Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 13

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MNewnham (talk | contribs) at 22:48, 13 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 12 >

Purge server cache

January 13

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Collections

nn flash animations r3m0t talk 22:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 06:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. - ulayiti (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farm_cove_observatory

WP:NOT There may be some notability, but the article was originally nominated for expansion back on 4 Dec 2005, and there's been no activity since then. It's been asserted that the article was originally created as part of a wiki-war. I'm wondering if there's anything here worth keeping. Justin Eiler 13:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad Tepes (band)

Though the article states the band has 10 releases, most appear to be demos[2]. Abstain. PJM 13:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fire and Steel

Vanity. (Author's only work. Only one author, except one edit. Non-notable.) Skyscrap27 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arena51

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus (should of closed it at that yesterday since there were 13 votes). Ichiro 15:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of firearms in first-person shooters

Listcruft, list of some weapons in some first-person shooters, with links to articles on the real weapons. Wikipedia is not gamefaqs.com WP:NOT (half of them from WWII themed shooters and the other half pretty much made up of various MP5 variants etc). Scoo 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It can be a useful list in giving a user who knows nothing about games a taster on the types of weaponary in games. It also looks like quite a bit of work has gone into research and creating the list, which is a shame to go to waste. Roger Dangerfields 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note: this user account was created on Jan 5 2006, edits consisted mostly of vandalism and was subsequently blocked on Jan 6 2006 (Block log), note by Scoo 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of considerable interest to gamers and firearms enthusiasts. The fact that we have articles on most of them confirms both the interest in them and the need for useful lists and cross-referencing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what this list provide is a selection of weapons in 17 computer/video games (and 2 computer game mods). User Just zis Guy, you know? say it very well here why some lists fit wery well on Wikipedia, while others do not. Some of the content in the list might be summarized in a proper article on first-person shooter weapons, provided that it is backed up by facts & findings from sources such as www.gamestudies.org and similar. On a sidenote, today most games can be modded or receive expansion packs etc. that add new content to games. Thus, a list such as this serve little purpose on Wikipedia. Scoo 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I say it's a nice comprehensive list, however several game articles have a weapons list that should be put into this article. Also, I've put a LOT of work into the article, and to see it removed would make me disappointed. Maybe a rename such as List of real-life weapons in video games could work? Because then we don't have to limit it to just first-person shooters, and maybe third-person shooter games (and certain other games such as Resident Evil) could be listed as well. TonicBH 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since I didn't want the work to be wasted, some of the pages that didn't have weapon lists or had partial/incomplete ones now have complete weapons lists (see Nightfire, Soldier of Fortune II: Double Helix, Urban Terror). If anyone wishes to add other ones (like for the Call of Duty games, for example), that would help. TonicBH 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Close call and subjective: if this list had been created with less care then I would have deleted and possibly speedied. It's organized and developed enough to serve as a reference for gaming and firearms enthusiasts. To the list creator: I suggest conversion into table format. Durova 21:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

child-K|Wrathchild]] (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep and merge. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heijunka

Keep: Heijunka is a technique that is used in the lean manufacturing business model. It is NOT the same a Just-in-time, so should not be merged with that. The description given is not at all clear, though the examples of how it works are correct. Not notable. r3m0t talk 16:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boarhouse

Tagged for speedy delete with {{db-club}}. I do not belive this qualifies for a speedy delte. However, the notability is not IMO well established by the article as it stands, and seems to be dubious at best. Delete Unless notablity clearly established, and some effort made to convert this to more of an encyclopedia article and less of a travle guide entry. DES (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Ichiro 02:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Captain "Jag" Jai'Galaar

Minor character, does not fit WP:Fiction guidelines for own article. No clear consensus as to where this should go, as there are no pages for minor SW republic characters. Could be merged into a future List of Minor Republic characters in Star Wars or the like, but as it stands, no. Mitsukai 17:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Ichiro 15:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Armona Union School District

Rambling, POV article that seems to have something with one particular school. There may be an actual AUSD, but this article doesn't even give that information. Meets WP:NOT in every way possible. Mitsukai 20:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 23:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of solar eclipses seen from China

Seems NN, no other similar pages for other countries, Delete. Colonel Cow 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would only be notable for historical records of eclipses, from the dawn of time until 1900. 132.205.45.110 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely useless. Alr 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't see anything in the deletion policy that forbids this. However, I do agree that it is somewhat arbitrary. If it were up to me I would keep it because I see no harm coming from it. DrIdiot 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft Sceptre (Talk) 23:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's verifiable and interesting. Needs to be cleaned up to standardize dates but otherwise looks good. Ifnord 23:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain, but two things: firstly the future redlink eclipses should be dewikilinked, as creating the articles would be crystal balling, and secondly the article needs to be renamed, as the title uses the past tense even though the article includes to eclipses 800 years in the future. --Last Malthusian 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, we cannot dewiki the future dates due to the poor design of MediaWiki in overloading the brackets to indicate not only internal links, but date preferences as well. Turnstep 01:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually this would be one of the very few legitimate exceptions to the crystal ball argument. Eclipses really are predictable centuries in advance. All it takes is physics and mathematics. Durova 07:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • From WP:NOT: "Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alex (2010)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise." That seems to match future eclipses perfectly. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it's not a perfect match. While the chance of a tropical storm occuring in 2010 is extremely high, the chance that future eclipses will happen is orders of magnitude more likely. You could almost say as likely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning. :) Unless some *extremely* improbable event happens, such as the Earth being destroyed by Voguns, these eclipses will happen. I still wouldn't link to the dates, however. Better to link to a single page on future astromical events or something. Turnstep 18:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Maybe I've misinterpreted, but I interpreted that sentence, specifically "even though it is virtually certain", to mean that crystal balling does not necessarily exclude articles about subjects that are certain to happen. --Malthusian (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The exact wording is, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Basically what it would take to alter this schedule is a collision with a very large comet - a collision on a scale neither the earth nor moon have experienced in hundreds of millions of years. So yup: this article falls within Wikipedia's narrow exception. Durova 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per precedent on lists of eclipses (see below) and inability to make this article conform with crystal ball policy. --Malthusian (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and I hope someone could extend this article to the whole world. — Yaohua2000 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well that's exactly my point. The Solar eclipse article already has a list of recent and upcoming (to 2020) eclipses across the world. The question I ask to the Wikipedia community in this AFD is whether or not a separate article is needed for China, with eclipses ranging from 1001 to 3000. --Colonel Cow 03:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipses can be seen from worldwide area is very different from solar eclipses can be seen from a specific location. For worldwide, total solar eclipses are common, about once every one or two years, but for a specific location, they are very rare events, about once every 300 years. So it makes sense to list these rare events in a separated article. — Yaohua2000 09:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But one could just check the Solar eclipse page and look for eclipses in their region of the world (it says where the eclipse will happen on that page). Now, it doesn't go as far into the future as this article, but whether or not a list really needs to go to 3000 is a separate debate (which I'm sure those at the Solar eclipse page have already debated). --Colonel Cow 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I always wondering when I can see a total solar eclipse in my hometown when I was a child, total eclipse is rather rare, and it is not easy for a layman to work it out with enough precision, for people with similar questions, this article focuses on the previous and next total and annular solar eclipses from a specific location on the Earth, Solar eclipse doesn't contain such information, and such information is also rare on the web. Wikipedia and this article gives the answer. So I think it is useful, and perhaps encyclopedic, if it has a worldwide view some time, it can be a great article. — Yaohua2000 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Solar eclipse does in fact have that information (or is being added). If I were someone in New York, I could go to the Solar eclipse article and look for the next time an eclipse will occur for me in that list (by looking for "North America"). Same thing if I were anywhere in the world. If I were in Beijing, I'd go and look for eclipses under Asia. Solar eclipse already has this worldwide view that you speak of, and so pages like this aren't needed in my opinion. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you did some research on this topic, you might not think so. Absolute most (> 95%) total solar eclipses in North America is not total in New York. Even in Beijing, Beijing municipality is far smaller than North America, but during A.D. 1001 and A.D. 2000 period [8], 7 total eclipses occured from somewhere in the municipality, but only one visible in the urban area. So for someone only check total eclipses visible in North America, or even State of New York doesn't make so much sense to total eclipses in New York City. — Yaohua2000 21:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So then a column on the Solar eclipse page e.g. "Total eclipse viewable in" would be a good idea, but it still doesn't change that a list about China itself (when the information could be put on the Solar eclipse page and represent a worldwide view) is "listcruft" in my opinion, as Sceptre put it. --Colonel Cow 21:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can create such a column in solar eclipse, but make this column as a separated article would be better. — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This list navigate aid articles in Category:Solar eclipses. — Yaohua2000 20:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories in themselves are navigational aids, so they don't need pages redirecting people to them. --Colonel Cow 21:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This article not only a navigational aid, but also provide additional information to the readers. Why don't you think it is a great article, but require to delete it? :( — Yaohua2000 22:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a category for this already, why keep the list? Plus, this would lead to an infinite series of lists of eclipses visible from location X. And I'm sure people won't stop at countries, they will want to include their hometowns as well. JoaoRicardotalk 00:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should stay because this list organizes information in ways that no category could emulate. It's an excellent example of the sort of information a good list can provide. Durova 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These six cities have a combined population of 81 million people. How is that obscure? Durova 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediashout

WikiPedia policiy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

Advertising. Articles about companies and products are fine if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. Alancookie 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with cleanup tag. 46k google. although the article is currently about Corporation MediaShout 2.5 rather than Mediashout itself -- Astrokey44|talk 05:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From what I can tell the product is called MediaShout, but the company is MediaComplete, so it still needs cleanup/clarification Alancookie 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, also most of the Google results are not unique. -- Kjkolb 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the topic worship presentation program which describes this genre of software along with external links to various software, including MediaShout. This was my solution after putting some thought into it, but I'm only making this suggestion if it would be appropriate Alancookie 06:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the media coordinator at our church, and we use Mediashout in our worship services. I vote Keep, as I rely on Wikipedia for anything I think of!!! Also, I don't quite think this is anything to do with the company. Probably someone who had no idea about the wiki's standards, and thought Wikipedia was some kind of "copy 'n paste" place. But can't we fix it instead of DELETE IT??? --66.82.9.82 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StreetRides

Appears to a be patent vanispamcruftisement, yet not eligible for the miracle of speedy deletion. The Miss Alexa has never heard of their website [9]. Not finding anything relevant on google either [10] [11]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:08, Jan. 13, 2006

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. – FON (T) 00:15, Jan. 13, 2006

I had to look up vanispamcruftisement - unfortunately that website represents part of the logo which has only just been submitted to Melbourne IT for a .com.au domain, it has been approved but takes 72 hours. This page has been put up initially so that members of SR can contribute information as they have been allocated.

Cheers, Mat Graham (preceding comment by Matgraham (talk · contribs))

Okay, but it's not acceptable to use wikipedia to promote your business or website. If your organization becomes notable in the future, somebody else will write about it. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:17, Jan. 13, 2006

Oh ok, it's not for promotion at all. It's just that it's a decent size. It's not even my club, I'm just a member and thought it'd be cool to have a wiki on it? doesn't matter, I'll tell the troops not to bother submitting anything to it :( - Mat.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --a.n.o.n.y.m t 12:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maera

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryoichi Mizuno

Vanity, non-notable, Wikipedia is not a directory. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sainthood of all believers

The name of the iarticle is self explanitory and there is no need for this article to exist. Any explination that could possibly be given here would amount to "All people who believe this are Saints" which is self referential and has no useful information. Any article which links to this one can be fixed with 1/2 a sentence if it needs any change at all. Kode 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Vegas

This stub article was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe that the article's statement that the person in a professional wrestler in Canada's Northern Championship Wrestling makes this an improper CSD but I am listing it here out of courtesy to the editor whose speedy tag I removed. No vote at this time. -- DS1953 talk 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I see where the speedy nominator comes from. It makes a claim to notability, but really doesn't say anything useful apart from that. CSD A1 was appropriate, but if anyone is willing to add a line or two of basic information, I'd be happy to keep this without reservations. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also scores of professional footballers, and atletes, but we still keep those. If you're going to delete this, please do it based on lack of content. Notability shouldn't be an issue with professional sportsmen. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestlers are not sportspeople, they are performers. We do not have pages for every obscure performer in a band. Hu 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Howard

This article is more like a newsflash than a biography and contains only info on the subject's death. I'm hoping somebody will know more about it and improve. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup per above. I think if someone spends more than one minute on this we could get a better bio of this pro streetball player. -- JJay 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable, but needs to be changed from a memorial to a biography. Starts off "It is our sad duty to share some news with you about a member of the AND1 family" and continues "...This legendary AND 1 Mix Tape Player" which led me to believe he was a musician, until I found out from Google that he plays something called streetball. At the very least it should say what he did. Since the author is still working on it I'm inclined to leave it alone and clean it up when it looks like he's done. --Last Malthusian 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Move to RFD, where I should have nominated it in the first place. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 02:21Z


Vds (disambiguation)

Unneccessary disambiguation page; VDS is already a disambig. Delete —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 01:12Z


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Food Chains in Metro Manila

Trivial phone book listing of fast food restaurants. Durova 01:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zoe as patent nonsense. Stifle 02:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Peanuts Cities

I have speedy deleted this article and blocked Gerald15 for a week, as I warned him I would do if he continued creating this nonsense. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork (song)

Delete not notable children's song. I had to hunt around a bit to understand what this song is etc, and found that it was performed by LeVar Burton once on an American children's tv show (on PBS) called Reading Rainbow in the 1980s; it wasn't ever released on any medium as far as I can tell. Qirex 01:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I've now re-written the article to be coherent, but I still find this completely not notable. (old vers) --Qirex 01:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete., non-notable bio for production company with no reliable sources Madchester 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOB Productions

"Production company" for some teenagers who made a film. There might be a claim of notability in the article since it says their film was well-received in many places, but it's hard to check since the film's name isn't mentioned in the article and looks to be a hoax. Googling "FOB productions"+desi gets 628 results, most of them from word lists and none seem to be relevant to this. - Bobet 01:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actualy, if you bothered to read, you'd realize that is gives the movie name as Sarhad Ke Par Dosti. Maybe not a big movie like King Kong. But teenagers doing charitable work on a movie scale seems very noteworthy? or is it just me? ---Raj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.25.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 01:56:52 UTC
  • Hey, just because you don't know the movie doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted. I mean, the point of Wikipedia is to help others learn about new things, right? This article can inspire creativity in schools, and i know this free ENCYCLOPEDIA doesn't want to preclude education? Yeah. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.95.1 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:00:32 UTC
  • Comment: sorry about that, it must've been lost between the two pictures. 0 google hits for "Sarhad Ke Par Dosti". - Bobet 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarhad Ke Par Dosti is not a hoax-i saw the movie on google video and was pleased by the quality of the film. These people have obviously put hard work into making this movie. I would recommend anyone doubting the validity of this article and the production "company" to email [email protected] (as seen on the bottom of the page) to assuage your doubts. Maybe they can help you. --Ananth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ananthram90ib (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:09:15 UTC
  • FOB productions is an integral part of the desi population here in Dallas. Taking away this article will incur the wrath of the fobs and presumably start conflict. Keep the article. ---PESH student — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.49.14 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:09:24 UTC
  • Raj again, sorry for the somewhat uncivilized comment. Obviously the movie isn't a hoax. There are images, a poster and everything for the movie. I e-mailed FOB Productions and told them about this. They said that their movie was only reaseled through Desi people through hiearchal diffusion. They never had a website or a page for Sarhad Ke Par Dosti, as they did simple chartiable work and didn't bother with webpages. Just cause google does not index something does not mean its a fake. If people are going to base reality on what Google says, then i think that there might me a little bit of a problem with that. I am pretty sure if u type in "The Sky is always Hot Pink" im sure you'll get some hits...and as the wikipedia article said, there was a technical dificulty and the video was accidently removed from Google Video. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.25.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:26:05 UTC
  • FOB Productions is a valid production company with a release to its name. As seen in the article, Sarhad Ke Par Dosti is its debut release. FOB plans to release another movie May 2006 for similar purposes. - KM, Plano Resident — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.64.147.122 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:46:05 UTC
  • I am appalled at the fact that anyone would desire to remove this article. This movie's quality is superior and the content represents the Desi population of Dallas, and the removal of this symbol of the hope and achievements of the Desi pop. will definitely not please them. Personally, many of us down here at Texas Instruments would be disappointed ---FOB PRIDE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.125.205 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:47:05 UTC
  • Ok guys, just for the record.. FOB productions is not a hoax at all. This article should not at all be deleted. I have seen the movie.. and more importantly, i loved it. It may have been a slightly low budget film, but for a group of teenagers, it was fantastic-- definitely represented us desis well: Especially the references to other hindi movies. I hope FOB productions continues to make more films because I, for one, would enjoy to see them. -- Rojaneer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.178.189 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 02:52:05 UTC
  • The article tells us that a group of schoolchildren banded together and made a movie, but that the movie isn't available. The article cites no sources. Bobet has looked for sources, and hasn't found any. I've looked for sources and not found any, also. This article is unverifiable. Articles that readers cannot verify do not belong in Wikipedia. Delete. Uncle G 03:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raj again: There is always their e-mail source. If their own e-mails are not proof. Then there is no proof. Does culture chartity organizations that don't have google webpages have to not have articles on wikipedia?. The Desi population is dissapointed. I vote Keep article just like most of the other Desi (i think?) commenters here. the rest is up to wikipedia. The nuggets page thing is completly irrelevant. This page is obviously, as seen by it, not just random links to other pages. It has its own content. And to make up all that stuff seems very unlikely. If this article is deleted, what you would have done was destroy, as someone else said of FOB Productions "symbol of the hope and achievements of the Desi pop". Tell me, Does it harm you in any way is Desi's find pride by having this page up? With it up, many desi people are happy, but your tearing it down, disheartens them. i don't see what the problem is to leave it up if it helps a cultural community? social welfare is a very good thing...just to let you know... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.25.54 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-13 03:14 UTC
  • Delete, repeated requests for documentation have not been forthcoming. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do yall just want a website link? Is that your documentation?

Ananth again: try emailing the fobproductions, as i said before. Ask them to send u files for proof. in fact, i will try to email [email protected]

ok ok this is getting nasty for no reason. really. nothing in the article is false information. every company starts out small. want to ruin a dream? really, i mean, if nothing is false information, and none if it hurts anyone, why destroy a dream for no reason? --S.

  • well, if you want your sources, try emailing Fob productions --ananth
  • For trailers or anything e-mail them. As they are just a culture/charity company I'm pretty sure they won't care showing you how they try to promote their culture.and this is not a promotional site, its to show to others what a group of teens can do. Also, through this, they created an organization called Pragati which collected 600 lbs of clothes to give to poor people in India. As the article says, there is no personal gain here. Can people read? --Raj
Email is not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's set guidelines. Anyone can create an account on a free email provider and distribute material as they please, under that name. --Madchester 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • well, if you want proof that FOB productions exists, why not email them? you will receive proof in the form of the movie that they made.
  • Raj: So be it. But tell me, do you something against giving an article to teenagers who are trying to help their community? Why would anyone lie about a group trying to give stuff to the community? its not lyk they're trying to claim that they're movie beats Lord of the Rings. Very well. If you "true" wikipedians feel that it hurts you all to host this article then i guess itll have to be deleted. obviously true wikipedians just like to delete things. I guess a chance for some teenagers trying to help their community has been crushed by people that say they are trying to help the world with wikipedia. So be it. This is life. Unfair, cruel, brutish.
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:13Z

just because it is non-notable or is not famous does not mean that it isnt the truth. let them keep the article. unless you wikipedians enjoy crushing minorities' dreams. i agree with what raj has said...

  • Delete. As per the Wikipedia:Verifiability guidelines, "Verifiability, not truth". We have a complete lack of third party sources, which means the only people who can tell us the 'truth' are the subjects of the article, and that is a bad thing. The movie's name doesn't respond in Google. The producers, FOB Productions, score a grand total of 7 unique Google responses, which include a model hiring service, advertising for the model service, the Yahoo Group for the model service, the releaser of a hip-hop album titled "FOB", a newsletter of some description, and someone that wants me to install a virused toolbar. If you could provide one relevant website (not created by this production company), or even one article in a newspaper about the film or the company that we can track down and confirm, I'm sure your case would be a lot stronger. Yelling at us and thrusting an email address at us is not going to help you, and will probably hurt. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The purpose of any encyclopedia is to document the truth. lack of verification on the internet is not valid lack of verification, for there exists a world outside of the internet. there is no possible way to cite FOB productions (barring email, which is deemed invalid by many of you) on the internet; it exists in tangible form, it just doesnt happen to be on the internet, seeing as how its not a syndicated movie (how would it get on the internet?), and done on an extremely small scale. nevertheless, it exists. anonymous testimony (it is not as though personal information will increase verifiability) is all that exists on the internet, but there is no other kind of testimony of verification that can possibly be transferred to a web site. Furthermore, there is no reason, evidence, or suspicion to doubt its existence. this is not a "guilty until proven innocent" trial. -Korok
    • Which is why I suggested a newspaper article, if one has been written on the movie or the company, be brought to our attention. Newspapers aren't online, but it isn;t too difficult for someone to contact the paper publisher and ask "Did your newspaper print an article on FOB Productions on the *insert date here*?". They look through their records, they say yes we did or no we didn't... and bingo. Verifiability! -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 05:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree, that Korok person has a fair point. and those FOB productions sites on google are not the same and as far as anyone can tell, this is a different type of FOB productions. this is a chartiy thing, not a model site or something..and if more screenshots from the movie, or if posting the trailer up will help everyone believe the credibility of FOB Productions then i will get the trailers and put them up. Maybe ill do that right now. --Raj
  • Delete is as Uncle G says, plus the claims are notability are not backed up. WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Persistent testimonials on AfD tend to attract deletion votes. I wish you well with your project. Enter it in some film festivals, get a newspaper to write about it, and resubmit the article when the project can be verified. Durova 06:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who ever you are Durova, even though you are against this CHARITY (so why would they enter in a film festival?) you have been the most constructive with your comments. While other's call this culture charity a hoax, you have said something useful. Ill e-mail your idea to them...but im not sure they're going for publicity. Who ever put up the article just liked what they did. --Raj
    • Nonprofit organizations are welcome to submit their productions for awards. It could bring attention to their cause, possibly distribution or broadcast or news reports or donations. I'm not against the charity. I like charities and vote for them when I can. Wikipedia has rules. Durova 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until they are more famous. -- Kjkolb 13:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. -- JamJar 16:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Failure to provide a third-party source of verification means it gets my delete vote as a vanity. It may be a charitable vanity, but it's vanity nonetheless. In addition I add a plea that the ones striving to get this article kept stop assuming that everyone who votes against it are anti-charity in some way, or out to get you, or whatever paranoia is involved. As for the arguments that deleting the article will somehow "destroy a dream" and "the removal of this symbol of the hope and achievements of the Desi pop will definately not please them", how much of a dream can it be if it's destroyed simply because Wikipedia guidelines don't allow the article? How much of a symbol of hope is it if you start screaming it's some sort of discrimination or conspiracy not to have it here? As harsh as it may be to sum up the 'keep' arguements this way, perhaps Shakespeare put it best with "It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." Nezu Chiza 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zoe and others --kingboyk 21:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute, Obvious, Strong Delete. A group of kids made a movie and posted it on Google Video. Then they decided their production company, an acronym for an ethnic slur, would be cute to put into Wikipedia. This is absolutely non-notable. JDoorjam 23:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The movie is not even available on Google video as the article claims. It's just a home movie made by non-notable people. Crunch 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a pretty good movie, but cheesy special effects


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concentricus

NN website, alexa has no data on it. -- Bachrach44 01:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's an important influence in the world of online literature. Few places allow such a professional atmosphere.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crash zero (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. --Fang Aili 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jdcooper 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Delete per nom. chillinvillain "" Actually, alexa has plenty of info on it, unless you are talking about traffic stats...which I'm unsure what that has to do with anything about this
    • You may want to read WP:WEB. --Bachrach44 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems a bit off to what the website actually is. Wikipedia is dynamic right? What are the criteria is there for a webzine. Online publishing is not a small field, and while it is not the purpose here to argue the merits of online publishing, it seems as though the guidelines do not fit the page (for the catagory i mean). So I guess my question is: Is there actual guidelines for webzines or is it all grouped under the link you gave me? I'm just a bit unsure of how we are supposed to "prove it's worth" as it were for wiki, given other webzines grouped here. --chillinvillain
  • Delete as non-notable webzine. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:14Z
  • Delete - article provides no evidence of the webzine's influence - this evidence might include outside sources that discuss it, or events outside of this zine that it has influenced. CDC (talk) 06:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • --06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)chillinvillain BBC had actaully offered to base a series off of a users piece (Universe, An Unauthorized Bibliography), however there is no proof of that offer due to it happening over a year ago and the user has sense moved on. I'm more than willing to back the zine up, but there are currently no real guidelines for that. What qualifies as an "outside source" linking to concentricus, or what makes it "notable". Currently, I don't see a way to submit the websites influence.
  • Comment :: as is at the moment, this does not read to me like a peer review, rather like a discrete press release. If Wiki-fied, would consider weak keep; as is, delete for self-promotion -- SockpuppetSamuelson 09:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, unverifiable, advert, etc. Stifle 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twink Kee

This is not a real Star Wars character. They don't appear in any work of fiction, nor any reference book. In short, I don't think this article has any basis in fact. LtNOWIS 01:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Test Icicles

This page would be a clear-cut speedy, since non-notable bands are now speediable, but the fact it's been around for a few months stops me from just deleting it. Delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sootie

Word as spelled does not exist. The information was originally put at Sooty (here) and claimed to be from 1960's Wales. No dictionary lists this spelling. The current information may be correct but not under this spelling. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. The previous post was incorrect. The word Sootie, is, as you say, not listed in the dictionary, however I beleive it to be in common usage. Is Wikipedia's policy to remove words not listed in the dictionary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 13 January 2006
  • Delete as unverifiable protologism. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:15Z
  • Delete from here, move to wiktionary if someone can verify this use (I couldn't). - Bobet 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of you who could not find verification on the background to the word 'sootie' this site should help. Welsh mining — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 11:41, 13 January 2006
  • can i please comment on the IP references to each person that makes a comment on this page. so far they have given references in a detrimental manner. i do not see what independant un-biased benefit IP addressess give to anybody — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 2006-01-14 01:03:27 UTC
  • Moreover, there has been reference to the word 'sootie' in conjunction to the London bombings. This can be found at London Bombing discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 January 2006
  • Keep Seems to me to be sufficient resources backing up the phrase. Links listed by the user do show multiple, and seperate, examples of "sootie" in common usage. Including it's source. - User:andy99 15:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (This comment is by 86.12.160.88 too)[reply]
  • Keep This phrase is in common use in my area, which is in the Midlands. This article is one which i believe to be verifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 January 2006
  • Keep In Wiktionary, 'Sootie' states, 'Dark in appearence' hence there is good cause to believe that this article is viable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 13 January 2006
  • Keep In Suffolk this word is part of popular culture to describe someone as "stupid" after they have done something silly. My parents always used to call me a sootie when I was young. I'm not sure where it originated, but found this article very interesting. Any welsh historians out there with more information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.160.88 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 13 January 2006
  • Delete: first 100 Google references are mostly names, with a few type of animals, sites in a foreign language, and references to the Burns poem. I can't find any reference to sootie on the Welsh mining site. I'll also note that 86.12.160.88 has only made one edit unrelated to this. TimBentley 17:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • finally, someone else who uses this term. It is used frequently in my place of work, and have never really been sure of its origins. glad to finally put my curiosity to rest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.67.225.111 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 January 2006 UTC.
  • Yes it's me again. Hi, yes the same old IP address again, just a few more cases of the word being used in the context i mentioned previously. here here and here Although now i'm unsure as to whether to use the spelling IE or Y at the end. Further to this, looking at this last link (the wikipedia article) it would appear the word could also have originated from the very early Indo-European practice of "suttee" Pure logic states that that the above saying is logical.
  • Delete unless verified. If verified, then transwiki to Wikitionary. Durova 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of User:86.12.160.88's arguments so far have been arguments about adding further meanings to a dictionary article in a dictionary, such as sootie. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It is an encyclopaedia. Our articles are not about the words, but about the people/concepts/places/things/events denoted by those words. Even assuming that the slur exists as claimed, there is no encyclopaedia article about sooties to be had here. And Wiktionary has a perfectly editable article ready for additional meanings to be added. Delete. Uncle G 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Uncle G, can i just bring it to the attention of all, that history whether it be of a word or anything else is perfectly eligible for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia, by definition contains 'the entire range of human knowledge' as shown here. This would further support the fact that anything that someone would want to know about something should be found somewhere in an encyclopedia. Hence, bringing it back to the word 'sootie', there is a need for the word to be added to wikipedia so that people can look into the why and wherefores behind the word. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.160.88 12:48, 14 January 2006 (talk • contribs) .

COMMENT

When is there likely to be a decision on this matter? I feel all the relevant points have been put forward by both sides of the discussion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Steve789 02:56, 16 January 2006 (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chez trouser

Appears to be made up phrase that can't be verified. The article as is contradicts itself, in saying the phrase was delveloped by a group of studens and later coined by a TV show. Looks like nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under CSD G7. Nufy8 02:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Screamers

This article was created 01:35, 13 January 2006 as a dump from PRank Flash. Even if we ignore the GFDL issues with a copy-paste move, we cannot ignore the fact that verification had been requested on the items on this list, and that article with "List" as the first word are hard to hold to WP:V and hard to get passed AfD without attracting lots of "useful, keep" opinions. Verification through Wikipedia:Reliable sources is not optional, and lists are not exempt. brenneman(t)(c) 02:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 16:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Amesbury

Deletion was requested by an anonymous editor (who, on the balance of evidence, I assume to be Amesbury herself.) The situation is that the subject is a transgendered woman who is primarily notable for two Top 40 hit singles that predate her gender transition. The anon editor three times attempted to rewrite the article to eliminate any acknowledgement of the transgender issue while still retaining credit for the songs, even though the songs are verifiably credited to a performer named "Bill" rather than Barbara. [12]

She then requested deletion when she was advised that the article could not simply pretend that she was known as Barbara at the time the songs charted, and thus the only options are either to acknowledge that she was once known as Bill, or to delete the article altogether since the songs are the main reason she's notable enough for an article in the first place.

Thus, my questions are as follows:

  1. Does the subject of an article have the right to dictate what Wikipedia can or cannot write about her, if the dispute has more to do with personal image management than accuracy?
  2. If so, then how else can Wikipedia handle the topic, given that we quite rightly should have an article on any performer who has had verifiable Top 40 hits?

This is a procedural nomination because the request was made — personally, however, I do not favour deletion: the subject is legitimately notable and Wikipedia isn't doing its job if notable subjects can't be on here. Bearcat 02:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. Subject is a public figure, notable, and interesting. "Personal image management," as you call it, is indeed not WP's purpose. Dave 02:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AFD is not the proper place to resolve this; Barbara seems notable to me. Ashibaka tock 02:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable performer. But perhaps you made her a promise you could not keep when you told her either the article acknowledges Bill or gets deleted? HollyAm 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how there are any other options...if Bill goes, the songs go too, and if the songs go, her entire basis for being notable enough to have a Wikipedia article goes with them. So there's simply no way this article can realistically be kept without the name Bill in it. Bearcat 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are right, but the version of the article up for deletion keeps the Bill references, so there is really no reason for anyone to vote for deletion. And I just got the feeling that she thinks it can be deleted just like that. HollyAm 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems like an NPOV dispute. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:19Z
  • Speedy Keep. Subject is notable and this is an encyclopedia; we must maintain factual accuracy, especially when blurring the lines would lead to confusion and ambiguity. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. If I were you I'd leave a comment for the anonymous editor. I think admin would honor a verified request from the real Barbara Amesbury. Until then we really don't know if it's her or someone else. I mean it's possible that the real Barbara is proud of the article and this anonymous person has a personal grudge against her or is a random bigot. Durova 06:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article shouldn't be deleted just because the subject doesn't want it to be known that she's trans (if indeed the subject is the person who requested deletion) -- if somebody is out, they're out. Catamorphism 08:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: couldn't the article be moved to "Bill Amesbury" and Barbara not be mentioned? The name that the songs were recorded under is the important one. This is assuming it's actually her. -- Kjkolb 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute. Are there any reliable sources establishing that Bill and Barbara Amesbury are the same person? It's not that I doubt it, but I don't think we can legitimately include this in the article without citing a reputable source, and the only sources I can find are a queer radio show playlist and a freeservers website. Another website credits the song itself to Bill Amesbury but adds, "Written by Barbara Amesbury," implying that they are not the same person. So I vote we move this to Bill Amesbury, who is certainly notable, and excise references to Barbara unless a reliable source is cited, in which case I would be in favor of keeping the article. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 15:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bill is Barbara; the writing credits on her songs were changed from Bill to Barbara after her name changed (which is an entirely normal thing — a songwriter who changes his or her name always has the option of having their past songwriting credits recredited to the new name.) The performing credit remained as Bill, however, because a male singing voice is a lot harder to gloss over. Bearcat 18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:RN as CSD A7 Segv11 (talk/contribs) 04:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beautivile

Delete because it appears to be band vanity Splintercellguy 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Camosy

Filmmaker, with no imdb entry, of an unnamed film; Google hits are for blogs and forums. Vanity, NN. HollyAm 02:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture/sandbox

Delete because it's unnecessary, and we do have a sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Splintercellguy 02:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or maybe Userfy, since User namespace sandboxes are allowed. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:21Z


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William F. Harrah College of Hotel Administration

No content beyond an unverified statement of virtue. Anabanana459 02:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ess tech

nn comapny doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP Pboyd04 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Mike 03:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Ichiro 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTA-SanAndreas.com

Delete, non-noteable and not fit for an encyclopedia. Also, much of the information is completely worthless. Images have no captions and make it appear as though the encyclopedia article is becoming part of their webpage! Although not a reson in itself for deletion, no other WP articles link to it (except its sister article) and through Google, only 4 other sites link to this website. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTAGuides.com —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 04:26Z
  • Keep. The idea that this article is 'non-noteable and not fit for an encyclopedia' is a matter of point of view. As far as the members of the forum the article is about are concerned it is extremely notable. We, as a whole, have worked to keep the entry in the correct writing style and with links to other Wikipedia article as needed. Also out of the three images in the article the one of Jack Thompson does in fact contain a caption, and the other two are obviously self-explanatory. The first image is the main image of the website and the second is the main image of the forum. As for the 'no other WP articles link to it' issue, the article has only been up and running for 2 days now, so that's not exactly very much time to be linked to by other articles. However we are listed in the Bulletin board systems, Virtual communities, & Internet forums categories. This article is just as useful as others in those categories. –OptimumPx of GTA-SanAndreas.com 10:38 PM (EST), 12 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.232.121 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Comment You seem to have somewhat mistaken what Wikipedia is all about. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttle: By all means correct me: I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a resource for information about an entity. This article aims to give a description of the site in question and gives background information which may be of interest to other potential website administrators, as well as users interested in the site. It is unlikely that the article would be accessed through any other reason than in a quest for information, and therefore is hardly advertising. On the contrary, it often shows the problems that sites go through - GoldenTie 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, you continue to miss the point that wikipedia is not a resource for information about just anything and everything. We have some rather strict guidelines on what merits inclusion and what doesn't. --InShaneee 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. -- JJay 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've taken the liberty of massively ripping out all the stupid forumvanity cruft. Nobody cares who had a forumwar with whom. The one thing kept is the conflict with notable "moral crusader" Jack Thompson. All the rest is just pointless blather. But keep as a generally notable site. If the cruft comes back, my vote may change. Seriously, people. NOBODY OUTSIDE YOUR FORUM CARES that some guy was a fascist and got banned or that some admin posted tubgirl and banned himself. Y'all may think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread but it's just breathless forumdrama that in a year or two nobody will remember. FCYTravis 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a section on Forum Subculture might be an appropriate place to put recurring themes within the forum - e.g. the Redism movement. Also, I would have thought that a section on difficulties within the community may also be of use to future potential webmasters. GoldenTie 11:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's just plain not interesting to people that people got pissed off at each other and banninated each other. There's nothing unique or interesting about it to anyone outside your forum. I would suggest creating your own wiki if you want to create a complete and detailed history of every single thing that ever happened on your forum. The "Redism controversy" is... two groups of people getting pissed off at each other on a forum. They had no impact on the broader world and they hold no interest to anyone outside your community. It's not going to help webmasters because it happens on every single forum, everywhere. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm sure it's of amazing import to you and the people on the forum... but to everyone else, it's just more forumdrama that happens on every single forum ever opened. You could write Ph.D dissertations on the forumdrama at some places I participate in, but it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. What would be FAR more interesting and important to people on Wikipedia is a larger section on what GTA-SanAndreas.com offers to people who play the game - what sort of help can they get, what resources are offered, walkthroughs, whatnot. Every Web site with a forum has forumdrama, that's not unique. GTA-SanAndreas.com appears to offer a lot of great GTA:SA resources, and that is probably more unique, not to mention more interesting to anyone who's never visited your forums. Remember, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. FCYTravis 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the advice on what to include on the article: it's much more helpful to me and to those involved in the article to have suggestions as to what to add, as opposed to a nomination for deletion per se. I'll put something up! GoldenTie 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Don't take it too personally - one of the things that's broken on Wikipedia is the "cleanup" system. The quickest way to get attention for an article that is questionable in terms of content is... to put it up for deletion and get a consensus from a lot of people looking at the article. It's not elegant and it's way too confrontational but there you have it, until we come up with a better way of doing it. FCYTravis 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • True enough: I've put a brief paragraph on what the site contains. I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure where the line is drawn between explaining the site's content, and just recreating the site navigation menu. GoldenTie 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Tim Pierce 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tristan & Isolde

The article on Tristan makes this one redundant. Nightscream 03:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. The article was deleted by Natalinasmpf as a "blatent copyvio". I am closing the AfD as a result. CastAStone|(talk) 17:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Armini

This might be a vainty page (author username is marmini). Armini definitely comes up on a google search, but is he important enough to deserve a Wikipedia article? Anabanana459 03:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tototheism


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular respiration experiment

WP:NOT a science project, Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beasting It

Not sure if this NN protologism could be speedied, so listing here. WP:NOT for things made up in school one day. keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Combat Duty

NES romhack. No attempt to establish notability, reads as clear vanity. Delete --InShaneee 04:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would work. This article is about a computer game. Durova 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:11, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Purves

Non-notable, vanity of a semi-professional, amatur hockey player, unless he wins awards, or goes into the National Hockey League which I doubt it Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[kapil patidar number of ]

When will this AfD end? Timothy Clemans 04:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A week. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put down for db-nonsense, but not so - moving to AfD. No vote. enochlau (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep please jargon file is not all inclusive Yuckfoo 20:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sites use this summary of the test:
  • "A compendium of fact and folklore about computer hackerdom, cunningly disguised as a test. This is version 1.0 from 1989-06-16. It was conceived and written by Felix Lee, John Hayes and Angela Thomas at the end of the spring semester, 1989." Timothy Clemans
    • From looking at the test, I wouldn't call it a "compendium" for entries like "Can you use Berkeley Unix?" any more then I would call a "how Asian are you" test a compendium for having entries like "Do you drive a rice rocket?". —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-14 00:35Z
    • "A compendium is a comprehensive compilation of a body of knowledge. A compendium usually contains principal heads, or general principles, of a larger work or system." There are a lot of terms all apart of programming, hardware and the hacker figure.
      • What's the criteria for deletion being debated here? Whether one likes the test, or finds it personally relevant? Its notability is established. It's at least encyclopedic enough to go into the primary Hacker article. Are there other criteria on the table that I missed? :)
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Purity test. Gazpacho 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment; now that's an interesting idea. If people aren't willing to put a link to the test into Hacker then perhaps Purity test is a good home for the link. Afterall, the Hacker Test did evolve from various versions of the Purity Test... Segv11 (talk/contribs)
  • Strong keep: This test is eminently notable, as well as a relevant and ancient (by Internet standards) part of Hacker culture. It is worth mentioning in the Hacker article, and has sufficient potential for expansion to justify an article of its own. Deletion is not justified by any of the criteria above-stated.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 22:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is listed in Hacker under See also, related. 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
(unsigned edit by Timothy Clemans [15])
I support a merge, as users are more likely to be interested in reading about this in the context of a larger article. Hacker or Hacker Culture would be more appropriate than Purity Test. My vote remains keep for the moment, however.
Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven F. Wise

Appears to be selfpromotional vanity. Blnguyen 04:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge --a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danube Bike Trails

Advert for a couple of non-notable bike trails in Germany Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Crossing Camp

Non-notable summer camp Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

40kforums.com

Fails WP:WEB. No Alexa rating, forum contains 2378 users. 1 site links to it (according to Google), Google also has only 1 hit for the forum itself. Claims to being one of the most popular Warhammer 40,000 related forums is incorrect, as at least two of the forums listen in the links section have 3,000 plus members and an Alexa rating, one has over 13,000 as of twelve hours ago. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 04:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For what it's worth, I don't think the NPOV is enough of a problem to make it necessary to delete. That problem is redeemable if we decide to keep the article (hopefully we won't, though). --Pak21 21:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boys JIM Club of America

This article is filled with totally unencyclopeic content, desribing the operations of a camp, delete--nixie 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ilin

Appears to be Hoax see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nizam (band) abakharev 04:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Tomato

Not notable; about 30 relevant hits. [16] Mikeblas 04:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by User:Neutrality (I'm assuming as an A6, but there was no log message) WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emofag

Poorly explained dicdef, probably NPOV too. Andrew Levine 05:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Berdichevsky

Non notable person ("Daniel Berdichevsky" gets 343 Google hits), and a likely vanity page. See also the AfD for Demidec Resources. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demidec Resources

Non notable company; "Demidec Resources" gets 815 hits on Google. Possibly a form of a vanity article, especially in correlation with Daniel Berdichevsky (see the AfD page for this person as well). EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 05:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Ways to Machu Picchu

Non notable book, no publishing details given and non notable author. Has had only 2 edits besides a move. Delete TheRingess 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winny PD

Can't get any google hits on this person, no sources given. See also WP:MUSIC. Kappa 05:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep--Commander Keane 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cybermind

Delete. Non-notable mailing list; the only websites associated with the list are personal pages (such as the Geocities one listed in the article). Can't seem to find any other mention of it. Deadsalmon 05:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Following Hansnesse's observation of the list's notability, I'd just as soon drop the vote. Online documentation seems sparse, though, so perhaps Dr. Marshall could supplement his website with paper references. Keep. Deadsalmon 06:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete This mailing list is at least as noteable as the other lists noted in wiki. It is over 10 years old for one. It is also, as stated in the article, the subject of some academic research and articles published in refereed journals. The geocities web site holds some of those articles. Who is deadsalmon anyway? Jon Marshall 13 jan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.139.183 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 13 January 2006

  • Keep The mailing list was the subject of a PhD dissertation from University of Sydney (by the above Jon Marshall in fact), and was featured in several academic articles since then (I only discoved this when I was investigating to nominate for deletion myself). Rewrite, however, to make note of that fact. --Hansnesse 06:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator has withdrawn their deletion vote. Result is to speedy keep.--Commander Keane 06:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of prank flash

Refrain from personal attacks, Dyslexic agnostic.--Tenka Muteki 20:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 06:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hongseok Yoon

Not a notable person. —Comics (Talk) 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious advert for non-notable book. CastAStone|(talk) 06:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 12:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MILE HIGH B.S.

Website linked to is still mostly under construction, text is promotional. Doesn't appear as if this publication has achieved notability yet. Daniel Case 06:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by User:Jimfbleak as "junk" Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BkW

Claims to be something famous concept to a computer game. This would appear dubious, as only 2 hits for Blitzkrieg Whores on google have the two words together. Perhaps self-styled slang?? or hoax??. DeleteBlnguyen 07:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlepower

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Anabanana459 as A3 (link only) but it doesn't qualify. However, it's a web site that fails WP:WEB -- no Alexa rank and forums have ~1650 members. howcheng {chat} 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a vanity page to me. Delete. appzter 08:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Pettitt

This is borderline, but I would say vanity and non notable. Dave posted this himself, which is ok I guess except that do we include every voice actor? He doesn't seem particularly notable from what I found on the google search. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He seems like somebody that people might want to find information about if they're interested. I'm sure he must show up in the credits for these shows - that must at least mean something. And I've heard of most of these shows. I think voice actors probably do not return big hits on google in the first place unless they do something other than voice acting that they are notable for. So I don't think hits on google is reliable in this case. -- Rediahs 07:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hmmmm. Notability is an issue with voice actors or anyone else. We don't include all actors. We're not a directory. Here is his imdb page. Borderline but I still say not notable enough. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose I better fess up... It was I who created the original redlink, based on the idea that while some characters in Zoids: Chaotic Century had voice actors with articles, others didn't. I thought it would be best to create wikilinks for all. In the article's defense, Pettitt has worked on the English dubs for parts of the Gundam and Dragon Ball anime series, arguably two of the biggest anime franchises dubbed into the Western world. I'm going to vote keep on this one. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 11:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A 20 year career as a voice actor for television shows is somewhat notable. - Longhair 21:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and throw a verification flag over the article. Voice artists in notable animation are notable enough for me. Durova 22:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarrissa Jeng

Starwarscruft - so we need a page for every Jedi? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. As a general rule, I discount any and all IP address votes, and they made up every single KEEP vote without exception. Therefore, DELETE was the consensus. Mo0[talk] 16:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RCMB

NN website / fansite. -- Longhair 07:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this entry should be kept is simply because it represents an emerging internet forum desperate for definition and recognition. The Red Cedar Mesage Board is not a "fan site" per se - it is a very unique online forum where thousands of people come each day to discuss various issues ranging from Michigan State University athletics to politics and other topics of general interest. With all due respect to the editors of Wikipedia, if the RCMB is permitted to remain on your dynamic online encyclopedia then many more, perhaps more significant, entries will be made regarding the RCMB and the true importance of the definition will be more clear. Please be patient. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Tuff gHost (talk • contribs) 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • So you have a page dedicated to blumpkins, but the RCMB must go? Sounds like a solid decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.152.106 (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of people

This Blogspot-hosted webcomic does not appear to be notable based upon my own interpretation of WP:WEB. Returns approximately 68 unique hits on Google. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compendium of bridge conventions

Delete. Although the list of bridge conventions will be useful one day (currently, category:Bridge conventions is quite underpopulated), it should be called differently (e.g. List of bridge conventions). The current version of the article contains just one, unnotable [17], invented by the author of the article, which clearly contradicts WP:NOR and WP:AUTO. Duja 08:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 14:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of time tracking software

List with three entries. Redundant per Comparison of time tracking software which has encyclopaedic content and many more entries. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 08:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Min Jung Kim

Based on the username of the person that created this page (User:Minjungkim), this is a vanity article. Creating this article is the user's only edit. Can't speedy it because I think does try to assert notability, but it's a judgement call, and I'm leaning towards delete. Coffee 08:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly opened chess

This does not appear to be a chess variant which has been played much at all. A [Google check] indicated 70 hits, and most appear to be Wikipedia mirrors. The exception is a VFD entry from Wikibooks. From reading the description of the game, the term "randomly opened" seems incorrect as well because the initial placement of pieces is not random. Some chess variants such as Fischer Random Chess, kriegspiel, bughouse chess and suicide chess have entries in sources in independent chess publications such as the Oxford Companion to Chess or are played regularly online on various chess servers. I cannot see any evidence that this variant is not a made-up game and I recommend deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs Message Boards: Australia and New Zealand

Forumcruft. This is just one of the thousands of message boards at gamefaqs.com. All useful information is already at GameFAQs message boards. Coffee 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulster Schools Chess

Article is about a forum of chess teachers in Northern Ireland. Chess is a great game, and I admire those who like to work for it, but this council does not seem significant. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TrueKalia

Advertisement for non-notable company. 165 Google hits. Fredrik | tc 08:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 11:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Review of Politics

Delete - somebody created page linked from Chauvinism, but filled it with stream-of-unconciousness Shenme 08:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:Woohookitty for copyvio —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:07Z


Pudsey Steel Services Ltd (UK)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of wiki farms

Container for external links. Delete per WP:WWIN (Wikipedia articles are not: [...] Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. ). --Pjacobi 09:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) ![reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microevolutionary model of cancer

This is a very in-depth treatment of a scientific theory promulgated by one book. The two editors defending the page's content deny that this is actually an attempt at orthomolecular oncology, but all the same the concept gets <300 Google hits and fails any form of notability to warrant this. JFW | T@lk 15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the following reasons:
    • This "theory" does not contain rational arguments. It is a confused bundle of fantasy, semi-t*ruths, and miscomprehended biology.
    • There is no conventional evidence base.
    • There is no peer review.
    • The title of the theory is egregious misrepresentation of a paper published in a reputable scientific journal (BJC) several years ago. This latter paper is searcheable on Pubmed.
    In addition, the proponents of this theory are causing a significant amount of disruption on the carcinognesis page. They are not amenable to measured discussion. Whilst this is not a reason for deletion per se, it should be taken into consideration. The microevolutionary model being touted has no real distinction from the host of other pseudoscientific medical theories, yet it has managed to get a specific mention on the Carcinognesis page for no other reason than the bloody-mindedness of its proponents. This does not help the credibility of the rest of the page. Jellytussle 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Reyk 09:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable pseudoscience. See talk page. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:37Z
  • Weak delete. Could have slight slight slight significance. *uses fingers to indicate the significance of the article*. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WS 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article uses some conventional references to support a "theory" that has little to do with microevolution and arrives at the conclusion that vitamin C cures cancer. The authors of the article have repeatedly attempted to gloss over its orthomolecular roots, masking the vitamin C conclusion, despite that being the main focus of their source text. It seems to be a perfidious form of linkspam. And I suspect some sockpuppettry as well.--DocJohnny 06:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takedom

Blatant spam. Reyk 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conscientiology

Delete: Non-notable neologism, connected to a one-man pseudoscience thing. Must have been on Wikipedia and got deleted earlier, as a different article of that name is still mirrored from Wikipedia on other sites. [18] Lukas 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Realcasting

Unnotable neologism. Only source cited itself cites this article. Haakon 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to 24th century. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2348

This article might be notable one day, but are we setting precedents to create articles for every year to come? -- Longhair 10:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neunt of Axelrod

Hoax content and no google hit. RadioActive 10:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LookupThis

Non-notable advertising. Robin Johnson 11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Art Bin

Webzine with no assertion of notability. Article has been unchanged (except for wikification) since an anon created it in 2002. Alexa rank 400,000. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 11:41Z

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite Computer Systems

Not notable (65 google hits). Advertising. Sleepyhead 11:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WebCollab

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

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
--Ichiro 02:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- 2000 downloads per version suggests many more than 2000 users. I was mostly convinced by these statistics, however: [26]. 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Ichiro 02:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Awareness Campaign UK

Created from an [IP] registered to a [former address] of the Dream Harvest College with which Ivan Corea is [associated] and therefore autobiographical. It's also unverified and PoV/Soapboxish in style. While this seems less dubious than dream harvest and the campaign may be worthy of a wikipedia entry, I don't think that this one is worthy of wikipedia. If it gets an article it should be started by someone who's able to write it NPOV. Delete -- JamJar 12:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan and Charika Corea

Created from an [IP] registered to a [former address] of the Dream Harvest College with which Ivan Corea is [associated] and therefore autobiographical. It's also unverified and PoV/Soapboxish in style. Looks more like a CV than an article on Wikipedia. Actually contains very little information that couldn't be merged happily into Autism Awareness Campaign UK. Delete -- JamJar 12:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fauna of Maine

I have no doubt that the fauna of Maine deserves an article, but this ain't it. Sometime, it is possible that someone will want to write a real article about Maine's fauna, and when they do, it will probably only have the word "Maine" in common with this...thing. Maine apparently has such fauna as "trees... pine cones, and etc", it has a coast on its coast and has "lots of rainy seasons including snowy peaks and valleys". I suggest that a large pit is dug and this article is placed at the bottom of it. There's nothing here worth redirecting, and a redirect from this title simply to Maine seems a little facile. So unless it's improved considerably, this should just go, to reduce Wikipedia's embarrassment quotient. Grutness...wha? 12:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

withdrawing nomination after good rewrite by Youngamerican. it's still a stub, but at least it's now a sensible one. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article could possibly get the ball rolling on a project that would cover the fauna of all of the US states and the various territories of other countries by users that know about wildlife. There could probably be alot written on the fauna of each state, unfortunately not by me, a humble cartographer/human geographer. Youngamerican 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial and Financial System

Advertisement of non-notable company per WP:CORP. Only 439 Google hits, with the Wikipedia artikel being first. S.K. 13:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pen 15 club

Hmmm. Tricky. There is some evidence of clubs called this, but not much to substantiate the article contents. In the end I suspect this may exist primarily to promote the linked blog. It is unreferenced. What does the panel think? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]   AfD? 13:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avidian

Unwikified advertisement of non-notable company. Seems to have ~$5 million revenue. S.K. 13:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a Keep vote?
  • Keep. Lack of information is a reason to improve and expand. As to the two delete votes: If benefiting from having a WP article is a reason to delete, all articles on specific drugs have to go just for starters. So far I've seen only one reason to delete - the company or its products may not be notable. Lacking useful policies and guidelines (or am I the only one thinking that WP:CORP declares all companies notable that have ever advertized in a paper?) it is my personal opinion that this company is notable because it is growing exponentially in a niche within an extremely competitive market (which I happen to know to some extent - the market, not Avidian or its products).  AvB ÷ talk 20:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The further development of semantic neural network models

Delete. Original research, vanity. Some fringe view hijacking an otherwise legitimate academic field. Author of article includes his own works four times in the reference list, but is not a notable authority in the field. Text seems confused and unencyclopedic. Lukas 13:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE does not assert importance/significance of subject. ~~ N (t/c) 03:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ_Savant

Non-notable, does not meet WP:BIO, also is a Autobio. Mike 14:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Morgan (artist)

Unreferenced, and I could not find any verification (as an example, "David Morgan" "Marilyn Gotlieb" on Google returns 0 hits, as do "David Morgan" "Halle Saint Pierre"). I do not like the Google test, but the problem here is verifiability. Other artists by the same name exist, but do not look like being this one. - Liberatore(T) 14:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ops! I already made the mistake of not checking the date of birth! I could have saved 2 whole Google queries :-) - Liberatore(T) 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siz

Turkish dictionary definition. Useful, but not for an encyclopedia. - Liberatore(T) 14:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roch's market

Delete. Non-notable corporation. Lukas 14:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B & H Tool Works, Inc.

Delete. Non-notable company. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep although people are reminded not to write auto-biographical articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Bertsch

NN vanity, created (according to the usename) by himself Ezeu 15:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gothik-APA

A web ring with a Tripod URL Ezeu 15:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know what a Tripod URL webring is....

However there is a listing already onthe APA listing (ametuer press association) here that included the Gothik-APA. I founded Gothik years ago and noticed that though t was listed (originally without the hyphen) that it had no internal link or entry. I just fixed the hyphen mistake and added a very short entry on it since it was already on the list.

The list is here>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amateur_press_association

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ingebrigtsen

Lacks wiki style, is a bio about a non-noteable person, even in Norway (I'm norwegian), lacks wiki style, uses too many norwegian words. vidarlo 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolismusic.net

This page was nominated for deletion by User:Ezeu, giving as the reason "spam". I'm just creating the AfD subpage. GTBacchus(talk) 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spam Ezeu 15:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gigposters.com

Spam Ezeu 15:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Cheese

Delete: another apparent hoax from Jameslewis Bill 15:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am not sure the product is actually called "Anti-Cheese" but such a cheese substitute exists, as in vegetarian cheese. (84.65.69.55 13:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ado 'Mortumee

NN fictional Halo character, not mentioned on Halo main page, 382 Google hits for '"Ado 'Mortumee" Halo'. I'm not very familiar with Halo, so I'm open to assertions of notability. Meanwhile, delete. --Fang Aili 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Fang Aili 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 16:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor characters in Monarch of the Glen

Delete -- Not notable/unencyclopedic, articles like this are turning wikipedia into a series of tv fanpages. max rspct leave a message 16:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Monarch of the Glen is a major BBC series. Articles like this are created as a compromise in the hope of keeping deletionists hackles down. Television is a legitimate subject for wikipedia to cover, as well as whatever you are interested in. Bhoeble 19:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A compromise? Because they're all in one article? -max rspct leave a message 19:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 14:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NQcontent Limited

nn-corp, sort of advertisement-y. fails to meet WP:CORP in my opinion-- Syrthiss 16:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep now that some references to verify use of this term have been provided. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitheism

Unitheism seems to be a neologism, currently used by about 3 writers and a handful of other people, for something akin to pantheism. Apparently, it has yet to be picked up by the mainstream, or referenced in any major publication. That puts it a bit shy of the requirements on WP:V. Delete; neologism, unverifiable GTBacchus(talk) 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism for panentheism, noting with irony that "unitheism" and "tototheism" are both Lindsay King's attempts to distinguish panentheism from pantheism and both got AfD'ed as neologisms for the latter. -- Jonel | Speak 18:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The top two Google results are a forum post and an unrelated reference to a Malaysian death metal band by this name - not a good sign. The creator cites Tripod sites and forum posts as evidence. It might have been a borderline transwiki to Wikitionary, but the decidely inappropriate tone of the entry and its probable neologism status make me want to wipe the slate. Spamming Inappropriately long postings to AfD instead of improving the article speaks against it. Durova 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The comment that I chose to spam the discussion rather than improve the article is inaccurate. I am new at this. If I do not know the conventions here then I apologise. But I essentially wrote the basic form of the current entry. It was later edited, but its basic message and structure survived edtorializing by existing Wiki members. I did improve the entry.--The Boomer 16:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign before)[reply]
    Comment there are two anons involved here - Lindsay King himself, the article's creator, and someone else who wants to see the article kept, but without reference to Lindsay King; that's the anon who posted here. I think you may be confusing the two. Neither of them knows the ways of Wikipedia yet; please try not to WP:BITE. Nobody's trying to "spam AfD". -GTBacchus(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign!)[reply]
    Wording changed per your advice. Vote remains the same. Regards, Durova 22:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Both have now registered accounts. User:Lindsayking and User:The Boomer, respectively. I agree that the "spamming" of AfD was because of unfamiliarity with WP. -- Jonel | Speak 22:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add to Wiktionary. Although the original article was rambling, confused and unsupported, the current disambiguation is a useful summary of the various meanings and uses of the word. See references below.--The Boomer 21:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nonnotable neologism - this isn't the place to make up new words. DreamGuy 05:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply It is not a new word. It is a very old word. Please see the discussion page for references and request for guidance on what is acceptable demonstration of a word and its definitions.--The Boomer 21:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm convinced by the sources presented on the talk page. It's not a common concept, but it seems that a good handful of religious thinkers have been talking and publishing about certain ideas they're calling "unitheism". Google may not know much about it, but it seems to be real all the same; imagine. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Unitheism for references and discussion.

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetDiz - Advertising Network

Non-notable website. Only ten hits! [29] Mikeblas 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthman

Non-notable romhack, and most likely vanity. Delete. --InShaneee 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by User:Geni as copyvio Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farmington Mining Disaster/temp2

Delete.Besides the obvious copyright violation. There were already two almost identical pages on this topic. Farmington Mine Disaster and Consol No. 9 Mine Accident, which have just been merged. There is no reason for a third article, let alone one with copyright issue. Crunch 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think the copyright violation is moot at this point since it's also a duplicate page and can be deleted on those grounds. Crunch 19:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tribrid cars

Non-notable neologism. It's a 2-sentence "article" about subject with only 114 hits on Google. Article even notes that Tribrid cars are not real, but only in concept phase. In other words, too small, too non-notable, too ephemeral to be an encyclopedia article. Madman 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is NOT a Crystal Ball. Mike 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EVillage

EVillage appears to be a reworking of the "eVillage" concept set out by a Mr Imran Aziz on his blog entry here. It seems neither notable, nor particularly coherent and I'd suggest deletion. LeContexte 14:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you - my mistake LeContexte 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to understand the dimensions of the digital gap

What the hell? Werdna648T/C\@ 00:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miniaturized reactors


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teagames and Teacon

Appears to be advertising. Blnguyen 02:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not advertising, I just like the site and want to give people information about it and Teacon. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dmnkn1ght (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I recently updated the Teagames page, explaining the controvercial nature of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.199.37.10 (talk • contribs)

Astrokey44 you are a smart man, <3 68.127.102.226 07:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chum Bucket Mega Bucket

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. Crypticbot 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Mo0[talk] 16:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UFIDA

Not notable. Sleepyhead 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanician

Tagged for speedy delete, but does not fit any of the WP:CSD. A pure dictdef. i have created an entry on wictionary, more extensive than this stub. Seems unlikley to expand to an encyclopedic article. Delete unless expanded or potential for expansion shown. DES (talk) 17:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T3h 1337 5t1x

No google hits, although a web comic. Probably fictitious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanthns (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Projects for new highrises in Lima

  • Non-encyclopedic gallery of probably copyrighted images. Rmhermen 18:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete User:CyclePat made a nice gallery of motorcycle trikes over at Commons, perhaps he'll do the same with these. JzG 18:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trans-wikify: <inquisitive look> hum... <pause> Yup! Send to the commons. Architecture? Buildings? Dunno what category... but I'll try and figure something out. Thank You JzG. This is a good example of you using the people you know to try and keep wikipedia running smoothly and with a lot less deletions. I'm impressed. Score yourself 1 brownie point! --CyclePat 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I however am questioning the authenticity of the photo's and whether this is trully the author and whether he has authorization to release these photos. However, I'll see what I can do. Give me the weekend. --CyclePat 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9/6/46: CLEVELAND BROWNS 44, Miami Seahawks 0 and 9/8/46: Brooklyn Dodgers 27, BUFFALO BISONS 14

Neither game is particularly notable, except that they are just a couple of the very few games put on by the short-lived All-America Football Conference. They were originally linked from All-America Football Conference Scores but now are orphaned. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/All-America Football Conference Scores. --Wrathchild (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dommoni_RoundTable_Collaboration_Environment

Delete - Does not meet Corporate Notability requirements (WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central_Desktop

Delete: Is not notable (see WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, while his articles may be been deleted, it doesn't mean they belong here either. Mike 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BSCW

Delete: not notable (see WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MD Capital, Inc.

Privately held venture capital firm with no notability asserted. Hurricane111 18:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contributed this because Michael Talei, the CFO of this company is a pillar in the Iranian American community and I wanted his company listed along side his name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DBegdorf (talk • contribs) .

Delete - Michael Talei might be notable, but that doesn't make his company notable. As it stands, is merely an advert. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oscarthecat (talk • contribs) .


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Talei

Only notability asserted is being a CFO of a privately owned venture capital firm (see MD Capital, Inc.) Hurricane111 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maude's classic cafe

Delete - advertising, no links to page Zoicon5 18:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zaplet

Delete: not notable (see WP:CORP) Batsonjay 18:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brenda Della Casa

Delete, Vanity Uucp 19:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non notable, vanity, as per nom. Resurrect when her books published, perhaps. --Oscarthecat 21:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prey (movie)

Such a movie has not even been announced yet. WP:NOT a crystal ball. Delete. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- RHaworth 18:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny nick

Hoax. There is no senator from Florida named Bunny nick. Delete. Edgar181 19:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as non-notable club. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Davis Baseball

Unencyclopaedic article detailing a high school baseball program. No claim of notability, and no references or sources provided.-- PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was a consensus to merge and delete, but I will ignore the "delete" part of that. The materials which people contribute to Wikipedia are licensed under GFDL which makes them public domain, but the authors do need to be attributed if we use their work, and we do that by preserving a redirect with the history. This will be a plain old boring merge and redirect with Arab world. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, I'm having trouble with merging this properly since the topic is already mentioned in the Arab world article, I will put some merge tags on this and let someone more knowledgable than I am do the merger. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Borders of the arab world

Currently a rather unencyclopedic, unsourced POV piece on one aspect of Arabic history. Information could easily be merged into Arab world. Merge and then delete. Lukas 19:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I nominated this article for deletion shortly after it was created. It has now been moved by its creator to Borders of the Arab world. However, on looking at it again, I notice now that the page has no AfD notice put up, and I can't find any evidence in the page history that there ever was one. I'm pretty sure I was trying at the time to do everything right as by "AfD nomination in three steps". If, by some oversight of mine or by some technical problem, this AfD nomination may have escaped the notice of the creator, I ask that the nomination be kept open until the author has had an opportunity to respond. Lukas 16:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete; merge and delete votes treated as deletes because merge and delete is an invalid action. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Directive

The "Omega Directive" is only ever referred to once in the Star Trek universe, and that is in a Voyager episode. The article for that episode already contains most of the information on this page, so I don't believe this page is justified. Run! 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ficticious Nigeria

A fictitious island from one sketch, totally non-notable. I was one millimetre away from speedying this. Punkmorten 20:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete DES (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deadstar Assembly

'Delete' I work with this band and as one day I hope they will be listed here, there is no reason for them to be included in the wikipedia at this time. Pr0gr4m 20:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidiction

Neologism Endomion 20:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Wolfe

User has created a page about himself. It was userfied, but after some discussion he has re-created in article space. While he appears to have a promising future, he may not yet have attained the notability that would justify an encyclopedia entry. -- Curps 20:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosea Mays, Jr

Non-notable personage. FCYTravis 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notable to his family/friends, but not to anyone else. --Oscarthecat 21:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Mackensen (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan's Home Cinema

Vanity, Non notable Oscarthecat 21:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Mullins

Non-notable bio. Author re-instated this after it had been userfied so I am putting it up for AfD. -- RHaworth 21:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is full of knowledge about somebody i have been looking up for ages, please give ti a trial period even if it is just for 2 days


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Destroy

This is just a pointless rant, but it seems like it would be wrong to speedy it. Superm401 | Talk 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Doc ask? 00:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnival Liberty

Probably an important ship, but page has been up a month in the current state or worse. Delete until someone who knows the subject puts one up MNewnham 21:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDIED by User:Alabamaboy as "no meaningful content" Segv11 (talk/contribs) 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The American Tragedy

A school term paper


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

The result of the debate was delete as stupid hoax. DS 02:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy sparkles and the shiny boys

Vanity band article, verging on complete hoaxy gibberish. Rambles on about three (or is it four, or five?) different bands without mentioning a single track, album, gig or record company. Delete. Tonywalton  | Talk 21:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ask? 00:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shai Twik

Not notable. 0 Google hits. May be speedyable as an attack page (see the ass grabbing comment), but I'm not sure if it is or not, since the rest of the article doesn't seem to be an attack. VegaDark 21:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (patent nonsense). howcheng {chat} 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natalia, safina

no context on what laguage is involved here. Non-encyclopedi tone. Feels like a hoax, but I'm not sure of that. No sources cited. Delete Unless proper sources are cited and context provided. Delete. DES (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The Aboriginese"? This is a very thinly disguised attack article against someone called Natalia Safina, and as such should be speedy deleted in my view. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied by Freakofnurture. Johnleemk | Talk 15:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Doolittle III

Article only contained an incorrect redirect to the subjects Great Grandfather. PPGMD 22:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I scanned the redirect article for some mention of "the third" or the man's grandson, or grandchildren. Apparently The Third is not anyone notable, nor is he mentioned in the second article.--Esprit15d 15:35, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuzzois

Delete Wikipedia is not a slang guide. This is unverifiable anyway Bill 22:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Envelope Escape

Non-notable magic trick? ComputerJoe 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IKarma

Reads too much like an advertisement, does not establish notability under WP:CORP. --Alan Au 22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Book of Light

Not encyclopedic. How to judge this, eh? Not really a book, not for sale on Amazon.com, article says "is available from the following location" so as a web site? Alexa is 1.3 million, but per WP:WEB what we're actually looking for is mentions in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I couldn't find any. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. brenneman(t)(c) 22:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Source here http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0973855525/qid=1137274887/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/104-5882960-7503910?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

and the free download is here http://www.red-ice.net/michaelsharp/index.html as found on external link by following from webpage

Also found here http://planetstarz.com/mlt/

and I found it originally here http://www.naturalmuscle.net/ (left hand side menu). This is, interestingly enough, not a traditional "new age" or spiritual magazine (so evidence for notability outside of narrowly defined group)

and last edit I promise. List of Media appearances from author blog

http://www.michaelsharp.org/blog/?page_id=12

That's right, but entry is arguably notable. original entry for deletion cited (nn) and verifiability as cause for deletion and evidence of notability and verifiability now provided. Is there some other valid reason for deletion that can be cited now?

I took the template for this article from [[35]] because it seems to me the two cases are comparable. Why one and not the other (honest question here, not trying to incite) Ginar 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- ok, admittadely I'm new at this but doesn't a counterargument need to be made here or will this be deleted "just because" and with no debate?

I believe I've read the relevant policies and it would seem to me this is not a candidate for deletion. It is verifiable, and is adhering to NPOV (and if its not it can be easily edited). It is arguably important to a "reasonable" number of people (notability) and as Jimmy_Wales points out, fame or importance are not relevant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Fame_and_importance#No (just NPOV and relevance) (i understand this is an issue of debate)


Since notability was cited as a reason to delete, and since notability can be shown, I'd like to see some specific comment on why the article remains "nn" despite evidence to the contrary.

quoting from Wikipedia:notability

Lack of notability is often designated by the phrase "non-notable" or the abbreviation "nn". Whenever using the term or its abbreviation, please explain briefly why you consider the subject to be not notable (e.g. "has written a book but it was never published

peeps, you might find this discussion relevant as well

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michael_Sharp Ginar 03:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as per CSD A7. --M@thwiz2020 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Kara

No encyclopedic value. Not a notable person, as far as I can find. Andicat 22:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mike 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 16:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cazia style

This is apparently the architectural style that Charminar is built in, however every external reference to the style is directly obtained from, or derived from the said wikipedia article which includes the phrase 'Cazia style', thus creating a circular error. The word does not appear in an architectural context elsewhere. so I vote, Neologism, delete and fix the reference in Charminar. MNewnham 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_13&oldid=35074662"