Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Melaen (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 21 December 2005 (Nominating Deadwriter for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< December 20 >

Purge server cache

December 21

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

The result of the debate was Redirected to Rescue Raiders, no further action required per nom. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue raiders

i created a better version of this page with the proper caps: Rescue Raiders

this should just be considered a test page, i guess. MrBallistic 02:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 00:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Head Control System

Fails WP:MUSIC. D-Rock (Yell at D-Rock) 00:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jared king

All the relevant info is on the first paragraph, the rest is a cut and pasted story. I don't know if this qualifies for a speedy nn-bio, but the contest mentioned in the article has very little web presence (82 google hits for "Future Writers of America"), and I can't find any verification of a Jared King that wrote anything. Delete. - Bobet 00:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posting a short story to an encyclopedia isn't a good idea, whether you own the copyright or not. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. I personally know a little about hacker folklore, and I have heard of Schroedinbugs or Schrödinbugs. — JIP | Talk 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schroedinbug

There's no evidence that it actually exists and wasn't just made up by someone. Kuciwalker 00:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as recreation of previously deleted content. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Americas Funniest Home Videos/Opening Credits (sic)

Detailed descriptions of the various opening sequences of the television series America's Funniest Home Videos. Of interest to no one but intensely obsessive fans of the show. tregoweth 00:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These types of articles should not be merged and cause concise articles to be obliterated. Let them have their own page with a link from the title "Trivia" and the hyphen explaining what type. 68.194.42.219 04:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)TikiWike[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William Rivers Pitt

Apparently best-seller lists are compiled based on how much books are sold to bookstores by distributors, not how many actual customers bought a book. Personally, I really don't think they're reliable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Artur Diers

Was tagged as a nn-bio but shows a claim to notabily. No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 01:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vestal with a heart of coal

Tagged for speedy deletion with no reason given, I am bringing it here in case it can be rescued. This is an article about an alleged type of stock character, the opposite of a hooker with a heart of gold. Unfortunately the title appears to be a neologism, with 0 google hits, and there are no references to demonstrate that this is anything other than original research. Kappa 01:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda wat's sup 01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Every

Seems like a joke page, unverifiable. But I'm not 100% certain of it or enough to mark it as a speedy. Stifle 01:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Neufeld

Non-notable, non-elected politician, vanity. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous afd's at vote 1, vote 2, vote 3

Bad faith nomination. User:Spinboy nominated this article twice before one ending in "no consensus", the other in "keep". Nothing has changed since then and he presents no new arguments that would change the outcome. Furthermore, there is a policy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates on this topic of electoral candidates, past and present, where a new argument for deleting this article could emerge. The centralized discussion is not intended to be in this afd. --maclean25 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • A bad article is a bad article, regardless of precedent. Spinboy thinks it doesn't belong: do you have any reason to doubt his sincerity or are you just throwing mud? --Calton | Talk 07:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, it appears I got a little distracted by the legislative candidates part of it. However, I called it bad faith because it just appears that he has a vendetta against Grant Neufeld aka User:GrantNeufeld, as well as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais (although it is difficult to determine his stance). His only edits to the page have been to tag it but has done nothing to address the issue in the talk page. All the attempts to delete...just looks like he is out for blood. Wouldn't have been an issue if any of the other (how-many)thousands of other users would have put it up for deletion. Let me know if you think I'm "just throwing mud". --maclean25 08:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Uh huh. And your reasons for believing he has a "vendetta" is what, exactly? --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ok, maybe the above comment was a little too confusing. So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb, here is an outline of my rationale in a more simpler step-by-step format, all of which was taken directly from the links provided in the previous statement:
  1. User:Spinboy attempts three times to delete Grant Neufeld [6], [7], [8]
  2. unsuccessful, User:Spinboy tags the article as {{Unencyclopedic}}, {{OriginalResearch}}, {{POV check}} but does not participate in the talk page is discussion on the tags (only User:GrantNeufeld does)
  3. User:Spinboy leaves Wikipedia on Oct 27.
  4. User:Spinboy comes back stating "Oh, I'm not staying. I'm still extremely pissed off. I just saw something that cried out for an afd nomination, and I couldn't do that without logging on. I seriously dislike the hypocracy around here, one of many reasons I left." (refering to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew McLauchlin aka User:Montrealais)
  5. Several days after his return he posts this afd with the same rationale as the last vote "Non-notable, unencyclopedic, vainity. Delete. --Spinboy 23:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)"

He returned to put up an afd on User:Montrealais (and none of the other dozen-odd other Canadian legislative candidates). While back he couldn't resist kicking this article one more time. Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? --maclean25 05:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, in case you genuinely don't understand, and not just playing dumb I've noticed that bad writers often try to shift the blame for the confusion, ambiguity, and mystery they cause by insulting their readers. But you wouldn't know about that, would you?
Do you understand how this is can be interpreted as malice? Sure -- if you start off assuming malice.
Quitting in disgust and coming back is proof of what? Well, that he got over it. If this is suspicious behaviour, I'll work up a (long) list for you of shady characters for you to watch, including User:Ta bu shi da yu
I like the reasoning, though: he's nominating this for deletion for a third fourth time because he has a vendetta. The proof he has a vendetta? The fact that he's nominating it for a third time. Why is he nominating it for a third fourth time? Because he has a vendetta. Rinse, lather, repeat.
And the fact that he nominated this and not others proves what, exactly? It's a slight variation of the bogus rationale offered by hundreds of voters in past AfDs: namely, the whine "if the Pokemon/one-horse town/trivial-in-my-opinion-subject article stays, so should mine": the appropriateness of this nomination has bugger all to do with other lack of nominations. If this (in your view) double standard upsets you, give me a list of other candidate articles, those running on the No-Hope Party ticket in the Riding of BFN that, gosh darn it, Spinboy should have nominated for deletion and I'll do the job myself: I've got some time to kill right and I can get right on it. Though be quick, I'm leaving in half-an-hour.
Maybe Spinboy has nominated this article for deletion because he thinks Neufeld doesn't rate an encyclopedia article? Yes, standards in an encyclopedia -- that's just crazy talk! As far as I'm concerned, if Mr. Neufeld wants free publicity for himself, he ought to check out MySpace or Geocities.
In case you genuinely don't understand what I wrote, let me know and I'll use smaller words. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks, please. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to drag this on, I think we both made our points, but I just want to clarify something. I just realized where you got the circular "Rinse, lather, repeat" argument from. The five points above are not five individual arguments, that is, point 1 is not by itself a complete argument. They are a chronological list of events that ended in this afd, that is to say, one argument leading to the conclusion. --maclean25 11:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Just a point of clarification - this article wasn't posted as an "electoral candidate" article (although I have been one). The reasons given for 'notability' were my roles as president of the Green Party of Alberta, and founder of the Revolutionary Knitting Circle (laugh if you want, but we've got chapters on two continents and have had mainstream media coverage on three - I'm most proud of my interviews in Interweave Knits and Vogue Knitting :-). --GrantNeufeld 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Started by subject, edited by subject, not notable as he has not been elected. This is vanity and lacks the ability to have a NPOV with Mr. Neufeld's involvement in it. FullSmash26 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • He shouldn't be editing his own article. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. I think that folks with direct knowledge of a subject should be contributing to the articles here. I'd see a serious problem if they were the only ones working on the articles, but the presence of "many eyes" on Wikipedia balances off any POV issues that such contributors may create. I've contributed to a lot of articles on Wikipedia where I'm not "at arms length" (such as the Green Party of Alberta), and provided detailed references when questions have been raised (such as on the article being debated here). In any case, the previous two votes on this article have not found my auto-biographical contributions to be sufficient cause for deletion. As to the imposibility of auto-biographical NPOV, I encourage you to review the comments from Earl Andrew, Kevintoronto and gord on the article's talk page as counterpoints to that view. --GrantNeufeld 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's obvious that I disagree with that view. Whether you disagree with it is utterly immaterial, since this isn't your website, and your blatant self-interest/vanity/self-promotion/whichever doesn't trump long-standing policy. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't aware that a formal policy against any auto-biographical contributions had been established. I know there's a general discouragement against it - but I have not heard of a prohibition being adopted. --GrantNeufeld 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment That is because there is no such policy. In fact during the recent debacle regarding Mr. Seigenthaler many people were critical of him because he did not simply change the innaccuracy himself and instead made a big deal out of it. It seems people desire to have it both ways on the autobiographical issue. Vanity is bad but people are far more capable of reasoned self appraisal then some seem to think. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wikipedia:Autobiography: to baldly state that ... there is no such policy without acknowledging these clear guidelines is playing a bit fast and loose with your rhetoric.
              • To baldly state that there is no such policy is absolutely correct precisely because that document is NOT policy and is a guideline. In addition the document itself does not even forbid the practice but defines why it is ill advised. And yet Jimbo is clearly shown to edit his own article with regularity. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 19:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the intro: Wikipedia has gone through many prolonged disputes about the significance, factual accuracy and neutrality of such articles, including one about Jimmy Wales himself. Refraining from autobiographical editing is therefore important in maintaining Wikipedia's neutral stance and in avoiding the appearance of POV pushing. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just like last time, I say delete. Still non-notable, still gross vanity, and still should go -- at best -- to user space or MySpace.
So what is it with the Canadian election? Suddenly it seems every no-hoper-party candidate for every one-horse riding in Canada thinks they deserve an article on Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sounds too much like vanity to me. As per anon user above, this is more appropriate material for a user page. Comment Regarding the repeated nominations, in the absence of a policy or guideline I think Spinboy is within his rights to nominate this again, although it does seem to be abuse of a loophole. Zunaid 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Grant is the president of an active provincial party and an Alberta Centennial Medal recipient. Reviewing the articles for other political parties in Alberta shows that most of the leaders (elected or not) have articles as well. Grant should probably refrain from editing his own article however, to prevent the accusations of vanity. -Dr Haggis - Talk 07:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely. And note to GrantNeufeld, usually when coming up for a vote, instead of attacking your opponents, you might want to try to prove why people should vote for you. Just for the future. Flyboy Will 07:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry that you perceive my responses to other comments here and points of information to be "attacking". I'm not interested in flaming anyone (even though there are some significant disagreements here - disagreement does not have to mean disrespect). Please review my comments above again—I believe on close examination they can be seen to be talking specifically to the issues, and are not 'attacks' on any of the participants in this discussion. --GrantNeufeld 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, President of Alberta Greens, candidate in Alberta general election, 2004) and founder (in 2000) of the first Revolutionary Knitting Circle (now an international activist movement). are claims which make this individual notable in my view. People are allowed to edit articles about themselves as long as they remain neutral and while starting your own article is frowned upon, there's nothing forbidding you to do so. Anyway, neither of these are reason to delete an article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That this has survived earlier discussion is astonishing: execrable self-promoting vanity page of an insignificant that heavily exaggerates asserted notbaility. The organisation which the subject has founded, Revolutionary Knitting Circle should also be brought to AfD as inherently unnotable as well. Perhaps other Canadians here can chime in on having heard of it or not, but so far my running tally is 0. I find maclean's suggestion that this is a bad faith nomination hard to fathom. A badly self-authored page that is nothing more than a funnel for an out-of-control ego should not be on WP; bringing it up for nomination is a perfectly good thing to do. Eusebeus 12:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Mildly notable as the president of the Green Party in Canada. -- MisterHand 17:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, barely notable, but he is a Green Party President.Gateman1997 18:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The president of the Green Party in Canada is indeed notable and so is the Revolutionary Knitting Circle — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he's not, Jim Harris is [10]. --Calton | Talk 00:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jim Harris isn't the president of the party either. Perhaps you misunderstand Canadian political party structures. "President" is a position within the political party's internal structure, who's responsible for running the organization. It's rarely, if ever, the same person as the party's candidate for Prime Minister (who gets termed "leader", but is not actually the top authority in the party structure.) Bearcat 05:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If this article has survived two votes already why the heck must we have a third!? Wiki should have a policy of no renomination for deletion IMHO. Jcuk 19:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the article is poor and contains a lot of trivialities, the guy is the pres of the Green Party. --NormanEinstein 21:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- JJay 04:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing has changed since the previous nominations. Grant Neufeld's edits since APril 2005 have been to add a picture and categories. Nothin POV or vanity going on here. Ground Zero | t 14:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I don't see it as POV (although it is a bit heavy on the vanity front). I also think that the repeated nominations for deletion will eventually cause it to be deleted, if only because the ones seeking to have it deleted will keep coming back, but the people voting keep will eventually move on assuming that once the vote was settled, it was settled. I don't see how an article can be nominated for deletion after passing an AfD vote and the article not changing significantly. (unsigned vote by GordonBonnar, 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • I have revised the article to remove the vanity aspect and make it more encyclopedic. In previous communications that I have had with Grant Neufeld, he has indicated that he understands and accepts that other editors will revise the article. This is no longer a "vanity article". As far as future attempts to delete this, if this attempt fails, it will be clear that future attempts will be bad faith nominations. Ground Zero | t 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mildly notable politician. The last AFD was a keep, and the precident stands. The only time a keep should be overturned, is if it was based on information that turned out to be false and/or unverifiable; or else if there was some kind of failure in process. The nominator shouldn't just keep redoing AFD's till they get what they want. Far to many articles and AFDs go without attention, because AFDs are clogged with these unfounded nominations. Note: if this article hadn't survived a prior AFD, it would have been entirely justified to nominate as this is a "week keep" level person. --Rob 16:17, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: this is WP:POINT. Stifle 02:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clatus Notebooks

Interesting story... too bad no sources are cited and this seems to be a hoax [11]. Request for verification has been up for 1.5 months and nothing has been provided. I suspect this can't be verified at all. --W.marsh 01:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cultural References on Neglected Mario Characters

The page seems to have rather low encyclopedic value (although a lot of work was put into it). Pavel Vozenilek 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: It's not even about refrences to minor characters in the mario universe, it's about various pop culture refrences in a webcomic, and it's not really a verry user friendly page. (when I first clcked on it I had absolutely no idea what it was trying to say) Deathawk 22:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here's the plan I have for this unfortunately unpopular page. I will continue to add citations, and if you want to delete it go ahead. I have the page archived on my user page (so those of you who are interested can visit it) and can edit it at will. I plan to put in the references to the NC Chronicles, the one part comics (including Ye Old Taco Hut of Horror), then I will move on to the Deathmatches, Shorts, Flash Movies, Election flyers, and finally, the unpublished Mushroom Wars remake Alph made on the NC Forum. Once that is all said and done, I will email it to Jay and see if he can put it up on the site. --Crazyswordsman 00:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I recommend (as mentioned above) that this list be trimmed to the more important element from the series. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article of links is not encyclopedic. SorryGuy 22:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs cleanup, but since Crazyswordsman's doing a fine job of that already, I see no reason to try to delete this. Obscure does not imply unencyclopedic. Factitious 20:34, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I took a tally and it's about a 14-11 vote to delete the article. With about a day left for deliberation, I think I will just concede defeat (unless there are at least four more people that want the article to stay up). - SPKx 01:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and do not merge: an utterly sub-trivial collection of external links. -Sean Curtin 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If it's not OR, or vanity, it seems reasonable to keep. As pointed out, you get rather excessive lists on other topics, why not this one? J•A•K 16:34, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OMG, I cannot believe that this article actually exists. OK, so list of cultural references in the pokemon series was a keeper, well the pokemon series is watched by tens of thousands of people at least, and has millions of fans. This is a sprite comic. Totally unnotable cruftiness. In the scale of notability where does Neglected Mario Characters fit? I'm going to go out on a whim here, and say it's less notable than The Thick of It or indeed, any series that has been running on TV on a major channel. Are the "keepers" here claiming that every TV show, ever is notable enough to have its own "cultural references" article, or every published book could have its own cultural references article. People have argued over whether Daniel Brandt or Cyrus Farivar are notable, compared to this, they're kings of the world. - Hahnchen 02:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since no one has responded to this, I just wanted to point out again that Characters_of_Bob_and_George is a list similar to this one based on a similar sprite comic. I don't see the difference that allows Characters_of_Bob_and_George to remain on Wiki while this one is up for deletion. I'm just curious where the line is drawn. I know my site (NC) isn't as popular as BnG, but they have both been accepted as suitable web comics to feature at Wikipedia. Also, just to make it clear, I'm not forcably trying to push an article about my site on Wikipedia. Whatever is ultimately decided about this article is cool with me. I'm just curious about the standards of Wiki between this article and Characters_of_Bob_and_George. Just for my own curiousity. Thanks.-jay Jay Resop 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the difference lies in the difference between "characters" and "cultural references." Characters are easily verifiable and it is easy to decide what is significant enough for an article. Also, I would argue that they are more the "heart" of the webcomic. Cultural references, on the other hand, are generally going to form a boundless list of unrelated things, which probably aren't of interest to many people outside of the initial creator. It's impossible to decide which are verifiably significant enough to warrant consideration. Also, they seem more tangential to any discussion of "What is Neglected Mario Characters?" If the characters section on the main article got too big, I don't think many would argue with spinning that off as has been done with Bob and George. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shitfire

Band failing WP:MUSIC. Come back when you have a record deal and a couple albums. Stifle 01:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Life's Blood

Band failing WP:MUSIC, come back when you have a record deal and a couple albums. Stifle 01:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band did a recording and was apparently instrumental in the music scene of the time. --Walter Görlitz 02:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" I have 2 of their 7 inches including the one with Sticks& Stones. Life's blood was just as much a part of the NYHC scene as anyone else, even if they were short lived. The article is informative as I didn't know some of the info that was in it.

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng {chat} 22:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chris harris (speedway rider)

Adding to AfD as this was added to CSD without it (just) not fitting the criteria. I'd say weak delete personally - Speedway is a sport, and this person competes for a notable speedway team. Keep because I've always believed all professional sportsman should stay. Hedley 01:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Chris Harris (speedway rider). Capitalistroadster 02:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep first, merge second to Faulkner University. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Xi Omega and Delta Xi Omega - Faulkner

Random sororities with no notability to speak of. Stifle 02:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler's inspection of the German Workers' Party

No reason to be a separate article. Should be deleted and/or merged with Adolf Hitler. JW1805 (Talk) 02:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Essai

Does not meet criteria for WP:CORP — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCrazy (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pibbler

Unverifiable neologism, apparently for a progress indicator: see Google on pibbler Tearlach 02:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cyphun

I can find no evidence that the term "Cyphun" exists outside of this article. Adunar 02:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nickwit

WP: Original Research -- Just a self-promotion for somebody's website, and "invented" word Jomtois 02:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality (ESkog)(Talk) 05:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goof Off Page

Blatant advertising. -- CorbinSimpson 03:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. →FireFox 17:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Community

Nonsense. There is no such thing, and this definition makes an attempt to lump all heterosexuals together. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's possible, too. But this article hasn't even been around for a day... I'd like to see if it would grow to anything before merging it off somewhere, personally. --W.marsh 04:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gay community describes a distinct subset of the population. This page doesn't - the ways in which the > 90% of the population described on this page differ from the general population are best discussed on the page about the < 10%. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't necessarly support the current version as it is, and hope that you will view the talk page where I make my case for my version which gives both definitions and never had the "mundane" link added. My version also seems a bit more neutral in its current state (the one just reverted). Take a peak. Chooserr 04:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment2: Oh and Ben Aveling, my version does label a "distinct subset of the population" not just all straights, but straights that want to participate in the "straight community" and aim to uphold and protect Judeo-Christian values such as Male and Female only Marraiges. Just as not all Gays participate in the Gay Community so to select Straights only participate in the Straight community. Chooserr 04:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I encourage voters -- especially"keep" voters -- to check out Chooserr's versions (like this and this) to see what use he's trying to make of the article space: myself and Theresa Knott tried (separately) to clean it up, but as William Goldman once said about rewriting a bad screenplay, it's like washing garabage. --Calton | Talk 08:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't support the idea that "Straight community" is used to label this distinct subset of the population. People who believe that usually term themselves "pro-family" or whatnot. The "straight community" hits I find on Google are all being used by gay organizations to talk about a general gulf in understanding between gays and straights - i.e., "educating the straight community" -"the straight community's views." There's nothing to suggest that people who dislike gays are banding together and calling themselves the "Straight community." FCYTravis 08:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this isn't about whether the group exists, it's about whether the term does and is used signifigantly. --W.marsh 22:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But remember, W.marsh, terms belong in Wiktionary. Wikipedia is for encyclopedic subjects. Logophile 22:49, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. --W.marsh 22:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Only if they can never be expanded beyond a dictionary definition using the information that is available right now. If this term was in wide use, we could say 'This article can be expanded, so it's a stub'. But it's not, and saying 'This article can be expanded when more people start using this term' is crystal balling. --Last Malthusian 18:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by MONGO (ESkog)(Talk) 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rollo Sheldon

delete - nn vanity Gimboid13 03:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen dildo

Only a dictionary definition. It's already been transwiki-ed to wiktionary. I don't see great capactity to expand beyond just the definition. About 2000 googles but many of them seem to be quotes from the movie Vanilla Sky. RJFJR 03:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. →FireFox 17:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A winner is You

Dicdef. Not enough behind it to become a full article. Klaw ¡digame! 03:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. What do you suggest for a notability guideline for memes? "All Your Base" received broad coverage in the MSM, including an article in the LA Times. Very few memes will reach that level, so where would you draw the line? | Klaw ¡digame! 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to take the "I know it when I see it" route, but when I see otherwise notable memes like Prime Number Shitting Bear get deleted, it makes me wonder what happens. The delete votes come mostly from "Well, *I* haven't heard of it" or comparing it to the most popular memes like All Your Base. Much like you wouldn't judge the notability of, say, The Apples in Stereo via a comparison with The Beach Boys, it's tough to compare internet memes with their better-known counterparts. So, in a situation such as this, the 13k Google hits alone should raise a few eyebrows as to why we're deleting it. In a situation like the Prime Number Shitting Bear, the Google test doesn't work as well as it's an older meme. Some sort of guidelines should possibly be put into place, but I'm not sure if there's an easy way to quantify them, either. It doesn't excuse misguided delete votes on notable memes, however. --badlydrawnjeff 15:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't advocating using "All Your Base" as the standard. I'd just like to know where others might draw the line. I hadn't heard of this meme, I haven't seen any MSM coverage of it, and for a leet phrase it doesn't seem to be all that widespread. Nor do I think that Wikipedia needs to include many memes; leave that stuff to urbandictionary. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totse

No notability established, seems to have constant bits of NN facts added by bored totse members. It does have a lot of google hits, but many of them are for the wikipedia article, and the number is inflated due to it being an internet website... -Greg Asche (talk) 03:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totse.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.163.43.67 (talk • contribs)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.226.131.100 (talk • contribs)
See the Alexa rating above. That seems to indicate they're not really in need to of search engine boosting. They already get visitors. - 82.172.14.108 11:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not solely informational due to its large collection of textfiles. It is informational for being a popular website and forum that is (for all intensive purposes) unique; for example, an article on your downtown Blockbuster might be not notable, but an article on the company Blockbuster which rents DVDs is notable. Totse is notable due to its popularity, uniqueness, and community. Zachary Murray 22:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge with Cal Poly Pomona. --Angr (t·c) 18:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma Chi Cal Poly Pomona

This article was previously listed as an article for speedy deletion, but it doesn't seem to have the requirements. Although this is not my afd, I reccomend to merge with Cal Poly Pomona. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google Earth Icons

A gallery (which I object to on general principles) of icons made by students at Carleton University. Not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The original editor moved the article to Custom Icons and stripped off the AfD header. I have reverted his deletion of the header and have suggested that is not appropriate. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by Daniel Case. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vasant Honavar

Seems self-promotional. Lots of academic credentials but nothing that would support notability Daniel Case 03:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ideally, people should do what you are saying, but often they are first-time editors who don't have a clue about how things work here or the supposed notability requirements. You might want to try starting a dialogue when you see rapid editing going on rather than immediately tagging for AfD. The general standard, I've been told, is to wait at least 30 minutes from article creation before AfD. In any case, thanks for withdrawing the nom. -- JJay 05:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough. 22:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plane of Goofiness

Delete. Doesn't seem particularly notable - fewer than a thousand google hits for a website? BD2412 T 03:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep - no concensus. →FireFox 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

City rivalry in Finland

This article is very well written, but I don't think it merits a place on Wikipedia. It's mostly OR/speculation, and it's pretty generic as well, since there's bound to be some small-scale 'rivalry' between any cities that are close to one another. (And there is a big information technology industry in Turku too...!) It might be worth a brief mention in Ice hockey in Finland (if that article existed), but I'm afraid the rest of it is no good. (Sorry, JIP. :) ) - ulayiti (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MDM - Consultoria e Negócios Ltda.

Delete as advertising. The company does not seem notable. A google search for "MDM Consultoria" turned up only 22 hits (caveat: I don't speak Spanish). Thunk 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess the nominator doesn't speak Portugese either. It's common in people who mistake those languages. :) - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. It is just one of many languages I do not speak. --Thunk 14:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The two wise men

There are zero Google hits for '"the two wise men" "john kinzey". "john kinzey" by itself turns up nothing constructive. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gamefaqs' CaSa

A regional board with a small number of users does not notability make. No matter how popular GameFAQs is, a subset of its forums is not notable enough for an article. Revived 04:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If LUE doesn't have an entry it's because the LUEsers haven't made one themselves. I am against deleting the entry. However, I would agree on merging the page with GameFAQs message boards, that seems logical.

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 23:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Salas

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 14:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frogboy

Article is written immaturely apparently about a comic that Google finds few results for. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about real people need to be verifiable too. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Maltsberger

Non-notable; Wikipedia is not the poor or cheap man's Who's Who Daniel Case 04:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Rich Farmbrough. 23:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SKIATHOS Wireless Network

Spam. └ Smith120bh/TALK┐ 04:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE (early close, likely A7) . gren グレン 13:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph K. Wright

Looks like a misguided attempt to start a personal webpage, images are way too big, poorly written, does not begin to establish notability and is likely a vanity page (user has only edited this page). Daniel Case 04:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: Don't forget to delete related images and check the user's upload log for more. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete as non-notable advertisement. -Mysekurity(have you seen this?) 06:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anime3000

Site that shows no sign of notability. gren グレン 04:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (4 keeps, 1 delete, 1 merge) Renata3 17:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg Democratic Club

Page was created because of the small controversy generated by the ad mentioned in the article (certainly for no other reason). But the controversy is probably not even big enough to include even in the article for Secretary Rumsfeld. The page simply cannot be justified except by the most loose, chronologically sensitive encyclopedic standards. ALC Washington 04:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand if possible. I never heard about this before, but can't see why the info should be suppressed now. -- JJay 04:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No desire on my part to suppress anything. But not every little blurb of hyperbole or event that makes it to the fifth story on a twenty-four-hour news blotter deserves an article in an encycolpedia, even one as expansive as Wikipedia. The "controversy" generated by the ad was simply not a notable event, nor does it make the Club a notable organization. ALC Washington 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point, but can not agree. The event happened. It was covered nationwide, maybe around the world. Like the Palm Beach ballot, it is now part of history and thus must remain here. I also strongly oppose the proposed merge below, because I don't think we can saddle the State party with the actions of this club. -- JJay 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand your point of view, but I do not think your comparison is relevant. This event, which received ephemeral and unsubstantial attention, was nowhere near as notable, important, and indeed historic as the Palm Beach ballot controversy. I also oppose the merge below for reasons I outline there. ALC Washington 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think you mean unsubstantial as the event was covered by USA Today, CNN, MSNBC, The Associated Press, The Guardian newspaper in the UK and countless other media. A check on Newsbank, also shows that the club has been a longtime player in Saint Petersburg politics. -- JJay 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do indeed mean unsubstantial, as the substance of the thing should not be measured by how many news organizations picked it up on the AP wire. As Last Malthusian's writes below, "it was blown out of proportion when it created a brief media storm and we're blowing it out ten times more by recording it in an 'encyclopaedia' article for posterity. Basically, this wasn't a notable incident, this club has no other claim to fame, therefore it's non-notable." ALC Washington 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, while I have not searched on Newsbank, I did go to the St. Petersburg Times website and executed an archives search (covering 1987-2005). The Times, Florida's largest daily, is the authority on St. Petersburg politics, and would have reported on the club repeatedly if it were a player (the way it reports on, for example, the Suncoast Tiger Bay Club, which is the biggest political organization in the city). The archives search, however, returned only two articles not related to this "controversy," both mentioning the club in passing in brief candidate bios in a voter's guide the Times produces before elections. The club is definitely not a "player." ALC Washington 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I can see that you are virulently opposed to this article. However, as the Guardian called this event- the biggest political story in America, it deserves full explanation here. Even if the story only lasted five minutes on a slow news day. -- JJay 21:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would not call my opposition to the article "virulent," and I hope that our give-and-take in the discussion of its merits hasn't come off that way to you. I certainly don't want this to descend into ad-hominem remarks. As far as the characterization of the event in the Guardian, however, its suggestion that this was for "one brief moment... the biggest political story in America" must be taken in context. The suggestion was written up in a British broadsheet's "Observer" column as part of a general commentary on the early nastiness of American campaigns. In fact, it does not actually provide much evidence for the main arguments of the Guardian if you consider the column as a whole. Also, that the Guardian preoccupied itself beyond reason with a suggestion by one small independent group in the United States that Secretary Rumsfeld be assassinated should surprise no one familiar with the paper's openly acknowledged biases on the left. There are no hard feelings or vested interests on my side. ALC Washington 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • A discussion of the media spin given the event- from both the left and the right- would be a perfectly valid way of expanding the article. -- JJay 22:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article on the Florida Democratic Party. At the very least change the name to avoid confusion with the other Saint Petersburg (y'know, that place in Russia). Dodging accusations of Anglo-American bias and fleeing before things get hot... Durova 05:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we read the newspaper article that JJay supplied to substantiate the event's importance, we would note that the Club received a Charter from the FDP, but nothing else. I live in Florida, and these clubs operate fairly independently. It wouldn't really be relevant to the FDP organization. At any rate, if the vote really is to keep, then changing the name to "St. Petersburg Democratic Club" (after all the official and full formal name of the city and the club) would be my first priority. ALC Washington 05:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • New addition, I see. It's enough to make me think. Your suggested change is not sufficient. The state of Florida should be in the title because Wikipedia has a global audience. Durova 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dear God, I'm sad enough to remember this. Nonetheless, it was blown out of proportion when it created a brief media storm and we're blowing it out ten times more by recording it in an 'encyclopaedia' article for posterity. Basically, this wasn't a notable incident, this club has no other claim to fame, therefore it's non-notable. I'm English, by the way, so there's not much point in accusing me of trying to 'suppress' stuff about a political party in a different country. --Last Malthusian 15:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it happened. Wikipedia is the sum of human knowledge. Jcuk 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — possibly needs to be expanded but I see no need for deletion. Notability established by its death threat. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per JJay. Stifle 01:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Freejournal

Seems purely promotional to me; no attempt to establish what makes this site different from LiveJournal, MySpace et al. Daniel Case 05:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is an example of a site using the Drupal open source CMS, much like the Kerneltrap article. Seems to me if one is allowed, both should be. Lunas11

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —BorgHunter (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Farr

Speedy was placed on the page claiming non-notability; I think it's notable enough to deserve a full vote. —BorgHunter (talk) 05:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 06:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Gaunlets

Fancruft at its worst. Redirecting is pointless, as nobody should be expected to enter this in. --Apostrophe

  • Merge and redirect. -- JJay 21:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to what? --Apostrophe 03:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the pages associated with the show, otherwise keep article as is. -- JJay 04:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why? It's a fictional invention that serves as a quick plot device and only appears for the best of fifteen seconds. Why, exactly, should Wikipedia even dedicate server space to this? --Apostrophe 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why not? People watch the show and obviously cared enough to want to share Ghost Gaunlets with the world. I'm not going to tell those people that they are stupid. I am also not qualified to judge how Ghost Gaunlets fits within the Danny Phantom oeuvre. Therefore, I prefer to follow my instincts and err on the side of caution. Plus this debate will probably take up more server space than the article. -- JJay 04:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alas, life is not a caring matron. Nor is Wikipedia, as evidenced by countless deletions of not notable band articles. (Or are you to argue that we should coodle those people for being ever so kind enough to let us be aware of their worthless bands or geekish knowledge of the obscure?) I am well-qualified at determining the place of "Ghost Gaunlets", though. It only appears for fifteen seconds in "The Ultimate Enemy". Period. --Apostrophe 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do not doubt for one second your Danny Phantom qualifications and expertise regarding The Ultimate Enemy, which would probably be an excellent final resting place for Ghost Gaunlets. Think of how much time would have been saved, though, had you pursued that course, a merge and redirect, rather than AfD. We have now discussed the issue far longer than the entire lifespan of said Ghost Gaunlets, a fact that I find somewhat ironic. In any case, the issue is now out of our hands, as it will be decided by future voters, some of whom may be members of worthless bands or devotees of geekishly obscure knowledge. Furthermore, I do not believe we should coodle any of life's uncaring matrons, just the really nice ones who greet you with a warm cup of tea when they invite you in for a spot of Danny Phantom -- JJay 05:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further discussion BD2412 T 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merged to Paolo Uccello. BD2412 T 19:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Antonia Uccello

Article on really obscure artist from XV century without any known work. The person's only claim to fame is the father Mecanismo | Talk 23:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion merges need to be finished with a redirect to retain attribution to the original contributor. Voting merge and delete is not allowed. - Mgm|(talk) 10:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting for further discussion BD2412 T 05:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JLG

Apparent self-promotion of personal web site; does not establish notability. Adunar 05:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE under new CSD A7 wording. Harro5 05:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flow, band

Non-notable band. Not signed to label, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas L. Dusty Rhodes

Entire article consists of 2 quotes from other websites. Notable enough subject, with 2 copy violations for an article. (The first person who votes for Keep gets to create new article.) Madman 05:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that it has been expanded; I'd say Keep it and expand if necessary. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noypi

not a slang dictionary; possibly a wiktionary candidate but I doubt it Hirudo 05:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario 4

Non-notable port of a game. Google for "Super Mario 4" "Jay Resop" turns up nothing, and none of the Google hits for "Super Mario 4" alone seem relevant. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at User:9cds/Super mario 4 9cds 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SwapThing

Promotional. None of the screenshots have any tags and there are too many of them to be encyclopedic. The whole text sounds like it was written for prospective investors Daniel Case 06:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep both. --Angr (t·c) 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

High/Scope and David P. Weikart

A group involved in preschooling in the US. The author claims notability, but I just don't see why it warrants a Wikipedia entry. see this as quasi-spam and self-promotion. The article on David P. Weikart, the group's founder, is even less notable, and if the group's article is kept anything on him should be merged and redirected there. Otherwise, delete him too. Harro5 05:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irides (game)

Google knows not of this "invented 2005" game nor of its author (whose name somewhat resembles the sole editor of the article). WP:NOT free web hosting. —Blotwell 06:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This game is currently patent pending in the United States. I am indeed both the creator of the article and the game. I wrote the article with the intent of allowing abstract gaming enthusiasts the chance to learn the game without having to wait for the patent. I am awaiting the patent before I create a website to promote the game. Once the website is created Google will have a listsing for the game. I should stress that I am not using wikipedia as an advertisement for the game as I will not be selling the game. As an abstract gaming enthusiast I am more than willing to share any game I create with world. - JeremiahClayton

I sort of feel bad saying this, but Wikipedia also is WP:NOT a crystal ball, and your game may not achieve the notability worthy of Wikipedian webspace (which, in my experience, must cost a lot of money), so I have to say that as it currently stands, the article should be deleted. - CorbinSimpson 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if you can patent a video game but in that this is a board game.. that question is not important for this discussion. If the article must be deleted.. it happens. I disagree however with the idea that a board game must achieve some level of notability to be included on Wikipedia. There are countless articles that pertain to relatively unknown topics.. which to me.. is what makes Wikipedia better than the average encyclopedia. I also believe that a patent alone is enough to warrant an article in that it is a reliable source of information. Especially in a circumstance where the game will not be manufactured and was copyrighted only for the purpose of preventing others from profiting on what should remain a free game. I understand that as of now the article must be deleted.. but I have no doubt that it will one day again takes it's place along side other abstract game articles. - Jeremiah Clayton

The game can be found here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/21462.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 18:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive logic

Advert for the author's new book.

User:Wjkellpro replied: Hi Gazpacho! Thanks for clarifying your opposition to my article Progressive Logic. But I think you give me way too much credit for original research and thinking. This article does not breach the limits on original research for several reasons. First, it follows to the “t” the established meaning of “values,” “value reasoning,” and “logic” as these are explained in wikipedia under Robert S. Hartman, and value science.

Second, I’m not refering to a “concept,” such as “justice,” or “good,” or “evil,” but to the process of reasoning that progressives use in the course of weighing the relative importance of public policy options and proposals. I have used the term “progressive logic” merely to summarize this process of value reasoning, which is as old as the hills.

The article progressivism gives some indication of the value reasoning of progressives. Also such historians as Richard Hofstadter, Gabriel Kolko, and Howard Zinn provide books full of examples of the way progressives have reasoned about their policy choices. Progressive social critics, like Erich Fromm and Charles A. Reich also follow “progressive logic,” but without using that exact term (as far as I know).

I can see now that I should have included a selected bibliography to give the reader a clearer sense that Progressive Logic simply describes a reasoning process followed by progressives. I’m sure the writers above (who are still alive) would agree that there is no debate among social critics and social scientists about the existence of this reasoning process, because its existence is so obvious to all who have studied progressive politics.

After I put in a more complete “references” section, I’m sure your objection will be met, and that you’ll withdraw your opposition. Just wait and see.Wjkellpro 01:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not particularly happy with the tone of the first paragraph, but this is loads better than what was up before. Keep for now. - Mgm|(talk) 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Folks! I'm new to this game, so I'm just learning the rules. Actually, I thought there weren't any rules, so I could promote my new book here. But I can take a hint. I'll show that Mgm guy that I really do have something to say! User: wjkellpro
  • Hi Again! I have taken out all the advertising. I have now posted what I think can qualify as a genuine encyclopedia article. I invite you all to check it out. I think wikipedia is a great innovation, and I'd like to be a part of it. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
22:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Gazpacho and Stifle, take another look at my article Progressive Logic. I've benefitted greatly from the assistance of JWestbrook. Please tell me any specific objections you have, and I'll try to satisfy them. Others have changed their votes, I'd like to work with you on this. Wjkellpro 22:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shrink to paragraph and Merge into Progressivism, I've changed the framing of the first few paragraphs to reflect this as a thesis, and not a peer-reviewed political theory. Dr. Kelleher, I'm intrigued by your ideas, but I think they need a little more support before something this large has a place on this site. I consider myself to be a very strong progressive, and much of this article is duplicated in your book, so doesn't really need to be added to Wikipedia on its own. A single paragraph referencing your thesis on the Progressivism page would be more appropriate. Feel free to contact me offwiki if you like. Chadlupkes 20:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 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. --Angr (t·c) 18:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Hardy

This page was created by one of my friends as a joke , and this person was a very unpopular mayor and abused her rights and almost got kicked out of her job. This page was NOT vandalized but in fact those comments were real. This page should be deleted ASAP. It was simply made to make fun of her and show to people at the High School. Unremarkable person, apparent vanity bio, frequent vandalism, no value, no real content. -- Jbamb 06:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nn-bio. Claims of notability, but will never be more than a sentence. I agree that it is not a speedy but it should still go. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Not a speedy, the woman was Mayor of a major town. -- JJay 06:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has done anything but vandalize this page, if she was Mayor of a major town, why are there no accomplishments? It seems that at best this will be trivia with no meat behind it. She served only one year in a town of 200,000 people. There are about 10,000 towns that size, do we create bios for every office holder in history of those towns? -- Jbamb 06:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hate vandalism as much as the next guy. However, if that was a reason for deletion, the George Bush article would have to go immediately. I think bios of every mayor and major elected official would be a nice goal for wikipedia. Just use templates instead of AfD to get improvement-- JJay 07:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a difference between valuable articles that get vandalized, and articles that seem only to exist for the purpose of vandalizing. The people who put this up did it to slam this woman. They keep changing the page. There doesn't appear to be anyone truly interested in putting real information up. -- Jbamb 16:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • The vandalism seems to have begun in the last week, as the article was untouched for six months. It could end as quickly as it began. Many school related articles are vandalised, but removal is not an option. The original stub for Ms. Hardy was not designed to slam her as it merely stated she was Mayor of her town. There was no vanity whatsoever. I do not feel qualified to decide what is or is not valuable. However, as one-time Mayor and city council member, Ms. Hardy, in my opinion, is notable enough for this encyclopedia. -- JJay 17:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs at least a stub classification.TheRingess 06:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep: only if the focus has shifted to her term as mayor before the end of this AfD. No more messing around. Otherwise, delete. Harro5 06:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Keep as per Harro5. Otherwise, delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. In Huntington Beach, California, Hardy served one year as mayor because that position rotates among the city council members annually; it's not as though she was elected mayor in her own right for a four-year term as one might see in other cities. I can imagine this being a valid article nonetheless, but right now I don't know whether that will happen. --Metropolitan90 08:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why do residents of smallish United States cities presume their hometowns are world famous? Include the state, please. Durova 08:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete city council members are hardly notable.Gateman1997 19:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if she's from a city where Mayor is chosen by the city council from themselves.[19] --SarekOfVulcan 01:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lets try not to put everything on Wikipedia, whether notable or not.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per anyone you like above. Vandalism magnet. Oh and put a {{deletedpage}} on it as well. Stifle 01:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If she was mayor of a major city, like LA, I would easily say keep. But, in many California cities, there is a city council that rules the city, and some hire a city manager to deal with internal affairs. In that situation, you usually draw straws to see who is "mayor of the month," since it is mainly a title that has little meaning. I also will like to see a deleted page template slapped on the article. Zach (Smack Back) 08:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 22:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of 8-Bit Theater

Unsourced (likely alignments? pasts of characters?), super-extensive fake biographies. I know this is a fork from 8-Bit Theater which was becoming too large, but quite frankly the Characters section seems quite sufficient. Not much more can be said about these characters which would be verifiable and encyclopedic. (ESkog)(Talk) 06:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I would recommend you go and read the archives from the beginning before calling it fake. As far as I can remember, those bios all look accurate and have not extrapolated from the comic or fantasized any aspect of the characters. 8-Bit Theater is probably notable enough to merit a giant article on characters. And, to top it off, it's not the longest webcomic article either -- Megatokyo and Questionable Content are both longer! - CorbinSimpson 09:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do read the comic, and enjoy it. But would you put a detailed plot summary of every episode on Wikipedia? There is a line between encyclopedia and trivia, and I feel it has been crossed here. If the consensus here finds otherwise, then that's great too. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Paysan

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 06:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion (two deletes and one abstention is not enough). But I have removed the other names that Harro5 added, because {{afd}} templates were never added to four of those pages, and the other two have already been deleted. Harro5, it's all right to list several articles in one AFD, but if you do, all articles must have the AFD template on them linking to this discussion. --Angr (t·c) 19:12, 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]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per Peyna's comment. Harro5 00:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The Changing Face of Missions"

An original research, personal essay (see WP:NOT) copied from a religious blog. Not a copyvio, but not for Wikipedia either. Harro5 06:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oscarian

A non-notable religious sect, or cult, or miniscule group - whatever you want to call it. No reason to have a Wikipedia entry, but no applicable CSD given its iffy claims at notability. Harro5 06:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's a joke.

TheRingess 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff morton

I'm pretty sure this is not notable. --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 06:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete. -- Jbamb 06:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vladislav Adelkhanov

He does not appear to be notable yet, he is just a student. May be in a few years... Delete abakharev 06:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (belated) speedy delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brotherhood of Bob

This seems to refer to a guild of players of a video game? If so, not obviously notable. Ben Aveling 06:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous overweight people

Listed for CSD under the reasoning, "defammatory", thus claiming CSD A6 as a personal attack. But then, it's true, they all do fit a certain mass-related criterion (they're pretty fat, and pretty famous), so we'll open it up for debate. Harro5 06:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Overweight' and 'famous' are too subjective when combined. If there were a criterion by mass or weight or BMI for 'overweight,' and 'famous' was the same as our 'notable,' then it could be debated or considered, but as it stands, there's just too much room for opinion. - CorbinSimpson 06:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The list was already growing in the heavily trafficked and frequently vandalized obesity article and making a separate article is the best way to get it out of there. You know that we have a class of editors whose idea of contributing to human knowledge is to point out that "John Doe is fat". Let's give them a separate place to play so they don't interfere with a real article. Thanks. alteripse 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Serving as a lightning rod for vandalism is a very poor reason to keep an article. Does it have independent merits? JFW | T@lk 08:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course it has no merits other than keeping people who think it's worthwhile away from the obesity article. I don't personally care whether it lives or dies by itself but I thought it was a useless distraction and a lightning rod for trouble in the obesity article. As long as it is understood that no one re-creates it as part of the obesity article, we can delete it as far as I am concerned. Will you back me on keeping it from being re-started there?alteripse 01:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no reason not to have this list. It is important and can be verified based on government definition for fat or obese or using Body mass index. -- JJay 07:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really unsure about that; and also, honestly, how much worth is to this list? Who's going to look at it and go "oh wow, I had no idea Chris Farley was fat! you learn something every day!" A person's weight is immediatley apparent, and this kind of list would mostly be based on public perception, not fact. As such, what's its value, if all the contents are already in the public's mind? Finally, why the hell does this even matter? Save for a handful of comedians, these people's weight is of absolutely no consequence to their notability. Also, what do we do about people like, say, Kristie Allie? Flyboy Will 08:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, but while we know that Farley was fat without the list, isn't the same true for height, race and many other criteria listed at Wikipedia? Yet, editors find these lists very useful and appealing. From the intellectual standpoint, the list is achievable within wikipedia policy guidelines. Therefore, I can't vote against it. -- JJay 09:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undefined, unsourced and unmaintainble.--nixie 07:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per above. 9cds 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Overweight" is an insanely broad term. Somebody like Brad Pitt is technically overweight, at 6' and 203 lbs [23] (I just randomly looked it up, not that I know Brad Pitt's weight by heart). Anyway, this list is completely unmaintanable, and even if the inclusion criteria is modified to be obese-only, it can still quickly grow to be the biggest fattest article ever on wikipedia, as soon as we dip into history past Santa Claus. Flyboy Will 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessarily stigmatising, serves no real informational purpose, sourcing is a nightmare (who knows Brad Pitt's BMI), potentially endless as the definition of "famous" is too flexible. JFW | T@lk 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remote LanD Attack

Labelled CSD, but no criteria apply. This is a nonsense original research about some super-nerdy computer-attack thing. I can't understand it, but know it's not Wikipedia-worthy. Harro5 06:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It IS original research, but it's not nonsense. It more or less makes sense. The author is free to move it someplace else, and then cite it from Wikipedia, but right now, the article needs to be moved or deleted. - CorbinSimpson 09:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to LAND, and clean that up. --Zetawoof 09:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is in fact complete nonsense. On the one hand, the article is incoherent -- his claim is that the attack is caused by an ICMP packet, but his examples use flags which are only applicable to TCP packets. He also claims that you can introduce crippling latency on a remote network using TCP packets sent to a LAN broadcast address. Both claims are laughable to anyone with even a passing knowledge of TCP/IP networking. On the other hand, even if you fixed the terminology issues in the article, the simple fact is that the exploit he claims, does not work. Unfortunately, the author also modified the original LanD entry to include reference to this entry.

The original LanD entry should be reverted to its state before all of this happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.75.16.223 (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Yes it's comprehensible, but no it does not make much sense. per unsigned comment above, it mentions TCP flags being used on an ICMP packet. It is not original research however, as it does mention older mentions of the attack. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sad...

Hello, I am the original author of the Wikipedia entry. I am also the original author of the write up, Justin M. Wray, and I am the one who did all the research. I laugh at the fact that you guys claim "its not original research". Are you claiming I stole the information? I am claiming it as my own? Well the research is all original. I did do it all myself. And the tests were all conducted by me, with the help of a few others mentioned in the article.

The article is as "wikiworthy" as the original LAND post, which is also on wiki I might add. I was going to contact someone from the defacing team (or whatever the name may be). As some users from digg.com continue to deface the site. They claim they can not get the exploit to work, which I am not disputing, however I have been receiving endless emails from people claiming they got it to work. I had help testing it both from my employer and a College professor in the Networking/InfoSec field. The exploit is far from "bogus".

ICMP vs TCP. Both work, I 'was' planing to make that a bit more clear, yet every time I go to edit the wikipage, I have to fix the SPAM people are leaving. The flags are for the TCP packet but if you send enough ICMP packets it will do the same, it takes about 30 seconds longer or so, so it seems.

This is not a normal "Ping of Death"

Yes I edited the LAND entry to add a link to the new discovery. Its important, home consumers are vulnerable, and its big news in the Security field. If you take a look at the links on the current wiki page about RLA, you will see many big names are talking about it. One is Dave, from the ICANN security counsel. (ICANN is in charge of giving out IP address).

Someone said to merge with the original LAND attack. I am not adverse to that over deletion, but the attacks are only similar in nature, the original could not be done over the Internet, where the Remote LAND Attack can. To me this means they should be separated, but linked to one and other.

I thought wikipedia was an encyclopedia, for the sharing if information and knowledge. I have seen far less important articles. I am shocked to see wikipedia take such actions, this is only hindering education. I know for a fact, if the page stays, it will be used in many college classes, and even training at work. This is an important part of Internet history, even if its inter works are foreign to the average users, the end results are not.

I have more to say, but I will allow you to read and refute the above first.

BTW: Its not "super-nerdy computer-attack thing", its a network perimeter devices exploit. And the sad part is, your "router" is most likely susceptible to attack. Hope the vendors take this more serious then some of you have.

Its funny how hundreds of kids can play in a pool, but let one pee in it and all the funs over. Remember, a lot of people have recreated this attack, and only a handful are saying its bogus...

SynisterSyntax 20:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What?

Wait a moment...So because its original research, it’s not worthy of being in the encyclopedia? That makes a lot of sense. So only copied material makes it to wiki?

SynisterSyntax 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see...

Qoute: "Original research refers to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source. In this context it means unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas..."

The research is based off of previous work. However it is in fact, new, different, and original. But it is posted online elsewhere, both on my own servers, and on many other reputable sites. Take a look at the links...

68.50.61.139 19:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sad...

Okay, ive just about had it with all of the stupid comments left by the people who have no clue what they are talking about. They may THINK they do, but they really dont. Im Matthew Wines, i helped with the testings of this exploit and i verify that it works. The very first object tested was my Westell VersaLink 327W (the one Verizon sent me with DSL). When we first tested the exploit it worked, this was to our surprise. We then tested a couple different things and couldnt re-create the exploit and were very discouraged. Then we adjusted some other settings and tried again, it worked. So we moved on to test others to see if it would only work with my VersaLink. However, it worked with Synisters Atlanta DPX2100. That is when he released the exploit information to his college professor, who allowed him to test it on a couple other things. It worked each time. We did lots of tests and would not release or makeup a stroy like this. If you notice, when i was talking about my VersaLink, we DID NOT get it to work every time for the first time. However, once we found the perfect settings, we could reacreate it just about every time. So please dont post your stupid immature spam garbage and accusations, if you would do a better part to society and play World Of Warcraft for 3 days straight then jump out of a 29 story window when someone "Ninjas" your Trinket.... Thank You to everyone who gets this exploit to work, who actually tries it, and does not display themselves as a complete and total fool.

Vendicator 21:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice and all, but this isn't the place for it. Once your work is proved (by publishing or some other means) then we can include. Until then we can't. BTW, wikiarticles don't write like essays for school. There is no "credit" given to authors except for citations. I vote to delete. Oberiko 19:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read

The work has been proven. Try reading some of the links that are on the page. Read some of the blog posts, news posts, and forum posts. And if you’re waiting for Vendor's to release a statement that will come with time as well.

SynisterSyntax 15:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Hedley 02:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Fernando Pinzón Cancino

I'm prepared to withdraw this if notability can be established, but at the moment the article makes no clear claim to notability. He gets 295 google hits, but again, nothing obviously notable. Ben Aveling 07:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Only comments by established Wikipedians were taken into consideration. --Angr (t·c) 20:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Fairchild

Comments by established Wikipedians

As discussed on the talk page, content is unverified and probably a hoax, delete.--nixie 07:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by anons and newbies

  • Keep it- It actually did happen and there was a special on it on Discovery Health channel, not Tlc. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 69.0.120.106 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it- I am watching the story on TLC as I type this, and I came here to look for further information.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.196.84.227 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" by TAB - This show is on TLC, on a special called "I Am My Own Twin". I am watching it right now, on TLC which happens to be a division of the Discovery Channel networks - yes, TLC, and it was on a month or two ago as well. I would think that TLC tries hard to validate the stories that they show. Lydia was not the only person featured on the show. There was another woman named Karen Keegan who had the same Chimera DNA issue, as well as the case of a baby born as a hermaphrodite. I've never known TLC to be a National Enquirer type network that shows false things. As for the google search, there are two other links on the results page that bring her up under the topic of chimera. So, she is out there in the search engine. The TLC show doesn't list the people featured on their show, otherwise her name would probably show up there if they listed names. I'm sure you could simply contact the TLC network to verify this story. I don't see what the big deal is with verifying this when it's already been featured on a major cable network such as TLC. http://tlc.discovery.com/schedule/series.jsp?series=111185&gid=0&channel=TLC —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.17.20.143 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it - It was on a TLC show last night and can also be verified on Google by searching chimerism

the show was called I am my own Twin and also profiled Karen Keegan with the same condition.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 142.162.145.25 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep it -- Chimerism is a rare gentic anomaly; there are only two current cases being followed in the United States. Lydia Fairchild is the only case that has caused legal precedent for human chimera. (Chimerism also occurs in other species, with more prevalence)—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.45.95.126 (talk • contribs) 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" - Hello? It is verifiable by virtue of the fact that it was on a national information network/channel and had to pass the smell test of the producers, etc. etc. of that show on TLC. It is not just original research. Maybe it was 'orginal research' before it was screened by a reputable cable network and broadcasted to millions. But now it fits the 'verifiable' qualifications and has gone beyond being original research or just a theory. All you have to do is contact the TLC Network and/or the larger Discovery channel company. You could even contact the hospitals and other sources that are mentioned on the show. How hard is that to understand? Why is this site run by teens who live in isolated locations? That is scary. Can your qualifications be 'verified'? lol—the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.17.20.143 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" - In "Calculated Risk: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You", by Gerd Gigerenzer, DNA testing offers the illusion of certainty. If you have a brother, your brother has a 1 in 16 chance of matching your DNA. I love science, but science is constantly changing. DNA testing will eventually be a footnote in history, like everything else mortals come up with.—the preceding unsigned comment is by 160.254.20.253 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" by EMAnthon - I too just watched the TLC show "I Am My Own Twin" While some of the information in the article is off (Lydia's lawyer didn't find the article on Karen Keegan, the prosecutors did) and if you have more of the information as to how she came to end up in court (Accusations of Welfare Fraud) it makes the information more credible. The TLC/Discovery Health Channel will air it again on JAN 22 2006 @ 08:00 PM, JAN 22 2006 @ 11:00 PM, JAN 29 2006 @ 07:00 PM - This website Everything2.com [26]has an entry dated Thu Jul 21 2005 at 21:15:26 That gives further information and sources from medical journals and doctors that so many of you who want to delete it requested. Also my google searches came up with several other links to Lydia's case and when you add Chimera to her name a more specific list is produced. - 28 December 2005—the preceding unsigned comment is by 204.128.192.5 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep It" – Further in the book "Calculated Risk”"

On page 167 in a section titled “The Fabrication of Certainty”: (a) 1 in 100 DNA test is a false positive. (b) The FBI has fought hard to prevent outsiders from seeing the results of there own internal tests on DNA accuracy. On page 180: “subjective judgements are an integral part of” DNA testing (matching up lines of a two DNA profiles). On page 181: DNA is effected by sunlight, poor laboratory practices, or inadequate analysis.

My point is a follows: The mainstream notion of DNA’S infallibility is a hoax. DNA is not the end game. There is much yet to be discovered and cataloged for future reference. To delete the ”Lydia Fairchild” story would censor a probable truth. Nothing good will come of such censorship.

Note: FEMA is funding the Katrina DNA testing. Not sure if FEMA has opted to fund the expensive DNA test (more accurate) or the cheap DNA test (not as accurate). When you think DNA testing, think FEMA, perhaps you'll have more empathy for ”Lydia Fairchild”'s nightmare. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 68.193.211.21 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of descriptive songs whose titles are mentioned in the lyrics

User:Light current seems to think that this is a speedy candidate.

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica Systems

Appears to be a vanity page, and all of the information on there is lifted from the website anyway. 9cds 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evangel family church

One line sub-stub on a church with no claim of notabliy. Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gyalpo

Original research ("This page was started by me"). I can't find verification online - if someone more knowledgeable can rewrite that'd be great but I don't think there's anything salvageable here. (ESkog)(Talk) 08:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to Gyalpo can be found. On the Dorje Shugden page, you have to go to the discussion and there you find at the bottom of the page, a long article that explains in scholarly manner that "(in Tibetan 'gyalpo' meaning king, a type of ghost)" on line five of the article. The article is the last one on the page. It starts with "Jeff Watt, the Webmaster for Sakya Resource..." and is entitled "Do Shakyas rely on Dorje Shugden?" This takes you to the page : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kelsangpagpa

Anyways, I'll refer to the people who are interested in this subject over there and among Tibetan-following folks, and see what approach would be best to break down the subject for Wiki. All the best to you, and also thinks for the advice about Gyalpo. Geir Smith. It's funny, I just sent this same message a few minutes ago but it didn't seem to register right now.

  • Gasp ! What's that link I just sent !!! Noooo ! the links must have mixed up. The page above-mentionned ("Do Shakyas rely on Dorje Shugden?" )is at this link, not that other one with the Buddhist monk ! No way ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dorje_Shugden

Hope that's all right now ! Geir Smith.

The page is now formatted for new edition along the start-up lines. The new format will be worked out with various people who can work out a collegial manner of writing the article. It's thoguht to become a non-sectarian approach but along the lines the people themselves choose. It's just in the project stage now. Renaming the project as Gyalpo enables to get out of the check-mate that the originally named project is mired in. Things are thus back at step one.

Thanks to you for understanding the difficulty of entering an encyclopedic work. Advice taken and appreciated. Geir Smith.

  • I'll start reediting the page according to encyclopedia norms. The page should thus probably define the verifiable sources behind it's title first and then move on to support that verifiable source with a developped research on it.I'll go slowly on this rather than do things backwards - which is to first put a lot of material online and then hope for correcting later, from others, as I was more or less expecting. I'll thus spruce up the existing links to the first bit there to start out slowly and go from there. G.S.

Nominate for Speedykeep. Signed Geir Smith. 25 December 2005. Noon.

Comment: You cannot nominate an article for speedy keep unless you are the nominator and no delete votes have been received, neither of which has happened (except in cases of vandalism or WP:POINT. Stifle 01:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I've added a bit about Gyalpo to give background reference to the article. Geiremann 11:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. FireFox 16:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those 3 Guys

Band does not qualify under WP:MUSIC; likely self-promotion. Adunar 08:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont Drama Society

non notable theatre group. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge with The Slip. --Angr (t·c) 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc friedman

Non-notable musician who plays partially un-invented instruments. Zero related google hits. Delete per WP:MUSIC May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"non-notable musician"? please google "the Slip." almost 15 year of professional music. i will be willing to change his bio for more clarity.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Music by Man (talk • contribs)

Relisting to December 21, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:29, Dec. 21, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Banner (band)

Non-notable music ensemble. Numerous google hits for +band +"the banner", but none seem discernible outside of Myspace.com (the parking garage of garage bands). Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to December 21, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, Dec. 21, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sentry gun

A ministub of a C&C:RA2 unit? I think not. 

Agamemnon2 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to December 21, 2005. Insert new comments below. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, Dec. 21, 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep on withdrawal of nomination with no other delete votes cast. Capitalistroadster 16:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Edward Stokes

This page was created and is edited by a persistant vandal who is obsessed about adding false information about Families (TV series), New Zealand cricketers, vegans, The Simpsons voices (with a particular fetish for Mr. Burns), amongst other things. According to the IMDB, this article is 50% incorect. See also Articles for deletion/Amanda Dickison, which was deleted on the same grounds. The JPS 08:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. Simon Stokes is an actor and he was in Families among other shows [27]. He probably deserves a page. Frankly, I'm having trouble understanding your nom. -- JJay 09:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you had battled to remove the nonsense that this user has added to wikipedia over the last few months, the you would understand it. The IMDB does not mention The Bill. Google does not verify it either. Therefore, 50% of the article is incorrect. If this remains, it will be vandalised, and I will refuse to correct it. I am not nominating simply on the grounds of notability; but the poor notability is not worth the hassle.
    I'm not sure what needs clarifying, but feel free to get in touch if you still fail to understand my nom.The JPS 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A quick google shows that Stokes has been in numerous shows such as Absolutely Fabulous. I can not confirm the Bill, as yet, but it is quite possibly true. Stokes is also a director. While I sympathize with your counter-vandalism efforts, that should not be a reason for deletion. If it were, we would have to cut George Bush and other pages. The editor in question, if really a vandal, should be blocked. However, Stokes must not be made to pay the price for the misdeeds of a wiki contributor.-- JJay 09:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has also been on Neighbours and Absolutely Fabulous. Capitalistroadster 09:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable actor. We don't let articles pay for what vandals do to them. Block the vandal and keep an eye on the article. If you don't want to correct it, it should be easy to find someone who wants to (for example at the related TV show pages). - Mgm|(talk) 10:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll withdraw nomination, ehtn, if someone else is willing to look after it. If the vandal can be sorted out, then please do so. Someone else might to try to sort through the 'contributions' he made this morning. The JPS 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of parodies and puns on Robin Hood

nn listcruft Zunaid 09:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of 60's decade oldies covered as altervative rock songs

nn list cruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information Zunaid 09:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CPR Buffalo Yard

Very non-notable. Found no google matches. Pogoman 09:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of eponymous albums (songwise)

nn listcruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. When is this madness going to end? Delete Zunaid 09:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Modify to maintain manageability. I'd suggest limiting criteria to eponymous albums that have reached a position in an album chart in a definitive recording trade magazine, like Billboard, Cashbox (now defunct) or New Musical Express. In the same vein, I'd recommend a similar Eponymous hit singles as this would be very manageable (if memory serves me correctly, there are only about a dozen fitting this category from Billboard's Hot 100 chart and a relative handful from NME). In both cases, the name of the act and the name of the recording must be identical. B.Wind 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:Filiocht as nonsense. Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester K.

non-encyclopedic


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

The result of the debate was keep. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs with the same name as song artists

nn listcruft and unencyclopedic. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm geting tired of all these random song lists, there seem to be LOTS of arbitrary lists going around. Delete Zunaid 09:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Very serious approach to the subject. List demonstrates the kind of careful scholarship I expect from this type of classification. Highly useful for cultural historians. We need more like this. -- JJay 09:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lists about songs named after the artist who performs them is not something arbitrary. - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is it encyclopedic? IMHO it is "indiscriminate information". Please convince me otherwise. Zunaid
  • Keep, simply because I believe it is notable. Additionally, WP has many other similar lists that I believe are appropriate and I believe singling this one out would also be unfair. Halo 14:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agreed, this is a good list. Zordrac (talk) [[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDM

TD|Wishy Washy]] Darwikinian Eventualist 15:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

This should already be done. We shouldn't include any song in a list if it doesn't deserve coverage on its own (or in the band/artist article). - Mgm|(talk) 08:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs whose genre occurs in the title

As with all the other lists nominated, this is listcruft. Fails WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Content has no encyclopedic value. Delete Zunaid 09:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This will become more unwieldy than even the article on eponymous songs that is also up for deletion. Unlike the latter, I don't see a way of modifying the boundaries to rein in the entries to a manageable size (after all, there are way too many charted country songs with the word "country" in their title, ditto "disco," "jazz," "rap," "jazz," "pop," "soul," and -- most importantly -- "blues." I like the idea, bit it won't work here... Delete. B.Wind 19:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, wikipedia users should be able to find examples of songs about genres of music. Kappa 19:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But that's not what this list is about. That would require an article on List of songs about song genres. We Will Rock You is not about rock, it is rock, for instance; so this list is useless for the purpose you suggest. Just a thought. Peeper 20:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. FireFox 16:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Andrzejewicz

non-notable; vanity page Adunar 09:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. --Terence Ong Talk 05:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Robinson Road, Singapore

Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability redstucco 10:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hearseburners

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swechno

This term is not wide spread and doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry. mere 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 20:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Msnfight

Appears to be a non-notable software, see 1 - 9 of about 53 for "msnfight". Also most of the visible results appear to be Dutch (?). Perhaps somebody who can read those would be helpful here. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:08, Dec. 21, 2005

Delete as non-notable. The website in question was launched two days ago, and the article was written by its admin. Melchoir 21:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Angr (t·c) 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locafest

Non-notable, badly-written, fest-cruft? Peeper 11:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

444.

Almost certainly a hoax. Neither the manufacturers of Desert Eagle firearms, or DARPA have any information on this. It doesn't meet WP:V so should be deleted Kevin 11:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was 'Speedied by User:Dan100 Jamie (talk/contribs) 14:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gordon-Stewart

It was originally tagged as a speedy, but since the article does assert some notability, I decided to take it here instead. The article is about a 18 year old with a blog, one of many.-- JoanneB 11:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huang Quan

Delete This may be a valid article, but I can't tell! is it related to 12thC China, 19thC Macau, Sailor Moon or a special guest episode of Friends? Delete, and if resubmitted with enough information to justify inclusion, keep. Colonel Tom 11:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. However, noting that the recommended target article is currently under copyright investigation, I am going to stop after tagging this article with the recommended merge. Rossami (talk) 07:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pule

An article about a holiday in an episode of a childrens cartoon. The show may be notable, but I doubt the fictional holiday is; and even so, it's unencyclopedic. Locke Cole 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. FireFox 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shriekers (band)

The article provides no evidence that this band meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. Delete. Sliggy 11:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Carly McKillip

Article fails to establish notability; the person is apparently a voice actor in one obscure particular film or cartoon feature; I don't see how the article can be fixed to establish any notability. Bumm13 11:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

YADD

The term seems to be little-known, and the issue is better covered in the digg article Lurker 12:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 18:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kharghar

Sounds like a vaguely disguised advertisement for a nn private college. Could be wrong though.Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 12:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) Withdrawn nomination based on dpbsmith's edits. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 08:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EUROFUTURES

Just a constitution for a new think-tank. Not encyclopedic. Randwicked 12:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Lithuania --Angr (t·c) 20:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania/temp

temporary page- no work since august 2005 Melaen 12:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In general I just redirect these to the main article. It is faster than VfD, and leaves it possible for anyone interested to check any page history or discussion associated with the temp page. - SimonP 15:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect to Global warming. --Angr (t·c) 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming/temp

old temporary page - 4 August 2005 Melaen 12:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deadwriter

nonsense ,It is not that much known about these strange persons, but they exist since many centuries Melaen 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_21&oldid=32231838"