nd nomination) on 30 April 2009.

List of unusual personal names

[edit]

I think it would be quite insulting to the person on this list to be defined as "unusual" 219.77.73.190 12:53, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. I don't believe this is offensive as a whole. If an individual is listed and does not want to be, they may remove their own name. ~W
  • Keep. I don't think that having an unusual name is insulting per se, and I think most people would agree that, say, a name like "Queeeeeeen" is less common than "Michael". -- pne 11:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The names cited meet any objective definition of the term "unusual". The only question is whether the risk offence to the people named outweighs the value or usefulness of having such a list. IMHO, the list is worth keeping. --47.248.0.43 18:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not deletion policy. --Oldak Quill 23:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting, and people being offended isn't a reason for deletion. – Beginning 03:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. For any and all of the above-mentioned reasons. --Palnatoke 15:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I made this page. Definitely keep. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:31, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - User:Beginning, If I made a hate site on Wikipedia about you, would that be OK?
    • un·u·su·al adj. Not usual, common, or ordinary.
    • hate·ful adj. Feeling or showing hatred; malevolent.
    • There's nothing "hateful" about having a list showing names that are unique or very unusual. If the title were "List of stupid personal names" or "List of personal names everyone should mock," I'd agree with you. – Beginning 17:41, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, is that written by the same person? If so, it appears you are contradicting yourself! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • The person who voted Delete didn't even sign it, Beginning was responding. -Brodo
  • Keep. I think calling this a hate site is displaying ignorance on what hate is or in which it can be manifested. Anyone at the age of 18 in the United States has the opportunity and legal right to change the name their parents gave them. If they choose not to do so, we can only assume it is because they do not have a problem with their name. While I understand that Wikipedia is international, and I am not familiar with the laws of other countries, I am sure there are means of changing your name or going by another name if the name your parents gave you is really a problem for you. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with documenting publicly the history of unusual names that parents have seen fit to name their children. Beech Johnson 18:13, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This was one of the first pages that really got me addicted to Wikipedia. It's so educational, too! When someone asks me "is there REALLY a person named Optimus Prime?" I can answer yes, then show them. However, this article was -very- hard to find.. I've been trying to find it again for a while.. it wasn't even in the list of lists.
  • And another keep. <KF> 23:52, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Are we trying to delete an encyclopaedia here? the votes for deletion page is not meant for stuff like these. but oh well. SECProto 02:28, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep The word unusual isn't offensive, it's a neutral term. But then (most of) you knew that. Brodo 07:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris (society)

[edit]

No obvious claim to notability. Border line speedy, but just in case there is a reason to keep this that escapes me, AFD. Ben Aveling 08:10, 9 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 Babajobu 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris Cabinet Song

[edit]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solaris (society). Even if Solaris (society) is kept, its song doesn't deserve an article. Delete. utcursch | talk 08:20, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin fetish

[edit]

Non-notable sexual fetish -- DanBlackham 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foreskin fetish was nominated for deletion on 26 Nov 2004. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish.
The same standard should apply to the article circumcision fetish. The foreskin fetish article a relic of POV warrior Robert the Bruce -- DanBlackham 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you are talking about. But I do not believe that AfD is the place to resolve some edit war you may be involved in. Maybe you could formulate some reasons for this AfD or withdraw the nom. -- JJay 08:49, 9 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 04:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Ball Productions

[edit]

NN. Vanity. No links. Google string search "Rolling Ball Productions" turns up 25 hits, most to do with some band. Drat (Talk) 08:28, 9 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 04:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clan MacKinnon Seanachaidh History

[edit]

MacKinnon Seanachaidh yields 62 results on Google and no results when placed in quotes. The article makes no claim of notability and appears to be non-notable family history. The page states that this article is not copyrighted. It seems likely that the content was added because it does not violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. WP:NOT a free webspace provider. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 08:43, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Formula One season

[edit]

Delete WP:NOT, mostly mere speculation. NSLE (T+C) 08:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In Formula 1, planning for the 2007 season has been ongoing for a while. Some drivers has contracts. For example: Fernando Alonso is driving Renault in 2006, but has already for 2007 signed for McLaren-Mercedes, a team that will recieve Vodafone as title sponsor in 2007. It's also interesting for us who follows Formula 1 to see what rule changes, team constallations and other things that can be expected to appear in 2007. --Boivie 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. These types of articles are standard practice for upcoming sporting events/seasons. For comparison, and an example of true speculation, see 2020 Summer Olympics. -- JJay 09:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation", according to WP:NOT. Some information is verifyable, thus cannot be deleted for that reason. The information here would best be merged into another, larger entry such as Formula One as mentioned above.Theheadhunter 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • But most of the speculations are verifiable, since they can be found in several newspapers, and F1 websites, even if the are yet not officially confirmed by those involved. And the "speculations" part of the article also includes some confirmed facts. --Boivie 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Verifiable, notable, will have an article eventually anyway. —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Preperations are already under way and some drivers have confirmed team changes. I'd like to see less speculation and rumour however! --kingboyk 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As said, many driver have contracts already, including Alonso, Rosberg, R Schumacher, Trulli, Heidfeld. The season's only a year away, and by this time last year, there was quite a lot known about the 2006 season. As regards the speculation. Speculation is speculation. It's not confirmed yet. It's the nature of sport. How do we know if a certain driver (Or player in other sports) will be around in the year's time. We don't, hence speculation. Manipe 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. Close and well documented. Calsicol 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AlbinoMonkey. But less speculation and more facts, please? feydey 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Of course note that the contracts is what is "on course" to happen, but transfers, may occur. Stuff like Alonso on the way to McLaren are confirmed, and noting that this will force either Juan Pablo Montoya or Kimi Raikkonen elsewhere are relevant. As is the stoush over the technical regulations, concorde agreement etc, they are holding formal discussions with the teams, and signing new media rights, etc,etc, Blnguyen 00:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup, per precedent of other scheduled future major sporting events. This isn't just made-up stuff, it's widely discussed in a number of publications, and it concerns the most expensive and most prestigious series in motorsports. But it'll be a changing page over the course of this year before becoming a genuinely encyclopedic (by traditional standards) article when the 2007 F1 season actually happens. Every "speculation" should be sourced (or removed). Frankly, any article that's substantially unproven speculation makes WP feel like a movie-star fansite to me. Barno 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well worth an article. There's plenty scheduled to happen for 2007 and it's important stuff to digest - wouldn't fit anywhere else (I parsed some of it from the 2006 season article personally.) Erath 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this is not a crystal ball article Yuckfoo 03:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per above. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Cleanup I believe that a table for the F1 teams and drivers shouldn't be used for this page quite yet, but the teams/drivers/manufacturers news at the bottom should be kept since it is recent news and other contract signings. The359 10:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep.As said in other comments, an article on the 2007 Formula One World Championship is vital. Throughout this year, certain aspects of the 2007 season will be confirmed. The group need to have somewhere to put this information. When 2007 comes round, the page can then be used in the same way as 2005 etc... with results and links. I agree that pure speculation should not be added, but where can this information be shared/discussed? We need to strongly define what level of "speculation" is permitted. The teams and driver table needs to be modified as the order will be established by the 2006 finishing positions which is as yet unknown. I agree with JJay comment in that this can be handled in the same way as other future sporting events. MonkeyMumford 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AlbinoMonkey. 2007 is just next year. :) --Andylkl [ talk! | c ] 11:31, 13 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, Original Resarch. Madchester 02:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory

[edit]

original research (if you can call this research) JoJan 09:06, 9 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. – Robert 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SugarCRM

[edit]

below the levels in WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the more notable open-source CRM projects. The page should be expanded rather than deleted. --205.144.62.1 22:38, 9 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. – Robert 04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

This page should be deleted because it is a faux attempt by the developers of this unpopular project to gain borrowed interest from a Wikipedia link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.187.116.174 (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. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tustena

[edit]

I am having difficulty locating the nominator of this article. In the mean time, consider this an abstain. Johnleemk | Talk 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wait. It's Sleepyhead81, whose nomination did not go through because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tustena. Johnleemk | Talk 09:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it. Looking closer it was actually deleted before and someone recreated the article. So it should be a speedy delete rather than going through the vfd process again. --Sleepyhead 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since the page contents are not exact duplicates (far from it, actually), speedying cannot be done in this case. Johnleemk | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, I speedied it, because everyone just left it pointing at the old afd. Grrng. —Cryptic (talk) 16:12, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kragujevac- Amidza palace moved to Amidža Palace

[edit]

From WP:PNT, been there since December 15. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 20:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Croatian. The first sentence states that it is a 19th century palace located in central Serbia, in weak English. The next two sentences are in Croatian. — TheKMantalk 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*Searching Google for "Amidza palace" brings up 2 unique hits. — TheKMantalk 06:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more input. Johnleemk | Talk 09:41, 9 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 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperOffice

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. below the levels in WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:36, 9 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 07:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centraview

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. below the levels in WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open source is not a reason for this article to be kept. Wikipedia cannot differentiate between closed-source and open-source software in regards to which articles that are kept. Advertising applies just as much to open-source projects that are non-profitable (even though that is not the case here) as it does with normal products. --Sleepyhead 07:19, 10 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compiere

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. below the levels in WP:CORP. Has few customers and is not known in the market. Sleepyhead 09:35, 9 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 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relenta CRM

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. below the levels in WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:34, 9 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 delete G$. -Doc ask? 13:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cougar Mountain Software

[edit]

Previously deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9#Cougar_Mountain_Software Speedy delete. Sleepyhead 13:00, 25 February 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. - Mailer Diablo 04:25, 15 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.

Cougar Mountain Software

[edit]

Not notable. Advertising. Not up to levels of WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:43, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel/UX

[edit]

Not notable Sleepyhead 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - a Google search for Citadel/UX shows that the software is well-known in some circles. However, having read WP:CORP I am unclear if this product meets the standards there, but I would lean toward keeping the article. Note that WP:CORP suggests putting the product information on the page for the company that makes the product -- but as this is an open source project, I am not sure how that applies here. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FAQ [What is the difference between Citadel and Citadel/UX?] says "Since ours is the only remaining active Citadel project at this time, however, we now refer to it simply as Citadel." A Google search for "citadel" supports this claim. The reason I'm interested is that the IMAP page references a Citadel page which has been moved now, but apparently meant the software that used to be called Citadel/UX. I'd just like to see the confusion removed. If this page is removed, then this version should be featured more prominently on the Citadel (software) page, and then the IMAP page could refer to that page. --JamesStansell, 09:15, 9 January 2006 (CST)

There is some confusion here. The Citadel page was never moved -- the Citadel (software) page was the original page on Wikipedia. The Citadel/UX page, which is the one that refers to the product on citadel.org, appeared more recently. Citadel/UX is only one variant (and a clone, at that) of a software program that has a long history as BBS software. The developers of Cit/UX are mistaken when they claim that they are the only active Citadel project, as there are others. It is actually kind of controversial in the Cit community that they have taken it upon themselves to take over the name; not only are there other Citadels still being developed (though not publicised as strongly -- most are individual projects, not open-source or commercial work), there is even another WebCit that predates theirs (part of their Citadel project is called Webcit) and still has development as well (according to the developer). So, anyway, the Citadel page never meant "the software that used to be called Citadel/UX" -- it meant the Citadel BBS software, out of which eventually came Citadel/UX. The current link on the IMAP page points to the Citadel/UX page but calls it Citadel, which seems OK at this point. Making the Citadel/UX info more prominent on the Citadel (software) page would misrepresent Citadel/UX's role in Citadel history, I think. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a candidate for deletion? The whole page belongs on Source Forge and not in an Encyclopedia? 81.99.60.240, 17:08, 9 January 2006

  • Delete. Less than 500 Google hits for "citadel/ux" and less than 800 for "citadel bbs". Johnleemk | Talk 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As if anything that happened before the internet became popular wasn't ever "notable". SchmuckyTheCat 07:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As if the virtue of existence before the internet automatically made something "notable". At best, this is a merge and redirect to the main Citadel article. Anything major computer-related, especially if it's been in existence until now, has had plenty of time to rack up references to it online. The dearth of them indicates this particular brand of the software is not in itself notable. Johnleemk | Talk 08:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notice that this article on Network Control Program, which ran the Internet before TCP/IP existed, isn't anything more than a stub. Wikipedia, and the rest of the Internet, are really weak gauges of anything before the early 90s. SchmuckyTheCat 11:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • NCP has fallen into misuse, however. The article implies Citadel/UX remains in use until now, which means it has long ago entered the age of the Internet, and even Google. There's really no excuse for something computer-related and still in use in the present not to score a few thousand Google hits (at least) to prove notability. Johnleemk | Talk 11:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • As I mentioned above, searching for "Citadel/UX" provides an artificially low number of hits, as the software is called "Citadel" now. Perhaps the page should be renamed "Citadel (Citadel/UX)" or something; Citadel/UX is its historic name and it separates it from the larger concept of "citadel-type software", but it probably isn't the best current name for the page. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just an added data point: I went looking for any magazine articles, etc. on Citadel(Cit/UX) and found that it has been reviewed in Linux Journal [6]. -- ManekiNeko | Talk 12:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the the Citadel (software) page is focused on the history of the many Citadel variants as a BBS platform, while the Citadel/UX page focuses on the one Citadel variant that has been refocused for modern Internet applications such as Groupware. If this article were to be deleted, then it would imply that all of the other entries in the "See also" section should also be deleted, because they, too, point to articles which describe open source software in this category. If the Wikipedia editors are unhappy with the way the pages are labelled, then perhaps renaming them might be appropriate instead. As a third option, the pages could perhaps be merged, although it would result in one very large article that covers a number of different topics. I believe that this topic matter is relevant enough to keep the article. -- User:Art_Cancro
    • The article has now been toned down, and is now comparable with the articles about other software in its category (namely, the articles listed in the "See Also" section). Please consider that a few of us who were involved in the original article's creation are new to Wikipedia and are just getting used to the style of writing that the editors prefer. The article is now more of an informative than promotional piece. Please consider retaining the updated (and significantly shortened) article as an alternative to deletion. Art Cancro 14:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advert. Stifle 21:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While earlier versions of this page read like an advert to me, recent edits read along a more informative line. It would seem peculiar to remove this page (particularly with the recent edits), when the Citadel (software) page obviously seems prepared for individual links for Citadel+, Citadel-86, and DragCit (although these have not yet been written). As mentioned by ManekiNeko, since Citadel/UX has turned to calling itself simply 'Citadel' (regardless of how controversial the claim), searches for 'Citadel/UX' will likely bear less fruit than 'Groupware Citadel', which gives me 10 pages of results on Google, the first page of which (at least) directly address this Citadel variant. It seems to me, with this many results, Citadel/UX bears a little more than a mere nod for Wikipedia. Although this probably isn't the place to ask this, I wonder if someone couldn't expand a little more on the 'controversial' nature of Citadel/UX's preference to calling itself 'Citadel'... this strikes me as keenly interesting to Citadelians (I'm one of them, and know something of the politics that occured back in the late 80s with the various varients, but not to enough of a degree to credibly record them for Wikipedia). Specifically, I would love to find other active Citadel projects, especially any that might be derived from the original source. There was also a rumor, long ago, that CrT intended to create an updated version of his Citadel software completely rewritten in C++ or something, but I never heard anything more than that.--TreyVanRiper 15:20, 13 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 11:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hula (software)

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Sleepyhead 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the simplest explanation for a large number of Google hits is that a topic is notable? Leaving aside disagreements concerning the definition of notability, it seems to me to be equally easy to assume that the large number of hits is due to a web-master 'cooking the books' with link spam etc. Nomatter; However I put it to Google, the smallest number of hits I get is 11,400 (with 'hula novell groupware'). If the article were a blatent ad, I'd vote for its deletion. I happen to think it isn't in this case. Rob cowie 23:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those hits are duplicates. I got fooled by those before, too. And it is not that easy to make such an assumption, as most Google searches reveal little tampering, and anyhow, I doubt Novell would resort to such underhanded measures to promote its product. And while one cannot immediately infer from many Google hits that a topic is notable, one can certainly infer that a topic is probably non-notable ("probably" because of Google's systemic bias in favour of English, computer-related and internet-age stuff, ignoring non-English content, etc.) from a lack of Google hits. Johnleemk | Talk 06:22, 13 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 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tripper Productions To-do List (software)

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Not up to levels of WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:47, 9 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 both Sceptre (Talk) 10:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BXML and Backbase

[edit]

Both articles were originally tagged with {{afd}} without comment. They are both apparently renominations. The prior deletion discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BXML. The prior deletion discussion for Backbase can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Backbase. I believe that they are somehow related because Backbase currently redirects to BXML. I am correcting the nomination for BXML and removing the listing for Backbase pending a renomination following the procedures at WP:RFD. Abstain. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 10 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 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convea

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable. Not up to levels of WP:CORP Sleepyhead 09:47, 9 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. – Robert 04:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EssentialPIM

[edit]

Not notable. Advertising. Sleepyhead 09:50, 9 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 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhpOrganisation

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable Sleepyhead 09:53, 9 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 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tally (accounting)

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable Sleepyhead 09:53, 9 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 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipergate

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable Sleepyhead 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hipergate is one of the more notable open-source CRM projects. The article should be kept and expanded. --205.144.62.214 22:46, 9 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 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centric CRM

[edit]

Advertising. Not notable Sleepyhead 09:53, 9 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 04:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3 Hermanas Mexican Home Cooking

[edit]

The article is about a business that isn't notable. I would have put a speedy delete on it but have been informed previously that businesses can't be speedied for being non-notable. localzuk 10:16, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of disasters

[edit]

DELETE

  • I think this is a viable entry, and should be KEPT.
  • Reason For Nomination: Per WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of what constitutes a disaster is so unspecific as to encompass any event that someone personally feels is a disaster. Notable disasters will already have articles. KWinYO 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A lot of hard work, thats good, perhaps a little more is needed to make this list into something viable. What do you call a disaster? Because I'll bet hard cash that someone else does not find your "disaster" to be one. and just how many deaths equals a disaster? 25, 50, 100, 1,000? Is the multi-car crash on the freeway that killed 7 people a disaster? and if so why not list it? Until such time as the author can get everyone to agree on what the conponents of a disaster are this list should be removed. Repost it later if things get hammered out. But as is this article is not only unmanagable due to several items that do not belong there, it is also un-necessary. A quick search will bring up the relevant articles and I'm sure they will have the date it occured on and the death toll, which is about all the list provides. Not only that but if the article is a good one, it would let the reader decide for themselves if what took place is a disaster or not. It is a nice gesture to defend someone's "hard work" but I don't recall "hard work" being the only criteria for keeping an article. KWinYO 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting, I like how you attack something that makes complete sense as a "bad faith nomination" instead of discussing the actual issue. Fact is, This is basically a list of links to so called "disasters." It does little, except show up in the results field when a search is done. Where is the content? Not one of the listings contains any info beyond how many people died and when it happened. How about we try to discuss the issues before we start attacking other peoples opinion as wrong? (Oh and for future reference, it is possible for more that one person to use my Wi-FI connection, hence my IP address, ie. "friends" I had over during the weekend, so next time you accuse me of being many users, know the facts.)KWinYO 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:

  • The current article is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and in fact quite a lot of work has gone into ensuring it is not an indiscriminate collection. No doubt the criteria for inclusion could do with some tightening, but that is no argument for indiscriminate deletion of the entire article. A case can be made for splitting up the article, but the proposal to delete it seems both frivolous and insulting to those who have invested the time and energy to keeping it on track. Peak 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This is not listcruft, as it is a reference for several encyclopedic incidents, not something like Ashlee Simpson's hairstyles. Also, this AfD is not showing up on the main listing of AfDs. Youngamerican 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per Youngamerican. This is a very useful part of Wikipedia. Essexmutant 10:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I suspect WP:POINT, and a bad faith nomination. The fact that this article has been basically duplicated by Ongoing List of Accidents was mentined in its deletion debate here. I suspect (and I may be wrong) that the newly-created user who nominated this article for deletion is the same as the anon user who is the primary contributor to the 'accidents' article. Based on this conclusion, I believe (and again, I may be wrong) that the nominator is acting along the lines of "If my list isn't good enough for Wikipedia, no such list is good enough for Wikipedia". Saberwyn 12:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of disasters

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

  • Keep - ummm, definitely keep. Useful list. Cyde Weys votetalk 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep my Gosh - this is a useful list Scriberius 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much as I hate listcruft, this is (a) encyclopaedic and (b) a bad-faith nomination in response to nomination of Ongoing List of Accidents Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alot of this list is personal opinion. Why are some events deemed worthy of the list and others are not? I'll provide and example...Pearl Harbor is suspiciously absent from the list, yet the Atomic Bombing is there. Who decided that one was a "disaster" one was not? Also I have noticed the no one has presented any ideas as a compromise. I am willing to be reasonable. Instead all I get are attacks because my username is new or because my IP has been used by others (which is why I changed my username). When you are ready to work towards a constructive solution let me know.KWinYO 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like someone to define the word listcruft and please cite the dictionary or dictionary site that has it, in addition to its origin and when it became a word. I would like to have proof this is a real word with a single agreed upon definition and not some made up word that "everyone just knows what it means." If that is the case I don't think we should use made up words as reasons to remove someone elses "hard work." Thank You for your co-operation.KWinYO 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Cruft" is defined at WP:GAFD. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you Howcheng, I have never claimed this was listcruft it is in fact not listcruft. This is not a personal attack either, I have already discussed this with the forementioned "friends" who I had over this weekend and the consensus was that this list should not be here. Please Take the time to actually read my objections before you comment as I have no patience for those who ignorantly attack me. If you truely do not feel that you have done that, (Attacking) then I appologise in advance for your having to endure my many comments.KWinYO 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Potential Solution OK, since no one has come up with ANY solutions that we all can live with, I will extend an olive branch. I have used a considerable amount of my time to reformat the List of Disasters. I put just about everything in order of most recent item last while putting the date first. I also added more sub-catagories to further break down the list by date. I also narrowed the defination of the word disaster a bit, even going as far to write a letter explaining the decision to eliminate calling every single thing a disaster. I DID NOT take anything out if something is missing it is purely an editing error, I did alot of cut and paste so something is bound to be missing. I believe that this modification Makes the list easier to navigate and enhances its appearance. In order to maintain its neatness I put a little note as to standardize the listing format. I am willing to post it but will only do so at your encouragement. I will overlook my previous objections in order to keep some sort of list of this nature. If anyone has any negitive comments, keep in mind, that I put forth an effort to work towards a common solution. What did you do? Thank You for you patienceKWinYO 09:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise is only necessary when there is division, here there is apparent unanimity. Or had you not noticed that every single entry on this page apart from your own vote and comments says keep? Even I, who am well-known to hate listcruft and prefer categories in almost every instance, am not voting to delete this list because it contains encyclopaedic content. Reviewing the list is a good guide to how cultural perceptions of disaster have shifted over time, especially in terms of numbers and nationalities affected. I'd like to see more of that anaylsis, of course, and an expansion of the discussion, but that would be hard to do without original research. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Ok, so I agree with the fact that the criteria to get onto this page are a bit iffy.

I found it interesting as well, that Pearl Harbor was not on the list, yet the atomic bombs attacks were.

Furthermore, I'm not one to scream indiscrimination, and such. But not one incident involving Israel or anything Israel-related is on the list. Not even El Al's plane crash in Amsterdam which killed more than 50 Dutch, sadly enough. A bit strange, in my opinion.

I can think of many other examples, not including terrorist attacks that should be put on the "list", if the idea is just a large number of people killed in an unnatural way. I find it interesting that the Angola, Russian and Sudanese Air Force disasters were mentioned – where the maximum number of deaths were 50 - when the Israeli Air Force disaster of 1997 of larger proportions – 73 deaths - was completely overlooked (and proportionately speaking 73 soldiers in a country as small as Israel is equivalent to thousands of soldiers in the United States), as well as, the Dakar and Eilat sinking in 1967 and 1968 (killing 69 and 47 respectfully), went completely unmentioned. Or what is considered the largest-ever civil disaster in Israel, in 2001, a building collapsed which killed 23 and injured 300. Yet "disasters" that tolled one death or four from far reaches of the globe are noted.

Not even the Columbia Space Shuttle explosion in 2003 was mentioned, whilst the Challenger was, and the same amount of astronauts perished. However, I guess I should point out the obvious – the only difference is that Israel's first astronaut was aboard the Columbia.

Things that make you go hmmmm. I can't deny that I'm a bit skeptical about the objectivity of this article, and credibility of the writer.

  • Allow me to quote myself since you obviously didn't read it..." A quick search will bring up the relevant articles and I'm sure they will have the date it occured on and the death toll, which is about all the list provides." Now tell me, how is this "encyclopaedic"? Once again I have yet to see anything here proving my points incorrect. If actually cared about this post other than to use it as a battle ground I would see here before me, an adequate list of reasons to keep this post.KWinYO 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the entire article, and even caught the grammatical error in the second sentence. I don't think your "quote" is relevant, since one can not know to look up something that is not included in a self-proclaimed comprehensive list. I'm not creating a battleground, and not choosing to fight with anyone, I was just speculating on the comprehensive, academic, and "encyclpaedic" value of an article with evident gaps in research (ommisions that I am aware of from my own store of knowledge - as opposed to others I am not aware of). It is a very useful article, and it is apparent that an inordinate amount of effort went into it, and that is certainly commendable. I just feel that it is important to not have such a blatant oversight (even if it is simply a faux pas) in an article you wish to be considered a consistent and reliable source of information.

Because the events regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disasters deletion debates are seriously looking to be intertwined. I will be depositing this serious chunk of text in both deletion debates.

I have struck all my previous comments and opinions from both debates, and have attempted to reconsider the two nominations (List of disasters - referred to as Disasters, and Ongoing List of Accidents - referred to as Accidents) and my reasons for deletion, in as unbiased a way as possible. Having attempted to do so, I have come to the following conclusions:

  1. Ongoing List of Accidents is an almost complete duplicate of List of disasters, and as such, warrants either a merger or deletion per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
    • However, while the two articles have very similar content, the definitions for inclusion are different. The Disasters article gives its definition (and inclusion criteria) as "a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment." Therfore, in my personal opinion, you need a lot of bang to get your disaster-rated buck.
    • The Accidents article gives it's definition (and inclusion criteria) as "is a mishap that happens unexpectedly, that results in damage or injury, up to and including death." I believe the point made by User:Atrian in the Accidents debate applies here - "I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too?". While defining an event as a disaster is 'structured' by the scope necessary to be considered by the media and public opinion as a disaster, any "undesirable or unfortunate happening" (the definition of accident I pulled from my hardcopy dictionary) could technically be included on this list; billions of entries per calender day.

However, looking at detail at the two lists, I would like to offer the following recommendations.

  1. The list of aviation disasters/accidents doesn't belong in either article. These should be split off into a List of aviation accidents, where the criteria for inclusion is set at a certain amount of fatalities, per the introduction for the sublist in the Disasters
    • As a subset of this suggestion , the lists of "accidents/disasters involving foo-vehicle" should also be split out into "Lists of foo-vehicle accidents", again, with a set fatality criteria, or at least some kind of inclusion criteria.
  2. Mining accidents/disasters, now thats a section in serious need of overhaul. Mining is a dangerous industry, and while every fatality may not be a 'disaster', there would be too many events to comprehensively list in an 'accidents' list/article. A criteria for remaining within the Disasters article would have to be developed and enforced - my personal suggestion would be to set a casualty limit, but also include those that caused significant rethinks in the mining industry.
  3. Fire accidents/disasters appears to be better served by the already-existing List of historic fires. Some merging to this article from these two articles would be appropriate.

Everything else in the List of disasters article is suitable (in my personal opinion), and as such should be kept.

However, if my suggested changes go ahead or don't, it appears to me that the Accidents article is always going to be the poor little brother to the Disasters article. Points to the creator for his/her effort, and if there is consensus towards my suggestions, I believe the user could best assist Wikipedia by helping to implement those. Unfortunately, the Accidents article should still be deleted, as there is no way (in my personal opinion) to produce a meaningful list/article under the current article name and definition of inclusion, without it spiralling out of control.

Here's hoping this makes sense, and that people read the whole thing. -- Saberwyn 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • discussion resumes here
I agree in many respects. For example, it seems that every single air crash in human history appears to be categorised as an air disaster, simply because when an airliner crashes it is often packed full and has a 100% fatality record, which skews it somewhat. Actually a category for air crashes would also fit the bill here since they all have articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 13:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, Compromise.... I thought compromise was only necessary when there is a division....- Good idea. I believe that there are something like 360 or so air accidents listed all called a disaster. Reguardless of that, I offer the listings I put into a standard format (date - incident - deaths) as a start for the person who is doing the new list. I am pleased to see that some one else agrees that there need to be a few changes, rather then become standoffish and instist the article is fine as it is.KWinYO 15:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh for the love of ... Some one seems to have a chip on their shoulder. Remember that I am the one who put the aritcle here in the first place. Had it not been for that, your "progress" whould have not occured. But seeing as I can tell you feel you need to declare victory, go ahead, go nuts. Also it is worth mentioning is the fact that you changed you tune rather quickly when higher powers intervened, because until then you were singing the praises of this article. Now it needs changes. In addition, it seems you have this obsessive need to try and one-up me. So with that in mind, I await your pearls of wisdom that are, most difinitely, sure to follow as soon as you read this. So again have some fun, go nuts. - As for everyone else I don't know where this sense of ill-will is coming from, but let me once again state that I am willing to help in the seperation and merging of this article by submitting some organized entries. It doesn't really bother me either way if you want my help or not, but I thought it was at least a nice gesture.KWinYO 08:19, 11 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 Merge and redirect to Gush Katif. ~MDD4696 04:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

State of Gush Katif

[edit]

Speedy deleted by 86.136.142.245 (talk · contribs), but didn't meet the speedy criteria. No vote from myself. -- Longhair 10:41, 9 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. – Robert 04:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E.U. Politics Today

[edit]

Spam. Non-notable publication. Ezeu 10:44, 9 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] 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sacrebyte

[edit]

Protologism - zero Google hits. -- RHaworth 10:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - Patent Nonsense, a speedy delete tag should be put on it. -localzuk 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Prank - "One bazillion (1,000,000,000,000,000) bytes". Funny, though. Wisco 11:25, 9 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 delete (A1 or A3). howcheng {chat} 21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EIN News

[edit]

Non-notable news site. One edit, and not edited since October 2005 Ezeu 10:53, 9 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. – Robert 04:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ClickTime

[edit]

Not notable. Advertising. Sleepyhead 11:09, 9 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. – Robert 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Libsyn

[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. – Robert 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homes of Lahore

[edit]

According to the talk page, this has previously been nominated for deletion, but the link there relates to a different page entirely. This is just a gallery - delete CLW 11:30, 9 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 ALL. Mo0[talk] 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Bros. Online, Super Smash Bros. Online Forum, Smash Bros. Online Forums & Joshua Yonah

[edit]

Website vanity. Game is not released until July 2006. Rumours and unverifiable content. -- Longhair 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: -- Please point out which ones, I dont see a problem. JoshCube 4:15 AM, 9 Jan. 2006 (UTC)
Comment: -- Replied on your talk page. - Longhair 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe this article was deleted a long time ago but Wikipedia Staff brought it back for some reason. JoshCube
  • Comment: Why did the article get deleted a long time ago and then get revived? Sorry guys, I am new to Wikipedia. What can I add that is needed to the Smash Bros. Online article? JoshCube
  • Comment: Why did the article get deleted a long time ago and then get revived? Sorry guys, I am new to Wikipedia. What can I add that is needed to the Smash Bros. Online article?
Comment: -- Your article may have been previously deleted for not being notable as per Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Somebody may have recreated the article. You need to establish the notability of your website in your article as per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Websites. -- Longhair 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I read the list. It looks impossible since it's talking about publishing and all that other stuff. I've seen lots of articles on Wikipedia that did not require all that. JoshCube


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Chalmers

[edit]

Not notable, WP:BIO. Thanks/wangi 11:51, 9 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. – Robert 04:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Titor

[edit]

Rubbish Article Please Delete Mike 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't appreciate what seems to be a clear attempt at censorship. Just when this subject begins to gain more attention, you want to delete the article from your site. That makes no sense at all except in the context of censorship. If this story is so fraudulent, then why the rush to censor it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.67.230 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment/Withdrawal. Well fine. I withdraw my deletion request and hope it can be made into a proper article fit for Wikipedia and not a page of garbage. Mike 06:25, 10 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 Nomination withdrawn - Werdna648T/C\@ 09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigite

[edit]

The entire text reads "Ludwigite is a mineral." It's been around since June 2005 with no expansion. Durova 12:09, 9 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. – Robert 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murasicht

[edit]

nn 182 google hits -- Astrokey44|talk 12:29, 9 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 redirect to Playstation 2. – Robert 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2 Special Editions

[edit]

The article is basically a gallery of fair use images, with very little text. This is very questionable use of the copyrighted images. I've considered to merge it with PlayStation 2, but there isn't much to merge, except pictures. --BorgQueen 12:37, 9 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. – Robert 04:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The hunt

[edit]

Article links to the "official website" which is mostly under construction [7], and a "club" with less than 200 pageviews. nn -- Astrokey44|talk 12:41, 9 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. – Robert 04:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Renard

[edit]

Article has been recreated after been unanimously voted for deletion in May 2005 here. Doesnt seem very notable. -- Astrokey44|talk 12:50, 9 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. – Robert 04:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn_Dole

[edit]

Vanity Page, "Topix.net" produces few hits on Google Tompsci 12:54, 9 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. – Robert 04:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scout (the rescue dog)

[edit]

non notable fictional-dog-cruft (dont confuse with a real rescue dog by the same name.) Scout "rescue dog" "Alexander McCracken" gets 0 google hits. -- Astrokey44|talk 13:01, 9 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 userfy; no point deleting content if valid user wants it. Johnleemk | Talk 07:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Needlework_Designers

[edit]

Delete. A long list of red links. Not especially useful when a category would suffice. I also suspect that most of these people will turn out to be nn. Page created by a doubtlessly well-meaning new user who doesn't yet grasp Wikipedia's policies --kingboyk 12:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The only blue link on this article links to Kaffe Fassett, who "has attracted a considerable following. His work was the subject of a 1988 one-man show at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, the first time a living textile artist had such a show there. The show proved so popular that it was successfully converted into an international travelling show that visited nine countries". He seems notable enough. Unsure about the remaining red links. No vote. -- Longhair 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Since you commented before I'd put my statement up :) - I'd say that one entry does not a list make, and the notability of Mr Fassett is not being questioned. I don't consider the list very useful, a category would do the job, and I think it's an open invite to create a truck load of articles on nn people. --kingboyk 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, per Kingboy.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I'd say that we are in danger of diplaying systemic bias here. It may be that most of these people are nn, but it will difficult for us to tell. There are lots of people who do needlepoint, most of whom are not in a demographic that includes a lot of wikipedians. Selling needlepoint designs is a pretty sizeable industry, and I would think has its share of "star" designers. Since this list is new, and the one name on it that has generated an article is clearly notable, we should wait and see what comes of this. Dsmdgold 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kingboy's comment -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or seriously clean up. Dsmdgold's point is well taken. However, while I don't do a lot of needlepoint, I have a passing familiarity with some of the "famous names," though not, I admit those of the British designers. As you note, the problem with a list like this is assessing notability. (I also suspect that the original entry on the page, Nathalie Forster, was added by her personally.) Rather than having a list of red links (save one), I suggest removing all red links and adding links to a few embroidery designers that are in Wikipedia. The creator of the page would be encouraged to instead create a few articles about these folks. In the meantime, I'm adding links to a few needlework designers that are in Wikipedia already or who really are notable. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think that this list will be expanded, nor will the vast majority of these names ever get a stub/article. At best a category could be created per kingboyk's comments. Ifnord 14:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/make category. I don't like lists at the best of times; I also agree with Ifnord. Stifle 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needlework is an encyclopedic topic. This list needs research, not deletion. Gazpacho 19:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There already are many articles on needlework. The problem with this list is that very little of it is worth saving. I see that its original creator has been adding one-line stubs about some of the people listed, but I still agree with kingboyk, this would probably be better as a category than as a list. Crypticfirefly 04:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, list of non-notable people. Catamorphism 08:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Userfy. Nmforste is now busy creating articles for the entries. Pathoschild and I told her sub-substubs are not OK. I suggest we userfy this so she can build enough suitable bios for a list such as this. I agree with Gazpacho. --Perfecto 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and delete Nathalie Forster is trying to create articles for all these poeple, and is doing so in a way which indicates some hurry (probably prompted by this debate). If we move the page to her user space and let her create them in her own time, she has already said they will be categorised. JzG 09:46, 14 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 11:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Illusions

[edit]

I have came across of many Chinese language dramas by MediaCorp on Wikipedia. I'm a Singaporean, but however I find that many of this are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Delete Terence Ong Talk 13:26, 9 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 Merge wangi 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cities of Norway

[edit]

An article very similar to this exists at List of cities in Norway, excepting the fact that the latter does not have the populations of the cities. Delete or Merge with List of cities in Norway. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:41, 9 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. – Robert 04:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pimbletts

[edit]

A local bakery in the UK. The article does not assert any particular nobility to the bakery. See also Philip Schonewille (AfD discussion). I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 14:28, 9 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie Hopping

[edit]

Unencyclopedic dic def - delete CLW 14:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect reverted - this doesn't work while the AfD tag is in place. Please wait until the end of the AfD process! CLW 09:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know it doesn't function as a hard redirect, just thought I'd preemptively make the edit. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 08:54Z


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Wonder Boy. – Robert 04:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revenge of Drancon

[edit]

Content is duplicated in Wonder Boy. Possible redirect or is it worth keeping in its own right? Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 14:47, 9 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. – Robert 04:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel News Agency

[edit]

Alexa rank 254,101. Does not seem to meet WP:WEB. Article created by founder. Delete Rasmus (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Essexmutant 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IsraelBeach 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)The same bias and hate which caused vandalism to Ariel Sharon's Wikipedia page is now attempting to censor an Israeli government accredited news organization. One which has been indexed by Google News since 2002. These are the words which appeared on Sharon's page: "In response to recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Please discuss changes on this article's talk page or request unprotection."
    • Rasmus - I am kindly calling you out. What is your nationality? Where are you from? Are you a professional journalist or editor? Rasmus - I can assure you that if I witness the deletion of any accredited, professional, international news site which embraces democratic values of free speech you will read about it on Google News on the Israel News Agency ;>
    As you can read on my userpage, I am a danish software engineer. Please don't take the listing here personally. Wikipedia has guidelines for which subjects are notable enough to warrant inclusion. In my opinion, the Israel news agency simply does not warrant inclusion, but I will be happy to be proven wrong. You might also want to ponder the difference between censoring a subject and deciding it is non-notable. Rasmus (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Rasmus - you ignore the Google Hit numbers. Could this be shades of Danish Justice Minister Frank Jensen, who wanted to arrest Israeli Amb. Carmi Gillon under suspicion "of having participated in, attempted or assisted in torture" in his GSS role". Wiki management assures me that Wiki is an objective source of information. Let's see. IsraelBeach 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    To compare the Israel News Agency to Iran Broadcasting in any manner is grossly unfair and biased. The Israel News Agency is not directed by government officials employed within a totalitarian regime. Basic and democratic principles of free speech are applied at the INA. You will never find the Israel News Agency promoting the idea of "wiping a country off the map". What you will find at the INA from time to time is open criticism of governmental action and policies. That is the true responsibility of the Third Estate - where journalists maintain checks and balances of both the executive and judicial branches of government. IsraelBeach 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    So ... I'm sensing an aversion to deleting this article, eh?
    Seriously though. You may be better served by approaching this with a bit more detachment. If it was about my personal opinions, and what I as a journalist (though certainly not one with your stated 25 years experience) consider to be reputable news sources, I'd vote to delete -- not just this article, either.
    But it's not about my personal feelings, or yours, and you do nobody any favors by appearing unduly zealous in your defense of this topic. Alleging bias is especially unneccesary. I'm voting by what I consider to be a reasonable comparison of notability and relevance.
    Since what we're discussing is immaterial to the deletion or keepage of this article, and this isn't really intended to be a means for political debate, let's take further comments to my talk page, as to not clutter this space. Thanks for your input :)
    Adrian Lamo 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: To get back on subject, could anyone explain what it takes to get listed on Google News? If it is nontrivial, it should satisfy WP:WEB #3, and I will happily change my vote to keep. If not, I will point out that almost all the articles on Israel news agency are written by Joel Leyden or "Israel News Agency Staff". Judging from that I would guess it has no regular employees, so as a news agency it is several orders of magnitude smaller (and hence probably less notable) than Iran Broadcasting. Rasmus (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that WP:WEB is the best criteria to judge news agencies by, even if they are partially or primarily web based. A media outlet is not just another web site. The more general guidelines of personal notability state that an author is notable if they write for a periodical with a circulation of at least 5,000; we can infer from this that Israel news agency is probably notable.
    Just about anyone with a web site, some semblance of editorial skill, regularly updated content, and the time to contact Google can get indexed by Google news, though it's not automatic or guaranteed.
    Adrian Lamo 08:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Google News gathers stories from more than 4,500 English-language news sources worldwide, and automatically arranges them to present the most relevant news first. Topics are updated every 15 minutes, so you're likely to see new stories each time you check the page. Pick the item that interests you and you'll go directly to the site which published that story.

    Google News is a highly unusual news service in that our results are compiled solely by computer algorithms, without human intervention. As a result, news sources are selected without regard to political viewpoint or ideology, enabling you to see how different organizations are reporting the same story. This variety of perspectives and approaches is unique among online news sites, and we consider it essential in helping you stay informed about the issues that matter most to you." - Google News

    Google News recognized that the Israel News Agency was the first on-line source of Israeli Government Press Office accredited news to come out of Israel back in 1995 as the Israel Internet News Agency. The INA enjoys excellent relations with Google News and has been in direct contact with Google News over the years.

    Lastly, if one looks well enough, you will discover a variety of professional writers who contribute to the INA. Please see my user talk for more on this issue. Thank you. Israelbeach 09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    That passage of text from the FAQ is only partially accurate. While articles are selected by automagic technological process, news sources are not selected without human intervention.
    Which doesn't diminish your point, but needed clarifying :)
    Adrian Lamo 18:12, 10 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] 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Joel Leyden

    [edit]

    Autobiography. Major claim to fame seems to be that he created the website Israel news agency. Delete Rasmus (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete bio per nom. Essexmutant 15:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. But needs more organization and assertion of relevance or impact. But there is some notability there. And almost surely self-written. A www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2005-05,GGLD:en&q=%22Joel+Leyden%22 Google search did turn up a decent number of results.--Esprit15d 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep bio per nom. Simply perform a search for Joel Leyden on Google Web and or Google News - you will find over 116,000 entries. Those numbers should speak for themselves. Israelbeach 19:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. No valid reason to delete this per comments above. Editing can improve articles. -- JJay 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per above. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete - still looks to be auto-biographical to me. Nowhere does IsraelBeach deny being Joel Leyden. And this reads like a resume, not an encyclopedia. -Jcbarr 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Auto-biography. bogdan 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Joel Leyden states that he created these articles www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediagoogleisraelleyden5580110.html here, which explains the hagiographic gloss. - BanyanTree 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. My name is Joel Leyden and I am Israelbeach. According to Wiki guidelines [9]: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" such as this story www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediagoogleisraelleyden5580110.htmlwhich which is presently ranked number two on Google News when searching for "wikipedia" is reaching millions on the Net. I do not understand why this thread was created? If you feel that you can edit this auto-biography - then please do. Auto-biographies are abundant on Wiki including one by Wiki's founder. I would certainly feel better if those of you who wish to delete this article took the time to research who I am. It would take just a few minutes on Google and Google News under "joel leyden." And as suggested above, I am the shoemaker here walking without shoes. Please feel free to edit. As stated above: "Editing can improve articles." Be my copy desk. Just keep it accurate, objective and balanced. Thank you and best wishes.
    • Keep. Appears notable enough. -- Arwel (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but it should be copyedited by one or more editors, and sources should be provided where possible. The editor was acting in good faith when writing, but wasn't aware of the policy on biographical articles; this does not merit deletion by itself. If Mr. Leyden would provide some third-party sources that verify the information, that would be very helpful. —siroχo 10:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&hl=en&q=%22Joel%2BLeyden%22 16,800 Google hits is rather notable. Although I did not verify if they are all about the same person most of the top 10 seem to refer to him. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. —nancetlv 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. —achlasaba 14:58, 12 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 move as per B. Wind. Johnleemk | Talk 11:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You're My Best Friend/'39

    [edit]

    Delete I find this whole concept of merging the A-side of a single with the B-side of a single completely unnecessary and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia's articles. For example, why not merge Bohemian Rhapsody and I'm In Love With My Car into "Bohemian Rhapsody/I'm In Love With My Car"? I propose that the individual articles for You're My Best Friend and '39 be restored with both include the information that YMBF was the A-side to the single whilst '39 was the B-side. Craptacular 15:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Merging the A-Side and B-Side single articles into a single article is a bad idea? Wikipedia has one article for each album a band puts out, not fourteen or fifteen, yes? --70.188.134.238 22:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Why do the two song articles need to be merged because they formed the A and B sides of the single? Why not just have two articles for each song (which is consistent with the rest of Wikipedia) and include the information that they were a part of the single in each article?


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

    The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick Nunziata

    [edit]

    Looks very much like vanity to me. Doesn't seem to be notable yet - all very much a case of how promising things look for the future, rather than how notable he is now. Delete CLW 15:25, 9 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 delete (A7). Note that if you think it's a speedy candidate, you don't need to start the AfD process. howcheng {chat} 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Eliana eitches

    [edit]

    nn bio, vanity, and so forth. -Kuzaar 15:43, 9 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. – Robert 04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael J. Turon

    [edit]

    Delete. Appears to be vanity article, fails Google test; added by anonymous editor, thus little chance for discussion. Gadget850 15:50, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel Beachy

    [edit]

    Page (and content) deemed extraneous Mobius 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Which Wikipedia policy does Extraneous come under!?

    For the record, he is a member of the group Staple. They are signed to Flicker Records. They have released two cd's on Flicker and several promos before that. They have toured with Disciple, Spoken, The Showdown, Demon Hunter and Kids In The Way.

    See here for further details [10] Jcuk 17:06, 9 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 userfy. Johnleemk | Talk 06:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Ingrid Kamerbeek

    [edit]


    Autobiography (by user User:Artingrid, Non-notable/vanity. Userfy (Delete and move content to User:Artingrid). ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Yes, it is. But may not be what you think it is. Please read: WP:NPOV ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes. I read this. Neutrality is not a human quality as we all know. And it should not only concern the editor of an article.Artingrid 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also:
    Could it be that German Wikipedia section has other principles than the English section?
    At Wikipedia Germany it is stated that an admin should propose new articles for deletion only as the outermost thing to do. He should consider every other aspect prior to putting an entry to the AfD list. He should be a helper of good willed editors not a hindrance.Artingrid 16:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy. This seems to follow almost the same principles as Rodney Chang; but there seems to be a bit more external support for Chang than for Kamerbeek. Both seem to be at the border of notability (and both pages were sloppy vanity jobs, as initially created); but Chang seems to nudge past notability threshold, and Kamerbeek doesn't. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The above (read: below) comment was meant for the Rodney Chang Deletion Discussion page but it was closed quickly. So I put it here because this is true for my entry too:

    Here is a note which I wanted to post at the Deletion Discussion Page but found out it was closed in rush. Find out why:

    1st of all for admin Jossi - Wikipedia Newcomer policy: [11] Please read.

    On January 4th, 2006 it was the 1st time I looked up Wikipedia. I set up the article "Rodney Chang" in good faith. Dr. Chang is a well-known artist with good reputation and he has nothing to proof. 10 degrees including 2 doctorates. That alone is more than the usual human achieves in a lifetime. Out of the blue I found myself in court. This court calls itself Wikipedia. And claims to be an open-source. Nobody tried to assist me as newbie, vice versa.

    Moreover I found out that the admin is a digital artist himself like Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya). Dr. Chang is worldwide known as digital artist and cyberart pioneer. Jossi Fresco, the admin, is not. Jossi Fresco has set up the below announced articles at Wikipedia. Jossi Fresco is not in the Wikipedia encyclopedia.

    But he puts himself there by self-promoting his images along with texts about digital art. This is a clear conflict of interest. He cannot act from a neutral point of view. Could it be here is an admin who tries to hinder a worldwide known digital artist with good reputation and proven third-party achievements to get the place he clearly deserves?

    Could it be he wants to keep his power position as an admin with special powers at Wikipedia to keep his reign over the digital artist area online at Wikipedia?

    Some facts which speak for themselves. The admin Jossi is editor of the following Wikipedia entries:

    Digital Art

    He himself uploaded 2 of his own images to represent the theme. Is this a neutral point of view? He promotes his artwork in an article uploaded by himself using his art to demonstrates what digital art is. Is he so well-known to do so? Is his art accepted worldwide? Dr. Chang's is.

    Search Google for Jossi Fresco. Search Google for Pygoya


    Here's a third party view:

    On the discussion page of [12] Jhocking says:

    Along the same lines, however, I just realized yesterday that the example images further up the page are both by a single artist, and he added them himself. *cough* self-promotion *cough* Jhocking

    Digital Painting

    Again Jossi shows one of his images as self-promotion.

    Moreover watch the weblinks from this site. And note the images of whom to find there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artingrid (talk • contribs)

    Ingrid:
    1. You can discuss these articles at Talk:Digital art and Talk:Digital painting. You are welcome to improve these articles.
    2. It you belive that I have abused my role as an administrator of Wikipedia please read: Wikipedia:Administrators#Dealing_with_grievances
    3. If you want to further discuss this matter, I invite you to do so in my talk page: User talk:Jossi
    Jossi 15:47, 14 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.

    A special note:

    [edit]

    Because you now also mention Webism! So you know what is going on at Wikipedia. Dr. Chang and I didn't know about Wikipedia behavior till January 4th, 2006. But we found out! Of course the admin doesn't stand for Wikipedia. But he represents Wikipedia.

    The article Webism was put to Wikipedia End of 2004. Neither Dr. Chang nor myself did know this. We were not informed. We as the founders of Webism Movement never had the chance to give facts. Everybody interest should read the Webism deletion debate. It speaks for itself.

    I am very glad Wikipedia (or at least some of its members) documents its impotence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artingrid (talk • contribs)

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

    The result of the debate was knock down and don't let it get up again DS 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tubthumping (sexual act)

    [edit]

    Neologism? Non-verifiable - the only reference Google has to 'tubthumping' is a song by Chumbawamba. -- MatthewDBA 16:13, 9 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. – Robert 04:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Connotea

    [edit]

    not notable Sleepyhead 09:30, 9 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.

    Democracy & Nature

    [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 KEEP Babajobu 04:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Violates original research policy and verifiability. Previous nominations (1st, 2nd) failed due to disruption of parties involved, who do not respect WP:OWN. See 2nd nomination in particular for rationale of re-nomination. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to let suspiciously enthusiastic anonymous users and brand-new users know that, although their opinions will be taken into account, their votes may not. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as unverifiable original research, with insufficient sources for it to be re-written from a neutral point of view. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:07, Jan. 5, 2006
    • Well, this does appear to exist. I suppose copies my be found in somewhere that they keep books. It may even sit on a shelf next to a notable journal. But that's not the hurdle for inclusion. I see less than ten thousand hits. In the first ten pages I could not find it cited, or referenced, or reviewed. Simply statements that is exists, and that it sits on the shelves. Looking at Google news I see no hits. This is a very bad sign for something that is claiming to be an "international theoretical journal" of any note. On the desk next to me I have a copy of the Journal of Modern Physics. It's a real journal, too, but not a terribly notable one. Except it gets 186,000 Google hits (almost 100,000 with references) and a pleasant suprise with a news hit as well. Not an impressive one, but trumps zero by a considerable margin. Let us not waste our time: No sources per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, thus cannot be made WP:NPOV. Delete without hesitation unless evidence of notabity presented. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. I'm TheVel, Karmafist has blocked my address for a long time now and I don't know if he is ever going to stop, so I write without signing in (maybe he forgot to unblock me or something). I want to remind to brenneman that D&N have stopped publishing for some time, and its successor, "International Journal of Inclusive Democracy", is an on-line magazine. He cannot compare D&N with journals that are still publishing issues, especially with journals about physical siences, which of course concern far more people in contrast with journals of social sciences (especially if the latter are radical)! I want again to stress that if our criteria depends solely on popularity and google search (instead of qualitative criteria, like the contributors, the members of the international advisory board, the length of the publication etc) then we are just adopting to the standards of our massive society that promotes explicitly the popular (no matter what it might be, right or not) and not knowledge. Do I dare to vote here? Yes, I vote Keep, since I'm a member for a few months and I've done some editing here. Respect my vote. New users should be allowed to vote if they support with reasonable arguments their votes. TheVel, 10 Janyary 2006, 12:55
    • Well, no one should be "voting" really, but anyone who tries to tell you that you can't provide evidence and support it with a persuasive argument is doing both you and Wikipedia a disservice. The whole "new user" this is complicated, but thank you for pointing that out to me regarding being out of print. I was aware of it, but I will consider further how the metric should scale. Thanks again. - brenneman(t)(c) 11:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you too for your attention and concern. I'm still block from editing so... TheVel, 10 January 2006, 15:21

    Recomendations by very new users

    [edit]
    • Strong keep -Notable and completely verifiable. All sources are cited in many external resources (Alternative Press Index, Google, Yahoo! etc) as well as in the official cite of the journal.Student of life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.224.6 (talk • contribs) 16:26, January 5, 2006 (UTC) (user's first edit)
    • Strong keep, the information in the article is well documented, as online and hardcopy versions of the journal are available and the journal is in fact well-respected at UK universities. Shirad 12:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep Your continous drive for deletion of this notable journal for the third time now is a cruel and usual response of political facsists with a sadistic agenda. Tommy Silva 9:45, 6 January 2006(UTC)
    • Comment: Serious sock-puppetry appears to be in progress here, as Pablo D. Flores mentioned. I hope the closing admin will take this into account. Stifle 15:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:I have been a reader of Wikipedia entries for some time and as was surfing it yesterday I saw the entry on Democracy & Nature, the site of which I have used several times in the past for research. I was surprised to see the deletion nomination and I wrote a comment to this effect. To my surprise, I saw today that some administrators called me and many others (presumably because they do not belong to their closed club) as 'sockpuppets'. I am not a sockpuppet of anybody and I do not accept to be insulted as such by any so-called 'administrators' clearly abusing their power. I don't know whether you have the right to rule out any comments by new users that you do not like but certainly you do not have the right to insult users. OK? Student of life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.224.6 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 6 January 2006
      • I'm actually imagining how this would look at WP:BJAODN. Dear fake-registered user, I'm not a "so-called" anything. I'm an administrator, and our so-called "club" is open to anyone who fills some requisites. See WP:RFA if you want to become one. Administrators' votes and comments on AfD are no different from those of any other users who are not sockpuppets. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Strong keep. The information provided about the Themes, Editorial & Advisory Boards, Contributors, related topics and external links is purely descriptive and verifiable from the sources mentioned above. As regards ’neutrality’ could the supporters of delete explain why, for instance, the entry on Participatory economics or [Z magazine] satisfies their criteria but not the present one? viji viji viji 15:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP Two nomination on AfD failed and not without good reason! So many scholars and intellectuals that do not adopt Inclusive Democracy have contributed there! What else is needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.239.115 (talk • contribs) (user's first edit)
    • Strong Keep Two nominations failed? Also I have to say its extremly irritating to keep seeing (user's first edit) after comments. Surely the closing admin can work that out themselfs, and frankly it makes it sound like your saying "You cant play my game cos you're new!" like some spoilt brat. This signed comment is by Jcuk 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (definately not user's first edit)[reply]
      • So you're not saying keep because it's encyclopedic, or because it contributes to the sum of human knowledge, or because it's notable and people may want to look it up. You're voting keep because you're petulant about the edit count notices? This is more important to you than WP:NPOV or WP:V? - brenneman(t)(c) 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Frankly I'm bored with people who want an article deleted demanding an explanation as to why people voted Keep. You can see very well my reasoning in my previous post. If you think the article has POV issues, go and tidy them up. If you have time to post calling me names you most certainly have time to do that. Jcuk 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sorry that you're "bored". I can only council you to see Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Discussion where is says quite explicitly "Always explain your reasoning." A specific and testable statement lends itself to discussion, a vague complaint about behavior in the AfD does not. And, "frankly", I could not find reasoning in what you had provided, so I asked. You've now made yourself more clear: POV is not a reason to delete. So, if can determine that this article cannot be made NPOV, would that be a reason to delete? - brenneman(t)(c) 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            Don't mean to interrupt the lovefest here, but this nom has been partly justified by complaints concerning "brand new users". I also see at least one delete vote that is solely based on a complaint about new users. -- JJay 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure no one will begrudge your right to privacy with your mates. However, given the user's experience, I am also certain that he could produce oodles of text to justify his vote. I therefore assume good faith and believe his opinion should count. What is more troubling is your propensity to only question votes that do not adhere to your line of thinking. In my opinion, that sort of rigid tunnel vision is best avoided if we want to build a viable project that serves the interests of all users. -- JJay 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I merely responded to the points you raised. Is there something specific you want to discuss regarding this article? -- JJay 05:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Historically, attempts to correct POV issues have been met with reverts from the anonymous "Member of the Editorial Board". They want their POV and nobody else's, as far as I can tell from the edit history.--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Checking the edit history, I see one revert since the last AfD- meaning one revert in six weeks. -- JJay 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yeah, it a bit of a slog. Crappy edit summaries all around don't help. However, in something like 50 edits no real changes have taken place. If the reason that this can't be made NPOV is about personality then this isn't a matter for AfD. The "statement by the board" was a pretty good indicator of that, though. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep :: IMHO the opionions expressed by some of the above deletionsists point to an agenda designed to censor Wiki-content that does not concur with their POV or to exclude an article becuase of its writer not its content. Were either to occur, there would be little further point in Wiki existing. -- SockpuppetSamuelson 11:44, 10 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. – Robert 04:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IGE

    [edit]

    Advertisement for IGE's services without any encyclopedic information - Damicatz 20:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment Added a bit more content to show the "other-side" of IGEs services and a link to an article external to the IGE website detailing what they do (and why some gamers hate them) -- Chanlord 02:00, 10 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. – Robert 04:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    IronFTP Server

    [edit]

    Advertorial for minor commercial product. No evidence of notability, e.g. no review on ZDnet. Borderline speedy but probably not as there is at least some information as well as the url, albeit very little. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:20, 8 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. – Robert 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Level6studios

    [edit]

    This article should be deleted because it is only promoting a website. Lincher 03:57, 9 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. – Robert 04:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spuddles

    [edit]

    This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    How about spuddles? Delete Eusebeus 22:57, 9 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. – Robert 04:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Video Option

    [edit]

    This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:17, 9 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 transwiki. Johnleemk | Talk 11:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidocs

    [edit]

    Proposed Wikimedia projects are not notable --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 16:37, 9 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 speedied. r3m0t talk 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Allen daura

    [edit]

    Vanity article --Robert Harrisontalk contrib 16:57, 9 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] 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alison Angel

    [edit]

    While there is no deying that a google search yeild lots of hits, in looking through the first ten pages I was unable to find anything more notable than babe-a-licious - Big Boob Blonde Alison Angel Sheds Her Blue Robe. Unless sources can be found per WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Reliable sources that demonstrate that this satisfies WP:WEB, I recomend deletion. brenneman(t)(c) 17:19, 9 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. – Robert 04:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Camp Doc Campout

    [edit]

    Delete : This is an article about a camping trip held by a few members of a Internet discussion board. It's an unfinished short page, with no changes for 4 1/2 months and no inward links. ArglebargleIV 17:19, 9 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. – Robert 04:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Du Wei (footballer)

    [edit]

    first paragraph is ok, rest of it rubbish and just a skit on a recent football match — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holeinthehead (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. – Robert 04:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Nike revolution

    [edit]

    An article about a joke MNewnham 17:53, 9 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 Babajobu 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Turk Genocide

    [edit]

    Delete No sources, references, links...total fabrication. Eupator 17:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You should reconsider your vote, I just googled "Turkish Genocide" and 99% of the returned results were regarding the Armenian genocide. You should have actually looked at the links. There is no such thing as a "Turkish Genocide". No international body or organization knows of such a thing.--Eupator 00:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I did read the articles, I just assumed it was a different name for the same event. In light of the above I withdraw my vote. Jcuk 08:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    What literature? Wikipedia articles on Turkey and the Ottoman Empire don't even allude to the issue. --Ajdz 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He might be talking about propaganda published by Turkish fascist groups or something of the like. I'm sure we can find neo-Nazi "literature" regading the German Holocaust during WWII, please...this is not serious.--Eupator 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I was thinking of works like J. McCarthy, Death and Exile - I'm aware people may consider this a fringe position, but at least it's by a more-or-less respected (?) professional, academic author outside Turkey itself. I'm not sure how his international standing in the field is. Lukas 15:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    David Irving is a more "respected" scholar than this guy. At least Irving is not financed or rewarded by revisionists. It's not that McCarthy's wife is Turkish that makes his motives biased it's the fact that he is actually paid by the Turkish government to publish his books. He was also awarded the Order of Merit of the Turkish Republic by the President of Turkey in 1998 and he got his Honorary Doctorate at Sûleyman Demirel University in Turkey. Not to mention that the book in question deals with ALL muslim deaths within the vast Empire during the war. That includes Druzes of Lebanon or the Shi'a Arabs of Iraq, Alevis of Anatolia and Syria etc. Many of those deaths were actually caused by the Ottoman Army. McCarthy is just a hired gun for Turkish interests within the U.S. Saying the Nazis were the victims of WWII falls under the category of Holocaust denial/revisionism right? Create an article for Genocide denial where this can be discussed, an article about a non-existent term and event is useless and illogical.--Eupator 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and rename to Turkish Genocide. Needs references and should be developed fully. It is definetely not a hoax. There is a large body of works on the matter. Those need to be incorporated here. I intend to work on this. So, it would be better that the article is kept, because otherwise I would have to create a new one again.--TimBits 07:18, 14 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. A7. -R. fiend 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Daron Bedrosyan

    [edit]

    Vanity page for secondary school athelete. --Lee Hunter 18:21, 9 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. – Robert 03:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Biancavilla

    [edit]

    nonnotable location stub Abstrakt 18:17, 9 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. – Robert 03:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Lovari

    [edit]

    vanity page Abstrakt 18:21, 9 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] 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Favelas of Brazil

    [edit]

    useless list that is just taking up space. Abstrakt 18:24, 9 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems (again!). howcheng {chat} 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Hartman

    [edit]

    This was originally up for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Hartman when it was tagged for being a copyvio from [14] but it's only got a few sentences in the intro that are copied which could be easily rewritten, so I'm resuming the deletion process. No vote (although if the result is to delete, I would suggest userfication as the original author was User:Lhartman). howcheng {chat} 18:58, 9 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. – Robert 03:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Flash cartoon sites

    [edit]

    Wikipedia is not a repository of links. I can't see any other use for this article than that. BigBlueFish 19:11, 9 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, kept Sceptre (Talk) 10:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sahaj Samadhi Yoga

    [edit]

    Vanity/advertising. Non encyclopaedic. Adrian Buehlmann 19:17, 9 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. – Robert 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Eternal faces

    [edit]

    Advertisement for a website that appears to have only 3 users. Edgar181 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam can't be speedied according to Spam policy.--Esprit15d 21:07, 9 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. – Robert 03:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Derek Anthony

    [edit]

    NN/vanity/advertising; nothing on IMDB about this person (one person with the same name however)...article is basically a resume and a link. Paul 19:48, 9 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] 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Green Bus Lines

    [edit]

    non-notable, now defunct corporation Heah talk 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I greatly appreciate everyone that patrols NewPages, but next time, could you give please wait more than 4 minutes before tagging an article like this for AFD? It can scare off new users. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 03:37Z
    I live here and used the buses all the time in Mill Basin and occasionally to get to the airport; it wasn't because of article length/quality/my ignorance that i tagged it. But i guess you still have a point and will try and follow your advice in the future. apologies. --Heah talk 04:01, 10 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. – Robert 03:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean fisher

    [edit]

    Hoax. Cannot be speedied because it asserts notability of the person. - Liberatore(T) 20:04, 9 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. – Robert 03:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Project Galileo

    [edit]

    This page was speedied as vanity, which I don't believe is a valid CSD. I have restored the article and cleaned it up a bit; it was written by a very new user who I don't belive fully understands the nature of Wikipedia. In fairness to the admin who speedied it, I am listing it here for a consensus. I am not voting. Essjay · Talk 20:15, 9 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 (nom has accepted keep - no delete votes). -Doc ask? 23:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bay radio

    [edit]

    nn except in malta Heah talk 20:13, 9 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. – Robert 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Federacion Anarco-Skinhead

    [edit]

    nn group, almost a direct copy of the same stub on Anarchist Skins and Punks by the same person, and therefore is probably just advertising or a list of links MSJapan 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarchist Skins and Punks. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 03:25Z


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

    The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 03:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe - Solutions

    [edit]

    Good idea, but Wikipedia is the wrong place. Unencyclopedic and/or original research. Fredrik | tc 20:32, 9 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 all. – Robert 03:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Feng Shui Lovespells, Mathew Zindroski, Jesse Gomez, Amanda Bush

    [edit]

    Band vanity. No Google results for "Feng Shui Lovespells", nothing on AMG. Rhobite 20:50, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Amobi I of Ogidi

    [edit]

    NN? 42 Google hits - out of quotes! ComputerJoe 20:54, 9 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. – Robert 03:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Benjamin1

    [edit]

    A rant MNewnham 20:54, 9 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. – Robert 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Belmonte

    [edit]

    Delete unreferenced, non-notable "professional" fighter for unknown organization Drdisque 21:06, 9 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. – Robert 03:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Pthreads

    [edit]

    Wikipedia is not a programming manual. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 9 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 04:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Lorick

    [edit]

    310 Google, many of those results are shared with other people. With so no little info to verify an article, delete.

    Lotsofissues 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is another credit mentioned on the messageboard I posted before that I missed, Hark!, which is described as off-broadway. Someone also found a ticket stub for The Tap Dance Kid which says:
    "ROBERT LORICK (lyricist) makes his Broadway debut with The Tap Dance Kid. Cited for Best Lyricist honors in the Variety Critic's Poll for the Off-Broadway musical Hark!, Mr. Lorick is known to radio listeners as Jack Flanders, adventurer. "
    A couple of the songs from The Tap Dance Kid have featured on compilations and songbooks. These two shows on their own might not constitute notability for a lyricist, but the fact that he also plays the title character in a radio series that gets 24,900 hits makes me think the article is probably interesting for enough people to be worth keeping. I'm going to have to go with Keep, partly because of the apparent number of Jack Flanders/ZBS enthusiasts, but also because this is one of the only articles on the web that identifies Lorick as both the radio character and the lyricist. - N (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
    Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 15 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. – Robert 03:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Metal gear solid 2 adverts

    [edit]

    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a video game fansite


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 09:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    JustSpeed

    [edit]

    An option, apparently, in CD burning software MNewnham 19:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete not a feature of any CD burning software I've ever used. --Pboyd04 20:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/Move I thought the point of a Wiki / Encyclopedia was to enumerate/document useful facts? Just because you've never used it, doesn't imply others wouldn't find the information useful. What's the point of adding content, that some find helpful, simply because it is not popular? There are many Nero users out there, and I'm willing to bet, that I'm not the only one, who was wondering what this option/warning was. I would argue that this feature is becomig more popular, since Ricoh now has it on ther drives, since 2001. Now I agree that a better place for it may be under the CD Burning section, instead of a seperate page. Michael.Pohoreski 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/Move/Merge/Redirect I pretty sure I've heard of this and I'm pretty sure it's a real feature for cdrs WhiteNight T | @ | C 00:11, 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 Sceptre (Talk) 10:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten

    [edit]
    • Good point. The image's copyright status does need to be evaluated. I think it could possibly be considered a public domain image, considering that it has circulated the Net as many times as it has with no fuss about copyright, but IANAL, and don't fully understand copyright law anyway. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope: under the Berne copyright convention, you don't need to defend a copyright to maintain your rights. But the faior use case for using the image is very strong indeed, and when it comes to legal action, judges weigh up harm done by violation, which in this case would be nothing at all. --- Charles Stewart 09:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alrighty. I have tagged the image as {{Non-free fair use in|Every time you masturbate… God kills a kitten}}. I don't know if there is a better appropriate rationale for it, and if there is, that should be corrected.
    • In other news, I really don't think it was appropriate for Atrian to tag the image as {{no license}}, fail to leave an edit summary, and mark the edit as minor. Really, really sneaky. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 00:51, 14 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 both. - Mailer Diablo 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Cosmic Fileserver and Cosmic file server

    [edit]

    The brain is not entirely a storage area of information, but more an antenna or conduit to a speculative location where memories and knowledge are kept. Original research. (Note. Originally tagged as copyvio but I accept the claim at Talk:Cosmic Fileserver that the uploader holds the copyright - who else would want to promote this idea?) -- RHaworth 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have nominated Cosmic file server for deletion and bundled the two AFDs. Since the content is almost identical and by the same author I assume the delete votes so far apply to it as well. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 02:33Z
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NaturalPhysiques.com

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

    The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 03:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Esteemed Colleagues

    [edit]

    Doesn't meet WP:WEB Esprit15d 22:04, 9 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The Creature Corner

    [edit]

    Web site with Alexa rank > 200,000. Number of links in according to Google looks impressive at first (> 2,000), but if you exclude chud.com (its sister site), there are only five. howcheng {chat} 22:24, 9 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 delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Bluegrass Messengers

    [edit]

    Not notable: no discs at Amazon, no entry in AllMusic. Website not updated since 2003 (see tour list). Mikeblas 22:24, 9 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 04:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Moon river wicca

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion for being a copyvio, but the author claims she releases copyright on the talk page (not that it would have counted since it's not a commercial content provider). However, it's content that belongs on the Moon River Wicca web site (currently domain parking) and does not belong here. howcheng {chat} 22:53, 9 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. – Robert 03:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Beverly Meyers

    [edit]

    First, let me say that this article is not about notable artist Beverly Myers. This artist claims many releases, but I can't find verifiable information about any record label. According to the article she has indeed been self-publishing at least the last ten years.

    A search for "Beverly Meyers" together with any album name returns 0 hits! For the record a Google search for "Beverly Meyers" returns 251 hits, which all seem unrelated. And a search for her full name "Beverly Natalie Meyers" returns 0 hits as well. Punkmorten 22:53, 9 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 04:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    3pie

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion for being "not notable/vanity," but it's an article about a game and does not fit any speedy criteria. Bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete Not notable I live in Clarksville, TN and have never heard of this game The original tag was correctly used in my opinion. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: We have strict criteria for speedy deletion. I can't see which one it meets. Can you? Stifle 16:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • See what WP:Not for example. While some advocate the use of the articles for deletion for every deletion in this case it's a waste of time as it will certainly be deleted and our attentions could better be focused elsewhere. Also on the speedy deletion page, A7 specifically lists Unremarkable people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead. I highly doubt anyone other than the author of 3pie considers this any where remotely controversial as such this clearly indicates under these circumstances that speedy deletion is applicable in this situation. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-notable game. Does not strictly meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Thue | talk 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. I found no relevant Google results. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 02:15Z
    • Keep The whole point of the article is to spread the idea of the game and hope it grows. Raien
    Comment Raien is the creator of this article. 3pie and the article for deletion are the only contributions at this point by this user. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 05:07, 10 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. – Robert 03:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Appligators

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion as being "not notable, less than 16 Google hits," but neologisms aren't speediable. Bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 23:04, 9 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 Nomination withdrawn -Werdna648T/C\@ 10:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Claire Bertschinger

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Cernen as nn-bio, but article claims her actions inspired Band Aid. Bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 23:09, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Concentrated highway interface

    [edit]

    Esoteric signaling specification. Three google hits, no definitions or futher research; mentioned in a couple of patents. Mikeblas 23:09, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of liberal U.S. Republicans

    [edit]

    No true way to determine accuracy of article. Lincoln doesn't belong on that list, and nor do any moderates like Guiliani belong on that list. Andros 1337 23:15, 9 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. Johnleemk | Talk 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Jasper Rose

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:CanadianCaesar in November 2005, but User:Philwelch untagged it. It was then re-tagged by User:Cernen. The article claims importance and given the earlier removal of the speedy tag, I'm bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 23:19, 9 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. – Robert 03:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Tonic the Hedge Frog, Doctor Eggplant

    [edit]

    Both articles were tagged for speedy deletion for being patent nonsense, which they are not. However, it appears to be just a rip-off of Sonic the Hedgehog that someone made up. howcheng {chat} 23:22, 9 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. – Robert 03:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Alex Yanai

    [edit]

    Nothing turns up on Google when searching for "Yanai" + "bulletproof glass". Appears unverifiable, possible hoax. The unencyclopedic style of the entry doesn't help, providing very few details for search or verification purposes, and it is entirely unclear what the significance is of the second Alex Yanai. -- Curps 23:23, 9 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 as non-notable and non-verifiable. —Cleared as filed. 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in America

    [edit]
    • Delete. Not-notable, non-verifiable (references in Google are mainly from sites from this group and mirrors of Wikipedia) micro-denomination that may well exist only on the Internet. Article created by one of its clergy and thus may well qualify as a vanity article. It reads rather like an advertisement, in any event. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom -- Abstrakt 05:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. 8 parishes, one of them "vaporware". TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above Werdna648T/C\@ 10:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The comments below are unfounded attempts to discredit a small jurisdiction. All 8 parishes and 2 monasteries have valid physical addresses and phone numbers if anybody would like to verify their existence. The article is about the Western-Rite jurisdiction and is 100% true. The comment about one of the parishes being "vaporware" is an out right lie. The main website shows pictures of the Synod and several of the clergy. Perhaps it could have been written better, but the information is true and valid. If you don't believe, then just try to call any of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.201.35.53 (talk • contribs)
      For my vaporware claim, see [25]. This is counted as one of their 8 parishes despite the fact it has yet to hold a meeting of any kind pending "legal work", but hopes to do so sometime this year. This is patently nonsensical. I know of no other church in the world that counts parishes that have not yet been formed, and no legal work whatsoever is required to gather, talk, and pray. One must admit that such a state of affairs might lead a reasonable person to suspect a purely virtual existence. In any event, this group comes nowhere near Wikipedia's standard of notability, an issue quite distinct from whether or not it's true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      Saint Katherine of Alexandria Orthodox Church is in the infancy stages of establishing a parish. The "legal work" is what is necessary to operate as an official legal parish. To your point though, we have about four families who "gather, talk, and pray". In the summer, we plan to have our "official legal" start once we complete the "legal work" which every church in the United States of America must complete. Regardless of what you think about Saint Katherine's, the other Parishes are already established with their own individual communities and the article is still true and valid about "The Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church of America". Call the Archdiocese Rectory if you like, or drop by and see if that's what you need to believe. If the article was about Saint Katherine being a Parish, you'd have ground to stand on. But the article is about the Archdiocese. The fact that they "count" Saint Katherine as a Parish is nothing more than getting a little ahead of themselves with updating their website. The article still holds true and is notable and is verifiable. Tbryant001 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      The comment to which I was replying called me a liar; I was merely defending myself. But notability is a matter for the Wikipedia community to decide. It takes some time here as an editor to get a feel for what constitutes notability. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am the clergy member who posted the orginal article, and am disappointed by the comments requesting deletion. I don't know what "vaporware" is, but if anybody has any doubts about the fact that this is a valid canonical Western-Rite Orthodox jurisdiction then feel free to contact me or His Emminence, Archbishop Anthony Bondi. The contact information is on the website for those who are interested in discovering the false claims posted below. We may be part of a small Western Rite Orthodox jurisidction, but just how big do you really think ROCOR or the Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox groups are? Not much bigger at all. If you want to debate canonical status, it should be done elsewhere. This article is true, and represents and valid organization and legal entity. Even if you don't believe it is "canonical" (which is your participation in a modern day heresy), it is at the very least legal and represents a group that practices and keeps the pre-schism Western Rite Orthodox faith and traditions. Tbryant001 23:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Whether it is "true" or not is really not the issue. It is true that I have a yellow chair in my office, but that doesn't warrant a Wikipedia article. The question is whether this group is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article, whether the article was created as a vanity article (that is, it was written by a person or group about themselves), and whether it is verifiable for encyclopedic purposes (that is, whether anyone else has cared to write about it in third-party sources). Nothing of what's been said here or added to the article answers any of these objections. It should also be noted that the "supporting" article written alongside this one (Former Exarchate of Alexandria) also suffers from much the same problems and clearly has a severe POV slant. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 03:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: My comments related to truth address the comments that said the jurisdiction may only exist on the internet and/or it was "vaperware". I am in the process of editing the articles to remove some of the POV slant and point to verifiable documentation, but all of the articles about any Orthodox jurisdiction have a clear level of vanity and POV slants as you describe them. My purpose in writing the articles is to show people that there is another side of the history of Orthodoxy in America that has not been explored on this website yet. So far, what is on this website is very one sided and only refers to other Orthodox jurisdictions as groups of people who don't practice the same Orthodox faith or follow the same Orthodox traditions. The fact is that there are many Orthodox people who follow the same faith and traditions, but choose to not be in communion with the larger organizations for administrative reasons. Again, this has not even been explored yet. If the goal of Wikipedia is to tell the truth, then I think it should allow people to tell the whole truth and not allow larger groups to spread incomplete or untruthful information about smaller groups. I agree with your comments about severe POV slant, but at least allow me time to edit it and don't be so quick to say "delete". As it relates to "third parties"...you must understand that such a thing doesn't truly exist in matters of religion. If it does, then I can assure you that a lot of what is written about Orthodoxy on this website was not done by a third party. A great deal of what is written about Orthodoxy, especially in America, is filled with comments that degrade smaller Orthodox groups and call them "not true" or "not canonical" or claim that they "ordain women". At the very least, given us some time to put our articles out there that show the rest of the story. As a smaller group, it will take time. Any advice on improving the POV slant and making it sound less like an advertisement are welcome. I do not want to advertise on these pages...only to complete the picture of Orthodoxy in America. It may not be a picture that the larger groups want people to see, but it isn't any less true or verifiable. Tbryant001 18:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Verifiable refers to citing third-party sources. Without that, then Wikipedia:Verifiability is not satisfied, which it quite manifestly needs to be. Otherwise, then it doesn't satisfy Wikipedia standards and probably qualifies as original research, which is also expressly against Wikipedia policy. What you say here indicates that there is a clear POV you're trying to push, as well, which is also a problem. Wikipedia is not the place to show the world what they've been missing. It's the place to summarize other people's research into encyclopedic articles. The reason why there's a rule against vanity articles (that is, articles created or edited by the people they're about) is to help ensure notability. In this case, while there's clearly a set of webpages which your organization has set up about themselves and we have you here writing articles about your group, there's precious little evidence that any scholars or media have found your group notable enough to address in their own writing. The article as it stands still doesn't address any of these problems, and given the nature of the group in question, I don't think it can. Hit it big first, then let someone else write about the your group. —A.S. Damick talk contribs 22:38, 13 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. – Robert 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Webjay

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:SGBailey for being "non-notable advert" but it's a web site that just got bought by Yahoo. According to Alexa, there are 78 sites that link to it including some big ones like Slashdot. Bringing it to AfD to respect SGBailey's desire to see it gone. howcheng {chat} 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speaking as the author of Webjay, I should say that I did not create this page, so it is not an advert in a formal sense. I'm not voting here, just stating what I know.


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

    The result of the debate was delete, just barely, as unverifable original research. —Cleared as filed. 05:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Goth slang

    [edit]

    Previously nominated for deletion several months ago as unsourced POV original research (result: no consensus). Since then, it has been tagged for cleanup, it has been tagged as unsourced, and it has been tagged as POV, and it is still unsourced POV original research. The list is unverified because the terms are unverifiable, and it can probably never be made to conform to NPOV. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I cannot find most of the words in the sources listed. Some are mentioned in only a post or two and seem non notable neologisms even to the goth community. I can't think of a way to make this page encyclopedic unless a better source is suggested.Obina 00:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and Obina -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This page has already been put up for deletion and voted to be kept. That vote should be recognised.I am a goth, and I've heard many of these terms. Apart from that, its an important resource for those studying subcultures...and wether its tidied up or not, is valid information to users of the internet. Why people would destroy information is beyond me...it goes against the whole ethos of Wikipedia!!! Shame on you!Deathlibrarian
    • Keep... I was wavering towards deletion as the article had not improved much since its first AfD nom. Deathlibrarian has done a lot of work on the article, in particularly recently noting sources. I find the article quite interesting, but I think it still needs work to make it encyclopedic, NPOV, spelling, etc., something I'd be willing to help on if it makes it through AfD2. I think it does need serious pruning to remove some of the more obscure, regional and unsourced terms. (Pssst, DL, don't say "per nom", it means you agree with the user nominating the article for deletion!). --Canley 14:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Given time, this will become encyclopaedic. Keep up the pressure for quality editing and additional references, though. &#0151; JEREMY 11:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A slang dictionary, poorly written, and can never be anything other than a subjective list. Unencyclopedic and silly. Skittle 20:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would add that the information concerning the subculture doesn't need to be deleted. The major terms, and the accompanying trends and patterns, can be recorded in the article goth. There is no need for a page that will tell you 'Dev: A goth pub in London' in an encyclopedia. I'm sure this information is easily available elsewhere on the internet.Skittle 20:33, 14 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. – Robert 03:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Blogazine

    [edit]

    Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Edgar181 as A1 (no context), but it didn't qualify IMO. Looks like a neologism, but I did find 178 unique Google hits, suggesting its usage is spreading. howcheng {chat} 23:41, 9 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 Merge with Hendrick Motorsports. ~MDD4696 04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Hendrick Motor Sports

    [edit]

    A duplicate of Hendrick Motorsports, and doesn't have any relevant info. --D-Day 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Merge with Hendrick Motorsports. Englishrose 00:03, 10 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. —Cleared as filed. 05:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Vlad Blanton

    [edit]

    This user page is a vanity page that is an auto-biography on an editor of wikipedia going by the same name. I vote to delete it 5aret 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I understand. I need to copy the page to my User:Vlad Blanton page. Right? Vlad Blanton 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this should've probably been hit with the {{userfy}} tag instead of afd in the first place. - Bobet 00:40, 10 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; all kept. Johnleemk | Talk 11:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese prison articles by Sarcelles

    [edit]

    This page is a consolidated discussion for deletion of User:Sarcelles' prison mini-stubs.

    List of prison articles

    [edit]

    Discussion

    [edit]
    Comments moved here from individual discussions that are largely identical.

    This is a nonnotable prison stub of no real importance, the only information I could find on it all came from Falun Gong websites such as www.clearwisdom.net and www.clearharmony.net Abstrakt 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete for above reasons Abstrakt 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a newly created article and I see no POV statements. I would have liked to see this tagged as needing references for a while before a nomination for deletion was brought forward. Something may have to be done with the title, unless that is the proper name for the prison. Movementarian (Talk) 18:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wouldn't be deleted if it was in the US or UK so this shouldn't be either. It is probably a much more notable than average prison and the nominator has provided no evidence or arguments to the contrary. CalJW 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - You wrote "Wouldn't be deleted if it was in the US or UK so this shouldn't be either. It is probably a much more notable than average prison and the nominator has provided no evidence or arguments to the contrary."
        • 1) I have already provided evidence why these articles were not notable in the first place, they generate no hits when searched for, in fact one of them generated a grand total of 6 hits! These are not notable articles by any means. I noticed you wrote probably meaning you yourself do not know if these articles in fact notable or non-notable. Perhaps you should check it out yourself before jumping to conclusions and making statements such as "...It is probably a much more notable ..." Please search for them and tell me what you can find on them.
        • 2)If it is ok to write up meaningless articles about non notable prisons in China, then would it be ok for me to write up meaningless stubs on every prison in my state? In fact if I were to do so, every last one of my articles would be nominated for deletion. See my point? Abstrakt 21:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable. --Thunk 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand per above. I see no valid reason to delete this. Every prison in NY State has an article-- JJay 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The problem with these articles is that they are ompletely unverifiable beyond Falungong sites which have established POV. If anyone can find any credible site (meaning other than Falungong) that has info on these prisons, feel free. I should also comment that the same user was banned on the German, French, and Italian Wikipedia for the same offense. I can get some of them to comment here if you want. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mib. BlueShirts 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    List of other wikis' actions on Sarcelles

    1. German: de:Wikipedia:Vermittlungsausschuss/Problem mit Benutzer:Sarcelles - mediation
    2. German: de:Wikipedia:Benutzersperrung/Sarcelles - vote to ban, passed 30/1/2 (couldn't have been more lopsided...)
    3. French: fr:Wikipédia:Éditeurs problématiques/Sarcelles - "Problematic editor, Sarcelles". I like their straightforwardedness. :D
    4. Italian: it:Wikipédia:Éditeurs problématiques/Sarcelles - same thing here. This one's 22/12/2.

    Some guy on fr also mentioned that he is active in Polish wiki too, but I haven't checked it out yet.

    --Miborovsky 05:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

    • COMMENT Please provide links or evidence of above claims. It wouldbe unfortunate if good-faith editors somehow got bamboozled into accepting otherwise fraudulent material based on an implicit urge to resist systematic bias. Eusebeus 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I suspect each could be expanded as above, but if not they could be merged into a single article on Chinese prisons. As far as credible sources for the articles go, "these days, [freelance journalist Gao Qinrong] shares a cold, cramped cell in Jinzhong prison with criminals, serving a 12-year sentence for fraud, taking bribes and pimping -- charges that his many defenders say were invented by local officials when his reporting went too far," according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 25, 2001. "This time, uniformed Beijing police officers were waiting. They told [Liu Di] only that she was suspected of a crime and took her to Qincheng Prison, a notorious facility for political prisoners," according to the December 18, 2004 Washington Post. -- Dragonfiend 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the BBC: "Wang Bingzhang['s] second son Wang Daishi told reporters yesterday that earlier he had visited his father in the Shaoguan prison ..." From the AP: "Xiang said Yu and Li were both being held at Fanyu [Panyu] Prison in Guangdong's capital, Guangzhou, and were in fair condition." -- Dragonfiend 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would appreciate some direct links to said BBC and AP reports. All google hits at first glance are known Falungong site mirrors (or sites directly copying from them), which uses such tactics as spamming seemingly unrelated mirrors to boost search hits. Also, no mention about "prison enterprises" and "so-and-so coal mine" found in any of them. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 02:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found these at the library, not on Google, so no, I can't give you a direct link to them. If you'd like to verify them at your own library, the AP story referenced above is from June 29, 2005 with a headline of "Chinese journalists appeal for jailed colleagues in protest of media controls" and is written by Christopher Bodeen. I seem to have misplaced the BBC story (forgive me, I didn't come to the library tonight to research Chinese prisons) but there is an Agence France Presse story from December 6, 2003 titled "Divisive issues crowd agenda as China's Wen prepares to leave for US" by Peter Harmsen which reads in part, "Wang Bingzhang, who is serving a life term in a Chinese jail, was planning a hunger strike to coincide with Wen's US visit, a rights group said. Wang declared his intention Friday to his brother Wang Bingwu, who saw him for 30 minutes at Shaoguan prison in southern Guangdong province ..." -- Dragonfiend 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK... but what about the "prison enterprises"? These articles are choke full of these unverifiable information. The creator has a track record of lopsided edits (such as creating 100 city stubs just to put the name of prisons there and decry commie brutality ie. blahblah is a city in blahblah province. it's prison has this many people. the prisoners are treated brutally. enditem) and was banned/rfced/rfared in FOUR wikipedias for inserting dubious and unverified information and persisting in spamming them. It simply isn't a case for AGF, every word that he writes need to be undoubtably tracable back to a reliable source, and here it isn't the case. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a larger problem with an editor beyond just these articles, that sounds like less of an issue for AfD and more of an issue for Wikipedia:Resolving disputes (begining, of course, with discussing the issue with the other editor). As far as the "prison enterprises" and "so-and-so coal mine" go, the January 3, 1981 New York Times article "Hundreds of Thousands Toil in Chinese Labor Camps" by Fox Butterfield seems to describe the topic of the Heiliushui Reeducation through labor article: "A few months ago, a white-haired 70-year-old former Protestant minister was released from a labor camp near the city of Datong in Shanxi Province in northern China. He had worked there in a coal mine, along with 10,000 other prisoners, scraping up chunks of black rock with his bare hands for 23 years. He had been sentenced to laodong gaizao, or 'reform through labor.'" I find the topic of the Chinese prison system to be appropriate for Wikipedia. If the problem is that these articles on single prisons are unexpandable stubs, then any user can merge them together and redirect them to Chinese prison system without going through AfD. If the problem is verifiability, then slap a cleanup-verify tag on the article while you work on verifying it. And again, if the problem is a dispute with another user, try to resolve it. I'd also suggest everyone avoid the over-the-top "What's wrong with you people can't you read" stuff. -- Dragonfiend 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There, you proved my point. Either the article you read or the Wikipedia entry is bogus. In this case, I'd trust the Wikipedia entry even less. "Reeducation through labour" is NOT Laogai or Laodong Gaizao, which is "Reform through labour". "Reeducation through labour" is actually Laojiao, or Laodong Jiaoyang. This is the sort of inaccuracy, and if I might say, sheer crap, that User:Sarcelles wants to get on Wikipedia - he has professed that he knows next to nothing about these things, but is just copying stuff over from pro Falungong sites. The problem is not whether prisons are notable or not. The problem is, what's here more often than not cannot be verified, or simply inaccurate. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 07:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey are you people not reading or something? Read what Miborovsky is writing, what about the "prison enterprises" that the creator Sarcelles is claiming, those can NOT be verified, check it out yourselves, google it or whatever, the prisons that do exist and show up on pro-Falun Gong websites only show that Falun Gong practitioners have been jailed there, nothing of the "prison enterprises". Take out the unverified information, all you have left is "so and so Falun Gong practitioner was imprisoned at this particular prison". At this rate, Wikipedia is going to become a repository for numberous "Falun Gong" arrestees. Is that it? Are we going to set up a new precedent where we spam as much as we want on how "such and such" a group is being arrested and allegedly btutalized?
    • Since you people are all for non-notable stubs and me being a college student in a college town that's known to have clashes between students and police after basketball and football games, would be ok if I were to spam dozens of stubs about the various police incidents where students have been arrested and how they claim the students were wrongfully arrested and violent force was allegedly used by the police? -- Abstrakt 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just asking Dragonfiend, are these political prisoners at all notable themselves? From my understanding, what you are trying to say, is if there's literature of someone being arrested at a particular prison (it could be a newspaper blurb or whatever), then that in itself is notable enough. According to you, Wikipedia should be allowed to become a huge repository listing every political prisoner in the world, even if they are not particularly notable. -- Abstrakt 04:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    You get my point, and 99% of these "specific hits" are off of POV pro-Falun Gong websites such as www.clearharmony.net and www.clearwisdom.net with articles about Falun Gong practitioners being jailed or allegedly brainwashed, no mention of "coal mines" or whatever "prison enterprises".

    Another point I'd like to make, just because something gets hits, it does not necessarily mean they are specific hits, for example I could search for lets say Paris Hilton and I could get a mass of unrelated hits for Hilton Hotels or Paris, France. See my point? I've wasted enough time with this for today. Abstrakt 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep all If they exist they should have articles and Abstrakt doesn't seem to be trying to argue that they don't. Piccadilly 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What kind of reasoning is that??? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok Piccadilly I'm baffled by the inability of some people to read! The first three I've listed, do not exist! The point I was making they should be deleted since they are non notable other than the fact that some of them are mentioned on pro-Falun Gong websites. When I say specific hits I mean the subject is specifically mentioned!

    If I was to search for example for "Miami Dolphins" the NFL team and I get results that have both "Miami" and "dolphin" in it but not about the "Miami Dolphins", that is NOT a specific hit. Did you not read my example of using Paris and Hilton? While we're at it with stubs how about I create some on specific streets where people have been arrested for drunk driving, huh? Sorry I'm just baffled that is all. Abstrakt 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The only hits these prisons (for the ones that do exist) are on pro-Falun Gong websites and that is a reason to keep it? Had they any of these of prison stubs not originated from copy and paste information from these pro-Falun Gong websites, then I wouldn't of nominated them.

    Abstrakt 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Do you think people dont know to search for "Paris Hilton" rather than Paris Hilton on Google? I still say if every prison in New York State can be mentioned those of these prisons that can be verified should be. Jcuk 08:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all unless some of the prisons can be shown (backed up by sources) to be notable in some way. Also, Sarcelles has a history of making dubious or false edits on topics he knows nothing about, and I suggest that all of his edits be viewed as needing verification. -- ran (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. My source is the Laogai Handbook 2003-2004.

    Sarcelles 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "Laogai Handbook" is published by a Falungong organisation, which the last time I checked was a religious group and not exactly a forerunner in research into Chinese criminology. Unless the said handbook can be construed as a verifiable and trustable source, it's not. It also is quite puzzling how the Laogai handbook suddenly is talking about Laojiao... which are two separate matters altogether. Unless your handbook doesn't make the distinction between the two? -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Sarcelles you're just copying and pasting whatever you find on that Falun Gong group's website?

    Abstrakt 03:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete all of them. Does anyone read what Sarcelles writes? I just clicked a random article (Panyu Prison) and I read: It is situated in Huijiang, Dashi Town, Fanyu District. Shouldn't the article be under Fanyu Prison? It continues as Shaoguan Prison was established in 1995. What do these prisons have to do with each other? Or was the author of the article too absent-minded? Maybe he copied and pasted from one article to the other and forgot to replace the names? So what is correct now? Who is going to verify all this? All those who want to keep this kind of nonsense, have you thought about the credibility of Wikipedia? BTW, this user is banned in three Wikipedias already (de:, fr: and it:) for exactly this behaviour. -- Herr Klugbeisser 06:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment That is hilarious ! I must of missed that one! And still there are people here who are quite adamant in keeping all of these articles. This is quite sad. Herr Klugbeisser I'm sorry to say but it seems like we are preaching to a brick wall as I've tried to make my case with some of these users on the past activity by Sarcelles.
    It is quite apparent that Sarcelles has no credibility with how he just copy and pasted those articles together. It is true, who in their right mind now would try to past off these articles as credible? Anyway thank you for pointing that out! Abstrakt 17:40, 12 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 as non-notable web site and spam. —Cleared as filed. 05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Usenet-Replayer

    [edit]

    Spam, non notable site. WP entry is the 2nd entry when searched for in Google. Nick Catalano (Talk) 00:12, 10 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_9&oldid=1234127740"