Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 9 January 11 >

January 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odalisque (song)

Non-notable; the information relevant to the topic would be a stub-length article --Fermatprime 00:28, 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 speedy delete as non-notable band. —Cleared as filed. 02:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stands Forever

delete non-notable band with no commercial albums and no claims outside estonia Drdisque 00:35, 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, Babajobu 11:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWYF

Delete non-notable group of kids Drdisque 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin 00:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)SirAus Sorry, but I beleive it entirely depends on what one defines by non-notable. This group is one of the most widely known reenacting groups in Virginia. I'm new here, so I don't really understand the criteria for deletion or non-deletion. Is it because this group isn't known outside of the reenacting arena or what?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick blake

Person doesn't exist. No Google results, creating user User:Justlovely attempted to add him to Labrador City, Newfoundland and Labrador as close loser of a mayoral race that Newfoundland and Labrador municipal elections, 2005 and this forum post say was won by acclamation. I have rv'd the Lab City edits. VT hawkeyetalk to me 00:42, 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 Babajobu 11:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress; Concerning non-Importation and a General Convention; and Declaration of the causes and necessities of taking up arms

Delete all. Source text - already in Wikisource or moved there. BD2412 T 01:05, 10 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriko Yamaguchi (sculptor)

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Johndarrington as nn-bio, but it's an artist. Also the original author was User:Petaholmes, an administrator. Brought to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see how being an artist automatically makes a person notable. Neither do I understand why created by an administrator is relevant. jmd 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being an artist is not itself notability, but it is a claim to notability, which is all that is required to prevent being a speedy delete. And the fact that it was created by an administrator is relevant because we can assume that user has a grasp of the policies which apply here, although that doesn't trump a consensus we find here. (ESkog)(Talk) 02:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I refute your statement that being an artist equates to a "claim to notibility" --- at least notable enough for a wp article. There's an artist in all of us --- it's just that some are more artistic than others. Or perhaps you mean that it must be a paid artist, in which case a) you're discriminating against some very talented (and notable) unpaid amatuer artists; and b) why can't this apply to other jobs (doctors, laywers, butchers, dustmen ....) ? If the article said that "YY is a notable sculptor", then that would be different, but the article doesn't say this. jmd
        • I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that Yamaguchi is necessarily notable. However, speedy criterion A7 requires that there be no claim to notability at all. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. As deletion is supposed to be a serious matter, I'm pretty strict with the application of the speedy criteria. A7 is supposed to be limited to those with no claim of notability whatsoever, "Joe Schmoe lives in New York City and drinks lots of beer," for example. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Now that this article has been expanded, I'm withdrawing my deletion vote. But I'd like to point out that when I listed this article, there was indeed no claim of notability whatsoever. The article listed the person's name, occupation and education --- nothing else. What if your hypothetical article said "Joe Schmoe attended New York University, works for as a town planner for the City Council and likes to drink beer," would that have made it notable? jmd
  • Keep and expand. Seems clearly notable, even if the article doesn't show that yet. u p p l a n d 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This artist is definitely notable -- even a Google search makes that clear. N Shar 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Weak delete: doesn't seem quite notable enough after comparison with standards for bands, etc.[reply]
    • But the article doesn't assert that. Therefore it's a valid speedy candidate. If this person is indeed notable, then the article should be expanded, giving reasons for notability. Otherwise it should be deleted. jmd
  • Delete [This] google search result just doesn't scream out notability unless I am missing something, in which case let me know and I am happy to change my vote. Eusebeus 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to Keep - this is hardly an artist of much note, and the padded CV posted by Pburka contains a lot of shows of largely indecipherable notbaility, but her inclusion in a few galleries of note means she meets the threshold for inclusion. Eusebeus 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • After looking through about 10 pages of Google hits I have decided that her notability is not quite high enough to warrant inclusion, so I have changed my vote. However, I do think that to say immdeiately "nn" is to ignore the full story. Also note that if this Yuriko Yamaguchi is not notable enough for inclusion, the other one probably is not either. N Shar 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please note that I didn't say "this person is not notable". I said this "is an article about a real person or persons that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject". There is a difference. jmd
  • Keep and expand. http://www.koplindelrio.com/yamaguchi/yamaguchires.html provides an impressive list of exhibitions. Pburka 03:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on references from Pburka. -- JJay 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in light of Pburka's list. Impressive is right. ×Meegs 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you basing this impression on quality or quantity? I'm not an artist of any sort, so I can't comment on the prestige of these various awards, or the reputability of the awarding institutions. But my own CV is equally as long, so does that qualify me for a wp bio? jmd
      • I'm not familiar with most of these galleries, no, but 30 solo exhibitions throughout the US (plus a few in Japan) is, to me, exceedingly notable. ×Meegs 07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JMD, if your résumé is as impressive as this, you qualify for a biography on Wikipedia in my book. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above Jcuk 08:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not the run-of-the-mill teenage vanity article, a few seconds of googling indicates some notability, and it is an article created in good faith by an established user. As I have repeatedly pointed out in the discussions on academics, I also think we need to ask: is this person really less notable than the least notable professional baseball or hockey player who would be included according to our current notability criteria? Is an artist who is represented in several public museum collections, has had numerous exhibitions at both museums and private galleries (who presumably expect either some income from sales or to enhance their own prestige by exhibiting a certain artist), and has had a large number of articles or reviews written about her or her work in major newspapers and art publications really less notable than some 22-year old who has just played hockey in the NHL for a year? u p p l a n d 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is indeed an interesting topic for discussion. The crux is, that notable is not the same as noteworthy. For example, Martin Bryant is certainly more notable than (say) Frits Zernike, but IMHO less noteworthy. I would certainly agree that the huge majority of sports personalities are totally unworthy of any special notice (what's so clever about kicking a ball around?) but that's just my POV. That fact remains that the world has and does take notice of many of these persons who have not managed to outgrow their teenage infatuations (or have found a way to make money from them), and are therefore by definition notable. I'm not saying that this isn't a very sad inditement on society, but that's just my POV. jmd
  • Keep per above.

Werdna648T/C\@ 09:00, 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 withdrawn by nominator and moved. — Seven Days » talk 06:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aviara, California

(Since I nominated this article, I abstain). Consider deleting this article about a neighborhood in Carlsbad, California. Essentially, it contains the exact same information that the Carlsbad article has about the neighborhood, except for two sentences about its latitude and longitude coordinates and what public schools are available. Further, both pieces of information can easily be added to the Carlsbad article, like this: — Seven Days » talk 01:16, 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible one

500 results for company name paired with one founder There's not much info on this company, so it probably doesn't have much of a market presence. That alone may not be enough to delete but PAIRED with the advertising tone, this article should be deleted.

Lotsofissues 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep — Other then the words "well-liked" (which I have removed) I didn't see too much evidence of POV. If you disagree, please specify what aspects of the article seem to be so. — Seven Days » talk 04:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first paragraph: "Now one of the most respected companies in BMX, Terrible One continues to supply riders worldwide with quality bike parts and inspiration." How is it worthy of the superlative, "most respected", if no one discusses the brand? And then there's the sentimentality, "worldwide with quality bike parts and inspiration"...read on--It's a long advertisement. Lotsofissues 06:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to neutralise the tone a bit, but know nothing about the subject, so no vote Jcuk 08:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an ad, no claim to meeting WP:CORP. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Werdna648 doesn't meet notability criteria under WP:CORP. Atrian 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite casual tone 1st paragraph, rest of article is far too technical Mushintalk 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. See [1] for some indication of market presence. Niche product, but appears prominent in that niche. If any BMXer here gives me an authoritative statement that this is not so I will change to delete. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong Talk 13:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The owners seem to be notable riders in the BMX scene, particularly Taj Mihelich, with outlets such as ESPN noting that "Taj Mihelich isn't a name many people outside of the BMX world know. But if you ask most serious riders who has most influenced them (and BMX in general) the past few years, Taj's name would be near the top of every list". If they are designing (and riding) their own frames, that's got to be notable too. A recent Terrible One video apparently featured some of "BMX's most influential and legendary riders". The company, and their key product, the Barcode, seem to have a good reputation. I think we need to be careful when looking at notability within niche markets, and I don't think we should be discounting niche products solely on the basis of the amount of web hits they get. The content of some of those hits suggests to me that this subject is notable within that field, and I think it would be a shame to lose one of the few articles we have in this area. The article should, incidentally, be moved to Terrible One if it survives this AfD. - N (talk) 23:21, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pants pants revolution

Non-notable bot Ezeu 01:39, 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 MERGE with afro, Babajobu 12:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jewfro

Fails WP:V and WP:CITE. Relatively low number of Google hits makes this a violation of Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as well. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article no longer POV. Where (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Blnguyen 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a neologism, I have heard this term many times in real life, it just isn't oft-used online. Certainly the article needs some work, but we aren't discussing the content, we are discussing the topic. -Greg Asche (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Very well known concept that has been around for years, or at least since the 1970s. Widely used in print as attested by many sources. Examples can be seen here [2]. -- JJay 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I question the Amazon search results as the basis to Keep this article. The results show how many times a word was used anywhere in any of the hundreds of thousands (or is it millions?) of quotes from books listed on Amazon. Just because a word is used in a book, or 30 books, does not make it notable. Second, regarding the claim that it has been "very well known" since the 1970s, again I disagree. People can, and often do write about the 1970s using terms from the current era. It's necessary to see the entire context. Crunch 13:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The results are impressive because most books are not full-text searchable through Amazon and the feature is generally only available for the most recent books. Hence, books from the 90s and earlier are not going to produce many hits and, in any case, are frequently out of print. Regarding the dating of the term, I’ve found the concept, i.e. “the Jewish afro” going back to 1970. -- JJay 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Amazon search also doesn't differentiate among words used in dialogue and in other ways. All kinds of non-sensical, slang and odd words are used in dialoge. I think it's important to understand the context and not just focus on the raw numbers. Crunch 16:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because a word is used in a book, or 30 books, does not make it notable. Perhaps not, but it does establish quite clearly that it is not a neologism. Turnstep 20:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay's Amazon Search link. Cleanup, too.--SarekOfVulcan 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. --Carnildo 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. People are just saying that a Jewfro is a substyle of an Afro and that Jewfro would not make a good stand-alone article since there is not enough material for it. Where (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attention Isomorphic; Please state exxactly how much information or how many words an article must have for YOU to consider it a "real article". Otherwise your comment really has no basis.


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


The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 20:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DarkZero

nn site, does not meet WP:WEB; Alexa Rank 500K+. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 02:06, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Franklin Parks

Non notable college football player for a Division II school, unless he wins awards or reach the pros which is unlikely, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Franklin Parks was ineligble this season he will play in the spring He never ran cross country.his highest ranking was being 66th in the state of FL by rivals.com in the preseason before he got hurt.He played in the Dade Vs Broward Football game.He signed late Thats why he has no number at JSU but he is on campus.I have seen this kid play since my son went to the same high school as him as i am a JSU alum the kid can play anywhere on the field excludin playing on the line.hey look

http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=29753 http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=376&p=8&c=1&nid=1705237 --Ray 10:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions.
  • Comment: As indicated on Talk:Franklin Parks, it's not clear to me which institution this person is in. Since nobody else brought it up, I suppose its obvious to everybody else. Could somebody make a small fix to the article, to simply point to the correct university. --Rob 01:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable biography. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:19Z
  • Comment: It now seems it must be Alabama's JSU, so I changed the article to reflect that. Can people please indicate if they agree, or disagree with this. If I've made some serious mistake, then revert me, and put in the correct info. --Rob 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I've not been able to verify any of the information is correct. I'm a JSU fan (class of '03), attended every home game in 2005, and don't remember this guy. It's shame; we needed a good DB. The ESPN reference must be an error. He's not listed on the roster at the official JSU site, or on the one at Florida's Jacksonville University. Jax42 21:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SI has the same mention of him. I notice there's no number assigned to him. Maybe he was selected, at some early stage, but didn't make it to the field. Anyways, at this point, I figure I don't have to be a football expert to know, this person is not famous. In hindsight, instead of trying to add context to the article, I should have tagged it as {{db-empty}}, for lack of context. --Rob 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Franklin Parks was ineligble this season he will play in the spring He never ran cross country.his highest ranking was being 66th in the state of FL by rivals.com in the preseason before he got hurt.He played in the Dade Vs Broward Football game.He signed late Thats why he has no number at JSU but he is on campus.I have seen this kid play since my son went to the same high school as him as i am a JSU alum the kid can play anywhere on the field excludin playing on the line.hey look

http://rivals100.rivals.com/viewprospect.asp?pr_key=29753 http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=376&p=8&c=1&nid=1705237 --Ray 10:28, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeeze

Non-notable publication. The article reads like an advert. Ezeu 02:26, 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. --JoanneB 13:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gold gate casino

I hacked all the advertising out of this article, and was left with one sentence. Then I checked alexa and discovered its rank in the 788,000 range... For an online casino, that's awful low. Delete. bikeable (talk) 02:28, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

32 independent African states

I'm a bit conflicted about this one, but I see no way to keep it. A list of states considered "independent" is surely POV; not to mention that the title will change when one nation's status changes. There were originally 32 states that founded the Organization of African Unity, and I haven't gone through to check if these are those, but the successor organization has something like 50 now, and a list of the founding nations of OAU belongs in the OAU article. Delete. bikeable (talk) 02:31, 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 BJAODN. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahá'í humor

Wikipedia is not a joke book. An article on the place of humor in the Bahá'í faith or on unique qualities of Bahá'í humor would be encyclopedic, but this is just a collection of jokes. -℘yrop (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - you caught us! :) -- Christian Edward Gruber 02:40, 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 shouldn't have been on AfD in the first place. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Miko_Lee.jpg

Delete.Seems like a pornographic image with no links WingedMonkey 03:11, 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 WITHDRAWN by nominator; I did not realize that this was listed just two weeks ago. Besides, reorganization is currently being performed. Hopefully, this can be transformed into something encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crotalus horridus (talk • contribs) 04:34, January 10, 2006.

Fascism (United States)

Possibly the ugliest article on Wikipedia. There is literally more room taken up by disclaimer templates than by the actual article. The article itself doesn't consist of much more than a note stating that some people have used fascism as a pejorative political epithet, and is redundant with other articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending merger and redirect - Note It is really bad form to start this vote after the recent previous vote for deletion failed; especially while most of the involved editors are actually in the ongoing process of merging the contents to two other pages for efiting. It just is mean, and shows no notice of ongoing discussions. Really tacky. Please at least attempt to follow the discussion pages and previous votes. A tiny bit of hoemework is an important way of showing good faith. This was just POV warrior bashing. Not constructive at all.-- Cberlet 03:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Worthless and unverfied material with absolutely no potiential. — Seven Days » talk 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; With the anti-Republican screed taken out, as it has been, this could be an interesting article on fascism in America, which did exist in the 20s and 30s. Several editors are/were working on making it just that. I agree with Cberlet that bringing this right back to AfD is not constructive. Tom Harrison Talk 04:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above. Merger discussions are underway. Why is there no link to previous AfD? -- JJay 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Change vote because I didn't realize the other AfD closed less than two weeks ago. There is absolutely no reason to renom in the face of the massive participation in the last AfD and with efforts to improve the article. -- JJay 04:21, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Park, Michigan Day

Delete This article is a hoax, if you knew the area you'd get the joke, sort of, possibly worth transwikying to uncyclopedia Drdisque 03:19, 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 delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicles of friendship

An article about a book that's not finished yet by a non-notable author. It was marked as speedy, but as we don't have a CSD category for non-notable unfinished books, I have nominated it for AFD. —Cleared as filed. 03:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The previous account is less than 5 days old -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has been changing other people's comments, see [4] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, above keep vote was a probable sockpuppet attempt by the author of the page. The comment was originally unsigned. Once again I think speedy should apply as we all know what the vote will end up being on something like this without a doubt. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Because on Wikipedia we only publish articles about notable people and things. Let's hope this young man's book is a roaring success, and then he will get his Wikipedia entry. Until then he won't. --kingboyk 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reverted article to older version to remove vote tampering. The following two votes were deleted during the process of reversion, and are now restored here. (Neither vote is mine) ManoaChild 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stay All evidence is credible i.e. the website in which he refrences to view the story, although it starts with his last capter. I read a paragraph of the story, it is not particularly well written but it is not hurting database as there are no other entries under this title. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Todaywarrior (talk • contribs) 21:34, 10 January 2006.
The above user has been changing other people's comments, see [5] -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Read the story from begging to end. I thought it was pretty good so far. I encourage you to allow this "young author" to keep his work as I am in favor of young literature being posted and read on wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obscurestories (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 January 2006.
The previous account was created in order to "vote" on this discussion, only 3 edits in total -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 19:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment yeah you guys are pretty good at this stuff. I am the author of the article and the book. I would like to say you found my meat puppets quickly, kudos. Also a kudo to Tom for handling the critisism well. Sorry old chap, all in the fun. Unfortunately I must say I am disapointed with Susan Larson for deleting TodayWarrior's vote. He is not a fake and has never before used Wikipedia. That is why his record shows no other posts. He is the big fan Taylor I mentioned in the "Chronicles of Friendship" post. I would also like to thank ManoaChild for the "good luck" on my book. And for one last puppet of the sock:

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.28.251 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 January 2006.

Keep HAHAHA!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.110.28.251 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 11 January 2006.
Comment Good thing I don't delete votes. I see the vote you mention up above. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 02:25Z
  • Delete per nn. This is an advertisement for an unpublished fanfic, not an encyclopedia entry. Dariusarsenal, understand that Wikipedia is not an advertising page. Trust me, this happened to me too, but now I understand that Wikipedia is for information. Try posting a link to your novel on a young writers' message board. krispymann25 14:55 15 Jan. 2006 (EST).


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-Score

Basically advertising for a non-notable "chain" of two video places. Was originally marked as speedy, but I'm moving it here to AFD instead. —Cleared as filed. 04:30, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pangender

Probable neologism [6] coined by a webpage or something like that, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms... needs evidence to be shown of this word used in print or dictionaries. W.marsh 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, do the results in your link really mean anything? The word pangender doesn't seem to be present in the pages for the books in your search, and a normal search for pangender reveals nothing [8], you have to turn on some additional search option to get your results, with that option I was able to get results for words I made up on the fly like quasimetal, ultrahyper and metagendered. --W.marsh 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The link is working fine for me. The word is used in those six books. Quasimetal and metagendered as well, so someone beat you to the punch.-- JJay 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've looked in all 6 books and found the word? For all 3 examples I gave, and the word "pangender", a normal result yields nothing, and you have to turn on the "additional results" which seems to just look for root words. --W.marsh 06:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The results are automatically displayed with the excerpt and page numbers. -- JJay 06:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I just saw that, I didn't realize Amazon did that. Sorry for the confusion --W.marsh 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bit more with "pangendered". Note this only works with books that have full-text search activated (i.e. a small sub-set of all books). -- JJay 06:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term has been used in newspaper articles and is widely used in the queer community and in student/university political organisations. Its a term that is more widely known and has been in usage longer than homoflexible for example. Would vote to keep.Mittens.the.kitten, 03:59, 10 January 2006
I am not trying to come off as inconsiderate here, but this word is pretty much a textbook neologism (see my above link). If this word can be found used meaningfully in newspaper articles or books, rather than just alluded to, that's a start. I'm willing to help here... but the sparse Google coverage still makes me think this is a neologism not very widely used at all. --W.marsh 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Keep. I myself am pangender, and it is a common enough term to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.28 (talk • contribs)
  • Seems notable enough for a neologism. Merge to pansexuality. While the leading sentence of Pangender talks about the difference between the word 'sex' refering to anatomy versus gender identity, the Pansexuality article is clearly talking about gender identity (not someone with all anatomies :) - so they're talking about the same thing. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 06:18Z
    • Also, the second paragraph is self-contradictory:
      Pangender is a term for people who feel that they cannot be labeled as female or male in gender. ... The term is meant by the queer community to be one that is inclusive and means "all genders".
    The last sentence would imply pangender includes traditional males and females, while the first does not. So make up your mind and add citations. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 06:18Z


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

The result of the debate was Move to wikisource Babajobu 10:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Chinese Nationality Law

Text dump. Maybe worthy of a transwiki to Wikisource. Alr 03:52, 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 Merge to British nationality law and Hong Kong and redirect Babajobu 10:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British National (Overseas) - extra information

Text dump from various sources. Does not seem worthy of a transwiki. Alr 03:58, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability Advocates

No useful content yet. This is a mere placeholder, created December 29, 2005, for an article that hasn't been written. Will Beback 04:11, 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal music

  • Delete - This page was created on the assumption that no overarching page existed for metal music as a whole, when one already does: Heavy metal music. Consequently the metal music page is highly redundant, not only repeating information from the Heavy metal music page, but also from the list of metal genres. Also, Metal music is of an inferior quality (for which it has been tagged) and is filled with POV statements. In comparison, the heavy metal music page has been a featured article and properly referenced. Current attempts to edit both pages in accordance with opinions that "heavy metal" is no longer widely used to describe the genre as a whole have not yet been adequately argued with sources and also threaten to dillute the quality of the heavy metal music page. Thus I suggest either a full deletion of the page or a merger with Heavy metal music WesleyDodds 04:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created that page because nowadays there is a distinction about Metal, which is an umbrella term to define all Metal music, and the genre Heavy Metal, that today is referred to that particular type of Metal music played in the late '70 by bands like Black Sabbath and so on. My intentions was not to feature POV statements, but to give the best definition about the Metal style of music and about what makes Metal as we know. The Heavy Metal page feature a lot of information about history of Metal and so on, but lacks of a true definition on what is Metal music, what renders Metal a song. --Olpus 02:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "Characteristics" section on Heavy metal music defines the sound. WesleyDodds 08:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If defines Heavy Metal, not all metal. Symphonic Metal, Nu Metal, Power Metal - these are hardly 'dark'. Nu Metal is hardly guitar driven, nor is symphonic metal. It describes Heavy Metal, that is all. Leyasu 09:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with it, edit it in order to make it of better quality. But heavy metal music is intended to and is constructed in its present form to address all forms of metal as a whole. The problem with the Metal music page is that (as Oplus stated) is he wanted to indictate a difference between the usage of "heavy metal" and "metal" but he did it from the wrong avenue. While some may use "heavy metal" to talk about a particular subgenre of metal, the article itself does not function that way; consequently the articles continue to addresses the same topic because they address the same purpose, regardless of title. I can understand the desire to separate the form as a whole and what some now view as a distinct subgenre (which is still debatable, mind you, but not really the issue here). But the current approach does not address those issues. If anything, an article for heavy metal as a subgenre should have been created, and there should have been a discussion about renaming the main article, not the creation of another overrarching "metal music" page. The entire approach to the issue is backwards. WesleyDodds 09:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not been the best or easiest way to do things, agreed. But waste not want not. Whats done is done, and going even further backwards isnt worth it. What we have, is all the things we need, mixed and matched in different articles. Deleting this, deletes one of the needed parts. What im doing at the minute, is sumerrising in my own head, the best way forward in getting the following objectives done:
  • An article that lists all the metal genres and references, plus history of metal as a whole.
  • An comphrensive and factual article on Heavy Metal and its place as both a genre and originator of the metal basis, something similar to Rock n Roll's article i would presume.
  • Sorting out the articles as to not lose content, and merge the correct parts of each article with each other, keeping the articles seperate, and removing the overlap.
Im sure i was clear in intention there. Leyasu 10:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not the best way to do things, since an article already existed to serve the purpose you are trying to achieve. If anything, edit that article. Doing it this way, creating two articles that cover the same subject (just with different titles) and possibly later altering the older article (given the outline above you provided) -- which has been a Featured Article, has been peer reviewed, and is properly referenced to reduce any POV that might be associated with the subject -- in order to narrow its scope is deconstructing the hard work of others who have been working on the Heavy metal music page long before any of us came anywhere near it.
The Wiki Category for the music form is "heavy metal". The heading on the genre template before it was altered was a link to Heavy metal music. Most references on WIkipedia when referring to the umbrella term link to Heavy metal music. This is an inefficient way of accomplishing these goals, and it's wasting a lot of time that could be used more effectively in regards to these pages.
Seriously, it would still be easier to just rename Heavy metal music or have Metal music redirect to it. WesleyDodds 11:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Featured article or not, it is mostly wrong. A lot of it, is wrong. Sorting out the metal music page, and then merging the two would be good. Merging Heavy Metal into this page, saves the effort of renaming.
An article also designed to fit the bill, doesnt mean it does. Many times something is reviwed as good, when in fact, it is not good. Yes, the article is well written. Yes, it does about explaining 'some' things well. Problem: Its outdated, wrong, and doesnt fullfill its purpose.
Later on today, or tomorrow, when im in a better frame of mind, i shall merge the Heavy Metal article's accurate parts into the Metal Music article. Then, i will set out on the process of making the Heavy Metal article better.
If you want to improve it, then help me do what needs doing, instead of critiszing my methods. If your not going to help, then dont critisize my way of doing things. Leyasu 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Mostly wrong" by whose measure? I can look up all the books listed on the heavy metal music page and fact-check anything I need to. And they use Heavy Metal as an overarching term. Even if information is factually incorrect, it is still citable in order to reference conflicting viewpoints (which is what history is all about in the first place). If you are going to debate accuracy, you need to reference sources for a counter-argument! We really can't rely simply on your POV for reference. It may be right, but we need to be able to check that you are right. WesleyDodds 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine when i have more time instead of borrowed scraps of time, i will go find a bunch of websites. The problem is, a bunch of books written by people with no affiliation to something, doesnt make it right, it makes it a bunch of books that are complete crap. I will get you the websites, as and when i have the time. Leyasu 12:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The problem is, a bunch of books written by people with no affiliation to something, doesnt make it right, it makes it a bunch of books that are complete crap."
What do you base that on? Do you know anything about these authors? Ian Christe, for one, certainly comes from the metal culture. Additionally, a degree of critical distance is useful when studying subjects. Sure being in the thick of it all can lead one closer to "the truth", but there is always the potential for personal bias. An outsider's viewpoint helps to put an insiders' viewpoint of "the truth" into a greater critical context. You must factor in to you criticism that just because a number of members in a community hold a tenant as truth does not necessarily make it true.
Also: Websites would be helpful for your counter-argument, but books, magazine articles, and video would be even better. WesleyDodds 13:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has since been heavily revised since the AFD

I to do agree with a merger, I do not care which is merged into one though. But the metal subhenres pagfe is gone, so is true metal, I have merged them into metal msuic a couple of days ago, so that is not repeating previously said statements. - NykylaiHellray

I will at this point make clear that a consensus was reached on the issue, that the page should be Heavy Metal Music should be about the genre of Heavy Metal, and Metal Music, which is used to mean all the genres of Metal Music, should be rewritten. As Wikipedia works on consensus, and the article is being revised, isnt deleting it because your argument was over thrown by consesnus a bit, childish? Leyasu 09:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is still being actively debated on both the Heavy metal music and Metal music talk pages, thus no consensus has been reached. WesleyDodds 09:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A consenses WAS reached. One that you didnt agree with mind you, one that was reached before you asked for AFD. The consensus to Merge the Heavy Metal articles contents into the Metal Music page, after revising the Metal Music's content and formatting, to make the merger easier. Asking for AFD when experts on the subject have reached consensus is undermining the consensus, because you dont agree with it.
On that note, i ask for this AFD to be cut or postponed, until the merger outcome is seen, as a consensus was already reached on the issue, and this AFD is a blatant attempt at getting ones own way, through underhand means. Leyasu 10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree this is pointless, as both pages contain good information, whether they merge or stay seperate I do not care though, but it is pointless to even think about deleation until all sides of the argument agree, Ley do you need any help on the rewrite? I have organised some of the stuff yesterday with the true metal, and subgenre metal page merge. Is there anything you would like me to help you on, as I do not want to make any futher changes, unless they are lost during your rewrite. NykylaiHellray 1:19PM 10 Jan 2006

I have the rewrite in a text document. Im doing it as a step by step, as im doing Nu Metal. Its in about 4 different documents actually, as i need to keep juggling things about so they are in subsequent order, and in the right place, as well as rewrite a lot of parts. When i post the revision, copyediting it would be dandy, as what i see as NPOV, not all people agree on. Leyasu 14:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite this article adding information on what makes a song a Metal song, the tecnique of playing Metal and other tecnical information: an expert is needed too. The Metal Page is also useful to list some music that are part of Metal by name, as Nu Metal, Industrial Metal and others, but aren't considered legitimate sons of Heavy Metal by many. --Olpus 02:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - No consensus was reached as per the Talk pages. This claim is based in what evidence? I´ve proposed the merge of Metal into Heavy Metal. Many people agreed with me. The majority. Some people think it should be the other way around: Merge Heavy Metal into Metal. The Heavy Metal article was started before many of us even registered to wikipedia, it was meant to be the article describing the music we call Heavy Metal or simply Metal in general. It do not try to explain every and each subgenre of (heavy) metal, one of it is "Heavy Metal" (as a strict term meaning the bands that started this musical style). Heavy Metal has a dual meaning, one of them a synonym to Metal. This article was a featured article on wikipedia and is considered a high quality article as such. It is a shame trying to enforce this difference of Metal and Heavy Metal by destroying the hard-work spent by fellow wikipedians on the Heavy Metal articl just because some people think this difference is worth this debate! Loudenvier 13:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Its not anyone trying to force a difference when the difference has existed almost a decade. Hence such terms as Metalhead, Metal Bands, Metal Music, Metalfests - If, by your reconing, it would beHeavy Metalhead, Heavy Metal Bands, Heavy Metal Music and Heavy Metalfests.
Again, by that defination, we would have such things as Punk Rock N Roll, Gothic Rock N Roll, Alternative Rock N Roll, Death Rock N Roll, so on, so forth.
The usage of it was the same as Rock N Roll, and its no longer a double meaning. Yes, people with little knowledge of the metal scene, commonly refer to it as Heavy Metal sometimes, depending on generation. Most people however, call it Metal. The same as most people who arent big on it, use 'Rarrgghhh' as an insult to music with distorted vocals, regardless of genre.
That is the way things are. Heavy Metal Music = Heavy Metal. The same as Rock N Roll Music = Rock N Roll. Not all forms of metal are Heavy Metal, mainly because they lack core features of Heavy Metal, which, if you read the article, is explained. Also, ive seen featured articles, that get considered featured, when they have little to no accuracy about them. Remember, that the FA council, normally has little to no knowledge of the subject of an article, and reads it in the same way as i write, in the form of someone who knows nothing about the subject matter.
An article being well written, doesnt mean its factual, accurate or correct. Using FA as a veil to hide behind doesnt work, not with someone who will quite happily point out the flaws in the veil.
I dont wish to keep arguing this, and yes a merger is taking place. The talk page is currently discussing 'how' to do it, in a manner that suits 'all' the editors of the page. So instead of going 'this needs doing, that needs doing, and the other needs doing', how about doing something constructive towards helping the discussion of how we go about it to achieve the best results, without losing information, factual accuracy, or prose. Leyasu 15:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont read magazines, dont have a video player, and dont buy anything other than books by Graham Masterson and Shaun Hutson. Yes, what you said is true. But again, experts in the subject are normally right, even when biased.
For instance, a group of outsiders to rocket science could tell several rocket scientists that they are wrong about how to build a rocket. The rocket scientists devoloped how to builed a rocket, have built rockets, and studied the subject intensely. They are bound to be correct.
Its worth mentioning that some people still refer to Metal as Heavy Metal music, sure, i wouldnt say it was foolish to point that out, but it is now Metal Music. Thats what it is. NPOV records all POV, yes. But it also lends to fact being the way things are, and then alternative POV on things, such as the smaller group that still calls things by its old name. Leyasu 13:46, 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 delete. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Millar

nn bio page and appears to be written by subject.--MONGO 04:16, 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 60-40 split on this page, not enough majority to get it deleted.. – Sceptre (Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
If you came to this page from http://www.democraticunderground.com or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored.

In addition, the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Civility allows for any contributor acting in an uncivil manner to be blocked from the site.

The White Rose Society (website)

Note to closing Admin, please check this page carefully for any legitimate votes that may have been dropped. There was a lot of reverting and anon voting and vandalism here. Thanks.

Please register your vote by typing in *'''Delete''' - optional reason -~~~~ or *'''Keep''', or '''Merge''' - optional reason -~~~~ below. Please limit discussion to the Discussion subsection of this voting area. Thank you for participating. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new statements to the bottom. Thanks. — TheKMantalk 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable vanity article. Holdek (talk) 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For those who think Alexis.com is the best place to really evaluate websites. Trust me, it's not. Alexis requires spyware toolbar to be installed. Most of the informed people don't even use it at all. White Rose Society is a fair and balanced archives for left-talk shows and as if we have too many syndicated right-wing hatefests all over the United States that wants to suppress dissenting voices. So, I view this a seperate entity from Ben Burch, and does a incredible job with limited resources! - Dustpuppy303 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustpuppy303 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep 82,789 registered users at DemocraticUnderground.com would find this a meaningful description. I think the way to get out of the political quagmire is not to determine which side is right, but to rise above the issue. I applaud Wikipedia's attempt to civilize this discussion. Good luck with that. The White Rose Society is a part of the fabric of today's world. To choose not to like it is fine. To censor it, proves many of the points made by those the website features. --Tigress DEM 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the conspiracy theorists out there. I'm not a sock puppet. Had to look that up. And I made a novice mistake. I copied a previous post because all the html formatting made me think I had to have a text descriptor. I thought 'nondomesticspying' was 'nondomestictyping' and needed to complete a format loop. When I realized it was someone's login name I took it off. --Tigress DEM 05:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is the first edit by Tigress DEM, but has two others under the name nodomesticspying. InvictusNox 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
On what basis do you allege these are the same person? That they share an IP address? That tells you little as many universities have all students sharing one IP address, for example. BenBurch 05:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
He alleges that on the basis of the fact that she signed it as nodomesticspying while logged in as Tigress DEM, then realized what she'd done and changed it. See this edit. Logged in users' IP addresses are unknown to all but a very few admins. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if they are domestic partners? Then the cookie would still have been on the shared computer. This does not make them the same person, no matter how much you would like it to be so. BenBurch 05:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the constant meatpuppetry going on with this nomination, it is difficult to assume the best. After all, what's stopping my nine livein brothers and sisters from voting "delete"? Lord Bob 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you really have nine sibs living there, nothing, nor should there be. BenBurch 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have nine siblings living with me, but how could you tell (beyond my say-so)? 'One IP address, one vote' might not seem very democratic, but this isn't a democracy and given the situation, I'm well-inclined to hope the closing admin plays it safe in all respects. Lord Bob 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Performs useful service and provides valuable information. nodomesticspying

This comment is the second edit by Nodomestic spying, the first being another keep vote below. --Allen3 talk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great source for liberal info. User:Generic O

This comment is the first edit by Generic O. --Allen3 talk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User wants to delete for reasons that have to do with that user's POV. Comes up with other threshold reasons to rationalize. User has a documented history of edit warring. Also, if this page is deleted, a knowledge hole is created that the disambiguation page isn't intended/designed/adequate to resolve. BusterD 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. whiterosesociety.org streams and archives a lot of audio programs, both well-known and obscure. It's a very useful resource. Blue Llama 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A "Vanity" article would have to have been created by the website's owner, me. It wasn't. The site has delivered five million hours of liberal/progressive talk radio since 2002, and this deletion campaign seems to be "payback" from Holdek for my having complained about him for a 3RR violation. Unseemly, but there you have it. BenBurch 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Ben does us all a service with this site and doesn't deserve to have this page deleted! Is there a bandwidth issue here that requires you to delete some pages? If so I'm sure there are many other suitable candidates. 72.136.206.89 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) AnonymousArmy[reply]
Well, I appreciate that coming from you given our past differences. Thanks. BenBurch 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete . I don't think this article has useful purpose. Wikipedia should strive to remain an encyclopedia on par with other well-known references. Putting up an entry to serve as a portal amounts to turning Wikipedia into a directed google search. I would be inclined to keep this article if there were some educational merit to the content, but currently it reads as an advertisement for another website. What's next, an article for cheaptickets.com extolling it as place for bargain airline fares? While I'm sure The White Rose Society website serves a large user base that enjoys what is has to offer, I don't think that neccesitates a need for an entry. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your favorite website. Also, currently DU has been called on to "DU" this site so expect to be flooded with keeps. I mean, the fact a message board close to The White Rose Society has been called upon to slant this discussion... recommend to lock. -m00

The above user neglects to mention a similar campaign to urge the deletion of the entry, originating from a website ideologically opposed to DU, and his self-confessed role in it. So, all's fair, eh? WPWiles 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets talk about this on the dicussion page. I am a huge supporter of Wikipedia. I have nothing against The White Rose Society Website, I just see the article as adverstisement and wikispam/wikiclutter. -m00
I agree it's a marginal case for retention, but I think the thing that swings it into the "keep" column is the fact that it is an archive, a resource, rather than simply a soapbox that endlessly editorialises. Although liberals might find its content more palatable, the site is potentially useful to everyone with an interest in politics or broacasting, as would a similar conservative site. WPWiles 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree the White Rose Society Website might be useful to people interested in politics. But there are plenty of useful resources out there on the web -- does Wiki really need to link them all? I mean, could you explain why the Wiki entry is useful, as it merely links the site? I look at it like this: anyone interested in The White Rose Society website already knows it exists and can easily find it. If someone were to search Wiki for it "The White Rose Society Website" they'd come up with an article that links to thate site. So who exactly is that article for? -m00
The poor quality of the wiki entry is an argument for improving the wiki entry, not deleting it. I think that this entry, Ben Burch's own entry, and several other entries in the same "genre" such as those for DU, CU and William Rivers Pitt, are very inadequate, probably as a result of coordinated edit campaigns by both sides. WPWiles 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then write some useful content! As it stands, the entry is totally useless, and adds absolutely zero to Wikipedia. It's just a link. If someone wants to add content where I could see a case that the article might possibly be of use to someone, I'll change my vote. And you are correct these topics end up being biased due to edit wars. Maybe we need to merge CU, DU, Will Pitt, and everything that's basically two warring Internet factions into a single article called "political activism on the Internet." I'd be for that, since I agree this is getting out of hand! -m00
m00 - Jackk only created the stub article for White Rose on the 2nd of this month, you know. How many other articles are fleshed out in so little time? And honestly, you can keep or delete this entry without that mattering to me or my website one iota, but this whole discussion reflects badly on the neutrality of Wikipedia, and I have had a teacher email to me say "see, this is why I will not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source!" And I sadly have to concur with her. BenBurch 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Tacky and shameful" is launching a delete page entry campaign out of spite. you petty petty "right wing" fascists. (aww darn better go get more edits so I can join Zoe's friends list)Freepersh8truth 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The proposal for deletion seems to be politically motivated and should be ignored for that fact alone; there are numerous far more questionable entries. On the other hand the page begs a few questions regarding copyright of the offered material and the name is borderline tasteles considering the real white rose. --HBS 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the material offered on The White Rose society is offered with consent of the Copyright holders and the radiostations / websites often refer to it as well. It is a free service available for progressive radiostations who are interesting in maintaining an archive of their material. Dr Debug 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I have the endorsement of living relatives of the Scholls. So I feel I have every right to use the name, especially with the Bush Administration acting more and more like Italian Fascists each and every day. BenBurch 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not conform to Wiki standards and is being used to simply advertise an individual's website. Furthermore, the webmaster of "The White Rose Society" has asked partisans on a Democratic Party forum to vote 'Keep'[9]. 0nslaught 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn website. I have deleted all unsigned votes. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN website. 181,810 page rank on Alexa. [10] Hardly notable. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mutleyrus

so?

Keep. As I said earlier (before I was signed in) personal disputes and tantrums have no place making Wikipedia decisions. The request for deletion obviously stems from personal and political differences, and should be struck down on that alone. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Furthermore, the article doesn't contain anything which I can see that violates the rules. It's NPOV-safe, and is notable for the large archives involved. Political hissy fits aside, there's no reason to delete it. ADB

  • Delete Wars between rival internet groups aside, this should not be a Wikipedia article unless there can be some verification that it is significant. Can someone provide links to multiple independent sources discussing this website? If not, then WP:WEB applies and it should go. Ziggurat 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, Ziggurat; [11] BenBurch 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep Political and personal differences should not have a say conerning Whiterosesociety.org and Wikimedia. There are other forums for that.
This comment is the first edit by Nodomestic spying. --Allen3 talk 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I routinely vote delete on articles like this. A not especially notable site, article reads like an ad. I am not American and have no strong feelings about the subject matter one way or the other. --kingboyk 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable site; little more than a vanity site.--Susan N.

  • Keep The website in question, White Rose Society, is a very useful archive of radio talk shows. If a user hear would like to hear more from such personalities as Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, and others, they can go to the website. While I personally believe the website needs a face lift, I am supportive of it being mentioned on Wikipedia. Frankly, I enjoy coming to this site because it leads to websites AND information I had previously been unfamiliar with. One such website that I found via Wikipedia is the White Rose Society. I HIGHLY recommend that the article remain. Getting rid of the article stinks of book-burning. User:JeBousley
    vote actually by 66.141.94.47 (talk • contribs)
Impersonating Jimbo Wales is tacky. However, White Rose (and often me) get mentioned daily on; Head On with Bob Kincaid, The Thom Hartmann Show, The Moring Wakeup Call with Lizz Brown, and weekly on "All Things Reconsidered", "Fourth Estate Radio", "They Guy James Show", and "The Cup-o-Joe Radio Show", so at least a few hundred thousand people know who I am by now... Doesn't mean I am notable, of course, as notable seems to be whatever people want it to mean to suit their present purposes here in Wikiland. BenBurch 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sources? Go listen to the last ten minutes of any Mike Malloy show from the site, KMan... Or look at Mike's Web Page... Or Thom Hartmann's web page. BenBurch 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It exists and there should be knowledge about it, but it does not seem that it should be expanded into a full entry by itself. Tyrenius 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius wishes to merge the article with Ben Burch [12]. — TheKMantalk 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This website isn't a blog. It's an archival resource that some authors or speakers might well use. Therefore, some readers or listeners might want to know more about the site. An article about it is useful enough to keep. JamesMLane 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep keep It's an invaluable resource to many progressives, the significance of the site is in the millions of hours of progressive talkradio that have been served by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.48.87 (talk • contribs) 11:25, January 11, 2006 (UTC)
  • week Delete per "website ranking" test. Enough with the sockpuppets please! Your cheepening the entire wikipedia project. The system is more important then the issue. (Signed: J.Smith) 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Atlant 17:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't appreciate my comment being deleted. This is a useful resource, and the article is accurate. The calls for deletion are mostly politically motivated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclearing (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, most of the deletes are because of the notability & the 181,810 page rank on Alexa. diff --LV (Dark Mark) 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, LV, what do you think Alexa measures? I believe it measures mostly people stupid enough to allow their spyware toolbar onto their machine in the first place, and ignorant enough of Windows to not be able to remove it later. And it measures no Macintosh, Linux, BSD, or Web TV users whatsoever... Certainly it has never measured me. BenBurch 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a slightly better view of traffic to my main page. Does not show direct traffic to sub-pages, or podcast hits, both substantial; [13] BenBurch 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and... You only need to visit the page ONCE to subscribe to a podcast... And even if Alexa measured you that one time, no further measurements will be taken of you even if you download 6 hours of shows every day. And many people do. BenBurch 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do find it disappointing that some of the decisions here are being made due to personal political affiliations and motivations, and what really should be under observation is the article's merit as an encyclopedic entry. It is my impression that this website is an archive of other radio shows, so does that in itself make it noteworthy enough for an article in the Wikipedia? I, personally, think not. While many of the original radio programs were created by notable people, and featured on notable radio stations, I do not think an archive of those radio shows in itself makes a website notable. Regarding "website notability guidelines", yes, they are "just guidelines", but many Wikipedia users consider these guidelines useful for personally determining the notability of a website. Alexa gives the site a ranking of 181,810 [14]. Now, if articles were created for all of the websites that have higher rankings that the whiterosesociety.org, assuming they have not yet been created and using the article count as of now from the English Wikipedia (912,698), websites would take up nearly 20% of the Wikipedia. It should be noted that "the Wikipedia is not infinite", nor is it an Internet directory. Personally, I do not like how Alexa works, but for lack of a better ranking system, it is what we tend to use. Another way of establishing notability (at least for forum websites), is to check the number of forum users. Currently, the Democratic Underground has 82,820 registered users, which does make it notable in my eyes, and deserves its Wikipedia entry. (While not an entirely fair assessment since WRS is not primarily a forum community) the WRS society forum has 510 registered users (short of a generally accepted guideline of 5000 registered users). Please remember: deletion of the article does not mean the end of "the White Rose Society (website)". If the article is deleted, there is always the possibility that in the future the WRS will do something notable enough to warrant re-creation of the article and expansion. Now, if this website has made any other notable contributions to society, acheivements, or accomplishments, please say so and post related evidence, since everyone here still reserves the right to change their personal decsions at any time. Thanks for reading. — TheKMantalk 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KMan... My argument against Alexa is that is basically CANNOT measure a site such as White Rose. It can only measure a site that people visit to read the pages. Since White Rose has become primarily a podcasting site, and Alexa misses ALL of that traffic, it doesn't bear any resemblance to the traffic to the site at all! And trust me, I have looked at this before while attempting to work on the visibility of the site, and decided it was close to worthless. Basically, if a totally unscientific measurement is good enough for you, that is up to you, but expect much more difficulty with such things in the future if you continue to use the work of a spyware vendor as a means of assessing the importance of a multimedia web entity. BenBurch 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the record of the number of podcasting xml hits on White Rose since logs were rolled over on Saturday;

dburch@server1:~$ sudo analog|grep xml 140954: 0.01%: 11/Jan/06 15:42: /freehartmann.xml 

51918:       : 11/Jan/06 15:42: /malloy.xml
50332:       : 11/Jan/06 15:38: /hartmann.xml
32857:       : 11/Jan/06 15:36: /rhodes.xml
29050:       : 11/Jan/06 15:41: /james.xml
16313:       : 11/Jan/06 15:31: /werbe.xml
15190:       : 11/Jan/06 15:42: /content/hartmann/hartmann.xml
 8938:       : 11/Jan/06 15:34: /Kincaid.xml
 7449:       : 11/Jan/06 15:39: /Marvin.xml
 6181:       : 11/Jan/06 15:27: /vecchio.xml
 4794:       : 11/Jan/06 15:31: /brown.xml
 2159:       : 11/Jan/06 14:50: /trupiano.xml

dburch@server1:~$

Correct, Alexa measures website traffic. Now, it is my understanding that the podcasting content that is archived on your website does not require a user to visit to your website, but this content was not actually created by the WRS. I am examining the notability of The White Rose Society (website), the website, not the notable content of others that it archives. Does the website make any notable contributions of its own? — TheKMantalk 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, created? Yes, some of the material was created by broadcasters who were given program development grants by WRS, and all of it was recorded, compressed, and archived by WRS. This involves four dedicated recording machines, not an insignificant task. (You try to do it.) And obtaining the rights to provide this material to the Internet public was a major effort in some cases. Also, in the case of the Thom Hartmann program, I pay big bucks in royalty payments for sole Internet archiving rights to the material. Basically, is the publisher who publishes Steven King's novels notable? I am an Internet-age publishing house. BenBurch 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I ran a LexisNexis search on "White Rose Society" and get one mention in the Anchorage Daily News for this particular WRS. Heck, even I've been mentioned one time in a newspaper of record. I just don't see it as being notable. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think LV is referring to this article. — TheKMantalk 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep... that's the one. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thanks for finding that, guys! I was unaware of that mention. BenBurch 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ben Burch.--WinOne4TheGipper 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the Ben Burch entry is likely to be deleted presently as I, myself, am not particularly notable. BenBurch 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are Ben Burch, the Olympic hopeful rower. You're not right? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh great. Shows how out of touch I am. I know more about DU's Burch than I know about a potential Olympian.:) Anyway, I don't think the Ben Burch article ought to be deleted, as I explained at it's AfD page. Frankly, I wish both sides would stop. The FR article is protected because some idiot keeps vandalizing it, and the articles for both Ben and Will Pitt have been put up for deletion so many times that it's no longer funny.--WinOne4TheGipper 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I smell a disambiguation page in my name's future. BenBurch 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Honestly, though I believe this is an appropriate Wikipedia entry, I didn't create it, and I don't care what gets done with this; I think it is nice to be in Wiki and all, but I wouldn't have even questioned this except for the fact that the motivation of so many seems to be political, and that offends me. But, as others have pointed out, having a White Rose external link on the page for each of the show hosts would be the only advertising that would make any difference, anyway! Nobody is going to come here and type in White Rose Society (website) who did not already know that it existed! Besides, I foresee a constant barrage of vandalism... BenBurch 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, low rankings. Mike 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Causing WAY too much trouble?" Jackk 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. FREEPERS RULE! LIE-BERALS DROOL! LONG LIVE THE FREE REPUBLIC! WHY DON'T YOU GO FIST HITLERY CLINTOON? 62.2.221.125 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote actually from 200.222.68.39 with the edit reason of (Fucking Whikipedia Commmietards!).User blanked page replacing it with the above message -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep If only to discourage such idiotic nominations. If this article is deleted as a result of this nomination it will happen again, and waste more peoples time. - Hayter 14:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly the converse is also true. If it's kept, somebody will at some point nominate it again. I'd respectfully suggest that we should concentrate on the merits of the article and the site's notability, and just quietly ignore the political squabble. --kingboyk 11:12, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SOSVC and YoungLeadersofBC and Young Leaders of BC

interesting, but unverifiable and probably non-notable, vanity; also mirror articles YoungLeadersofBC and Young Leaders of BC. (I turned their respective wp:articles for deletion pages into redirects to this one. Is this proper? couldn't find info on multiple nominations, although it must be here somewhere.) Heah talk 04:37, 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. – Sceptre (Talk) 23:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth I of England (essay)

Completing incomplete AfD nomination. No vote. Andrew_pmk | Talk 19:47, 7 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 10:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Stalinists

The list as written currently violates WP:V and WP:CITE, and it is also an inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Who described these individuals as Stalinists? In some cases, they may have self-described, but many of them did not. Is everyone who was taken in by Stalinist propaganda in the 1930s and 1940s to be listed here? Do we really need a list that includes Charles Chaplin, Joseph Stalin, George Bernard Shaw, Pablo Picasso, and Kim Jong-il? What purpose does this serve? Crotalus horridus (TALK � CONTRIBS) 04:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • After considering the rewrite by Gazpacho, my vote is still delete. It's become clear that tightening the criteria to avoid POV issues leaves mainly people who should be listed in the Stalinism article rather than a seperate list, and just a handful of others. It's just not worth having this list. Reyk 06:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This could also be doable, but I have a feeling confirmed Stalinists would still be too long of a list to merge.--T. Anthony 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I strongly agree with T. Anthony and DTC here. -- JJay 03:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into Stalinism] DTC makes a good point, but the problem is the way in which Stalinist as a label is itself a shifting, uncertain, and historically determinative one. For example, it is used disparagingly post-56 (Khrushchev Secret Speech) to justify purges (Beria was a Stalinist); for collective identification (47-53) in Eastern Europe as part of the Soviet bloc integration, as well as later on a contradistinction to Titoism; as a label for different splits within different communist movements as well as their leaders, each with their own post-56, pre-56, as well as *sigh* post-37, pre-37 significations (esp. France); as a badge of identity in the Spanish Civil War, both as a ready-made identity against anarchism and anarcho-socialism, as well as Trostkyism; as a label of attack both in 1956 and 1968 (Prague), and again in 1991 following the coup-attempt in Russia; and most recently in the last Russian elections, and I am sure I am missing a bunch of additional significances. So what, I ask, is a Stalinist? And who gets to decide which of these many options counts and which do not? Eusebeus 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per excellent nomination. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Revolución. If the list is confined to self-identified Stalinists, it's short enough to be merged into Stalinism. The only way it becomes too long is if it's a grab-bag collection of everyone who's been accused of being a Stalinist at some point, which would be a useless list. JamesMLane 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either delete or redefine with clear criteria. Right now, the list excludes Lavrenty Beria, but includes H. Bruce Franklin. The former was Stalin's henchman; the latter has a complicated set of views about Stalin (he was my professor in college, I've heard him talk on great length on the topic) but does not call himself a Stalinist. He's of the "Stalin was a historical neccesity" school, but that doesn't mean he embraces him. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. If any form of this list subsist, watch and make sure that it does not end up being the personal blog of a handful for pushing tendentious points. Rama 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DTC and the fact that it has already been cleaned up since nominated: Charlie Chaplin, George Bernard Shaw, and Pablo Picasso are no longer on the list. Turnstep 12:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Lists of people by ideology are inherently useful and in most cases the people on this list have something in their bios which identifies them as a sympathiser with the USSR under the control of Stalin. Perhaps the introduction should be tweaked so as to make it sound less like a pejorative list. David | Talk 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep'. The article does serve a historical purpose. There are a number of such subjective lists in Wikipedia (eg: List of neo-cons). --DuKot 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As DTC says, we have other unverifiable uncited POV lists, that doesn't mean we should keep this one. By personalising it as Stalinists rather than, say, Communists or Marxixts, this is simply an attack page. Also, it contains no actual ancyclopaedic content: there is no context regarding why each of the listed has been called a Stalinist, or indeed by whom (self-identification is not, after all a terribly reliable guide here), or how often, or in what media. Most of all, when the sixty contentious entries were removed, what was left was 17 more-or-less statist political leaders and a couple of hangers-on, one of whom repudiated the claim in later life. It's ridiculous! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list should be a bit longer now. I think most of the names still essentially fit as self-described. Granted I'm not so sure about that modern Russian, but most of the rest were people who worked closely with Stalin and or said they patterned themselves after him.--T. Anthony 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although the names may fit the description (sort a) the list brings almost no useful information to a reader. Making a "list" by putting a label to forehead of few people is not encyclopedical activity. This kind of "contributions" is what makes WP look like garbage bin. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'd think things like List of Japanese bondage models or the numerous ways to analyze Sci-Fi shows is more what makes the place look a bit trashy. Stalinists are in least an important part of history and length limits don't allow for all these lists to be linked to their articles the way lists would be in encyclopedias.--T. Anthony 04:31, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friends Camp

nn religous camp, granted first google hit is it, but most google hits seem to be other "Friends Camp"s Pboyd04 05:08, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game support

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Woggle'd

To which we should add: Wikipedia is not for things you make up in online games, either. Daniel Case 06:21, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

West Georgia Liberation Front

Even if there were more than 87 Google hits, I still wouldn't consider a college debate team notable in and of itself. Daniel Case 05:47, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 10:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S-50

Unverifiable. Its source website doesn't refer to the subject. Although it has millions of Googles, the Google system is designed to match the exact text the best it can, but the first few results are completely unrelated. Down the list at #32, there is actually an exact match, but it is some music album. King of Hearts | (talk) 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When Googling a generic term like that, add more words from context. For example, try '"s-50" u235 u238 liquid diffusion' or '"s-50" u235 u238 oak ridge'. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:58Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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] 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Writers

Apparently non-notable magazine. I can't find it via Google - unverifiable. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:50Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse caused house fire (2006)

Wikinews has related news:

Wikipedia is not Wikinews. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:51, 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 speedy delete - total absence of context. -- RHaworth 09:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More student life...

I have no idea what this is supposed to be about, much less why it's notable enough for Wikipedia. But I do know that you're not going to establish this with errant screenshots for which the uploader provides no source info. Daniel Case 06:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy --Heah talk 06:20, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 10:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Baillie

Delete. Not a notable enough person to warrant a page, i d say. Mayumashu 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepYou make a fair point re whether the article, as I initially drafted it, portrayed an individual notable enough to warrant a page. I have added further information which, I submit, establishes Baillie as a noteworthy Nova Scotian, one from whom we will hear more in the future. Please reconsider the proposed deletion of this article; I respectfully request that it be allowed to remain. JohnMacDonell 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
if this individual becomes the person you feel he will, write the page up then. this does look like an attempt to promote this person to benefit his political ambitions (John MacDonell is the name of the president of the political party mentioned on the Jamie Baillie page) Mayumashu 05:47, 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 keep. Jaranda wat's sup 21:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Dyer

notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination Segv11 (talk/contribs) 23:18, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron guild

971 Google hits]. Copied from user page. Doesn't seem like much more than organizational vanity to me. Daniel Case 06:33, 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; merge and redirect all. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Campus environment of Southern Taiwan University of Technology, Southern Taiwan University of Technology Department of Multimedia and Entertainment Science, Southern Taiwan University of Technology Department of Visual Communication, Southern Taiwan University Of Technology College of Digital Design, Southern Taiwan University Of Technology Department of Information and Communication

A single user is attempting to create or duplicate a university webpage on wikipedia. As Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider, this page has no business being in Wikipedia. The small amount of actual content here is barely worth including in a consolidated STUT article. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:12, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruci-fetus

Page about a band that does not obviously assert its notability as required by WP:MUSIC. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:02, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of power

No obvious content. Might be a candidate for a redirect to Independence of India, though I'm dubious even of that much. Regards, Ben Aveling 08:11, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HADRA

This article about a musical group, band, singer, musician, album, or song does not make it clear whether the subject meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance. The article is even flagged with the {{music-importance}} a template which creates:

This article about a musical group, band, singer, musician, album, or song does not make it clear whether the subject meets the WikiProject Music criteria for importance. For guidelines see the WikiProject Music Notability and Music guidelines.
If you have the relevant information, please expand the article to include it, or cite sources on the article's talk page.

 ALKIVAR™ 09:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for more input. Johnleemk | Talk 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Hadra trance gets 20k hits, though Im not sure how many of those relate to this particular festival, it is a reasonable article. It also seems to have been held in different countries, that is France and Morocco -- Astrokey44|talk 14:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    yes but only 52 seperate sites link to their website www.hadra.net according to google, as a comparison the first site that comes up on google for "goa trance party" (goatrance.de) gets about 1,230 linking to it. Its virtually insignificant in comparison. Alexa gives it a Traffic Rank of 966,839. This definately falls below the notability radar.  ALKIVAR™ 15:45, 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kennel Club Books

Weak Delete - This one is borderline - without serious changes, this more like spam than it does an article about a company. Trysha (talk) 08:40, 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 nomination withdrawn. --Cyde Weys votetalk 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cake mix

Nominated for merging. Nobody wanted to merge it, someone transwikied it to the Wiktionary, so it's time to throw out the expired cake mix...er...article. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 09:08, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Anthony Ayers

Schizophrenic homeless man who dropped out of Juilliard some 30 years ago. A touching human interest piece in the Los Angeles Times fails to satisfy WP:Music. He played with no notable musicians and apparently made no recordings. Durova 09:32, 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 speedy delete. —Cleared as filed. 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio barajas

Most likely a user page mistakenly created as an article. A Google search comes up with foreign-language pages that may but probably do not refer to him, either way non-notable. How many notable 17-year-olds are there? -- simpatico (talk) 10:33, 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morag Tong

A fictional secret society in a single XBox game. Well written but not very encyclopedic. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mages Guild. I vote delete. — JIP | Talk 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete content better off on dedicated fansites. Though I am myself a fan of the Elder Scrolls games & universe Wikipedia is not the place for this. The external link to til.gamingsource.net at Elder Scrolls do nicely. Please note, this is not only limited to an Xbox game, is from the ES universe. Scoo 11:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, based partially on the precedent set by allowing a number of other articles relating to the same game series (see Morrowind). Fiction does not preclude an article's worthiness on Wikipedia, and the Elder Scrolls universe had a surprising depth to it, comparable to what one could find in a popular movie, television, or written fictional series. There are a number of articles on obscure parts of the Star Wars and Lord of the Rings universes, after all. Deadsalmon 12:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone more knowledgeable than myself find if there's a ES Wiki for the article to be moved to in case of deletion? My limited knowledge of how the wikis work prevents me from figuring it out at the moment. Deadsalmon 12:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is an Elder Scrolls wiki located at UESP, but they've been having DNS problems according to their cached google page. JaKaL! 18:52, 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 DELETE. Mo0[talk] 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Davis

totally non-notable; failed City Council candidate Lincolnite 11:17, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Margolis

Delete, non-notable person. Google searches [18] [19] seem to support this. Dlinga 11:38, 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 no consensus to delete, but feel free to boldly merge. —Cleared as filed. 13:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's urban legends

Delete. Wikipedia is not Snopes, and the information is not of any substantial value. Any relevant information from this article that should be saved can easily be merged into the main McDonald's article. Deadsalmon 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Mostly not-verifiable. External links are not directly related to content of article. Merge any verifable content into McDonald's and Urban Legend. Crunch 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does have references and tries to give both points of view. I got rid of that 'debunking fact' rubbish -- Astrokey44|talk 15:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - fairly well-written and referenced. Essexmutant 16:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references consist of several articles which mention the pig fat thing, McDonald's own pages which verify the one about how many countries McD's operates in (though not that there is a notable urban legend relating to it), and Rotten.com, which is so far from being a reliable source it's not funny. The McLibel case is covered elsewhere and I don't think pig fat and the countries thing merit an article of their own. The others are all introduced with something along the lines of "There is a rumour", which is a meaningless weasel term. --Malthusian (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge verifiable material back into McDonald's. Daniel Case 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what's useful into the main entry, delete the rest. 19:12 UTC 10 January 2006
  • Salvage the suitable stuff, merge with McDonalds, and Delete this informative but largely pointless piece. doktorb | words 19:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The verifiability policy puts the burden of proof on the contributor to cite sources. This article is so well-written I thought it might be a copyvio, but some key phrases don't Google as exact phrases. If everything in it were sourced, I'd vote "keep" on the grounds that I find it interesting and it's long enough to stand on its own as a separate article. Unfortunately, at present almost nothing in it is properly sourced or verifiable, so I see almost nothing in it to "salvage." Too bad, as the incidents in it ring true, are probably accurate, and would be worth keeping if sourced. Will change my vote if the article is greatly improved before expiration of AfD. I believe I'll go tag the unsourced statements. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. JohnLeemk asked me to take another look. I think it's adequately sourced now; topic is borderline but article is now reasonably encyclopedic; and this would make a disproportionately large section if merged into McDonald's. 13:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • you shouldn't delete this article because the information it provides as it is titled, are legends, meaning that they have a tendency to lack of vericity, therefore these information is only usefull for amusing and as a reference to the history of this huge company called Mcdonald's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.139.145.161 (talk • contribs)
    • You've pretty much summed up the reason to delete. This is an encyclopaedia; we can only include stuff that is verified. We can talk about rumours and urban legends, but only if it's verified that anyone actually talks about them; of all those here, only two 'rumours' are verified as existing (pig fat and McLibel). --Malthusian (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Crunch and Deadsalmon MiracleMat 17:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • McDelete. Sorry, couldn't help myself. Jtmichcock 04:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever bits have cites and delete the rest. Kafziel 16:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article. Add a section to McDonald's article with the verifiable bits. RicDod 14:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A few minutes on Google, and I've gotten reputable sources for all but a couple of the rumours. This appears to be a worthy topic, and certainly more notable than Chicken McNuggets, IMO. I'm in the process of adding these sources to the article; here is a sample of them. [20][21][22] Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, I have added another rumour to the article, also citing a reputable source. I firmly believe it would be impractical to merge this into the main McDonald's article because of its size. Johnleemk | Talk 13:07, 16 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] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stranlone Young Men

Non notable football team in a very low division of a minor league in a small country Kiand 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete, this somehow returns 0 hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does lack of fame make a vanity article?

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia. Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. (OFFICAL WIKIPEDIA EXPLANATION)

There you have it! It is not vanity - just lack of fame!!!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fullmoonchild

This band was marked for speedy deletion as a non-notable band, but the article's author makes an assertion of notability on the talk page (and there are a few assertions of possible notability in the article text), so I have moved it here to AFD. —Cleared as filed. 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I did some research on this last night, and they seem notable enough so that speedy delete is perhaps too harsh. However, IconDevelopment (the label they recently signed with) doesn't seem to be important enough to count as WP:MUSIC criteria, and they don't really meet any of the other requirements, unless they're popular enough to merit enough demand for an article. Snurks T C 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'Icon Development' is starting up as a label/distributor/promoting agency, and does not have many noticeable bands in their "portfolio". That doesn't change the fact that the band is known in the "underground" Metal scene, and all over the world, especially in Europe.

We're striving to get more "successful" and I think our hard work will compensate in a few years. We hope that our new EP will help on making us more "notable". And again, if u compare FMC to Hand Fated (in their "website" no news since 2000), why r they more noticeable? Why does HF have a Wiki and FMC doesn't? It seems to me that it's not fair...And btw, Moonspell is great, I love them, but not the only Heavy Metal band in Portugal...

Tnx to Snurks for the support also. Cheers!

--ThunderDrum 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Ok, I agree we aren't that notable, but can someone explain to me where's the notability in the band Hand Fated? And they r at Wiki since April 2005...

So why their article is not purposed for delete also? I just wanna a fair chance and equal rights, if someone could explain why HF is more notable than FMC I would appreciate and repent (lol)... I've done my best to assert our notability, I realize it's not enough...I understand what u do here in Wiki, I honestly do understand that we r not notable enough to be in a Enciclopedia, but I found other band even less notable (IMO) than us...and seems no one cares about their "notability", and even I that live near the place were they (suposedly) play, never heard of them before...and I get around in music since 1993/4 I've seen also some 'stubs' and vanity articles and I've tried not to do one... Cheers! --ThunderDrum 10:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. According to the article the band is notable enough. Unfortunately, article seems to have been created and maintained by a member of the band, so it's nothing but a serious NPOV violation. ThunderDrum, think of it this way: your band is notable enough when someone else writes the article. Writing one yourself is the worst you can do. (By the way, next time you see less-notable bands, nominate them for deletion. Just because an article exists, doesn't mean it's worth it.) -- Parasti 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Parasti u r absolutely correct, I understand your POV...

I'll wait until someone writes it again...Cheers! --ThunderDrum 19:12, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Brown Party of Canada

I don't think there actually is such registered political party in Canada. The weblink just points to a fairly insignificant webforum or blog. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, clearly it's not a real party but rather more of an art project. I believe this is quite apparent from the statement made in the article: "The Brown Party of Canada is not a registered fringe party. Voting for The Brown Party of Canada will spoil your ballot."

It does, at the very least, exist semiotically. That must count for something, no?

I should add, that if you want to get rid of this entry you'll be required to apply the same logic to the article for the Canadian Extreme Wrestling Party, which does have an entry. In fact, there's an entry called "List of frivolous political parties," some of which are officially registered, and some of which are not (such as the aforementioned, now defunct, Wrestling Party).

Virtualian


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 talk 22:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interflop

It seems to be a non-notable website, negligible google hits for interflop.com. --Mysidia (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sequentialism

Google turns up nothing on this Lindström chap. Therefore, no historical interest and non-notable. Daniel Case 06:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 15:34, 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; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch mustain

High school football player. A good number of Google hits, but is a high school football player that has not committed to a college notable? I wasn't sure, so I'm AfDing this instead of putting a speedy tag on it. TomTheHand 15:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment not really my thing, but the article could do with some sources at the very least. At the moment it is just a series of unbacked assertions. Sliggy 16:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) No vote, don't know enough about the topic to judge either way now. Sliggy 00:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless proof of the claims can be provided for verification - #1 high school quarterback? - this article should be deleted as it is of dubious research value. -- (aeropagitica) UK 17:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he is the number one quarterback in the country according to Parade magazine, but until he has won a Heisman or been drafted by the pros, fails to establish notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search confirms he is Parade's player of the year. 26,800 Google hits. This article on ESPN.com demonstrates that he is no ordinary high-school quarterback. I'll try to improve the article. -- Mwalcoff 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the moment, per Mwalcoff. Stifle 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Mwalcoof, notable high school football player, Parade player of the year, number one quarterback in the countrym but if he gets injured playing college football or becomes a bust and never makes the pros which I doubt, it could always be nominated again for deletion --Jaranda wat's sup 04:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I've no doubt this guy will be a good college quarterback, especially given Parade's record, but we really ought to wait until he does something. --WinOne4TheGipper 04:15, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symington

Seems to be non-notable (as also raised in the Discussion page, Google has little to say on the subject. Probably just a prank against a guy called Symington. Nach0king 15:42, 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 transwikied; delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati media

This looks like it belongs in the yellow pages. Perhaps a rewrite is more appropriate than deletion though Hirudo 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowikis welcomes Cincinnati media.--Yellowikis Admin 17:06, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Z :New Generation

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article itself is poorly written, incorrectly titled (colon in the wrong spot) and POV, which obviously does not a candidate for deletion make. However, it looks like the article was copied verbatim from the forum rules, forum itself has about 120 members, a search for "dragonball z new generation" gives 9 unique hits, mostly from DBZ directories, and I see no claims of media coverage or awards received. Confusing Manifestation 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep eventually, but need heavy cleanup and style edits. --circuitloss 17:20, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at MDGs through the Lens of Indian Caste System

This should be deleted as an essay, hopelessly riddled with POV. --maru (talk) Contribs 00:04, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Mahapatra

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated for these reasons - 1. The subject is not notable. Presidency of a student club, young employee of a bank seems to be his only claims to fame. 2. The article appears to have been created to allow (or at least has served the purpose of) the publication of potentially libellous claims about subject, perhaps by a rival at work (the person who attempted to introduce said claims was called "Morganstanman" and he claims to work at same place as subject. 3. Much of information (which I deleted) which made up the article consisted of total speculation about the subject's future role in British politics despite no indication that he is currently or has ever been involved in politics other than as President of a student debating society.

--82.35.78.232 17:00, 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 keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Crowley

Not notable. r3m0t talk 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I can't see how this is notable. (Disclaimer: since this is my namesake I may be biased.) — ciphergoth 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, ciphergoth is named "Paul Crowley", and this article is not about him. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 16:09
  • Keep. Notability is not a delete criterion, and you have not provided any other criteria for deletion. The content is completely verifiable. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 16:07
    • Notability is speedy delete criterion A7 - see WP:CSD. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. — ciphergoth 16:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did you even read the vanity page you cited: "people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society." — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 17:10
      • As for the CSD you cite, that is a confusion of the criterion: it is referring to articles that simply talk about a person in a non-important way, such as "Bob Jones was born in 1990. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California, and attends the local high school." Now if it said, "Bob Jones was the boy stuck in a well for 6 weeks in 2001. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California", then the article asserts importance. As for vanity, that refers to articles that are written in a highly positive tone, such as if the article was written by its own subject. Vanity is pretty easy to spot, and this article is definitely not vanity. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-3 17:12
        • The irony is that this article was originally about a different Paul Crowley, the one who writes about Shakespeare. When I challeneged that person's notability, someone Googled for "Paul Crowley" and added information about this other Paul Crowley. When I pointed out the confusion, information about the first one was deleted, leaving only the information about the second. You may draw your own conclusions about what this says about the notability of either party. — ciphergoth 08:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • The Shakespearean one may deserve an article as well. I don't know enough about him to write a decent-sized article, but I knew enough about the professor to write the current article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-6 22:38


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pi hat

Orphaned article only linked from categories it placed itself in. Not convinced its a widely used mathematical concept. --Pfafrich 12:56, 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 (but can be recreated if a substantially differnet and improved version appears). -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steam Forums

Non-notable forum and target of multiple vandals. Original article had little content. --NaconKantari 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There seems to be nothing here particularly useful. Delete, and if a new rticle with worthwile content takes it's place, great. If it's deleted and not brought back... so be it. There wasn't much of an article in the first place Edward nz 04:17, 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 13:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Television's Greatest Commercials

(UTC)

  • Keep:stub says it's a TV show on an Australian network, seems notable enough. Smerdis of Tlön 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could not find any confirmation for "Television's Greatest Commercials" "tim ferguson" [23]. A program by that name existed, but was not produced in Australia [24]. I vote delete unless either: 1. the article is made about the NBC show, or 2. a proof of existence for this particular TV show is provided. - Liberatore(T) 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but expand to include more about both the Australian and American shows. 23skidoo 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Response to Smerdis of Tlön it is not notable as an Australian Show is was cancelled long ago didn't last long and obviously not a valuable page. I mean the article about commandN which is extremely popular with the tech community was deleted for nothing and this obviously a deserving deletion article. If it isn't deleted and commandN keeps deleted wikipedia and its editors have lost alot of my respect. Mike 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly POV. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it's a notable show. The show may be POV but the article really isn't. Crunch 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Show existed theres no doubt of that, Australians know that however its not notable enough to be a wikipedia article really has no interest maybe on a list of Australian shows but not its own article especially seeing as how short it is. There could be a article written about the American version with a short part about the Australian version however the Australian version alone does not qualify for its own article. Mike 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the show actually existed, and was broadcast on a major Australian TV network, it seems hard to imagine that it was not notable enough to warrant an article, even if it did not last long. Minor Australian TV shows are not less notable than minor US ones, and we have articles on minor US shows like Battle of the Network Stars; see also WP:BIAS. I'm in no position to confirm that the show actually aired, other than the fact that it appeared to be confirmed by the Tim Ferguson article. Smerdis of Tlön 12:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Unless you know anything about this show and/or live in Australia now or during that perioud I dont think your fit to comment on "whether it existed" it did exist however is not notable as most people (australians) dont know about the show as it was on for such a short period a while ago. Mike 03:04, 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 redirt to San Antonio, Texas. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Districts and communities of San Antonio, Texas

History first. This article began as a section in the San Antonio (SA) article. At one point a large amount of information was added to the section, greatly increasing it's size. The section was then broken out into it's own article to bring the size of the SA article back under control. Then, it was discovered that all the extra text was a copyright vio, and the text was removed, bringing the article's size way back down. The remaining small amount of text was then copied back into the main SA article, where it now exists.

End result, the reason this article was created no longer applies, and the contents of the article are duplicated in the main SA article.

So I see no real reason for this separate article to remain at this time, though I could see it's recreation at a future date if the section in the main article were to grow again. TexasAndroid 16:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really all that much history on the sub-article to save. And it would not be a particularly useful redirect, IMHO. So while I would not oppose this as an alternative, I really don't see it as the best option. TexasAndroid 19:27, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ali Naqvi

Not verifiable as to notability (no sources). Possible auto-biography. Jcbarr 16:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As an example, I have tried a Google search for this persons' name + "The Role of the Ombudsman and the concept of Administrative Justice"; this search returns only the author's page in geocities (other than the wikipedia article) [25] and only got the wikipedia page and the author's page. If this were an "eminent historian" he would have at least be cited somewhere. Anyway, WP:V is clear: "Any edit lacking a source may be removed" (in this case, the whole article lacks sources); the new proposal says "The obligation to provide a reputable source is on editors wishing to include information, not on those seeking to remove it." - Liberatore(T) 17:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Stifle 22:18, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-army army

This seems to be a vanity page. -- MatthewDBA 16:02, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invader Tim

No real context for this page, and I get zero Googles for "Invader Tim"+Manhasset. Probably not quite patent nonsense, so I figured I'd list it for AFD instead of going for the speedy. As such, Delete. -Colin Kimbrell 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for the record, the content on the discussion page preceded the AFD nomination. As such, it might imply bad faith in the article's creation. -Colin Kimbrell 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I'd like to defend this page. It is indeed a real person. You might find it to be nonsense, but in Manhasset High School, barely anyone can be asked "Who is Invader Tim" and have no response. The Invasion is widely known by the people, and it should be considered a part of the culture. People know it, people participate, and all events recorded in the entry are true. This page should NOT be deleted. Sp33df0rc3 21:35, 10 January 2006
Published dodumentation would be nice if this were so, but I do not suspect it will be forthcoming. Vonspringer


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 23:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ditherals

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Bearcat. Stifle 11:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now undeleted and reopened, per WP:DRV, as the speedy was deemed improper. As this discussion was never allowed to run its course, I decided to repost rather than renominate. Votes below are still valid. -R. fiend 19:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DRV discussion --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 200 google hits, and 6 unique hits outside of blogs, therefore not common usage MNewnham 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Proto t c 17:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Related to this [[27]]
  • I am shocked that you want to delete this page. Ditherals is not widely used by the mainstream media, but is much more commonly used in regular speach and very common in political blogs especially in this election season. If someone is reading a blog, and comes accross Ditherals, they should be able to go to Wikipedia to look it up. Why delete it? I strongly object to the deletion request. There is no "common usage" criteria in Wikipedia's deletion protocol.
    • There most certainly is a "common usage" criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol; to merit an article, things on here have to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic, and (d) neutral and unbiased. This is none of the above. Consider it speedied. And before you make the accusation I know you're just itching to make, I am not a Liberal Party of Canada member, supporter or voter. Bearcat 05:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I protest and repeat that there is no common usage criterion in Wikipedia's deletion protocol. A word does not have to be in common usage to be (a) verifiable, (b) notable, (c) encyclopedic. There hare thousands of Wikipedia entries in uncommon usage that are all verifiable, notable and encyclopedic. The definition was not written in a baised manner. You have deleted the page without 'Wikipedia community consensus' and in violation of Wikipedia's deletion protocol which requires community consensus. Please revive the page to aviod going throught the deletion review process. Readers of Canadian Poltics blogs are coming accross the word Ditherals every day. Lastly, you accuse me of "itching to make the accusation that you are a member of the Liberal Party of Canada" without justification and I request that you retract that statement. -Palmerston — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palmerston (talk • contribs) 11:43, 11 January 2006


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. I'll list it on cleanup.. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modification of Political Parties Under the Restoration

This page feels like utter nonsense. If it can be cleaned up, great, but there's inconsistencies (House of Commons AND French references AND US political parties) and no sources, no hard references, not linked, etc Jcbarr 16:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I buy that. Too many links to French folks. And references to 1800s, not 17th century. If we can't figure out what the page is even about, don't see how anyone can fix it. -Jcbarr 04:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not about the restoration of the Stuarts in Britain in the 17th century, but rather France in the 19th century. But it's incoherent, and does not provide a basis for revision or expansion. A good article on French politics after the Bourbon restoration would not have this name, anyway. MayerG 08:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. rather then specutlate about what the article means, why don't you ask the user who wrote it? invite that person into this discussion. Kingturtle 19:34, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Larruperz

This article has been around since 2003, but I don't think it's worth keeping. Doesn't provide any detail about how these friends improved their local community. Not sure how much of this is extracted from a copyrighted publication (see end of article) but I think keeping this article could also be dodgy in terms of copyright. CLW 16:54, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Variance

A non-notable blog by five people, none of which are anywhere near notable enough to have their own wikipedia entry in the first place. Be careful trying to use google to justify this article, as 'cosmic variance' is a general term. Proto t c 16:58, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torque Riktor

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Sbz5809 as nn-bio, but A7 only applies to real people, not fictional characters. However, Sbz5809 does note in the edit history there are no Google hits for this superhero. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Grouchet


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auron tare

Borderline speedy as nn-bio, worthy yet non-notable head of national park and associated foundation. Assertion of war journalism unverified MNewnham 17:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, Google search [[29]] shows over a hundred unique hits, many not in English, citing this person as director or founder of the archeology center, or as director of the national park. Most appear to be archeology-related academic mentions or legitimate news, not just self-promotion or Wikipedia mirror sites. You'll get lower numbers if you search with Preferences set to English only. Barno 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the person is associated with a number of archaeology institutions as well as being a founder of Butrint National Park according to information in website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kalivo (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep; the current head of a park at any given time may not be notable, but Tare seems to have done much more. Although the article is largely unverified, it seems verifiable. I think this article could squeak by with a bit of trimming and an (unreferenced) tag. Melchoir 12:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

tare has worked in Kosova in 1998 and 1999 for ITN TV. He was working very closly with the well known british journalist Gabi Rado who was killed in Irak.

  • comment I notice that this page has been modified, and now contains even more unsubtantiated claims than before.
"auron tare" + ITN 0 google hits - I have also searched the ITN and BBC web sites and found no mention of his name.
"auron tare" + "gabi rado" 0 google hits
"auron tare" + hospital 0 google hits
this article implies he is not head of the Albanian National Trust, as claimed.
This article implies that the Archeological mission at Butrint is simply a branch office, and the Auron Tare is the head.
My nomination stands as is. MNewnham 23:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the albanian related sites. The information is correct. Also an article from Washington Post and Cnn Traveler give him the credit for establishing the National Park of Butrint

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sunjammer

Vanity - not factual - of no interest Optime 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on from discussion:
Any link from that list that might be seen as commercial, you're free to edit them out. A discography for an artist is not "of no interest". The blog one, sure, it's arguably personal, but i'd be surprised to see a blog link being deleted from Trent Reznor's page for instance. Bias.
When biographical information is central to the subject matter, i'd reckon it's relevant.
The page is not a personal tribute. I can do that on my own site thanks much, and i have. It is meant to be an explanation of sunjammer the musician. Bands *are represented on wikipedia*. Deal with it. For instance, system of a down or nine inch nails, both more elaborate than the Sunjammer entry by far. Why? Because you argue more have interest in them because it is a broader subject matter? Your argument falls flat. Bias.
"Empty of interest to anyone" is a pretty bold claim. Empty of interest to YOU perhaps, but considering the amount of shows Sunjammer has played, to fair critical acclaim (being compared with artists such as Venetian Snares for instance, who i might add also has a more detailed page).
Then, your first statement is riddled with bias. "Notable" wasn't even added by me, but by DragonFly in the first revision. Check the rev history before bringing up specifics. Stating i am not an artist is ignorance. I am a musician with a fair history of shows, releases and backing the scenes i've been a part of. I am as much an artist as the aforementioned Venetian Snares, and as such i am entitled to an entry for the project. Your personal bias belongs elsewhere.
I'll make another revision taking heed to the issues you have brought up, much like i'd appreciate it if you also did, rather than vandalize and delete the contents. If Sunjammer is of no interest, what of Knifehandchop? This entire argument smacks of personal bias.
Decept404 17:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if this was a completely awful thing to write. My first wiki post, grant me one mistake? I tried to keep the article as unbiased as possible. Not to sell, more to avoid being misrepresented (i know, possibly pretentious). Decept404 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please understand that creating a new article here is not comparable to a "post" elsewhere on the Internet. Even if this article is deleted, you shouldn't take it personally; deletions happen all the time, and we still welcome contributions on other topics.
    My main concern is whether even the remaining information here is verifiable, let alone meeting WP:MUSIC. Now that it's on AfD, we may as well wait for others to comment. Melchoir 18:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't take it personally if this didn't seem like an openly personal attack. If the reasons for deletion were clear, as opposed to what seems like reasons for revisions rather than all-out deletion, i'd welcome it. No worries. I'm already working on more articles of broader interest. Decept404 18:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, the nomination was definitely a personal attack, but it had some merit, however badly stated. Anyway, I was just bracing you in the event of a deletion, which now seems less likely. It's good to see that you're moving on. Melchoir 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article is unverifiable and subject "not notable" as in Wikipedia:Notability (music). Optime 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Optime's account seems to have been created for the sole purpose of destroying this article. Melchoir 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    True in as "move article to user space" Optime 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You're quite tenuous, considering you've left represented artists with NO releases at all out of the equation, this in addition to your personal insults leads me to believe you have an agenda. On the notability subject:
    "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." - Sunjammer is along with Petrochemical the *only* norwegian export of gabba and hardcore techno.
    "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network." - Playlists for NRK P3 can be found here: http://www2.nrk.no/spillelister/sending.aspx?prog=578&tid=2003-12-30%2022:05:00Z
    NRK being the national radio network provider for norway.
    "Is cited in notable and verifiable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre." - How this can be verifiable is beyond me, but have a chat with DJ Producer or Hellfish, or (i'm told) Aphex Twin. Sunjammer is deep underground. It's more about playing shows than releasing records and making money.
    "Has established a tradition or school in a particular genre." - Established is an open term. I know Sunjammer has inspired an interest in combining classical music with noise and industrial. This is about as verifiable as anything in such a limited scene.
    I'm not going to fight this anymore, there isn't much more i can say. "Verifiable" quickly becomes me dropping a bunch of links, which doesnt feel worth it because it really is a niche thing. I'm not going to bicker any more. If an admin feels this article is worth deleting in spite of all my argumentation, that's the end of that matter as far as i'm concerned. It does feel like this article has seen unjust attention from people with a personal grudge however (though i consider myself a pretty nice guy, what'd i do wrong hey?); There is far less "relevant" material on wiki at the moment, which leads me to believe verification of the importance of subject matter, in a lot of cases, is limited to a google search.
    Decept404 18:18, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sallyann Jones

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jdcooper as hoax, but hoaxes aren't speediable. However, a Google search for "sally-ann jones" australia singer revealed 5 hits, none of them useful. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMUNSS

Unverifiable [30] [31] article about a students' society founded in 2005. - Liberatore(T) 17:47, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratner's Hardware

Unverifiable [32] article about a shop. - Liberatore(T) 17:45, 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 speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Steaks

non-notable band: only one single released, few search hits. [33] Mikeblas 17:46, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable large people

A bunch of reasons: Seems slightly POV, a lot of this has got to be unverifiable, and despite the intro's suggestion that it's historical plenty of the people on it are presently alive. "Large" is also extremely vague in this context. Daniel Case 17:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's encylopedic, but there are several other such lists. (Big busted, for example.) -- Mikeblas 18:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Completely POV - Why Kirstie alley and not Oprah? and seems that famous people with temporary weight gain could get stuck on the list forever. MNewnham 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. It's a list that could be added to (for example, Oprah can be added, as can others). It seems like the people on it are people who are known especially for being heavy for a significant period of time, as opposed to people who are transitorily heavy, like Kate Winslet or Renee Zellweger. Much of other lists - like Feminists or a similar "Notable Obese People" - is POV as well. Raedyke 19:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently POV. No definition of "large." Both Jack Black and Whoopi Goldberg are on the list. I don't think they are "large." And Mao Tse-Tung? I've never heard of him described as "large"! Such a list lends itself to such arguments. It's an opinion list. Not encylopedic. What do you when someone loses weight? If the list were, for example, notable people who have weighed over 300 lbs., that's another thing, but even then there would have to be documentation of the weight and we would have to ascertain that the people are notable. Crunch 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It includes "above average" as a definition of large. -- Mikeblas 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How is "average" defined? It seems very nebulous. Crunch 20:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd expect that it means the CDC's tables, based on a target BMI. [34] Even that stipulated, I don't think a weak definition is a criteria for deletion. -- Mikeblas 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For the same reason it probably can't be an article. Can't define what large is, POV, no standards, etc. Crunch 23:38, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rangongo

Hoax. Searches for any of the principles in the article yield no hits (or, at best, no relevant hits.) Mikeblas 17:53, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dream_Harvest_College

Delete looks biased to the point of advertising

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obeng de Lawrence. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:23Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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] 01:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 Bands to See Before You Die

Just some magazine's 'best band' list. Not notable, even if the magazine is well known. DJ Clayworth 17:58, 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: Speedy deleted per user request, CSD G7 Dpbsmith (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secular Era

WP:NOR KHM03 18:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Differenciating politically opinionated peoples intruded on, perhaps inappropriately considering Western standards, the World Trade Center in New, Old, or Ancient (whatever opinion you may hold) York City, United States at 8:46PM EST, or any other time frame you prefer given you do not associate nor agree with the opinions of the Eastern Standard Time, on 11 September, 21 BSE."
Obviously, it's all humor. Please, folks, laugh a little. Cheers, Darwiner111 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
HAHA....now delete it.
(Unsigned remark above by Gator1. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Darwiner, "obvious humor" does not make an article a candidate for speedy deletion, so as things stand we need to keep the article up for a week and let this discussion to proceed to a conclusion. If you were to request that it be deleted I would stretch a point and delete it (CSD G7, though strictly speaking that's only for accidentally created articles). You can make the request here, or you can implicitly make the request by editing the article to remove everything AFTER the line that says "End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point" (you'll only see this line when you edit the page). If you think other people will enjoy the humor, you could copy it to your own user page (the one that says "Darwin rules") first. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Next time, try the Uncyclopedia [37] when attempting to be funny, rather than wasting others' time with vandalism reverts. Ohnoitsjamie 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok ok ok folks calm down, delete it already. I'm not a life-or-death Wikipedia defender like the rest of you, so just delete the damn thing and go on with your lives. Darwiner111 20:27, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CrazyOsaka

website, fails WP:WEB less than 200 google hits MNewnham 18:02, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obeng de Lawrence

Delete Vanity Page Jamorama

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dream Harvest College. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 03:24Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gonys in Wiktionary

Original article Gonys was marked to be moved to Wiktionary, page author apparently misunderstood, instead moving the article here. I've copied the text (and sourced it in a fashion) to Wiktionary. Confusing Manifestation 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serendipity County

Not actually a football club, even in a lowly league, but a Fantasy Football team. Not notable. DJ Clayworth 17:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been recreated. Propose to delete agin, and perhaps action to be taken against the creator, User:Roserex57. See also Serenity Park Grunners 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serenity Park

'Stadium' of a made up football team, the article for which is due to be deleted, see here. Delete. Grunners 18:22, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best Movies of all Times

This was speedy deleted, but did not qualify under any WP:CSD. However it is PoV and unsourced, adn clearly should be Deleteed. DES (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

then a redirect as per CanadianCaesar is a very good idea. Sliggy 00:45, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talkin' Sports

With fewer than 100 members, and no info available on their Alexa ranking, [38] this online forum does not seem notable.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 18:33, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hucking Filarious

Neologism, 1,160 Google hits. I don't think it's all that notable. Daniel Case 18:34, 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 and create redirect to Marvin Monroe. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mervin Monroe

Pure fantasy. In fact, a player for a Fantasy Football team. Not known to a large audience. Punkmorten 18:43, 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 speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 20:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Roberts

I speedied this as a nn musician, and see no reason why it should not be speedied, but the page author has removed the tag. Musician with myspace page signed to record label with 21 google hits —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MNewnham (talk • contribs) 18:53, 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] 01:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago card

Article should be merged with article on Chicago Transit Authority, in a fare subsection. How Chicago collects its fares is not worthy of its own seperate article. — WCityMike (T | C) 18:53, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caste feelings in andhra

Delete: POV rant, unsourced, no potential for expansion Lukas 18:58, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller (EastEnders

Delete I am nominating this page for deletion as there is already an article at Keith Miller (EastEnders). --Sweetie Petie 19:08, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The grand union

Blatant advertising MNewnham 19:15, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nermimus

Page about a non-existent animal MNewnham 19:24, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylanology

Tagged for speedy deletion with the reason Wikipedia is not a soap-box for personal philosophy. As this doesn't seem to fit the speedy criteria, I'm bringing it to AFD instead. Punkmorten 19:26, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.Amityconfidential.net

NN website. Article text indicates the site has a "whopping 3 members." Klaw ¡digame! 19:30, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crum, Crum Clan, David Crum Clan

Was tagged for speedy deletion as "spam," but it's really just a genealogy, explicitly violating WP:NOT. Also including two related articles. howcheng {chat} 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this may be insignificant, but it is quite common in western Pennsylvania, Ohio, and around Sacramento in California, anyhow, I don't think it will be missed by very many people --Donation1 19:36, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Good, the Bad, and the Wallaby / Trash-o-Madness

We do not need an article for every episode of every TV show ever screened. If is an important episode, one that has an impact in the world beyod just being shown on TV, then OK. But this is just a run-of-the-mill episode of a fairly unimportant series. Delete Reyk 19:41, 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 Speedily deleted by Jimfbleak as patent nonsense. Stifle 15:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interflop

tagged for speedy, then listed for Afd with a link to the previous AfD discussion (which is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interflop). Completign the nomination. Abstain. DES (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These comments were made on the original Interflop AfD. Since they were made before this article was created, I decided to move them above the other votes. --Deathphoenix 20:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Was deleted before and somehow was brought back, still not notable. Macks 13:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.68.76.7 (talk • contribs) .

Do not delete This was maintained for so long and was going very well. If other internet forums deserve a wiki entry, so does Interflop. Interflop had many google entries until it was temporarily shut down and brought back. On google, interflop at one point had well over 100,000 hits. It deserves an entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.20.190 (talk • contribs) .

End of move from the other 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therealretro

Business that sells t-shirts. Doesn't seem notable to me. TomTheHand 19:59, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The real retro

See Therealretro above. Essentially a duplicate. TomTheHand 20:04, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 13:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnfield_Terrace

Not notable in its own right, merge with football ground's article? Oscarthecat 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Lawn Ground. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 20:17, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relient K- Mmhmm

Not only does the "article" read like an advert, but there is also already a properly named and more informative page at Mmhmm.—thegreentrilby 20:05, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall of Death

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burundian Kowtowing Toady

Article describes a species invented for unpublished Harry Potter fanfiction. I feel bad nominating it since it looks like a lot of work was involved in its creation and it follows the formatting rules, but it fails WP:NOT, and as such doesn't belong here. For this reason, Delete both the article and its related image file (Kowtowingtoady.jpg) Colin Kimbrell 20:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I disagree with the deletion nomination, for obvious reasons; being the author of an article will do that. That aside, however, I'd say that it is a relevant article. I quote from what I presume is the relevant section: "Original inventions. If you invent the word frindle or a new type of dance move, it is not article material until a secondary source reports on it." The Toady emerged through hubbub on a high-traffic fanfic site, and has been published on said site in - to my knowledge - at least two independent fics by different authors, not counting my own ones. In my view, this should qualify as "secondary sources", and also rejects the "unpublished fiction" criticism. The verifiability requirement is also satisfied, as the comment threads in which the Toady is discussed are easily available on the SIYE website.
    I also refer you to the article on Thestrals, which is in itself an original invention, albeit by a published author. Its main use by secondary sources is, of course, in Harry Potter fanfics. The fact that there have been no moves to delete this article suggests to me that similar articles are equally permissible.
    Supporting evidence of fanfics and pure-fanon inventions being permitted include Draco Dormiens and The Tale Of Westala and Villtin.
    If the motion to delete is carried, I request a 48-hour delay (on grounds of imminent travel) to allow me to comment on any counter-arguments and save a backup of the article on my home computer.
    - Torak 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, you get five days to make counterarguments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:27Z
Comment:You could also keep a temporary copy on a subpage of your user page; it might be a good idea to do this, in case an admin decides to close the vote early. See Wikipedia:Subpages for details and instructions.-Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the idea.Torak 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Thanks for taking the time to come by and discuss this. I'm not sure that the precedents you cite are applicable in this case, in that they apply to specific works of fanfiction, rather than specific aspects of those individual works. It's also worth noting that The Very Secret Diaries (the redirect destination of Draco Dormiens) was nominated for AFD once (link) and closed with a 50/50 keep/delete split, and that many of the keep votes did so with the claim that it represented a "notable internet meme", a claim that probably would not apply to Burundian Kowtowing Toady. It is also unlikely that individual fanfiction stories would qualify as secondary sources, in that they are not themselves independent analyses of the Burundian Kowtowing Toady, or historical/media accounts of its creation. Rather, they are additional examples of primary sources.-Colin Kimbrell 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments on this; in what way is an article about a single fanfic more eligible than an article about a single fanfic construct being used by multiple authors in multiple fics?
Secondly, as far as the other fics go, it's a bit hazy whether they're primary or secondary sources; parts have fed into the construction of the Toady, parts have featured the Toady based on its appearance in the original discussion thread, and there have even been a few meta references directly referencing its creation. Not sure if that has any bearing on it, just thought I'd fling that out there.
Torak 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the Fancruft page: "Well-referenced and well-written articles on obscure topics are from time to time deleted as well, but such deletions are highly controversial. It is also worth noting that many articles on relatively obscure topics are featured articles. Generally speaking, the perception that an article is fancruft can be a contributing factor in its deletion, but it is rarely the sole factor." Article has already been acknowledged to be well-written (Colin Kimbrell, "This article is well-written and formatted..."), and at least two external references exist.
    Original research does not apply, as the article documents the creature's inception over some time, including use prior to my own in several fanfics.
    - Torak 08:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm starting to see a pattern emerge here... ;-)
    Ah well, if it's got to go, it's got to go. But if there's any way to retain it - in any form - then obviously I'd like to do so. JzG, see my first post for examples of fictional components of fictional universes that have unchallenged articles. Colin, what's this Transwiki thing you mention? And would the "derivative works" thing have a bearing on the AFD nom if I removed it?
    Torak 11:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes when we get an article that's of value but not really encyclopedic, we decide to move it to a different wiki project, either affiliated with us or completely independent but with a compatible license. Dictionary definitions go to Wiktionary, how-to articles go to Wikibooks, non-notable webcomics go to Comixpedia, etc. This process is called transwikiing, and I was asking whether anybody knows of a wikiproject for stock fiction resources, since your article might be a good fit for such a project, if there is one. "Derivative work" is a legal term, which basically just means a creative project that incorporates aspects of some other preceding project, like a hip-hop producer who uses samples in a song or a cartoonist who draws a picture of the Mona Lisa sticking her tongue out. A Harry Potter fanfiction is a derivative work, since it uses characters and settings devised by J.K. Rowling. I mentioned it here because a sentence in your article released the Toady for use in derivative works, and I thought that might bolster a claim for a transwiki to the hypothetical source I described earlier. It's not likely to help or hurt your case for Wikipedia. -Colin Kimbrell 14:33, 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 speedy redirect/withdrawn by nom. Brighterorange 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Of Death

Non-sourced, probably non-notable way of hurting oneself. TomTheHand 20:20, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not So Random

Non notable site that in no way meets WP:WEB; Google brings up no related hits with with a query of "Not So Random" entertainment, and Alexa has never heard of it. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk contribs 20:51, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Laveesh Network

Advertisment for a web domain. Coolgamer 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per Coolgamer. Deadsalmon 21:28, 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 redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of German dreadnought battleships

Information already fully contained within List of battleships of Germany. Joshbaumgartner 21:15, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amazoness Series, Ancient Gear series, Archfiend series, Black Dragon Series, Gravekeepers Series, Rocket Warrior, Saggi the Dark Clown, Thousand-Eyes Idol

Not notable cards, very possible copyvio. Precedent is already established by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! card lists and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yu-Gi-Oh! single card articles. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:07, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GeoLogX

NN software, the place for this is Sourceforge MNewnham 21:11, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sutter

Was nominated for speedy as hoax, but I'm bringing it to AFD instead as it was nominated earlier and kept. I copy the following from the article talk page: No one seems to have noticed last year, but no one of this name ever played major league baseball (Bruce Sutter is the only Sutter to have done so). Also, Bruce Sutter had no relatives who ever played professional sports; The Sporting News Baseball Register routinely lists any relatives in pro sports for all major leaguers, and the 1988 Register (the last one in which Bruce appeared) listed none for him. This is apparently an old, undetected prank page. MisfitToys 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the four votes to keep last year were all on the basis of this person having played in the majors (which isn't the case); the first person to notice that this isn't a real person was apparently an anon user just one week ago. MisfitToys 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain for now. Punkmorten 21:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Sutter is a professional golfer. Delete the content of this page and recreate about the golfer. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)Hmm, having looked up his record, he seems to have only played in one PGA tournament, and missed the cut. Delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:49, 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 speedy delete - copyvio. -- RHaworth 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Cascade

This article is a copy of the text from the accompanying website and amounts to little more than advertising for the campground. Delete. Atrian 21:14, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stacks Poker

Delete. Spamvert/non-notable/crystal ball. Take your pick. BD2412 T 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan Visual arts

Was tagged for speedy deletion for no context, but I don't think that qualifies. Not sure how to act on this one, as it certainly fails WP:WEB, but considering it's an online gallery of Sudanese art, I wouldn't expect it to meet the guidelines. Keeping it would help combat systemic bias but at the same time there are no reliable sources. howcheng {chat} 21:24, 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. Mo0[talk] 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alliance collection service

Advertisement for NN debt collection corp that doesn't use baseball bats in debt recovery operations MNewnham 21:24, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lloyd 30s

Delete. Article is of questionable historical and cultural impact outside of Haverford. Doesn't look like much more than a vanity article. Deadsalmon 21:25, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary of the Environment

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jombo with the reason "Book not very notable," which is not a speedy criterion. Bringing it to AfD instead. howcheng {chat} 21:29, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Bielss

  • do NOT Delete

This article is about a valid game developer. if you look on google you will find many articles on this person (over 14 pages of interviews news articles and comments to be exact). All the people posting complaints here is from a coder forum and has a personal problem with clyde. Personal issue should not be taken into account when deleting a post.

The game Control Monger was in many video game magizines (at lest 6 in 4 different countries) and on many game news sites and his game FreeWorld is in the news of many MMORPG websites on a monthly bases. I think if you look into this you will find that Clyde is a notable game designer.

here is the link to prove it is a group of people trying to get this removed for no reason http://www.codersworkshop.com/viewpost.php?id=50219

Doesn't warrant a page on Wikipedia, written by subject. WP:VAIN Flying cucco 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Not delete - If you do, why not remove other articles such as John_Romero, Peter_Molyneux or John_Carmack? The artical is valid and original, this is yet another attempt by a small number of people to vandalise this article. - Contact: wikipedia(at)tmrd.net[reply]


this was written by clyde "draconus" bielss himself in a cheap attempt at self-promotion. he didn't even bother to use a different username to hide the fact the he wrote the article. 88.104.180.110 22:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to the OPs --82.116.85.47 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Is and has always been a "spammer" and is only here to promote his products -sorry drac, but it's true, also highly unnotable other than the blemishes that he's created across the web erbbysam 23:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Do not delete - I am surprised that people want to delete this article about Clyde Bielss. I have known Clyde for two years, when I was working as senior editor at Warcry.com. He was at the time involved in his FreeWorld project which had an open beta while they were testing. I was one of the beta testers, and considered FW an enjoyable game and good entertainment for many people. He is currently redoing and upgrading FreeWorld for better graphics and enjoyment of the game. I also know that Clyde has also helped other people in the industry get a start, since he asked me to write articles for these folks and their games in Warcry. I am logged in but not sure how to make my name appear. Anyhow, I am... Raya, News Manager, Vanguard Ten Ton Hammer.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RayaTTH (talk • contribs) . It is that user's first 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 Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting On Dwarfs

Reason Doesn't meet WP:Music. A google search only yeilds 29 results - mostly local. Esprit15d 21:32, 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 speedy delete - author request. -- RHaworth 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wulph

Non-notable game character. Delete Atrian 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how does wikipedia work? I thought this was about sharing and expanding knowledge. I didnt even get a chance to post the facts of Wulph and you are ready to delete it. Expanding the minds of our world community is my goal, please I ask you to allow me to complete this mission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khainne (talk • contribs)

  • This is an encyclopaedia, so we only share and expand knowledge that we know is actually true. Part of this is that we have standards for what we include in order to preserve verifiability and for other reasons. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not. If 'Wulph' is a widely used term on the order of Leeroy Jenkins, the article might be worth keeping or mentioning elsewhere, but you need to provide sources that prove it is. --Malthusian (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost considered placing a speedy tag on the basis that the CSD regarding non-notable bios should also apply to non-notable role-playing characters. But I suppose being the basis for 'to Wulph' is a claim of notability, if anyone actually ever says 'to Wulph', which I doubt but can't say for sure as I don't play WoW. --Malthusian (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment For the benefit of Khainne more than anyone else, so he knows where we're coming from, googling for 'wulph "world of warcraft"' turns up no hits that supports the article. "Wulphism" "I wulphed" "You wulphed" and "He wulphed" all turn up no hits at all. We can't spread knowledge if we don't know that it's true :-) --Malthusian (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, please remove the article till i have time to post a new one including more detail and references. ---Khainne 18:36, 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 Speedy deleted by Mike Rosoft as patent nonsense. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 04:47Z


Mushloon

Hoax/gibberish. No related Google hits. Previously tagged for speedy deletion, but the tag was removed by the author. Ziggurat 21:43, 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 SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Bates

non-notable musician. Article added same time as Waiting On Dwarfs. Delete Atrian 21:45, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HanWorks Research

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Jombo as being in violation of WP:NOT. The "web-based research organisation" happens to be the blog site of User:Mh, however. howcheng {chat} 21:47, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theleet

Advert for a nn forum, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A memorial, not an advert. Gettez vous votre facts straight.


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

The result of the debate was placed on copyright violations, where it belongs. Johnleemk | Talk 13:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sopranojones

Doesn't meet WP:Music. Google search only turned up 1 match that was actually her. She is mostly a local talent. Esprit15d 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you had to delete all the redirects as well. Never mind. Still abstaining for now.Bjones 01:12, 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 KEEP. Mo0[talk] 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Audrey Hepburn Story

Non-notable movie. Even IMdB pans it. Delete Atrian 21:58, 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, possibly merge with the album. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Freak

Doesn't meet Wikipedia song guidelines. Notable band, but nn song. Esprit15d 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable band and one of thier most popular songs. Needs to be cleaned up. TheBill 03:46, 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 Speedy deleted by Zoe. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 05:09Z


James W. Kennedy

The bio for this comedian doesn't establish notability, he has no real presence on the web, and the article itself is mostly just a collection of catchphrases. As such, Delete. Colin Kimbrell 22:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:44, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wompus

Non-notable software package. Delete Atrian 22:12, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darby's law

Pointless article about a neologism. —Cleared as filed. 22:18, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diggbash

nn neologism-- -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 22:19, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series that include time travel

Non-notable list. Should use WP:Categorization instead. Delete Atrian 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When is this debate closed, by the way? Ck lostsword 20:21, 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 Speedily deleted by Howcheng as nn-bio/redirect from main to user namespace. Stifle 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swakhar ghose

Orphaned AFD, listing now. My vote delete as NN-BIO  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    22:22, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razz The Rabbit

A website - but Google can't find it, or anything else with this name. Conceivably the title is misspelled. Either way it seems very likely that the phenomenon does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Assuming good faith till the end I've contacted the author (concerning his other article, also up for deletion) and made comments at Talk:Razz The Rabbit but have received no reply.


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baunkin

Neologism, 0 relevent google hits


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Anonymous editor per CSD:G4 reposting of previously deleted material. Stifle 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Claro

Defunct micronation. It is a hoax and a personal vanity. José San Martin 22:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. There is already a vote about it. Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Porto Claro José San Martin 22:40, 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 delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric McCowan

vanity - importance not explained Melaen 22:43, 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 speedy delete again per WP:NOR. howcheng {chat} 07:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird flu speech

Original Research MNewnham 22:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Non-Wikified, categorised, referenced or cited lecture. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this essay. I'm pretty sure this was speedy-deleted earlier but I can't find it in the deletion logs. But the fact that the contributor complained about speedy deletion before creating this article confirms it. [40]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-11 06:34Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hart Hancock

The page is about an artist in a California underground prog rock band. A refined Google search yields 113 hits, which are either about California underground band information or are unrelated to the subject of the article. The article also appears to have been created by the person himself (see article history) and seems to be a vanity biography. Bumm13 07:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Ichiro 22:54, 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 SPEEDY DELETE as per CSD A7. Babajobu 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric norcross

Written by User:Ericnorcross. See Vanity and autobio. Semiconscious · talk 22:56, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Council on Good Governance

del nonnotable student "think tank". The previous vote a year ago resulted in marginal keep and was plagued with sockpuppetry. During the passed year the contributors 100% lost intersest in their so vehemently defended article. I voted to "keep" but to watch, and now I see that the OcCoGoGo notability in fact decreased during the year: now google gives a scant 77 unique google hits. None of them give any third-party description of the OCGG, so in fact the article is still one big original research and vanity to this day. mikka (t) 22:59, 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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional left-handed characters

List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion on 2006-01-04. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (1).
List of fictional left-handed characters was nominated for deletion again on 2007-01-23. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional left-handed characters (second nomination).
List of fictional left-handed characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Simply put, this is trivia, failing WP:IINFO. It also lacks sources and verification, potentially failing WP:NOR. (There was no consensus in a nomination two months ago, here) >Radiant< 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Burkhart

the page seema a CV Melaen 23:06, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Accord, Free Church, Aberdeen

Godvertising MNewnham 23:07, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Creationism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

VOTE Tally: Delete: 12 Keep: 5

This is an inappropriate Fork of creationism, entropy, and a number of other articles. In particular, this subject is already appropriately covered on the creation-evolution controversy page. The User:Tisthammerw is currently trying to get this very same linklist included on the creation-evolution controversy page after having failed getting included on the Second Law of Thermodynamics page. For reasons discussed on Talk:Second law of thermodynamics, Talk:Second law of thermodynamics/creationism, and Talk:Creation-evolution controversy, it isn't clear that this should be done. After all Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Also note that one of the links is to his own personal webpage, in possible violation of WP:VANITY and WP:NOR. --ScienceApologist 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is not enough research material on this page to make it worth merging. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete, first, let it be said that contrary to ScienceApologist's accusations I did not create this fork. This stub was a consensus reached decision from a previous discussion on whether or not to include a popular creationist claim regarding the second law of thermodynamics in the second law of thermodynamics Wikipedia entry. It was decided that the issue, being a significant minority view, was nonetheless best put somewhere else and this stub for it was created. See for instance this mediation section and especially the end of this section. The link BTW ScienceApologist is referring to is owned by me but it is not a personal web page (i.e. it is not about me, it is about science, philosphy etc. and contains no actual vanity content). It is also not original research, as it consists of more than a dozen verifiable citations. I have had a dispute with ScienceApologist before, and he is now trying to remove web pages of mine both here and from the ontological argument section. I didn't actually put the link there (some other user did, apparently finding the page useful) but ScienceApologist wants it removed nonetheless. You can find out about that dispute here. --Wade A. Tisthammer 23:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created this page, not tisthammerw, as a solution to a very extended discussion on Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics and Talk:Second_law_of_thermodynamics/creationism, following the direct suggestion of the appointed WP mediator to that discussion. The joint feeling in that discussion was that a detailed treatment of this pseudoscience topic was not appropriate for a frontline physics article. Therefore this page was created to allow a detailed examination of the history, sociology and whatever else for this topic here, rather than in Second Law of Thermodynamics. The article is clearly flagged as a stub, because to start it I merely cut and pasted the material that had previously been on the Second Law of Thermodynamics page -- which putting here allowed us to remove from there. A detailed treatment of this topic is by consensus not appropriate for Second Law of Thermodynamics, not appropriate for entropy, so it is ++useful for those articles to have this article that they can hand the discussion off to (including links, references, etc). Of course, at the moment the article is just a stub; but I very much doubt it will stay so short for very long(!). Like any other article on WP, the contents of this article are up for editing and change -- I'm not going to make any defence for or against tisthammerw's link. But the bottom line is this: having this separate article here in WP's namespace is useful, and has helped resolve a lengthy discussion elsewhere, so please don't delete it. -- Jheald 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I'm sorry that you have decided to effectively create a POV fork as a resolution to a dispute, but that's not in accordance with Wikipedia policy. --ScienceApologist 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not a POV fork. It's a rational factoring of the content into two NPOV articles, reflecting the consensus outcome of an extensive and prolonged discussion. If there's something in this new article that you don't think reflects NPOV then edit it, but it seems a pretty solid and balanced NPOV beginning to me. -- Jheald 03:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
For WP policy, see WP:Content forking - Article spinouts. That is what this is. -- Jheald 16:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
It may not be a POV fork of the 2nd Law article, but it is definitely a POV fork of the creation-evolution controversy article which already deals with second-law objections to evolution. It would have been better if editors at 2nd Law had consulted editors at creationism or creation-evolution controversy before making a wholly separate article. As it currently stands, there are a lot of problems with this article and it doesn't lend itself to a redirect merger (it's not just a matter of editting). This is a generally poor way to handle a content fork especially now that Wikipedia has articles about so many subjects. --ScienceApologist 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what basis you have to call it POV. The section on the creation-evolution controversy says almost nothing about the topic, though that it even exists in the entry bears some mention. You said there are lot of problems with this article. Really? Can you point out even one? --Wade A. Tisthammer 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mention them in the opening rationale. --ScienceApologist 06:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Could you perhaps (for instance) isolate and/or rephrase your justification for calling it POV?
The POV is creationist and it isn't clear that a fork of 2LOT based on creationism is appropriate. --ScienceApologist 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The second paragraph doesn't say anything about how the arguments against evolution are flawed; it has a tone of "the creationists are wrong, so there." This isn't really an improvement on what exists in other articles. Gazpacho 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it. You might like to look at Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Complex_systems_and_the_Second_Law. From the standpoint of the 2nd Law article, the most useful thing is to have the links etc discussing just what the anti-evolutionists tend to claim here rather than there. -- Jheald 09:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: A bit more detail is necessary, I think, given that this is an ongoing issue. Either this subject is signficant but not expandable beyond this stub, in which case it should be either in creationism or second law of thermodynamics; or this subject is significant and more can be written, in which case I'll be happy to keep when I see it; or this is a view held by an insignificant minority, in which case it doesn't belong anywhere here. (Addendum: the creation-evolution controversy page says that this theory is too stupid even for creationist organisations to recommend using it, which means that it seems unlikely to be worth covering in any more depth than that article does.)
  • Currently the article does not explain why creationists believe the 2nd Law proves God's existence or whatever, but does find time to say that they're wrong. Even if it isn't a fork and its creation was a good idea I can't support keeping that. --Malthusian (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you calling me a problem contributor ??? -- Jheald 19:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
My apologies, I thought tisthammerw was the original author. FeloniousMonk 19:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wade is the primary author since the linkfarm is his creation and that is the majority of the article. --ScienceApologist 13:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you track back through the history of Second Law of Thermodynamics, I think you will find that that set of links evolved through the normal process of Wikipedia editing, with contributions from several sides; to produce what I believe is a reasonably balanced sampler of discussion on the topic. Which is why I am left somewhat confused by the claim that the current article stub up for deletion is said to be POV. But perhaps you can enlighten me? -- Jheald 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Check out the discussion at creation-evolution controversy where the links were removed except for one for reasonable rationale. --ScienceApologist 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that rationale mostly only applies to that page though, not to this one. -- Jheald 11:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Except, we are arguing that supposed content associated with this subject blongs on that page. --ScienceApologist 06:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion regarding creationism and the second law of thermodynamics, one suggested comprimise was to move the links to creationism. ScienceApologist removed them however, and suggested they be moved to creation-evolution controversy where he deleted all the links I moved there save for one anticreationist link. --Wade A. Tisthammer 05:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very one-sided interpretation of what occurred. You can read about the rationale for excluding the linkfarm on the Talk:Creation-evolution controversy page.
  • Comment: Malthusian, the primary problem is that creationists make five separate arguments concerning 2LOT, none of which are scientifically supportable. As for delete vs keep, if this article is to stay it needs work, but not as if it were a full-blown article. On the other hand, I'm not sure that it should be kept at all, per the points raised by SA and others.
Given creationists never-ending litany of objections to evolution that cover such fields as physics, chemistry, cosmology, biology, mathematics, philosophy, theology, geology, paleontology, archaeology, etc., if we allow this article to stay, we'll need articles on such diverse topics as "Dendrochronology is suspect because two or more rings can grow per year", Light moths increased before trees got lighter", "Dinosaurs may still be alive in the Congo", "There is not enough helium in the atmosphere for an old earth", etc. But, having said all of that, I'm not going to vote because I had some involvement in the genesis of this page. Also, I understand both sides of this issue, and neither is truly compelling at the moment. Jim62sch 18:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point has always been that creationism objections to scientific viewpoints do not belong in every single article about a topic that they object about. I have to agree that making a new article is not reasonable for each topic's controversy, and that it should be in creationism, however I'm beginning to think that the article on creationism is hopelessly bogged down with comparisons between it and science. Maybe there should just be one big article similar to religion and science or something like that? I suppose I am delete but for relocation. This stuff needs a home. I think creationism would be better if it talked about creationism instead of objections to scientific evidence and theories, and that the articles on scientific evidence and theories would be better if they were similarly limited in scope. Call me a reductionist, I guess. There are plenty of things in the Bible that do not have to do with creationism and yet violate the scientifically accepted laws of physics. --Ignignot 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, being a stub is not sufficient reason for deletion. The article is only a few days old - wait a month and see if it grows up, and if not delete it then. Second, creationist misunderstandings about thermodynamics should be addressed somewhere in Wikipedia; but certainly not at Second law of thermodynamics. There is no adequate comment elsewhere. Third, deletion of this article will result in continuation of creationist interference with Second law of thermodynamics. Placing the debate on a separate article will allow that article to be improved without unnecessary interruption. Banno 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WRT points two and three -- send your creationists who want to interfere over to the creation-evolution controversy article. That's where the subject belongs. --ScienceApologist 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you would make creation-evolution controversy a sort of ghetto for creationists? Have you noticed how crowded that article is? Banno 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already includes information about the 2LOT arguments made by creationists. If there is more encyclopedic content to add, let it grow organically from that article and then create a daughter article. I don't think a case has been made that this article deserves to exist. --ScienceApologist 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a POV fork if only the creationist view were discussed, but there is nothing in the nature of the page that necessitates that. At present, it says just about nothing, so how can you claim it to be original research? Delete the page before it is written and you will never know. Give it a chance. Banno 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page title itself is begging for original research to creep in as it is establishing a pseudoscientific look at a scientific subject. It would be like having a page on New Age spirituality and quantum mechanics -- a completely inappropriate platform for establishing an encyclopedia article. --ScienceApologist 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article could be expanded to include arguments against evolution, and geological time, dating back all the way to Kelvin. Kelvin argued (before the discovery of radioactivity) that the earth was too warm to be as old as geologists claimed and Darwin's theory required; when he presented his argument for a max age of 20,000,000 years (which was solid, if you don't take into account the heating due to radioactivity) in a popular form (MacMillan's Magazine, volume 5, 1862,pp. 288-293), it was in the context of the recent publication Origin. And in 1872, he presented a short essay on the origin of life, based similarly on thermodynamic arguments; after an invocation of the "solid and irrefragable argument" of Paley's Natural Theology, he concluded,: "...overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie all around us; and if ever perplexities, whether metaphysical or scientific, turn us away from them from a time, they come back upon us with irresistable force, showing to us through Nature the influence of free will, and teaching us that all living things depend on one ever-acting Creator and Ruler." (Report of the Forty-First Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Edinburgh, August 1871, pp lxxxiv-cv)--ragesoss 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst Kelvin's calculations was important to establishing the ancient age of the earth, (given the radioactivity issue which when discovered pushed it back further), that is not how modern YEC creationists ("creation scientists") use the term. The more modern "sophisticated" IDists don't use 2LOT because it is so dumb. Kelvin recognised the importance of evidence over scripture and recognised evolution but with "divine guidance" [42]. But the thermodynamics and the age of the earth is a different to creationism and the second law of thermodynamics, and is therefore OT. — Dunc|☺ 11:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet, strictly speaking, Kelvin did make the connection between his work based on the 2LOT and creationism, broadly defined. I'm not saying it's the same thing as modern YEC invocations of it, but it fits the title and potential content of the article; there is enough history of 2LOT-based arguments related to creationism, from both a geological and biological perspective, that the article could contain significant content in the future. The article is potentially broader than just "YEC creationism and the 2LOT applied to biology". And even for just recent arguments, the article has a lot more potential content, including arguments that the 2LOT didn't operate until the Fall of Man, and a more extensive treatment of the detailed arguments and criticism. As Banno argues, we can't just relegate everything to do with creationism to the controversy article. 2LOT arguments are extensive enough (and different enough from other aspects of creation-evolution) to merit the existence of this article. The creation-evolution article is largely not about the details of the intellectual arguments in the debate, but about the nature of and participants in it. --ragesoss 05:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can relegate everything to the controversy article. In fact, we already do. The subject is covered there in as much detail as it deserves from an encyclopedic standpoint. --ScienceApologist 06:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More than that, Kelvin's arguments had to do with hydrostatic equilibrium, the equivalence of heat and energy, and gravitational collapse and were not about the 2LOT per se. --ScienceApologist 06:03, 16 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. 04:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KNova

Tiny web community, less than 100 registered users and almost no posts on their forum. Their involvement in some "raid" on ebaumsworld doesn't mean they should get an article. Rhobite 23:12, 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 DELETE. Being relisted once is enough, having been on AfD for nearly 2 weeks without any trace of support for the article. -Splashtalk 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo Connor

This article was nominated for AfD, but the nominator failed to carry out the second step of the process. No reason is given in the edit summary. My personal assumption for deletion is that the subject, a German 'warez reporter' is not an encyclopedic subject and fails the qualifiers at WP:BIO. But as I said, I'm just cleaning up the nomination. No vote at this time -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 23:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:14, 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. 04:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BG Knoccout and the Dresta

band un-notability Melaen 23:15, 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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cléo and Arcoun

just a "poem" - I don't think it is worth moving to wikisource Melaen 23:19, 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 delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The black n blues

non-notable band — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethie (talk • contribs) 18:46, 3 January 2006

if there was 2 albums with the same listings could it stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drgonzo1978 (talk • contribs)
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 23:26, 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. -Splashtalk 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arthas Arena 2

Delete - Ad for a Warcraft III map. No claim to notability Werdna648T/C\@ 11:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 23:27, 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kartshin

This article has apparently been used as a battleground between supporters of two rival rabbis, resulting in cases of blanking and complete replacement of the article. In both cases, the entry is very problematic. The current version refers to a small town in Galicia. No data is provided and the name looks misspelled. Google only comes up with family names. Given the context of the other version, it must refer to a location in the province located in Poland / Ukraine, but that's not even indicated, and Spain has a region of the same name. Again, the name "Kartshin" looks like is a misspelling / anglicisation (it is definitely not correct Polish, but I have no knowledge of Ukrainian.) The old version was an article about one of the two rival rabbis. Problem I: both persons already have an article, see Ben Zion Halberstam (The Second) and Mordecai David Unger, and so has the object of the dispute Bobov (Hasidic dynasty). Problem II: no rationale was provided for giving a biographical article this name.

I propose deleting this entry including its redirect Kurchin (I've tried googling that too, but I've found no town, village or whatever. The only references are as a family name.) Valentinian 23:26, 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. 03:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halleys comic

Delete. 38 strips, no Alexa. Melchoir 23:36, 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. 03:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Star wars kotor III

Article about a video game in the early stages of development. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and there is little or no verifiable information available on the subject. Megamix? 23:36, 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. 03:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seacoast Church

nn church, with no claims to notability. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:40, 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 delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hastings Street

minor road Melaen 23:43, 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 Speedily redirected to Gunge by Melchoir. Stifle 14:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunged

Unsure whether this is notable Oscarthecat 23:43, 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. 03:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Modernaction

advertising, vanity Melaen 23:47, 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. 03:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alishasaurus

Delete as hoax; no hits on Google. Melchoir 00:04, 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 delete. —Cleared as filed. 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Blair (Toronto)

Delete. Not newsworthy. He does not require his own page. I also question the page creator's motives. The user has a history of vandalizing the Rachel Marsden page. Will go into further detail later. Cyberboomer 23:59, 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_10&oldid=1234127592"