Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 19

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro. 5 10:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this article is a piece of self-promotion, and have been unable to verify the contents. (For example, googling for "Sir Catchalot" - this sportsman's nickname - I found nothing relevant.) It doesn't even state his full name (on the talk page the name is listed as "Abid Carlos Imam"; there are no Google hits for that), and gives his year of birth as 1990 (making him 16 years old). Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (as an empty list) to the definition of the position not listed therein. Rewrite it in 2010, if Wikipedia still exists. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 12:54, Jan. 19, 2006

There is no content on this page; a Lieutenant Governor will not be elected in New Jersey until 2010. The article contains no information not in Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. Cuivienen 03:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The information is notable, I say move to Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- this info is already at Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey, I think. --James S. 07:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, since is the same as the main article, it's simply a duplicate. --Terence Ong 09:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey: Looks like there are a few references that could be added to the "real" article. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. Johnleemk | Talk 13:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this page as an example of all the color stubs that should be deleted. There is nothing contained in this article that is not mentioned in the List of colors. This is not a nomination of any color article that contains even a sentence more information than is given in the list of colors. God of War 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete duplicate information. Who would look this up under this term anyway? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pale bright green, Pale Denim, Pale mint green, Pale ochre, Pale olive, Pale olive drab, Pale orange, Pale pink-lavender, Pale sea green, Pale Turquoise, Pale Wisteria and Pale Yellow.

• Delete, we don't need articles about colors of things we have articles about, we need pictures. Gazpacho 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Color pictures? (grin) ...If we wanted pictures about colors of things we have articles about, we could just define a rectangle of color "pale raw umber". Or show a color picture of a Crayola box in each of 64 articles. Delete per nomination, and delete similar articles which aren't expanded by end of AfD period. Barno 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. In its current state the article is obviously not useful, but if someone could find even a few sentances to add about the color or places it is used it could potentially be worth keeping. I'm inclined to keep the color stubs in hopes that someone will expand them. Admittedly, this particular example will probably never be expanded, so I can't support my intuition very strongly.
• Delete Can never expand beyond an illustrated dicdef. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the vast majority of colors are completely nonnotable. Tuf-Kat 05:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a web color that isn't specifically important to the color wheel. Any colors that are solely webcolors probably can't be made into articles. Lotusduck 05:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale blue-purple for where this has been discussed before. Uncle G 06:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This afd should be extended to all the "pale" color articles - Pale bright green, Pale Denim, Pale mint green, Pale ochre, Pale olive, Pale olive drab, Pale orange, Pale pink-lavender, Pale sea green, Pale Turquoise, Pale Wisteria and Pale Yellow. Pale is a subjective term and cant really be defined other that its lighter than the main color -- Astrokey44|talk 09:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per ESkog. Sliggy 14:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everybody. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete: I don't think the article is particularly useful unless there is something interesting about that particular colour. For example, hypothetically, 'Pale Green' is the official colour use to paint NHS Hospital corridors.GoldenTie 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you'll find that's called Frating Green. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.Obina 22:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not infinite as applied to colours ;) Zunaid 13:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete do I need to come all the way to Wikipedia to find out that pale raw umber is a pale version of raw umber? I could probbaly find it in me to support a single table of colours, but even that is probably best left to the paint manufacturers. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 16:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete en masse. Wikipedia is not a painters' gallery. Stifle 23:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need it and extend to all pale color stubs Dakota ~ ε 07:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete--a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 23:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN neologism coined Jan 2006 J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. Only 173 Googles. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as uncommon neologism. Sycthos^Talk 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable. -- Chris 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable neologism. May be notable in a few months or years' time but not now. WikiFanatic 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Meekohi 03:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. --Terence Ong 10:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Meekohi, please justify your vote to Speedy Delete Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Banes 13:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per se. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: a tad too dictionary-esque. I don't like to use the phrase non-notable but I think it may apply here. GoldenTie 20:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to use it. As Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day explains, our core official policies (in particular Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:No original research) exclude protologisms and neologisms without having to involve notability. Uncle G 22:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. How could it have "quickly caught on" if the term is only two weeks old? James084 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete it! I needed to search Wikipedia to find what the word meant, and the term was here for me. There's no need to delete something just because it's a little archaic (for now).

<NO DELETION> This word DID catch on real quick. It started on the Daily Dilbert blog, and now it's a widespread word, used mainly by bloggers, but it's also been included in the urban dictionary. "LOL" has a link at wikipedia, why not 'boctaoe' ?

• • Comment: Do you have a reliable source that you could cite to prove this? Stifle 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If EOE wasn't a dab page we could've redirected, but there's nothing currently to redirect to. Grutness...wha? 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirected. Ifnord 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dicdef Melaen 00:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as it gives no real content to let you understand the subject. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speeky delete as article with "little or no content." Sycthos^Talk 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Interlock (engineering). Gazpacho 00:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, agree. -- Chris 01:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - this is a dict defn.
• Redirect as per Gazpacho. ManoaChild 02:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Redirect per Gazpacho. --Terence Ong 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gaz Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Gazpacho. The Deviant 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Gazpacho 18:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable festival. Wikipedia is NOT for something you made up one day at school. King of Hearts | (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest Keep Possible. Read the references on this article -- it has been running for the last 40 years and is currently attended by thousands of people. Please follow the links and actually read before nominating -- this is a major event in Austin, and the article I have created is eminently verifiable with 3 separate links all backing up the existence of this event. How much more verifiable could it be? Additionally, I plan further additions to this article including photos from my own collection. Note, I am the original author of this article and all its text. If you can't follow all links in the references, please at least read this article from the Daily Texan, an important (college-run) Austin paper which more than verifies the existence and notability of this event. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will even quote from this article in case you don't feel like following the link: Thousands of children, parents, college students and hippies camped out at Pease Park on Saturday afternoon to celebrate Eeyore's birthday for the 42nd time since the celebration began 1963. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Looks like an important community and counter-culture event to this Brit. I Google searched for a couple of random years (1974, 1978) and the festival gets a mention for each. A 40 year old festival is not something made up in school - please research your AFD nominations before making them! --kingboyk 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep long-running event with loads of participation and media coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as very notable article. Sycthos^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content copied from main Bernard McQuirt article. Redundant. Kerowyn 00:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Kerowyn. Sycthos^Talk 00:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Dlyons493 Talk 01:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This redundant article is redundent. -- Chris 01:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. The Deviant 14:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV/ad-like article on non-notable planned community. —ERcheck @ 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable. —ERcheck @ 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable vanity. The use of the sentence:
  

  I-75 provides easy, high-speed access to points North and South.

  clearly indicates advertising. Sycthos^Talk 00:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nonsense created over the past four months almost entirely by anon IPs. If the nonsense was removed, all you'd be left with would be a wiki that gets 19 distinct Google hits. Carbonite | Talk 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like nonsense, apparent vandalism target. The website that it's about has an Alexa rank of 977,096. Fails WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Attack article. --Kerowyn 00:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete There are 29 registered users. Current article seems to reference 2 different wikis, but that might be the attack/vandalism mentioned above. --kingboyk 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense and attack page. I will change my vote if major cleanup is offered. Sycthos^Talk 00:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems like nonsense. -- Chris 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. --Kbh3^rdtalk 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy? Delete as nonsense attack. Blnguyen 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete {{db-nonsense}} article, no content of research interest.  (aeropagitica)  07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nonsense, with no redeeming features. Carbonix 13:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete all of the above. The Deviant 16:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible speedy? - Uh-huh. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Content is confusing, mostly worthless and makes the internet forumer within me say "WTF" GoldenTie 20:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete : Pure advertising. --^BuGs^ 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 17:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mother of Ho Chi Minh president / non notable Melaen 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All his family/parents/siblings can be moved into his article.Blnguyen 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Tio Ho. If that's where she's discussed, why not? It will probably also help prevent her name from showing up on this page again.--Rockero420 07:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep but is in dire need of cleanup. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blnguyen. --Terence Ong 10:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- seems to have become figure of veneration under Communist regime. Article exploring myth could be interesting. In desperate need of rewrite, though. Perodicticus 11:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:BIO. This is not to be considered a keep vote. Information on non-notable relatives of notable people goes in the article of the notable person. Stifle 23:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "The tomb of Hoang Thi Loan at the Dai Hue mountain is a tourist attraction in Nam Dan". Kappa 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the ins and outs of WP:MUSIC but I found nothing about this band on google and I assume it fails this criteria. Forbsey 00:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know nothing about this band and have't researched it yet, but I wanted to jump right in and point editors to Christian Death --kingboyk 01:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I've wikified it now. --kingboyk 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, This band does have notoriety, which should be noticable when reading the article. They are fundimental to the history of Christian Death. Gabriel77 12:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Gabriel77 (talk · contribs) has fourteen edits.[reply]

Redirect to Christian Death, because Pompeii 99 on its own is not sufficiently notable. Christian Death can have the information (such as it is) included, and then needs tightening up to be an encyclopedic article (it is currently not very NPOV, and in places reads like someone's inconsequential diary notes). Carbonix 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are things on Pompeii 99 (such as the complete line up) that are irrelevant to the Christian Death page but are important history concerning Christian Death members. Gabriel77 23:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Christian Death, as per Carbonix. Forbsey 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as {{nn-band}}. Stifle 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, important in the history of Christian Death. Kappa 08:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pure advertising. Dakota ~ ε 00:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. as nominator pure advertising with email link bottom line.--Dakota ~ ε 00:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nom. I've removed the email address. --kingboyk 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Dustimagic *\o/* ^{(talk/contribs)} *\o/* 03:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Did anyone look at the linked website? This is clearly a legitimate NGO with a noble purpose. I'm restoring the email address. --James S. 07:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that it may or may not have a noble purpose does not matter to us. Having an e-mail address is anathema to Wikipedia policies, as Wikipedia is not a place to make personal contacts, and I've removed it again. Please don't put it back. FCYTravis 18:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam and send them to Wiki-Hell. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • OK, maybe not spam, but certainly nn. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete reads like an advertisement. email adresses dont belong in encyclopedia articles -- Astrokey44|talk 09:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I agree. If I'd stumbled upon that article I would have deleted the email address. The article's presence on AFD, or the notability/importance of the subject, have no relevance to that issue whatsoever. --kingboyk 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete adv spam. The Deviant 16:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. KrazyCaley 04:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Monsignor Bonner High School. howcheng {chat} 17:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total nonsense. (not {{nonsense}}, though. Delete Kusma (討論) 00:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, if editor wants to move it to the sandbox, fine.Bjones 00:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Monsignor Bonner High School. I was bold and did that already. The students obviously created this page so they'd have something to vandalize. We sprotected the redirect article this morning. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and have teacher show them the sandbox or set up a local wiki! --kingboyk 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is what the article looked like before it was redirected to the legit article. BJAODN maybe? -- Astrokey44|talk 09:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The Deviant 16:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte - horrible. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom... just horrible. CJewell 03:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Abe's action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KrazyCaley (talk • contribs)
• Kill History and Redirect per Abe. -- Jjjsixsix ^(talk)/_(contribs) @ 06:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Abe's excellent work! TMS63112 21:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this is a recognized architectural style. Of the first 30 google hits [1] (discounting Wikipedia) only 1 refers to this. Needs serious work or Delete. Deiz 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Please also consider what to do with its companion Single H. I would vote to delete that one as well. --Lockley 07:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe important for Hong Kong. Both are mentioned at this Hong Kong housing authority site -- Astrokey44|talk 09:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are many other Google references to Double H - but none to do with buildings/architectural design. Also, the Hong Kong Housing Authority website cited above mentions other building 'Block Types' which similarly seem to have no verified use elsewhere. Carbonix 14:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte - Simple. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and unverifiable. Stifle 00:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising for nn company (doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP standard.) AJR | Talk 00:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete incoherent advertising that is the only contribution of User:NetPros. Kusma (討論) 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I've purged some of the gobbledegook. --kingboyk 01:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete A1 (very short, no context) or A7 (vanity) --Deiz 02:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Embarassing advertisement --BakugekiNZ 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom etc.

AFD template has been removed several times by author J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy and send to Wiki-Hell! Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 09:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nom. The Deviant 16:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertisement for nn company. OhnoitsJamie^Talk 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or speedy delete even.   ⇔   | | ⊕ ⊥ (t-c-e) 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No media coverage. 100 nn Google hits. Copy/paste of their page. Submitted by site owner. Fails WP:V. Extremely invaluable information. -- Perfect 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Haven't much of anything. --Perfecto 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant advertisement—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onthost (talk • contribs) .
• Delete as above. Note: I'm about to remove a spamvert image, so if you need further convincing please do check the previous revision. --kingboyk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity site J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I would say the MUSH itself might be popular enough to warrant an article, but this has uncorrectable POV problems as is. Meekohi 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertising. p.s. to nom, invaluable is the same as valuable -- Astrokey44|talk 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know. --Perfecto 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blatant advertisement, certainly as it stands. (A redirect to MUSH could be useful, especially if that page was made more encyclopedic, explaining more clearly the history, what is involved, etc., rather than giving precedence to the technicalities of the programming.) Carbonix 15:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, let's start citing all these nn mush sites in MUSH now! :P --Perfecto 17:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non encyc, vanity, etc. The Deviant 16:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not tidied up: it reads like the back of a game packet. Make it more neutral and informing. GoldenTie 20:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbustoo 02:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dimitrii 06:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vanity page Hirudo 00:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't think it's vanity. The author clearly states that he followed a red link about himself and that it is self authored. He may well be notable enough if somebody else wrote the article; I haven't checked that. I really feel we need to improve the message that appears when a user is invited to start a new page. Wikipedia encourages new users to get stuck in and then puts them through the AFD grinder - I know, it happened to me (Tredington Community Primary School). What I'm saying is that it would appear the editor was acting in good faith, but the article must go as it stands. --kingboyk 01:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes perhaps using the vanity term is too strong. Perhaps gut the article instead of completely deleting it? I wasn't able to find much useable info online. Hirudo 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think delete it (with a friendly word to Mr Marcuse about autobiography). An incoming wiki link proves nothing. If it gets recreated by an independent editor the issue can be looked at again. --kingboyk 02:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with cleanup tag -- Astrokey44|talk 10:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if he's authored a book and teaches at a UC College...cleanup is needed, but I dont think it fits delete criteria NorseOdin 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, doesn't really pass the professor test. Stifle 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, non-vanity published author. Kappa 08:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game is set to be release in 2008. WP is not a crystal ball J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, I bet this does not ever get made! Mike _{(T C)} 01:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. crystal ball, ad. Nateji77 08:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep - seems slightly notable enough. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dear admins! English is not my native language, but I hope we will understand each other well enough =)

That was certainly my fault to write down here just a couple of words instead of a full project description. I will try to make up for it in 3-5 days.

2Mike I'll not go into detail here & now — I think I'd better just put our timeline in the article. But I should mention, that we work on this project as a team since February 2004. I will put links to our docs as soon as they get translated in English — and as you understand in a case of 120+ pages design document it's not always as easy task as one can imagine. Besides, we all work in our free time from direct labor and docs translation right now is not a high priority task. _However_ we are in a constant need of new developers, and that's especially relevant now, when the work on game code has started. I'm pretty sure two C++ coders will surpass any language barrier problems fast enough =)

2Nateji77 This is a non-commercial project. Our documentation is released under GNU FDL, game code is released through several other open source licences. Is this article considered to be an ad under such circumstances?

when i read it i think it's an ad. maybe because it's a stub abut a product (free or for sale) that won't be around for another 2-3 years (early to late 2008). if the progamming is communal or transparent writing more about the development process might help clarify. but it also might seem a solicitation for programmers, which would also be ad. i don't speak russian so it's difficult for me to know based solely on the site. Nateji77 05:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2Jwestbrook Actually, I'm just a game designer. Our project leader is much more sceptical about the dates.

So, is there anything special you may recommend me to do in order to remove the page from this dreadful section? --Diancecht 14:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Does Ireon have any other titles under its belt, and if so, how were they received? (unsigned comment by User:KrazyCaley)
• Delete per nom. C'mon people, 2008? Melchoir 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• After some thinking I've come to a conclusion that you were right. When our site, docs, wiki and game client will all be in English then it would be much more reasonable to write an article in English part of Wikipedia. Thanks for your attention and patience! --Diancecht 12:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as severe case of vaporware. Stifle 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable autobiography of someone not notable.-- Perfecto 01:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
• Delete Her Heart of Herbs Herbal Apprenticeship had high hopes for articlehood. Dlyons493 Talk 01:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• yes, Delete it --Lockley 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreed. The Deviant 14:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. The web site looks a bit like an ad to me. The assertion that Demetria Clark is "internationally known" seems difficult to prove; appears to me like "would like to be internationally known". <KF> 17:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not at all hard to prove, google her. She is totally verifiable. She is well known in the herbal and midwifery world. I added more to her entries —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mommagoddess (talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 January 2006.
• Delete; the actual content of the article is unverifiable, including the claim of being "well known". We would need a reliable source actually calling her well known. Melchoir 03:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at the criteria for people still living at Wikipedia:Notability (people) this article should be left as it very clearly passes two of the criteria.

Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more As the article says she has been published in Vegetarian Journal, Midwifery Today, and others. A quick search on Google shows that she has indeed been published in both of the before mentioned periodicals; both of which do have a circulation of greater then 5,000.

Google Test -- Does the subject get lots of hits on Google or another well known search mechanism? A google of the name Demetria Clark brings up many results. Many of these results verify the claims of the article.--Drumzandspace2000 13:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • As for publishing, there are only vague claims of publishing in the article. Let's see some article titles and page numbers. As for Google, no, those results are all websites, and a great deal of the material was written by Demetria herself, just as this article was. They do not help verify the article at all. Melchoir 17:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A list of some of the publications by Demetria Clark has been posted. --Drumzandspace2000 20:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of those are webpage-only or defunct... let's see if someone else wants to support you. Melchoir 01:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notability based on google results and noted publications seems to exceed a minimum standard that allows many others to pass. I suspect opposition comes more from a response to the author's attitude than from an objective view of info. Deli nk 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notability has been established by both publications and Google results. --Atc 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it's worth, but this is the contributor's first edit. Deli nk 21:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable company submitted by its proprietor before she wrote about herself. Fails WP:CORP. Wikipedia is [WP:NOT-- Perfecto 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Perfecto 01:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Blnguyen 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable, as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  07:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ditto. The Deviant 16:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is well known to midwives and herbalists. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mommagoddess (talk • contribs) 01:55, 21 January 2006.
• It still fails WP:CORP. Delete per nom. Melchoir 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a school and not just a corp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drumzandspace2000 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 21 January 2006.
  • It's a .com and it says "view cart/checkout" in the upper-right corner. Melchoir 17:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a school, that is how students enroll.. [[User:Mommagoddess}}
• Delete as advert. Stifle 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Deli nk 21:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable "Fantasy Game world" likely submitted by its webmaster. No media coverage. The geocities on its logo shows me this is just someone's hobby project.-- Perfecto 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Perfecto 01:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Please list the images for deletion at the same time when they're this blatant (or is that not necessary? I'd like to know as I'm about to waste time listing the image myself). --kingboyk 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always presumed the closing admin does it, along with any vanity incoming wikilinks. I might be wrong.--Perfecto 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully someone else will know and tell us! I'll hold off on nominating Image:Lastaria.jpg & Image:Havenbigbanner.jpg for now. --kingboyk 01:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Geocities homepage leads me to believe this is just another non-notable (and thus unverifiable) D&D universe. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not even recently maintained on the Geocities homepage. Dimitrii 06:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-english, and as far as I can tell what is there isn't worth translating Hirudo 01:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I translated it, nothing to it. What is the precedent on foreign universities? Grandmasterka 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) Whoops, that's more than a little embarrassing. I say keep.[reply]

• Comment This is an international encyclopaedia. How do you define foreign? Jcuk 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2Sorry wasn't meaning to embarrass. Jcuk 16:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Dlyons493 Talk 08:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as with any real university. CalJW 16:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd just like to comment that I have no objection to having a real article about this university. I'm just of the opinion that a single non-english sentence is worse than having no article at all. Hirudo 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now a single English sentence, better than no article at all. Kappa 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No verification. Linked webpage is only source I can find for the name. Bjones 01:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete With no citations or references, this appears to be a {{hoax}} article.  (aeropagitica)  07:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we can't take chances with hoax articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ^KILO-_LIMA 17:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense. Stifle 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Magnadramon. -- Jonel | Speak 21:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yet another low-quality individual digimon article Hirudo 01:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, real digimon, or maybe merge somewhere. Kappa 01:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Magnadramon bar some massive merging of nearly all digimon characters (which is really, really necessary). Nifboy 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge & redirect Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect all Digimon to List of Digimon Characters if they have it, digimon are not notable --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fancruft incog 00:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Some Pokémon are not notable yet they all have their own article. And by the way, this is not a fanmade Digimon! I just uploaded an image of its card. 01:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep else Merge and Redirect --Celestianpower ^háblame 19:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to a list of Digimon. Pokémon are different as the franchise has a significantly higher following. Stifle 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This company launched last Monday. Its press release (its only Google result) does not even identify whoever dubbed them the CNN monicker. (The owner's aunt, maybe.) Fails WP:CORP-- Perfecto 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Keep in mind that CThings is a Visual Basic construct [2].

• Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a company launch announcement service. --Perfecto 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what you think. Sadly PR people the world over are starting to see it as exactly that! :( --kingboyk 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 02:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 05:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Perfecto. Stifle 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor development within Judaism that attempts to increase women's participation to prayer services. Two Google hits. Number of groups actually following this philosophy estimated <20 worldwide. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on grounds of notability. JFW | T@lk 01:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not voting just yet, but strongly against any attempt to merge into Minyan. Avi 01:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting Delete based on last point here WP:NPOV#Undue weight Avi 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment given that the concept is a relatively recent development (earliest comment permitting the idea appeared in 2001—5 years ago at most), and by comparison to Reconstructionist Judaism a "branch of Judaism" which apparently consists of a marginally more notable approximately 110 congregations[3] (began as a concept as far back as the 1920s, split formally from Conservative Judaism in 1968—38 years ago), I think a bit of leniency is in order. That said, this long article doesn't belong (at least not at that length) in minyan, nor am I convinced that the sum total of the content belongs anywhere on WP just yet, not because the phenomenon of women's participation in orthodox prayer services is unnoteworthy, but because the name for the article amounts to an endorsement by WP of a specific expression thereof. The number of groups actually following the philosophy addressed by the article is much higher than 20 (and the assertion that it's fewer is spurious at best), but unlike the one relevant hit in JFW's google search, they are not organized to the level where they're all out publishing websites. A cursory glance through this page indicates that the concept extends far beyond a simple one-hit result on Google. That the article (previously a section of the minyan article) is given the name of a particular group practicing what the article describes is a different issue, which should be addressed at WP:RM. The article has merit, it just needs to be renamed and have a lot of work put into encyclopædizing it. As for where it goes, like I said earlier, it doesn't belong, especially with such undue weight, in minyan, being more appropriate in Role of women in Judaism. Tomer^talk 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but clean up and merge with Role of women in Judaism per my comment above. Tomer^talk 05:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it's almost all POV original research meant to turn the left-wing segment of Orthodox Judaism into just another "branch" of Conservative Judaism -- which is just plain dumb and dishonest, like the Conservative's pretending to go by Halakha when in fact they just want to dump as much of it as they can. If this article has anything of value let it be put into either Modern Orthodox Judaism or Role of women in Judaism. Anyhow, how can anyone justify such a long rambling basically neologism of a name, in Hebrew yet, to posture as something significant? It ain't happenin' babe, a minyan is a minyan and will always be a minyan ... of Jewish MEN. IZAK 08:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I acknowledge Tomer has a point. While the phenomenon is indeed significantly broader than its web presence suggests, because of its novelty and relative informality, there is indeed not necessarily universal agreement on what to call it, so for WP to pick what may at this point be a mere candidate name may indeed be leading rather than following what it is trying to describe. Although others will need to judge the underlying merits. I acknowledge that the subject-matter is controversial. I would only hope that any disagreement regarding its merits, as a matter of personal religious philosophy, would not be confused with the issue of the phenomenom's notability, or interest to researchers and to the public, for purposes of making an editorial decision. It might be useful to do a Google search under "Shira Hadasha". Indeed, Shira Hadasha may well be sufficiently noteworthy on the web at this point to deserve its own article based on such a Google search alone, if so perhaps the content could be put there with a sentence or two and a link in articles like Minyan and Role of women in Judaism, etc. --Anystat 15:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are new here, so let me point out a few things that you hopefully won't take as condescension. First, this is an encyclopedia, not an indescriminate collection of information. Please review WP:NOT. Second, wikipedia has a policy prohibiting original research (read the guideline, it probably means something other than what you perceive). Third, WP has a policy requiring that information be presented from a neutral perspective. Much of the information in the article is presented as unabashèd advocacy. Any advocacy is fine, as long as the [substantial] opposition is also presented. Please review WP:NPOV. Finally, in either Minyan or Role of women in Judaism, the information presented in the edits you propose give undue weight to what is, at least at this early stage, a new and [relatively, in the grand scheme things, at least presently] insignificant phenomenon. Including information in the depth this addition attempts to gives undue weight to what thus far is not proven to be anything more than a bit of fuzz on a radar screen. Copy this stuff to User:Anystat/Minyan Shivyoni Hilchati if you like and if it becomes more relevant to the Jewish world as a whole in the next 2-5 years, bring it back (to Role of women in Judaism tho, not to Minyan). Tomer^talk 17:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three points. First, there is evidence of an actual, reasonably coherent phenomenon here. The sources verify that services, when described, are conducted in a similar manner, with women being allowed to do similar things and not allowed to do other similar things, and similar reasons being cited for why and why not. This consistency simply wouldn't happen in some general effort to synthesize Orthodoxy and Feminism or to explore women's roles in Judaism. It indicates a coherent, clarified phenomenon that can legitimately be treated as a distinct subject. Second, the phenomenon, while novel and hardly major, is not of merely isolated interest. Third, the neutrality of the article has been enhanced since it was first introduced. --Anystat 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge with the status of women article. Like it or not, this is a notable phenomenon. Benami 12:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn and original research --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because people looking for the newly coined term need an encyclopedia article telling them the meaning of the term. Wikipedia, as a comprehensive encyclopedia, has articles on extreme left and right topics as long as the entry is written from a neutral POV. This is a notable phenomena even if one disagrress with it. The article needs to be fleshed out and not just a list of places.

Anonymous user, please read this: WP:NPOV#Undue weight, especially the last bullet-point. Avi 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Avi. Stifle 00:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment : Given that the demographic center of Judaism is roughly the left wing of Conservativism, this viewpoint is merely a little to the right of center. What's all this about it being 'extreme'? On the other hand, seems to me that statements like "the Conservative's pretending to go by Halakha when in fact they just want to dump as much of it as they can.", or "It ain't happenin' babe, a minyan is a minyan and will always be a minyan ... of Jewish MEN" are pretty durn good examples of what WP DOESN'T want in its editorial judgments. It's a public-interest encyclopaedia. -- anonymous
• Delete. nonnotable. mikka (t) 22:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is essentially a disambiguation page about a non-notable number. It goes without saying that keeping this article sets a dangerous precident! Along those lines, what's up with Category:Negative numbers? - squibix 01:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete, unless there is something interesting to say about -19. Kappa 01:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Better add Category:Negative numbers to the debate also. --kingboyk 02:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Minus one number article. Will change vote to "Keep" if a verifiable test shows -19 to be the IQ of George W. Bush. Apologies for WP:NPA violation. Barno 02:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the number of men who recall doing drill with Bush in the Texas Air National Guard in 1972. PrimeFan 20:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -40 (number) it ain't. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wiki spam? --BakugekiNZ 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - No content --Lightdarkness 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I've also placed the category on CFD, -- Egil 06:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not sure about the category, though. --James S. 07:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 100% agree with nom. Dangerous precident. The Deviant 16:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Or maybe merge with 19? ^KILO-_LIMA 17:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn Incognito 20:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, -19 means minus nineteen? Are you sure about that? And what about a debt of 19 pounds sterling? Basically, what I want to say is NN. GoldenTie 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -19 might be a discriminant for Heegner numbers, but other than that I doubt there's anything else interesting to say about this number. This article is therefore not justified by WP:NUM. PrimeFan 20:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even though its the exact part of the space shuttle countdown when most astronauts' balls shrink to the size of hazelnuts. --Deiz 22:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is nothing in this article that makes it any more notable than any other negative integer. JIP | Talk 15:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Revolución (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research Kappa 01:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonsense. Gazpacho 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research, perpetual motion machine. ManoaChild 03:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom--nixie 03:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original, unpublished research, silly --BakugekiNZ 04:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  04:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense research.Blnguyen 05:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN website community J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  01:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Deltabeignet 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Created by Jezmiester. Is there really no way for tiresome garbage like this to be speedy deleted? It's a waste of all our times - we know it will be Deleted per nom. --kingboyk 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if expanded: Website community articles just need to be tidied up with more interesting information and less headings. If this is not going to be expanded, delete. GoldenTie 20:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is this a joke? Or does someone seriously think this is a real article? No, GoldenTie, web communities don't need to be "tidied up", they need to be measured against WP:WEB, and if (like this one) they have no Alexa ranking at all, no Google News hits, no significant inbound links - in short no evidence of any significance whatsoever - then they need to be "tidied up" into the bitbucket! This is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of trivial websites. Seriously. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Mathematician. -- Jonel | Speak 21:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need this kind of article? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete dictdef of a neologisim, with no evidence of widespread use. several reasons to delte here. DES ^(talk) 02:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete More has been said here than in the article. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral If JamieJones would include some of comments in the article, it seems to fit within Wikipedia's structure, although I would never write such an article. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Meekohi 02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Do we really need an article on every slang word that someone invents? Unnotable and unverifiable. -- Fropuff 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the usage is verifiable (and more widespread then just the University of Waterloo) we could just redirect to mathematician and add a (very brief) section on slang terms. I haven't looked through all the links below, so I'm not sure how widespread the term is. -- Fropuff 04:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT Dbtfz 05:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a dictdef and an unnecessary one at that. --Lockley 07:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. Perhaps we should give JamieJones a chance to explain where he encountered this term, and to expand the article to a sensible one? If that is of any relevance, he has also created a userbox Template:User mathie. --Meni Rosenfeld 10:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictdef Brian Tvedt 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep*, with the star being that of course I appreciate it if I am wrong as I am still learning the wikipedia ins and outs. I please hope you don't delete the mathie userbox {{user mathie}} as it took me two hours to make it. Yes, that is long, yes i am a newbie. As to the term mathie itself, I fully support the wikipedia process. I did a search in google using "math mathie". Here's webpages I got. I'll try and wikify this if i have time. Please check some of them, and if we agree it's not wiki-appropriate, that's cool, but please reconsider. And spare the userbox if possible because i am proud of it. Thanks. JamieJones ^talk 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He-he. :) Having a Wikipedia article so that somebody has what to write in a userbox. :) That's one of the most hillarious reasons I ever heard of . Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hahaha. What's even more hilarious is making fun of a new user, so that he feels even more uncomfortable trying to make changes on wikipedia. That's awesome. What would be even more helpful is if you gave me constructive criticism that wasn't sarcasm, but was meant to help. JamieJones ^talk 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Round our way such people were Mathmos. Whaddya mean there's no article there? GWO
• Delete not needed dicdef. feydey 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki The article as it stands is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but still useful. Wikitionary, maybe? CJewell 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This belongs on wiktionary or in the mathematician article. - Gauge 22:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.math.toronto.edu/007/007-news.html

Scroll down, "How to date a mathie"

• http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/programs/mathed/meforum/mail/02/01-16b.html

"In Peter's (slightly modified) words a mathie is "one that loves the subject and loves doing problems." and I would add "she can solve those problems". The litmus test for a mathie: Give him last year's AIME."

• The Mathie Humour Homepaege
• mathie's tech+business bits
• Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal Editiorial of January 4, 2000 Math Wars
• Picture of mathie girls
• nickname
• dated a mathie
• "actually an Australian mathie"
• Mathie pick up lines
• "I think that the term "mathie" is sometimes used in the US, mathmo being the UK (or possibly just Cambridge) equivalent."
• "Mathie UW slang for student of Mathematics"
• "If you need to pick a mathie's brain, don't hesitate to get in touch."
• "But she's a mathie"
  • There, I tried to fix the links as best I could. Does dictdef mean dictionary definition? When deciding whether or not to make this page, I looked at "junkie". And then I cut and pasted it, figuring if junkie was ok, so was mathie. That was my intent. JamieJones ^talk 13:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it does, User:JamieJones, and Wikitionary would be more appropriate for a "dictionary definition" article than Wikipedia. (see my vote above) CJewell 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete until this neologism gains an entry in a published dictionary. FWIW I was a mathematician and a numerist in college, not a mathie. --Perfecto 21:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep common slang term, as demonstrated above by User:JamieJones.  Grue  17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki per CJewell. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN local politician - EurekaLott 02:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider writing more well-rounded nominations. Simply saying "non-notable" (or worse, "NN") tells us nothing more than "I would like this article deleted". Instead, try explaining why the subject of the article is non-notable. The nomination usually sets the tone of an AfD discussion, and to start things off with a powerful argument for deletion is always a Good Thing. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unless he becomes a state level politician or a city mayor, I don't think he is notable.Blnguyen 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Not nationally notable. Stifle 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Assuming that the article is true, he was a city councilman and he has a decent chance of becoming the chief of staff for a US Congressman. --Mareino 21:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIO. Below-radar politician. mikka (t) 22:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I live around this area and have never heard of this politician. Non-notable. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 06:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made up word, used by maybe total of 5 people on the internet. The "podfader" entry advertised in article is filled with viagra comment spam. delete. Timecop 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn crap Incognito 03:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete never gonna be idiomatic --BakugekiNZ 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable podcruft. made-up, meaningless word -- Femmina 08:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, barely-used neologism. Proto t c 12:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons above. PJM 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn (as nominated). The Deviant 14:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete protologism. Not notable four months after creation, probably never will be. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Cptchipjew 23:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Hosterweis 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. *drew 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn neologism Dakota ~ ε 06:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed project that does not even exist yet - this is not the right place for this. Francs2000 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikiproject proposal, not article. Nateji77 08:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not crystal ball, etc. The Deviant 16:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 17:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delted as nn-bio and restored. Notability sems very dubious to me. Weak delete unless better notability establsihed via verifiable sources. DES ^(talk) 02:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Has a reasonable number of Google Scholar hits Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22Henry_Farrell%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 Dlyons493 Talk 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We expect academics to get hits for publishing, that's their job. You link didn't work for me, so I used this. I use what's cited and how often as a rough guide, and he's not cited often enough for me to thinks he's a notable in his field. He does get one mention on Google news, but that's a throw-away line at best. Always willing to change my mind if evidence of notability provided. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Merge to crooked timber based upon additional sources. - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - I just can't see the point of deleting. He's a real person, with real publications, he contributes to a notable blog - William M. Connolley 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep There are a lot of entries for people notable mainly because they write or contribute to a notable blog that is listed separately, the closest parallel being members of Volokh Conspiracy. Farrell in addition has real publications and a media profile. I made the entry on that basis JQ 11:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do give examples so that I may at once merge them into their parent article where they belong. I notice that this article makes claims that Farrell is "quoted extensively in mass media" but fails to support those but with a single link where he's mentioned in passing and is paraphrased rather than quoted. I'd refer to WP:BIO where, with the evidence to date, he does not qualify. - brenneman^(t)(c) 12:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stated criteria at WP:BIO "better known and more published than the average professor" are met (link to CV added for latter point or use Google scholar). I agree that's a rather low bar, so I've added more media citations to back up notability JQ 20:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not convinced that writing for any sort of blog is notable, and we're not likely to be able to find a lot of verifiable information other than from the blog, which I'd discount as a reliable source. —Cleared as filed. 12:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His "publications" are what, a 27 page paper and some blog entries? Blogs are the ultimate vanity press; their writers have a very high bar to clear. If any real indicator of notability is asserted I may reconsider. -R. fiend 18:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google Scholar seems to have over 15 publications. Dlyons493 Talk
    • Still not impressed, all academics publish something. Did he write any books or anything? 15 publications is hardly great, especially since some or all seem to be brief papers. the guy who's lab I used to sweep gets more than that. In fact, I can probably take any scientist in that building and get comparable results (if I could only remember their names). -R. fiend 22:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually Farrell has nearly twice as many Google Scholar hits as Martindale, and "Henry Farrell" gets 93000 Google hits, of which most front page items refer to the political scientist. "Mark Martindale" gets 380 hits, only a minority for the scientist.
        • Well, Henry Farrell is a much more common name, and don't you think that a few hits might be this Henry Farrell (or one of thousands of others)? Maybe some of the google scholar hits too, I'm not sure.) In any case, small academic papers are not widely read, if he's had articles in major magazines, or any written books, we'd be on the right track. -R. fiend 22:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As noted in the entry under dispute, he has an article in Foreign Affairs which is a very influential magazine, and this article was quoted in an editorial in the Washington Times among other media. On your point about other Farrells, please reread my comment. I checked the first 100 entries to verify that most referred to the Farrell in question, and not the Henry Farrell whose notability is undisputed. Feel free to check a larger sample if you want.JQ 23:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn blogger of an nn blog. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you're wrong about the blog [4], but I guess you can pile in if you want William M. Connolley 22:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • While not commenting on this discussion, I'd like to say that that AfD was a really crap example of how things should run. Testimony of editors is not a citation, and having people simply say "notable blog" without (for example) providing links or references is somthing that we should, in the strongest possible way, discourage. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, article in major magazine, contributes to notable blog, published academic etc. Kappa 23:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've cleaned up this article a bit. Iv'e had to remove some citations per Wikipedia:Reliable sources, please don't do anything but WP:AGF over my reasone for doing so. I'm now happy with merging based upon the additional cources. I'd ask that when people contribute to an AfD, they take the time to attempt to improve the article as opposed to just saying "keep" and wandering off.
  brenneman^(t)(c) 01:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep for his media prominence. I'd like to see a lot less of these steamingly stupid referrals from DRV. If an article was wrongly deleted, undelete it. If someone wants to list it for deletion, they will. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ambi 11:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to media prominence and Google Scholar results. Hall Monitor 21:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notability is questionable and published papers do not provide notability per WP:AFDP. (Note: I nominated for speedy) If its kept I would only support a merge to Crooked_Timber nothing more. --Pboyd04 03:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and no merge per Tony Sidaway. -- JJay 14:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kappa.--cj | talk 15:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is completely biased in favor of a racist and naitonlist anti-immigrant group that is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for recruitment. They have not allowed any edits to make content more even-sided, so they should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elzia (talk • contribs) .

• Keep - these guys get covered in the LA news all the time, and have even made national headlines once or twice. If it is biased, it should be changed rather than deleted.--Rockero420 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They are not allowing any modifications to the original text from outside parties. I tried to modify their content but they have deleted it within hours. The page is totally biased in their favor and I expect they will continue to keep it that way. Elzia 06:41 19 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, per Rockero420. A notable group with verifiable material available about them. Bias can be handled, though it may take more than a day. -Will Beback 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the solution to Eliza's problem is not to delete the article, but instead to get an admin involved if good edits are being reverted. Meekohi 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Political disputes over content need to be dealt with in a different way. Choalbaton 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --nihon 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It appears there are editing disputes over the content of the article, bias, especially in certain versions, and what should be included, but I believe the content is salvageable. Wholesale deletion of the article about a notable subject is not the best way to resolve WP:NPOV issues and content disputes. --Mysidia (talk)
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and start banning the NPOV violators - Fight fire with fire. --Agamemnon2 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and report the problem with the NPOV editors. Having a group of editors steer an article is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have to start deleting articles on nearly every prominent politician. This is a case for you checking Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, not for AFD. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NPOV isn't a vild reason for deletion. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, and ban users who do not allow others to edit the article. Captain Jackson 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for preference, as there is actually not that much coverage in (e.g.) Google News; if kept, NPOV the hell out of it, maintain semi-protection or protection as needed, and as others say block the POV pushers. WP:ISNOT a soapbox. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Don't delete an article because of an edit war. Get some cleanup tags in place. --StuffOfInterest 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep with a severe warning to the POV pushers. This doesn't really belong on AFD, it should be on RFC, RFM, or RFAr. Stifle 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The POV issues must be resolved, and the POV fork should be deleted. KrazyCaley 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of notability, likely vanity. Google finds 11 unique hits when name is paired with company. Needs far more context and proof of notability to avoid being Deleted Deiz 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom -- Astrokey44|talk 10:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no evidence of notability (e.g. companies with no articles). Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Possible vanity. Stifle 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable Sleepyhead 12:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Undecided. Sourceforge shows around 2000 downloads for each successive version, I don't know how significant that might be. Probably not very. JzG 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability asserted or evident. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Just another generic piece of software. Mindmatrix 17:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 2000 downloads for every version seems like its enought. Achen00 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 2000 users? From al the potential users of web collaboration software? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 00:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- 2000 downloads per version suggests many more than 2000 users. I was mostly convinced by these statistics, however: [5]. Given about 220 MB of transfer a month, i'm figuring they get about 650 downloads a month; this suggests a much larger number of users than 2000, but also counts people who download just to evaluate it (without using) and fails to count a potentially significant group of users who download from a third party (like a package available from an OS vendor as a RPM), which the GPL permits, instead of directly through Sourceforge. --Mysidia (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: article strongly appears to be copy from Baiju with vanity name change Shenme 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article Baiju was begun 20 June 2004. The article Vikash was begun 1 August 2005 with what appears to be a full copy of Baiju, but with the person's name changed to Vikash (or Vikkie !) Sure looks bogus and vanity page to me. Shenme 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. - Bobet 14:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Melchoir 18:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable/bogus. Stifle 00:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 17:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nominated for deletion as neologism and self-defining term--Mareino 02:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, neologism. Jawz 08:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unencyclopedic --Mysidia (talk) 08:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree on all counts. The Deviant 14:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Incognito 20:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I have to say that Nonprofit technology looks a lot like a link farm to me... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep, no consensus. mikka (t) 22:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is redundant and very difficult to keep up because all of the seiyū should already be listed on the Category:Japanese voice actors page. I can see making a page of "Notable seiyū" or some other category list, but it's redundant to make a list of all of them when it already exists under the category listing. nihon 03:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Not only is there a category for this anyway, there is also another duplicate list of "Notable seiyū" on the Seiyū page itself. Shiroi Hane 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the category doesn't give the Japanese name. Kappa 23:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The individual articles do, though. The MOS indicates that the Japanese should not be given when providing a link to another article when that article includes tha Japanese. --nihon 00:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  That applies to prose articles, not to lists, or at least it shouldn't apply to lists. Kappa 00:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete as a list which appears to be of interest to only very few people and/or is large and unmaintanable, i.e. listcruft. Also redundant to the category. Stifle 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only about 120 million people in Japan who listen to Seiyus. Kappa 00:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEPandexpand. There should be redlinks in such a list. 132.205.45.110 22:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, category and list do different things. Move "Notable seiyū" from the Seiyū page into the list article. The very fact that this list exists in two places says that it is considered useful by more than one person. mikka (t) 22:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:BAND. No entry on either www.amazon.com or www.allmusic.com. I can't find any albums they've released or any shows outside of little places in California and Las Vegas. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --nihon 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 07:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per CSD A7 --NaconKantari 21:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (probably can't speedy as there is at least some assertion of notability) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encylcopaedic value, especially as nothing more will come of this game. Very NPOV "perfect level design". Beyond help, as unlikely anyone familiar with project will ever come back here. --BakugekiNZ 03:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed. The Deviant 03:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Jawz 08:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Uses specialized language such as Mario-like only familiar to gamers, but that's fixable -- what's not is the article reads more like a review than an encyclopedia article, and the subject doesn't seem to be notable to warrant a rewrite. --Mysidia (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minor fan-created game by defunct group. What more need be said? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per JzG. --Mareino 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity, vanity, thy name is Brad.Denni ☯ 03:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yeah, this is vanity to the Nth level. The Deviant 03:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity --BakugekiNZ 04:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Good Lord, what a piece of work Brad Feld is. --Lockley 06:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for vanity.Blnguyen 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. --Terence Ong 11:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete delete asap, pure vanity Russco 14:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy since bfeld (talk · contribs) has no user page as yet. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 13:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbustoo 04:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Save the picture and the last sentence for BJAODN--Mareino 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was article was speedied outside of this process. Closing the debate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17 year old 'bible code' researcher. No evidence to back up claims of noteability. Delete. --InShaneee 03:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for obvious reasons --BakugekiNZ 04:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonnotable. Connection between Pena and Inferno unverifable. —ERcheck @ 05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonnotable.Blnguyen 07:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. --Terence Ong 11:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable and vanity. --StoatBringer 13:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Did anyone actually read the reference site? All of the notability is thereUser:Klmc4 21:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The website provided was put in AFTER all of the notability comments. The website does provide for all the information provided. The site is hard to navigate, but the info is there User:Archpain 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see why this is still considered for deletion. The only negative case stated here concerns notabilty, but the website provided clearly states the information. User:Prolime 01:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, defaulting to keep. STANDARD DISCLAIMER: NO CONSENSUS NOW DOES NOT PRECLUDE FORMATION OF CONSENSUS IN THE FUTURE. DO NOT CITE THIS AFD AS REASON TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE A MERGE OR REDIRECT. Johnleemk | Talk 13:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks notability, i.e., is not "known outside of a narrow interest group or constituency" (quoted from guideline on notability). May be a vanity article. Hydriotaphia 04:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge unless expanded to meet WP:SCH. Delete if not verified.Gateman1997 06:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete. Delete due to non-notability. However, the precedent is to keep high schools and merge primary schools, per WP:SCH. As a result, delete unless we can verify the information. -Rebelguys2 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As of this moment, there is no verifiable information in this article. Therefore it must be deleted, pending a substantial rewrite with sources. "Notability" is an absurd thing to even discuss, when the issue should be about verifiability. To the nom, Quoted from *essay* on notability "This is not a policy or guideline.". Finally, please quit this rubbish about precedent of merging primaries. No such precedent exists. WP:SCH is the closest thing to standard (but not standard), and its all about content, not education level. Elementaries tend to have less content, and are more likely to be merged, but not simply because they are a lower level. Actually precedent is to keep all verified schools regardless. But some of us have been willing to compromise, and accept mergers of substubs (partly in a pursuit of peace). Please don't misread the compromise of WP:SCH to be anti-primary school. Its not. --Rob 07:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on the following links.

[6] [7] [8] [9] They do seem to suggest there was a school called Moe High School and it opened in 1953, in Victoria, Australia. Is that enough? dunno... Jcuk 08:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for finding that, but for now, I'm staying with delete. I think the school existed, but there's still no reliable sources about the school that are adequate for our reliable sources guidelines. I'm now personally certain of its existence, but that's not good enough for inclusion. I oppose a merge in this case, because I don't wish to "contaminate" a valid well-sourced article with inadequately sourced information from this article. --Rob 08:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'm quite ok with schools being on Wikipedia. --Terence Ong 11:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep References on the sites of two major universities and the state government seem sufficient to me, but that song still looks fake. CalJW 16:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — It lasted for about 20 years and then was demolished? Was it a temporary construction until a better school was built? We can probably mention it on a page about the replacement school. But there seems to be nothing useful about the current content. — RJH 16:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verified - notability is a failed policy. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the existence of the school has been verified, but per policy it is the content of the article that needs to be verified, and that has not been done. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is certain content that is unverified, then by all means remove that content. That's no reason to delete the article.
• Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 19:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the article contains some good, well-sourced, verifiable content prior to expiration of AfD discussion. Can be re-created at any time when content that meets Wikipedia policy is available. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is difficult to make a decision. Was the school replaced by another school? Moe is certainly a prominant place and could well have a High School. If so, put this in the article about the later school. If not, weak keep, but only if the article is much improved. Bduke 23:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 22:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Moe, Victoria, needs work incl citations etc but not deletion. --A Y Arktos 23:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought this was a hoax to start with, but it genuinely seems to exist (http://static.namesdatabase.com/schools/AUVT/Moe/MoeHighSchool.html) so on the usual principles (i.e. I vote merge for stubs, keep for longer articles), given that it is more than a stub, keep it is. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with a redirect since I have now failed to verify (as have others) the content of the article3 in any respect other than that "Moe high school is a high school in Moe" which iis scarcely going to make the front pages. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem with a merge is that this *was* a school. We don't know precisely what happened to it (we know the remnants of the building were dumped somewhere improperly, so that confirms its demolished). Where do we merge a closed school to? Do you list it in Moe, Victoria, possibly next to currently open school(s)? Maybe make a new article on a school district (if one is applicable), and make a closed school as its first, and initially only entry? I submit that often *more* information is needed to do a merge, than to have a stand alone article. For instance, when merging, you need to know what if any district is relevant, and any/all communities served by a school. We don't know that. Currently, we can probably be confident that Moe, Victoria is 100% correct. Why would we wish to spoil that. --Rob 17:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. The article is now sufficiently referenced. Silensor 16:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It appears that Lowanna College was formed in 1994 after the merger of three former Secendary Colleges. It serves Moe, Newborough and surrounding districts, so Moe High School may have been one of the three. See Lowanna College. Maybe we need a page about Lowanna College that includes stuff about three closed Schools! Bduke 22:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep or merge, real and just about verifiable schoolKappa 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• {{db-school}}. Minimal content to expand upon, and no assertion of notability whatsoever. This is the type of stub somebody would create to shock the hell out of his football coach (to further the "jockstrap" motif). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:54, Jan. 22, 2006
• Keep The school clearly exists. Kurt Weber 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Existance is not a keep criteron per Wikipedia policy.Gateman1997 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Schools themselves aren't notable just because they exist. AnAn 03:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 15:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable; unverifiable. Only Google hits are Wikipedia and mirrors. —ERcheck @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. No Google hits for band except Wikipedia and mirrors. —ERcheck @ 04:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom.Blnguyen 06:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite for notability. It appears that a David Weinstein's work has been featured via a commissioning of the NRPA [10], a group that makes radio productions and has them performed on public radio. Specifically speaking, the program he composed for, "O Little Town," won the Prix Futura price [11], apparently an international award in Berlin for excellence in television and radio. I'm not sure how well it fits into WP:MUSIC, but there's plenty of reason to keep this article with all this in mind. I'll try to rewrite when I get an opportunity. --badlydrawnjeff 14:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since Jeff seems to be committed to fixing the problems; lets see how he gets on :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why...why...are you challenging me, sir?! d;-) --badlydrawnjeff 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have expanded the article somewhat to better reflect his notability. It still needs work, but I believe his notability is more than established at this stage. --badlydrawnjeff 16:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Keep as edited. --kingboyk 21:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as rewritten by badlydrawnjeff; notability established. Hall Monitor 22:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep the current edit, appears to be notable per the NYT. Stifle 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (patent nonsense) and recreate as redirect to Ryll. howcheng {chat} 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax, not verifiable, or possible original research J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  04:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Speedy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - patent nonsense. —ERcheck @ 05:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment wasn't sure about tagging as speedy J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as silly vandalism; G3. As idiotic as it is, I don't see it as utterly patent nonsense; but close. PJM 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as (mind my informality) total piece of crap. Sycthos^Talk 05:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense.Blnguyen 06:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ryll. VegaDark 07:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A very good example of patent nonsense. --Lockley 07:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Ryll, which is what I thought of when I saw the article title. Grandmasterka 07:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 07:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short article that mostly consisted of a copyrighted porn image that I removed. Probably not notable. Delete. Kusma (討論) 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Expand. "Dirty Lilly" seems notable with 42,200 results on a google test, but the article is only one sentence long. Delete only if impossible to expand. Sycthos^Talk 05:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've tagged this as a nn-bio speedy. Simply saying "porn star" is not a claim to notability. If the author of this sub-sub stub couldn't be bothered to make any more effort, we really don't have to preserve their name in the history forever. Delete it, and if someone wants to write a real article with actual sources, give them a biscuit. - brenneman^(t)(c) 06:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a free hosting provider. J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA  05:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT. Dbtfz 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above.Blnguyen 06:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --NaconKantari 21:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom James084 21:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A church which, unusually for a church is "a community of Christ Followers who come together to worship God" and - in a complete break with tradition - meets weekly and on alternate Sundays. Actually that is a break with tradition, since most churches aspire to meet every Sunday but we'll let that pass. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JzG (as is often the case, his summary is better written and more interesting than the article being discussed!) --kingboyk 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a minimal advertisement for a professional organization with a substantial number of google hits (possibly because the organization itself is web-based), but there is no assertion of notability, and the stub refers readers to a web site for more details rather than summarizing those details Endomion 05:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertising, virtually linkspam. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pavel Vozenilek 18:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. No evidence of any authority whatsoever. Will reconsider if the article is rewritten in line with policy before closure. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 14:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. Stifle 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a vision statement--Mareino 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]