Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R3m0t (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 5 January 2006 (Nominating Helvis for deletion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< January 4 >

Purge server cache

January 5

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of Scotland

Delete. This article is nothing more than copy-paste from Scotland article. Luka Jačov 12:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as copyright material.--File Éireann 00:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Network Anatomy (disambiguation)

This page, like NetworkAnatomy itself, violates WP:VAIN, created by NetworkAnatomy (talk · contribs) whose edit summaries identifies her as a "company staff member" of the company in question. Beyond that, though, this isn't a disambiguation page for different articles that might be confused with each other, it's a list of different "meanings" for variations on "network" and "anatomy" with external links. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetworkAnatomy


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Girl gamer

I don't see why "girl gamer" needs its own article. Delete it and maybe put a paragraph about girls in gaming culture in another article. Scottmso 00:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akeni

Nn software company. No media coverage. No incoming wikilinks. Official URL has 300K alexa rank -- Perfecto 01:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tinfoil Hat Linux

The Linux distribution which this article describes is apparently completely defunct and receives no mention within the last several years (as returned by a Google search). This article serves no purpose and should be deleted. Ryan Reich 01:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is part of computing history and its ideas are important. Wikipedia is not just a catalog of currently available systems, it's comprehensive coverage of technology is one of its strengths. --agr 16:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is too little. --Kilo-Lima 17:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this distro was ever publically released it's a clear keep IMHO. But, as a long term Linux user (well over 10 years) I can't say I've ever heard of it. The WayBack machine link doesn't fill me with confidence, could easily be a 'vapourware' page. --kingboyk 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was able to follow the external link from the article and download the gzip'ed version of release 1.000 (but not the .img version, which appears first). It unzipped fine, but I haven't tried it on a system. It seems real enough. --agr 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. To be fair, with so many distros floating around, very few Linux users, experienced or not, will know of all of them. I've been a user of Linux for four years and haven't heard of it. Many are just clones of existing distros. The notability of this distro is questionable, but if it holds true to its security credentials, then I think this would just about pass. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 19:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am willing to accept that this distro is instructive regarding secure-computing techniques. Not to mention that there is such a proliferation of pages on minor Linux distributions (some possibly defunct as well) that it is unfair to single out this one. However, the article needs a lot of attention: it is haphazard in its choices of what or what not to include and contains about as much opinion as fact. I think that the article, as it stands, is not worth having; therefore if we will keep it, we should rewrite it. Ryan Reich 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a pass at it earlier today. Let me know if anything else needs changing. --agr 22:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will post my suggestions on the article's talk page since there is no need to clutter up this page, which is for a more direct discussion of whether the article should go or not. Ryan Reich 23:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Rainbow Warrior. -Splashtalk 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter wilcox

Attempted assertion of notability, but, while the Rainbow Warrior story itself is certainly important, not every single character in it was. Delete. Soo 01:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect to Rainbow Warrior. -- Dragonfiend 15:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was KEEP Babajobu 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aisle

Why does 'aisle' deserve an encyclopedia entry? The material about church architecture might be moved to an article on that. RickReinckens 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Phaldo 03:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki and Cleanup - put in Wiktionary under "aisle." Schlockading 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete already in wiktionary Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki -- WB 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Expand, the way it is now, it looks like it should be a wiktionary entry, but when it is expanded I see a lot of potential for valid and useful Art History and Architectural article. ArgentiumOutlaw 08:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Above. But it needs a heckufa lot of work.... Jcuk 08:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I was going to vote a provisional "keep" to allow time for the article to be re-written and expanded, but I see that it's been here on Wikipedia for two and a half years already and it's still just a dicdef. If anyone feels strongly enough about keeping this they can work to expand it substantially (adding about history, significance, etc.) in the next few days and then message me and I'll change my vote. Blackcats 10:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - I'm changing my vote, as this AFD has apparently motivated Jonathan de Boyne Pollard and some others to drasticly expand and improve this article such that it is now clearly encyclopedic and way more than a dicdef or anything suitable for Wiktionary. Way to go guys! Should be an obvious keep for everyone now. Blackcats


KEEP -- I AM THE ONE WHO NOMINATED THIS. Before doing so I looked up "chair", for comparison. After nomination, someone added quite a bit. Although it is still fairly weak and needs additional reformatting work, my attitude is that the threshold for inclusion should be fairly low and I think it now at least comes up to the level of a legitimate stub.

I agree with ArgentiumOutlaw that this now should be expanded regarding things like Art History and Architecture. What are the oldest known examples of aisles? It should be mentioned that aisles often have signs designating the contents. Are the spaces between shelves in a library sometimes referred to as aisles? In dark places such as movie theaters, the edges of aisles are sometimes marked with rows of small lights. Etc. The wiktionary entry does not address any of those topics, nor should it. Those are proper topics for an encyclopedia article.

RickReinckens 05:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP When I originally nominated this it contained three sentences and two images of churches. At that point I was not willing to "adopt" it to fix it. Since Jonathan de Boyne Pollard expanded it I have adopted it. Basically, the entire article has been written after it was nominated for not having enough information to be in an encyclopedia.
RickReinckens 23:02, 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. Mo0[talk] 04:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Green (pwnz0r)

  • But did you read the text? It says the deleter will be cursed with a curse! That can't be!Jason 08:49, 4 January 2006 (EST)

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 01:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pork (software)

Delete: Not notable. Probably will never be more than a stub. Not every Unix/open source software program needs an article in an encyclopedia. — Shadowhillway 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 01:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Ryan

This person seems to be a complete no-mark. All pertinent links on page are red. Waste of space keeping this trivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Light current (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 January 2006

Jcuk 09:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - very notable person, and the nominator isn't even a registered user. Blackcats 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Oops - I realized he just forgot to sign. Blackcats 10:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ryan's Premises, as mentioned in the article, is a Canadian heritage site that deserves an article in itself (a future task I plan on tackling). The question is how you can have an article about a prominent and historical business without an article about its founder. The red ink, as it seems to get people all excited, are fodder for future articles. HJKeats 13:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. This one is marginal for me, but I'll side with the other voters above on this one. Evil Eye 13:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to all: Please don't forget to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). --DavidConrad 05:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MAKE INTO A DISAMBIG PAGE. — JIP | Talk 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Charleston

This article is redundant with the article Siege of Charleston, and incorrectly states that the battle was in 1780. Roy Al Blue 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ugen64 06:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lovato

Vanity Page SailorfromNH 02:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE This is some random persons profile Phaldo 03:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dixiebagger

Neologism or uncommon regional slang. No evidence that this is in common use. Article cites source as something s/he overheard. Google shows nothing for "Dixiebagger" as one word. As "dixie + bagger + union" I got lots of hits re baggers at Winn-Dixie. Saint Midge 02:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Friday. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 23:16Z


Ane

non-notable — J3ff 03:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Friday. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 23:16Z


The rodani group

non-notable. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ane — J3ff 03:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Friday. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 23:16Z


Guardians Infinity

non-notable — J3ff 03:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete, although I can testify to the danger of using multi-tabbed browsing when using Wikipedia. Joining those who got a good laugh from reading it, so it's to BJAODN this thing goes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinaut

neogolism — J3ff 03:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: made up term, neologism, newly coined, self-reference. Yep, that's deleteable. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Duff Chart History

OK, when this article started, I put a "mergeto" header on it, but now, this is getting out of hand. We're supposed to have an article on every single and every album she has ever released, for every chart in the world? To begin with, there is not a single cite for any of this information. For another, this violates WP:NOT, as it's a collection of unencylopedic information. Imagine if we did this for every music group that has ever existed. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resistance and Liberation

Non-notable, merely a mod in development. Contains lots of non-encyclopedic content as well. Blatant advertising and reads like a copy of a website for the mod, which Wikipedia is not. Full of original research and unverifiable sources. Cyde Weys votetalk 03:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CeaSe (rapper)

Could not find on Google. As text indicates, this guy is going to be the next big thing. Maybe, but he has to do that first then he gets a Wikipedia article. Daniel Case 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Pond

Been here since August. Non-notable barely begins to describe it. Denni ☯ 03:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, which was the majoriry opinion both before and especially after discounting invalid votes. Punkmorten 13:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keyra Augustina

This nomination was made by an anonymous user. I've tried to fix it. The article was deleted once on AfD and the second AfD was cut short after it was realized that it had been deleted before. However, I believe that she might be notable for an article. She has a lot of non-duplicate Google page results and about 100 image results. She has also appeared in Maxim magazine. -- Kjkolb 10:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Myths

Does not meet notability guidelines as per WP:WEB. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hertz Football League

Someday maybe we will have notability standards for fantasy sports leagues. However, there isn't even a category for them now, which leads me to believe there are no other articles and thus they aren't considered notable per se. Daniel Case 04:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the HFL can set the bar and create notability for valiant fantasy sports leagues which have years of experience. This article isn't even 1/20 finished, as there is a lot of history of its hosts, Yahoo Fantasy Sports and ESPN.com Fantasy Sports which have yet to be covered in the article. I sincerely hope HFL will be given the opportunity to showcase its league and its hosts to the rest of the fantasy sports world.

Well said, but really, we haven't even gotten our act together as far as corporations are concerned. Fantasy sports leagues are not exactly high on the list (And do sign your comments with the four tildes, please). Daniel Case 05:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damariscotta-Newcastle, Maine

Unclear what value/meaning this CDP page has in addition to the Damariscotta, Maine and Newcastle, Maine pages describing these towns in Maine. Is the CDP the union of these two towns? If so, why is the population *less* than their combined population? ScottMainwaring 04:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Humorous comment: It's one of those weird places that Stephen King writes about. Something is happening up there that you don't want to know about but will soon be made into a major motion picture when it's all over and the world has been saved from Lovecraftian aliens with glowing red eyes which will make the paperback edition fly off the shelves so that unscheduled layover at O'Hare will be a lot less boring. Daniel Case 05:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Census-designated place explains weirdnesses in how CDPs are defined. Perhaps this one is weirdly defined (i.e. isn't Damariscotta plus Newcastle) or the statistics are wrong. But it's a big article generated from census data so I don't see why it should be deleted just because two numbers don't add up. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 07:02Z
  • Keep I disagree with this article being deleted. While Damariscotta Maine and Newcastle Maine are towns, Damaroscptta Newcastle Maine is a CDP which does not cover the towns, but rather areas without a municipal government. The possibility is that Damariscotta-Newcastle Maine is an area between the two towns? Or perhaps it is just geographically located near both, and the name was decided upon becasue of this. Onthost 04:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 177

This is yet another mod under development for Half-Life 2. I don't think it has achieved sufficient notability to warrant being included on Wikipedia as its own encyclopedia article. It is already listed under List of Half-Life 2 mods. Cyde Weys votetalk 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Babajobu 07:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bih-sut

Subject appears to be unverifiable via Google. Possible hoax or implausible typo. Muchness 05:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Punkmorten 13:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the article is about the Bih-sut, "a small tribe of Pakhto-speaking Afghans". There is no evidence for this tribe, even with Dlyons493 admirable efforts. Sliggy 16:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's absolutely correct - I was hoping someone could source it but they haven't. I'm changing my vote to Delete unless sourced. I'd now vote keep an article entitled Bisut about the place but there's so little info available that it's not worth starting. Dlyons493 Talk Dlyons493 00:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I had a go at finding proof, but all I could find were maps that don't show the tribe, and so can't be used to prove or disprove the tribe's existence (since it can be argued that they are not detailed enough to show a small tribe), e.g. [11] [12] Sliggy 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its real.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, CSD A3 "No Content" Babajobu 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Grand Lodge of the Three Globes

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ode on Melancholy

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was movd ws 7/05. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a John Keats poem that was moved to Wikisource. I would say that it should be redirected to Keats and a Wikisource link be included there, but most of the other Keats' poem articles have Wikipedia worthy content so stubbing this and seeing what happens might be a better approach. -- JLaTondre 01:16, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, blank pages are speedyable, aren't they? --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:40, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Otto Thoresen

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongtom

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japonica Partners

Advert/Vanity - Rudykog 19:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep This seems to be a case where a crappy wikipedia entry is hiding a company of some notability. Most of the text seems to come from Armenepedia, and indicates a heavyweight financial organization. having said that, I could happily change my vote to delete If the entry remains as useless as it is now for any length of time.MNewnham 01:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! {{{1}}}


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PH10

This band makes a claim to notability, having toured Europe, and released on their own label, but I'm trouble finding evidence for them outside of their own site. Xoloz 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap, no valid reason to delete given. Johnleemk | Talk 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McClatchy Interactive

Delete, since the mention of this subdivision in The McClatchy Company seems more than enough. As it stands, the subdivision page is both of substub quality, and borders on vanity (if you consider it on its own and not as a subdivision) to my taste. BACbKA 14:43, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When searching by name, the article will show up anyway. There will not be a flood of hits btw ;-) As for the recreation, an ignorant user will still be able come up with a creative spelling you miss anyway, w/o researching about the parent article (capitalisation variations, Company vs Co., or smth else...) --BACbKA 15:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And, since it is a vanity and self-promo, I predict that recreation will not happen by non-affiliated parties. --BACbKA 15:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bicameralism Annotations

See also Seperation of Powers & Checks and Balances Annotations (AfD discussion).

This article is a copy of the text from Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution : Senate Document No. 108-17 : 2002 Edition : Cases Decided to June 28, 2002. It is in the public domain as a government document, so it should be moved to The Annotated Constitution of the United States in Wikibooks. DLJessup (talk) 20:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]



This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherverse

no reference found, no google hits for netherverse and James Kamakahi Netherverse James Kamakahi Melaen 21:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alloparenting

it has been already transwikied to Wiktionary, it's no longer necessary to have this page on wikipedia Melaen 21:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bimach

non notability , see google Melaen 21:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeph pawn

  • Keep I have heard of Jeph Pawn, I have The Second Album, so does an exchange student from Osaka, Japan, at my homestay. Ivan Pineda and Anthony Blinoff are still fairly well known in Sydney so I would not dismiss this entry. -DC_Johanson.

Band history totally unverifiable, a hoax MNewnham 21:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick William Collins

  • Keep The name rings a distinctive bell, will definitely get back to this as soon as possible, however PWC disappeared off the scene completely whereas Ivan and Anthony can still be seen - DC_Johanson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.101.77.225 (talk • contribs) .


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; kept. (Article was expanded.) Johnleemk | Talk 11:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRADIUS

non notable website Melaen 21:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if expanded. The article is about the project, not the website that hosts it. 1,000,000 Google hits. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:51Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Giblet soup

it is already on wikibooks, I see no point in having it here Melaen 21:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N5 (notation)

Delete. Again. It's another fictional notation for RDF language. See N4 deletion process. — Anrie Nord 21:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ITunes Music Store Protocol

not encyclopedic Melaen 21:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey a gordon

vanity Melaen 21:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TWEN

Was tagged for speedy deletion as an advertisement, but it doesn't really read like an ad. Bringing it to AfD to respect the desire of the anon user who tagged it. No vote. howcheng {chat} 07:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ernesto Vidal

Unverifiable. Non-notable. Vanity Taragüí @ 11:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tales from the Heart

nn. Google gives from the Heart%22 comic&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official 950 hits. r3m0t talk 17:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan mohammad

This was listed as a speedy, but the article does attempt to assert notability. Googling Adnan Mohammad + International Holdings brings up what appears to be unrelated pages that don't match the article content. --Deathphoenix 17:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BKHoliday

Incorrectly listed as a speedy. --Deathphoenix 17:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was copyvio. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Baldone

Incorrectly listed as a speedy. This article reads as a vanity resume, and I might have deleted it if this person wasn't a member of the US House of Representatives. As it stands, if it can't be cleaned up, it should be deleted. --Deathphoenix 17:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policast.com

Defunct internet radio station. Not notable. r3m0t talk 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Nathalie of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

User:Morhange tagged it for speedy. The reason was on the article's talk page: The deletion pages are way too confusing to figure out; this article is a single sentence with no real bio. information on the subject other than who her mother and aunt are. I removed speedy tag and notified user that he(?) should go through afd. But he's a newbie and don't know how to do it. So I am completing this nomination on his behalf. No vote on my part. Renata3 06:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partyvibe

nn website Alexa rating is 267,570 and google search just looks like nn blogs mentioning it Pboyd04 22:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 05:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 14:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linoleum (band)/Temp

Delete This is a duplicate and older version of the linoleum (band) article Boddah 05:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I actually went ahead and made it a redirect to linoleum (band), so in case anyone comes back looking for where the article once was they can still find it by typing in the old title. If this was the wrong thing to do, sorry! But it can always still be deleted. delldot talk 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, I just figured it would be better to get rid of it completely. Boddah 16:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shing Ha Hyung

From WP:PNT, been there since December 21. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Korean, article with the title exists on the Korean wikipedia at ko:싱하형, so it's probably a notable subject. - Bobet 01:44, 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. Not English, and its time is definitely up. Moreover it has been given to the German Wikipedia. Punkmorten 10:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soland

From WP:PNT, been there since December 22. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 05:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German --Emersoni 18:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Information about members of a Swiss family, with some genealogical info since the 16th century. Does not appear very notable, though. Kusma (討論) 05:55, 23 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. Mindmatrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copperpot

Was listed as a speedy, but asserts notability in the form of being used on Pimp My Ride, etc. This is not a vote. Mo0[talk] 05:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. The only relevant "keep" votes are from User:Robert Paveza and User:Shadypalm88. Most of the "keep" votes are sock puppeting by anonymous IPs, one of whom even replaced the AfD nomination statement with his own explanation why the article should be kept. — JIP | Talk 11:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Valhalla legends

Valhalla Legends is a highly technical and extremely popular online community, mainly focused on computer science and programming. The members of the innermost part of the community, the actual vL clan, are responsible for reverse-engineering the BNCS (Battle Net Chat Server) protocol, maintaining BNLS (Battle Net Logon Server, which is used by thousands of battle.net bot developers), and creating, as well as revising, documentation on these two servers' protocols.

  • Keep 22:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) KEEP - This community is a great source for information related to computer science, programming, and client emulation. The goal of wikipedia is to provide people with accurate, free information. Seeing how this community is a great source of information, as it accomplished so much and provides service to so many, deleting their wiki would only be contradicting wikipedia's goal.
  • Delete per above. DreamGuy 06:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above as well as the overall strangeness of the subject mentioned in the article 24.0.161.209 06:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DreamGuy FreplySpang (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable online gaming group. I wish for expansion of WP:CSD so that this kind of article could be speedy-deleted when no notability is asserted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 06:33Z
  • Speedy delete as {{nn-club}}. CSD A7 does allow NN "groups of people" to be speedied, including bands, clubs, etc... Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tagged an article about a web forum once as nn-club and an admin disputed it... so now I'm just conservative and say "wish it qualifies for speedy delete" instead of "speedy delete". I would like A7 to say something like "This includes online gaming groups, web forums, mailing lists, ..." —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 23:05Z
  • Delete Yet another frag-fest clan. -- (aeropagitica)  07:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is what I stated on the Discussion page:
Well, the article was around and was a stub. I recently expounded and added actual and accurate information to it, and all of a sudden it's listed under "Articles for Speedy Deletion." The group has had over 1700 members in the latest iteration of its message boards (which is I believe the third iteration). Its services have provided for tens of thousands of people (see BNLS, which I haven't checked to see if that's been marked too), if not hundreds of thousands, when one considers the wide distribution of Blizzard Entertainment's vastly distributed software. If this needs to be included in the article, then fine -- but I don't think that the article should be deleted.
Robert Paveza 07:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
The members of Valhalla Legends are known as pioneers in developing gaming software, in a community that exceeds 500,000 users; further, they actively host a very well known support forum for their products, which has sub-forums to support those learning C++, C, VB, Java, and many other programming languages.
It is something that many will be interested in reading more about, and looking up, so is certainly a positive addition to Wikipedia and should be kept.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.169.234 (talk • contribs)
Although this is something I have given consideration to, it seems that this topic merge would also be inappropriate; BNLS is a user authentication system, and while Valhalla Legends is very much tied to this system, it is hardly their single accomplishment. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be inappropriate. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's special, of course, there is a web page. Robert Paveza 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have verified with one of the members who created BNLS that, although he doesn't have unique connection statistics, the BNLS server was around a year or two ago regularly receiving over 350,000 connections per day. 2,000 forum members might not be many, but that is quite a few connections. Robert Paveza 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Chance

This musician is thusfar insignificant in history. Kingturtle 06:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desperados

AMG has a listing for them, but no description. Not much info available overall. Seems non-notable to me, but not so much as to be speedied. – ClockworkSoul 06:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (A7). howcheng {chat} 07:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lethyl Synn

nn songwriter(?) that released a whopping 1 song. Hasnt been touched since it was created by an anon in August. Lucky13pjn 06:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plazoo

Some random website's shameless self-promotion. Yes, I realize it has 500,000 Google hits; however, once you get past about the third page, it is just ad-riddled pages with titles dealing with casinos and Russian underage porn. Hosterweis 06:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unalienable Right

Blogger self-promotion (the kind of thing Wikipedia could use less of); 124k Google hits, with about five that actually relate to aforementioned blog (Google test doesn't work here; the words are kind of in the Constitution Declaration of Independence) Hosterweis 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're workign on it. Please point out any "other articles in this category" which need to be deleted either on my talk page or [[13]]. --Timecop 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The claim of only "five Google hits" is silly and obviously untrue (probably meant as an exaggeration not to be taken literally). If the Google search is refined to "The Inalienable Right"+"blog" for instance, you can see a far greater number of hits (references to the blog in the search output are relatively easily spotted by all three words being capitalized). Better yet, if you search Yahoo for "link:http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog −site:federalistjournal.com", you can see about 30,000 incoming links. There are a large number of links from other right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Rathergate (not linked from the blogroll, but linked from within individual blog entries). The characterization of this page as self-promotion also seems inaccurate, it appears to be a straightforward description of the blog. We don't delete articles on political grounds just because of their right-wing politics; although this is hardly an "A-list" blog it certainly appears to meet the minimum notability threshold. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to spend that much time proving notability, then it is definitely NOT notable. thanks. --Timecop 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No time at all. Two Yahoo searches, and the second one is only necessary because of what appears to be a bug in Yahoo's "linkdomain" functionality. -- Curps 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, what we have here is a non-notable political bullshit blog trying to increase pagerank by being in wikipedia. Nothing else. I could care less what party it belongs to, I don't give a slightest shit about politics. --Timecop 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Belive it or not, User:Depakote actually is a big-bust model and performer. - Femmina 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. And Timecop actually is dead, too [17], but in the time-honored tradition of dead people he's still voting anyway. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable WhiteNight T | @ | C 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Admins, there appears to have been some 'vote' rigging (not that it's exactly changed the course of the discussion) going on. See [18]. I'd like my vote put back, oh and changed to Extra, extra Delete. No, really, I just found that and didn't know how to fix it myself. Dan 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, I put them back - why curps would remove them, I don't know. He's usually a trusted administrator so I'm going to assume good faith that it was an accident. WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh oh. It turns out I was editing Tapir's old version: see [19], namely his 18:59 5 January edit, and I obviously missed the "You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page" warning. My apologies, that really sucks. They really ought to make the out-of-date warning a lot more prominent, maybe change the background color or something, it's far too easy to miss. [I have now done just that, see below] Here's what happened: after I noticed Tapir's "MUSHROOMS ARE NOT FUCKING VEGETABLES YOU IGNORANT AMERICANS" edit at Pizza and making an edit there, I checked out his other contributions and found the "war on blogs" contributions. I clicked on diff to examine his edit, and then obviously clicked on "edit this page" at the top of the page and missed the "out-of-date" warning. By truly unfortunate coincidence, the last edit prior to mine turned out to be Tapir's second edit (22:19, 8 January 2006) to this page, so when I later clicked on the article history and found an edit by Tapir just before my own, everything appeared exactly as expected. Sorry about that, it was in no way intentional. -- Curps 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I have now made the "editing an out-of-date version" warning WAY more prominent (a standard messagebox rather than mere text). -- Curps 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Check it out:[reply]
WARNING:
You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page.
If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be removed.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was gone. DS 15:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saret Pen

Individual is not notable whatsoever Kingturtle 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely Do Not Show My IP Again.
P.S. I want the history removed as well.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.145.98 (talk • contribs)
The above comment was edited by Donsm82 (talk · contribs) to hide the IP address. The IP address is still visible in the edit history though. — JIP | Talk 11:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to have my IP associated with this thread what so ever yet this site continues to defy. I am sick of this crap. I want my IP address removed from all parts of this site and this entry in paticular now. Donsm82.

Tough luck. When you made edits to Wikipedia using your IP address, it was entered into the edit history records, which are publically viewable, and required by the GFDL, which you implicitly agreed to by editing Wikipedia in the first place. No amount of crying "I'll sue! I'll sue!" is going to change this. — JIP | Talk 12:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mother fucken piece of crap. You embarrass me you are in deep shit. unsigned comment by 67.185.145.98 (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 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PodNova

non-notable advertisement of a blog/podcast aggregator Timecop 07:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How well known? I'm not into podcasting myself but if you could convince me, I'd consider overturning my decision. __earth 16:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't. Delete. Tapir
I don't have a good way to answer that. Podcasts are useless without a good aggregator, you see, and so many have sprung up in the podcasting world. This is one of those. Typically podcast writers will work to get their podcast listed on as many different aggregators as they can find. There are some really big ones, like Podcast.net and iTMS, and then the medium-sized ones, like PodNova. I'm just not sure how to vote. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I couldn't change my vote =(. But you might be interested in User:Timecop/The_war_on_blogs. That's the reason why there're too many delete vote here. Most people that vote here do it without even considering the site notability.__earth 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. I do know that several people have this page on watchlist, and generally agree with all the content nominated here. I know you do too, and appreciate your "support". --Timecop 04:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podcast Alley

non-notable directory site. no need to include every index/directory site in wikipedia, especially non-notable cruft like this Timecop 07:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except one problem. If "Poscast Alley" is notable, where's entries for "Postcast.net", iPodder.org (got deleted/redirected, haha), "podcast bunker" and thousands of other shit sites which do nothing but reindex the same content over and over providing absolutely NOTHING NEW OR INTERESTING. Wikipedia is NOT an index of every damn website in the world. If someone wants podcasts, they can type "PODCAST" in google and find a pile of shit sites dealing with this stuff. The article is trash too, since when is tracking votes by "IP address" has been innovative, or even effective? Proxies anyone? I bet if the GNAA you really love actually decides that the GNFOS podcast is worth being #1 on that site, how long do you think would it take before thousands of "omg, unique IP address" votes will start to come in? Nice try though. --Timecop 09:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Not quite a two thirds majority, and I'm also concerned with a massive GNAA influx of voters early on in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

W.bloggar

W.bloggar was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-11. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar/2005-02-11.

nn piece of software; every google hit after the first page is a blog post of someone testing out aforementioned software Hosterweis 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Javacast

non-notable concept with a single homepage hosted at Geocities. Timecop 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photocasting

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=photocasting&btnG=Google+Search 500 google hits for a non-notable concept (um, uploading photos to a website anyone?) nn neolojizzum. Timecop 07:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T._Bag

Likely hoax, or certainly non-notable. Search for "t bag" "divvy dend" on google, or search for their albums, return no results. Oscarthecat 08:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mary and Karla Show

non-notable spam advertisement of some unknown blog (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22Mary+and+Karla+Show%22&btnG=Search) Timecop 08:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I downloaded and watched their show #28. It featured two ugly hick chicks drinking cheap wine, laughing histerically about nothing, and speaking in a way that was almost impossible to understand. If this is the "future of the web", god help us all. --Timecop 05:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding about DAn and Drew show. It will be deleted eventually. Because it has alexa ranking of 17k and only several hundred unique google hits. --Timecop 03:29, 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 delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skypecasting

Yes because combining two useless words together makes it even more useless. non-notable concept, etc Timecop 08:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See nom's talk page for details. -- JJay 19:57, 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 Redirect to Citibank (and I have completed this redirect). Stifle 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank, N.A.

Delete This page has basically nothing but one sentence saying that its a common name for Citibank companies worldwide. Basically unencyclopedic and should be either deleted or merged to Citibank. Terence Ong Talk 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tonic_lotion

advertisment Tomandlu 09:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TouchTaxi

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freezepop (band)

NN band, but not speedyable Segv11 (talk/contribs) 09:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - I don't think they're non-notable. Hell, somehow I know about them. I think the article does a good job of asserting notability. Cyde Weys votetalk 14:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cleanup strongly urged for this. At last, a band article where the band are mentioned on allmusic.com. Notable, if obscure. The page layout is terrible and really needs to be improved asap. -- (aeropagitica)  15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only do they have an allmusic entry and stuff, but they also have been a featured artist in every Harmonix game released to date. Makes 'em pretty well-known amongst rhythm game enthusiasts, I'd say. Mo0[talk] 06:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is significant precedent for keeping highly prolific video-game musicians. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or cleanup - This band is not just a blip - they have a significant discography now, and are gaining a lot of exposure. Alex 20:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are a great band, and very relevant in the my local music scene (Boston) The article certainly needs some cleanup though.--BrokenStoic 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Freezepop is a very prominent band in the synthpop scene. And anyone who's played a PlayStation 2 game has had to have heard of them by now. They've been around for a while, they done a lot of work... the fact that this article is even up for deletion is, frankly, a little shocking. Freezepop is definitely a notable band. The article really needs to be cleaned up, though - starting by creating separate pages for each CD. --Pele Merengue
  • Keep Freezepop is a relevant band to many groups of people. Not just am I a big Playstation gamer, but in Boston (where I attend college), Freezepop is absolutely one of the most popular local bands. I must admit that I am biased, as my favorite band is Splashdown, but with that said, I don't think there's any reason to not have an article on Freezepop. The article needs a small amount of clean-up, but I don't think any drastic changes are necessary.--Kicking222
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:BorgHunter as A6 and A7

Jon Lassonde

The article appears to be copied from Edmond-Charles Genêt except the name was changed in the introduction. No source has been provided. Shawnc 09:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too small

As far as I can tell this article has no foundation in reality. In mathematical terms, it is meaningless. Therefore it should be deleted. Stefán Ingi 09:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus to delete, and the article has been expanded. Punkmorten 10:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groundcrew

dictdef Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; nothing mergeable. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takutanuva

is this fictional character notable? Does the move in question even have an article? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bionicle: Mask of Light -- Astrokey44|talk 10:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Tree (graph theory). Mindmatrix 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Directed tree

dictdef; not sure there's any content here worth merging with any tree articles either Segv11 (talk/contribs) 10:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swan Glassey

Several editors claim this is a hoax article. Google found only Wikipedia mirrors. jni 10:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podjournalism

I can't find much evidence this term really exists outside of one person's use. Google doesn't give much: [22] [23]. NicM 10:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin tankleff

notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 11:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Interested parties are cordially invited to merge, move, redirect, and/or clean-up as the move strikes them. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 20:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The God of Village

Although this article seems to be written in good faith, I cannot find anything on the 'net to directly support this concept. Taoism does indeed support a hierarchy of gods, so perhaps this "God of Village" is instead many many separate "Gods of Villages". In any case, unless the article can be cleaned up by someone with more indepth knowledge than I have, I would suggest a delete Madman 16:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If this article is merged with Taoism make sure it doesn't land in the Tao chia (or Daojia) section of philosophical Taoism, which has no gods. Endomion 17:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup. Most English-language sources on religious Taoism refer to these local deities as a "Land God" or "Earth God." (Look halfway down this page for an example of a statue of a Land God.) They fit into the Taoist hierarchy of dieties above the Kitchen God but below the City God or Town God. Aside from the name-- which may well be a legitimate translation-- there is nothing wacky about the info in the article, though some of it might need sourcing. I agree that it should be cleaned up rather than being merged into the Taoism article. Crypticfirefly 04:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    --Oh, and it looks like the article originally had an image of "Tudi Gong" or "Tu Di Gong"-- I have no idea what picture was there originally, but it was probably something like [this]. If I had time to clean this up now, I would, but I don't . . . Crypticfirefly 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this title should redirect to a discussion of village gods in general, or a disambig pointing to Tudi if "The God of Village" is really a specific title for the dude. Kappa 06:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 11:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akhilleus Aksakov

VegaDark listed this as a speedy deletion under CSD:A7, but because the page asserts that he is a hero, it does not qualify. Bringing it here instead. My vote is to delete as unverifiable. Stifle 11:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A hero of a myth that we don't have linked isn't much of a claim to notability, but I understand not wanting to speedy it. VegaDark 11:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - heaven knows what mythos this is about. No Google hits for this - partially a Czech/Hungarian (?) version of the name of the Russian writer Sergei Timofeyevich Aksakov - or any of the other names. Tearlach 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambivalence

I came across this while stubsorting. It's already in wiktionary and I feel this can't get past a dicdef status. Unless anyone can think of a useful redirect target, I suggest it to be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 11:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Tech 222, Cumberland 0

Found during stubsorting. Not only is it a bad title, it's something that should be mentioned in the article on the teams involved. If the teams don't deserve articles the game doesn't either. I'm not sure if it can be merged as I'm not aware of naming conventions for these sports teams, but if merging isn't an option, this should be deleted. - Mgm|(talk) 12:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as delete rationale is no longer valid. Johnleemk | Talk 12:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of family separation research articles

Collection of external links. Delete. Melchoir 12:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia articles are not lists of external links. (Exception: (if they happen to be the reference material for an article split out because of size). - Mgm|(talk) 12:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Evil Eye 13:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand List items should not be just links, as wikipedia is not a link farm. However, research items can easily have well formed citations, and they should. As of note, family seperation related links at times may seem like spam, but they are very useful and encylopediac. I suggest to review the links and see if they are spam, like if they lead to an ad-supported site with information that can be found elsewhere without ads. Family law related topics easily get unbalanced from npov because some wikipedians delete non governmental related information, which excludes one party of the two sides of the respective pov. — Dzonatas 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this proposal. Expand how? Melchoir 00:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Compare the top section to the bottom section. The top section should be more like the bottom section. The top section is mainly links as you have nom'd. Your nom is untrue for the bottom section. Either way, it can be expanded further for family law resource. Give more information like when was such report or citation made, the title of such report, why was the report done, and more questions one could ask if the link dissapears. If you still want to delete the article, then move such research back to their original pages. — Dzonatas 01:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As mentioned at Talk:List of family separation research articles, it was the intention that each article should have a précis, though I don't think much has been done on that front. My feeling is that, whatever people say wikipedia is and is not, links to bona fide research are always useful. If this article appears as a list of references waiting for an article - and the list was originally moved out of an article following someone's comment a while back - then why remove information which could be useful? There are 6 other articles which link to the article, so presumably it acts as a list of references, or related material, for their benefit. It seems a pity to delete this for no particular reason. My other preference would be to move it. Matt Stan 19:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in current form. Pn. Dan 17:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the request to delete still valid if I go and change the article to make it different from what it was when the deletionist arrived? That's what I'm doing anyway, changing the list into a series of paragraphs, explaining a bit about each article - though in fact most of the titles are fairly self-explanatory - in the hope that it will invalidate all the other deletionists' votes above, since you wouldn't then be deleting that which had originally been proposed. Down with deletionists! I say. They would spend their time better actually doing some of the donkey work, rather than exercising officious power with no responsibility! :-) Matt Stan 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep in its current form. Turnstep 23:48, 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NetworkAnatomy

Article created by User:NetworkAnatomy, reads like an advert, company is apparently not publicly quoted (see WP:CORP), and scores ~800 Google hits, which seem to be mostly press releases. Has been in business for a bit under 4 years, whihc is long enough for the word to spread if they are genuinely notable. I think this is vanispamcruftisement. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Anatomy (disambiguation). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstraction methodology

This article seems to me as advertisement, has anyone heard of this ? I propose to delete it Khalid hassani 12:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Holmqvist

There was a notable Swedish TV journalist of this name, but this claims to be about a Danish historian and is likely a hoax. I find no trace of either the person or his books in the catalogue of the Danish Royal Library. u p p l a n d 12:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawhid Boys School (London)

To me, it's pure advertising. Skyscrap27 13:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, reluctantly. I think the general precedent for keeping schools is nuts, but they are generally kept. This article requires NPOVing, though. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 14:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. I would love to save this school, but this is blatent advertising and unverified at the moment. Thier website contains no information. Movementarian 14:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up, per Squiddy. The word "we" should generally not appear in Wikipedia articles (outside an acknowledged quote, of course.) Also, check for copyright.Bjones 14:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete this school seems to defend a certain idiology, this is not what I will call a universal and humanist education, to say the least. This looks to me like a Madrassa or kind of, though they seem to give modern teaching too, not that there is inherently something wrong with that, but the subject has been lately very controversial, in Pakistan for example, but elswhere in the muslim world too (see also Taliban) --Khalid hassani 14:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, perhaps, but creating an article isn't a sign of approval.Bjones 15:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To me it reads like an advert, maybe it might have its place in a Yellow page directory, but clearly not in WP. I am still looking for the Encyclopedic content here --Khalid hassani 15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has nothing to do with it being an Islamic School. I think it's an example of advertising and that's why I think it should be deleted, not because it's an Islamic school. Skyscrap27 17:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep it, then we would have no reason to refuse any and every other private school ! everyone must be treated on equal footing. This seems to me clearly an advert with no Encyclopedic content, and should go into places like this Yellowikis. Schools with famous and numerous alumini for example, have their places in WP not any and every school. University of Al Karaouine which is also a Madrassa clearly has its place, not this one.--Khalid hassani 17:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see from the history that the page was a terribly blatant piece of advertising/propaganda, but that's now been removed leaving little more than a stub. What to do? I suppose weak delete. --kingboyk 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess that this version says it all. A guy has apparently changed the content while the discussion was ongoing --Khalid hassani 18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you read the deletion notice, on the article which clearly states "You are welcome to edit this article,...". What part of that do you not understand? The message you left on my talk page indicates you're fairly new to AFDs. It's incredibly normal, and common, for articles to undergoe massive changes during AFD. They can't be blanked, redirected, or changed to a different topic. But they can always be improved, and in fact, should be improved. Do not invent non-existent policy please. --Rob 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some more reading form Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion:
    • You and others are welcome to continue editing the article during the discussion period. Indeed, if you can address the points raised during the discussion by improving the article, you are encouraged to edit a nominated article (noting in the discussion that you have done so if your edits are significant ones).
  • Also, note, I removed copyrighted text. Putting that text back would actually be prohibited. --Rob 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This school, like all others, is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on it's own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. If the article is merged, the current location should be replaced by a redirect, and the edit history maintained for future use. This is the baseline consensus that I feel was reached at WP:SCH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 02:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester Town footballers

Nomination for all of the following articles: Craig Bradshaw, Ryan Hill, Simon Radcliffe, Mark Jermyn, Glenn Howes, Mark Robinson (footballer) and Nick Jones.

All of the above are players at Dorchester Town F.C., a minor amateur semi-professional English football (soccer) club; Dorchester currently play in the Conference South, which is the sixth tier (division) of English football - more than 110 clubs rank above them. None of these players are or were professionals, nor have they done anything that gives them a reasonable degree of notability. Delete all as non-notable. Qwghlm 13:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: I missed out Andy Harris when making the original nom. It should also be added to the list of articles to be deleted, for the exact same reasons as above. Qwghlm 14:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging within the club article is a better idea. All content that is factually correct is useful. -Aabha (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, see reasoning at the bottom of the discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby George

Tagged for speedy as little or no context. Article is really short, but I think there is a enought ontext here to clear the speedy deletion criteria. Appears to be a professional darts player so I say keep as we do with other professional sports players. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trickle attack

A search for "Trickle attack" spam on Google shows only 10 unique results. Interestingly, "trickle attack" itself shows 71 and a review of some of the additional 61 websites citations for trickle attack do not concern spam, but discuss the use of trickle attacks in warfare and against firewalls. I therefore nominate this entry for deleltion because it is a narrow definition of a non-notable neologism. Madman 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was deleted by User:Mailer diablo. Punkmorten 10:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odamex

Not notable. No information at link which was last updated Nov 2005 Naturenet | Talk 13:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Guard (Soap)

Nothing but blatant advertising. Limited expansion potential. Qarnos 14:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nanocompetition

Looks like original research to me. Wrathchild 14:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel of Troy

Nothing here not already on Troy. Stifle 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was cleanup. Johnleemk | Talk 12:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ramanathan V. Guha

Errr...is this guy really that notable? Article reads more like a resume cover letter and doesn't seem, to me, to establish notability. Wrathchild 14:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If he really co-founded Epinions then he has at least a claim to notability. Agreed that the article reads like a (badly written) CV, however. --kingboyk 17:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup I don't want to have to read a c.v. to try to understand why this person is notable. If it can't be stated clearly in a sentence then it should go. -- (aeropagitica)  21:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup - He's a well-known computer scientist in knowledge representation and artificial intelligence circles, and is one of the creators of the Resource Description Framework that is the basis for a lot of Semantic Web work. I think that makes him notable, though I agree the article could be cleaned up. -- cmh 03:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain: Is he notable to he here? And surnames ending with "Guha", which is a surname used in Bengal normally has no convention to write names like Ramanathan V. Guha (I mean names are written in full) - though exceptions my be there, of course. Full name shall be appreciated. I would invite more comments as regards the notability. --Bhadani 06:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think he's notable because many of the projects he has lead or made significant contributions to — not just Epinions, but the Cyc project, and the Resource Description Framework and Semantic Web — are well-known enough within the computer industry to make him an "industry figure." On the subject of naming, he is often cited in the computer industry press and computer science academia as "R. V. Guha" and is otherwise referred to within the English-language portion of the industry via an "anglicized" name, as in the entry's title. This might be important for discoverability and linkability, though there could always be redirects to his proper or preferred form (whatever it may be). -- cmh 07:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup - As indicated already, how can you question the noteworthiness of the create of RDF the basic foundation of the next generation of the Web. This is quite ironic where you also factor in the role that Wikipedia will ultimately play in the materialization of the Semantic Web vision (Wikipedia will soon become the Semantic / Data Web Poster child). I understand that outlines without the "Stub" notice can be misleading re. encyclopedic pages (I've been burnt by this myself across Wikipedia already), but we cannot have a true encyclopedia without its prime responsibility of knowledge creation and exposure compromised by inadvertent distortions. To remove this entry from Wikipedia is to distort extremely valuable history! I don't think this is anyone's intention.--Kingsley_Idehen 22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep --Ichiro 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harq Obispal and Stalinvast

This is a combined nomination for Harq Obispal and Stalinvast. Both these articles are non-canonical in the Warhammer 40,000 fictional universe, and appear to be the subject of a role-playing character and setting, respectively. "Harq Obispal" attracts nine unique Google hits, the majority of the non-Wikipedia ones are for role-playing forums. -- 22:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project

  • I strike my previous charge, but still believe this is a candidate for deletion. See below the relisting notice.

Both Stalinvast and Harq Obispal are sourced in the Black Library Publication of "Inquisitor" by Ian Watson and as such exist properly inside the Warhammer 40K Universe at large and not any specific gamers campaign.

  • Stalinvast is key to the story in question while Obispal is an essential but relatively minor character-still working on template for Draco and the other main figures-though more worthy of a seperate entry than say planetary governor Lord Voronov-Vaux. The book I have is entitled Inquisitor and is the first of the Inquisition War Trilogy. it was reissued by the Black Library as Draco in 2002. Found it easily on a google search.


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Shreshth91

I admit that my first claim of non-canonocity is false, in light of the evidence. I admit I was wrong. However, I still find myself questioning this article's 'place' in the grand scheme of Warhammer 40,000-related articles on Wikipedia.

Many of the characters in the fictional universe do not have their own articles. The Emperor Himself, arguably the single most important character/'historical figure' in the game and fiction, is a section in another article (although I do concede that there are plans to move him back out, and support this move). The majority of the Primarchs are included in the article on their Legion (with one exception, who is arguably the second most important character/'historical figure' in the fictional universe.

I have never read the Inquisition War (and knowing my luck, will probably never get the chance to), and don't know how important the character of Harq Obispal, or the world of Stalinvast) is to the plot. I think the best place for this information would be either in an article on the Inquisition War trilogy, or in an article on "Jac Draco", who appears to be the primary character of the trilogy. Failing that, my call for deletion still stands. No offense to the article author or the subject material, but to me, this is at the moment little more than Warhammer40K-cruft. -- Saberwyn

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but very weak). Ideally, produce a high-quality article on the book and merge these articles into that, but if that doesn't happen I'd rather keep the information available rather than delete it. Cheers --Pak21 10:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 14:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Banbury

nn-bio. recommend Delete or Merge into related school article, if such exists.-- Syrthiss 14:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMT Labs

Was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "advertisement without encyclopedic relevance," which is not speediable. Bringing to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for speedy. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


AfDs for this article

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Walker

Non-notable graphic designer turned medical activist CDN99 15:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keysport

This article seams to be an hoax, specially if considering its original version. Google hits (used to justify the article during the first vote did not have in mind that those links describe a completely different game. Hope we can quikly delete this article that is already more than a year old. Mariano(t/c) 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chav vehicle modification

Chav vehicle modification was nominated for deletion on 2005-08-11. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chav vehicle modification.

Though this page was deleted back in August, I put it here rather than in speedy because this version is, if nothing else, well developed and goes back to September. However, I feel that the original view - that this information is unverifiable, only vaguely encyclopedic and that most of it is covered in 'chav' still applies. Robdurbar 15:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discover America

Delete. This appears to be a nn band that does not pass WP:MUSIC. However, there is a decent-sized list of contributions, so I didn't want to list for speedy. Lbbzman 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I looked and couldn't find anything to refute your claim. They're touring small theatres in big cities but apparently only as a secondary band to a band I never heard of. I never heard of their interviewers and one of their interviewers' web sites doesn't work properly. Delete this and their one album which also has an article. And don't be put off by large contribution quantity since it's basically one guy + two anons + a couple people doing wiki. --Wknight94 (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per wknight94. Stifle 14:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You guys are right in that this page doesn't meet the requirements. I'm probably voting to keep this only becuase I wrote a majority of the the page. However, as soon as they release a second album they will meet the following requirement: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). With the new release, I will be re-creating the page if it is deleted now. Our entropy 16:57, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Anti-Vaccination League

This isn't really an article, and doesn't have any useful information to be organized CDN99 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googling yields 267 hits; it's a defunct group --CDN99 13:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand to contain some slightly more useful information Jcuk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep; it's an important lesson to remember that such a group existed and had support (anon)
  • Keep Important historical organisation, and seeing as all vaccination pages are biased and vaccination criticism gets deleted off Wiki eg Lily Loat, --attempts Viera Scheibner, Vaccination critics, there needs to be a source of present day anti-vaccination people, seeing as Vaccination critics looks to be going. And since my research is vaccination I would appreciate it if other editors didn't try to delete my work. john 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a present-day organization. John's "research" is described here, as well as his numerous articles created to support his criticism of vaccines. --CDN99 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have no sympathy for the anti-vax position, but this contains valuable information for those of us who attempt to counteract the damaging influence of anti-vax fanatics like John (whaleto).
History needs to be preserved. Unless we understand our history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Even the rantings of misinformed anti-vaxers should sometimes be preserved. They just need to be labeled for what they are: rants, misinformation, dangerous, prejudiced, one-sided, etc.
Wikipedia needs to be more than an ordinary encyclopedia, which includes the concept of being a relatively unlimited source of information. Bytes fill less than paper.....;.) -- Fyslee 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try and refrain from personal abuse, ad hominem abusive is an admission that we have no argument. When you have spent 12 years looking into vaccination, like I have, you may realise you are the one who is misinformed. "When we criticise others, we are in fact giving a description of ourselves"--is a saying you may like to meditate on. john 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be but it is hard to change a dinosaur. john 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadian: I don't understand why you admonish me for a mild comment This edit, on my user talk page under a big banner 4th policy violation - personal attacks yet for this person who called me a Nazi you only post a mild rebuke here. Can you explain why you treat him differently? john 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I didn't call you nor antivaxers "Nazis". I never even used the word. I have visited Auschwitz, and I only used that abhorable historical situation as an illustration of why we preserve its history. The history of antivax efforts should be preserved for the same reasons. I could have chosen many other illustrations, but since both follies involve great loss of life, it came to mind.
A few good links that expose the antivax positions:
-- Fyslee 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What a collection, not a match for mine [[deprecated source?] Bowditch has made ad hominem abusive his own. Morgan on a geocities site that is defunct, and he was an expert at ad hominem last time I looked there. Barrett is the best know pharma shill, where they have made it an art form of puting lies [[deprecated source?] between truth, like any good propagandist. And Friedlander doesn't communicate, as I'd like to expose his lack of knowledge. john 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling Free

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 10:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National Institute for Smart Government

This was originally nominated for a speedy deletion by Mundlapati with the reason "Promoting the site". This is currently not a valid speedy deletion criterion, so I have moved the discussion here. My vote is to delete. Stifle 11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Original Doll

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT: Crystall ball (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feeling Free) above for another Britney Spears-related album. Essexmutant 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Cornelius


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

List of museums in Nanjing

Merely a list of museums somewhere, only one of which has an article here. Not encyclopedic. --Gary Kirk (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal Seeds Publishing

Non-notable website (no data at Alexa), advertisement. --MisterHand 15:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advert --JeremyStein 15:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Jnothman (A7) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 22:52Z


At Daggers Drawn

No group albums. Don't think this meets WP:Music. Eeee 16:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Skinner

Utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic. I can't make heads or tails of this. --MisterHand

Speedy delete as Complete Bollocks. Essexmutant 16:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: it is a book biography - of Neal Asher, as that is the only article that links to it - that is the reason I didn't list it for deletion before and just added context and wikify templates. -localzuk 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As it currently stands it's unintelligible (or as Essexmutant rather more eloquently put it, 'complete bollocks'). --kingboyk 16:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This may look like complete bollocks in the context of Wikipedia, but in the context of a blurb for a sci-fi novel it makes rather more sense. Probably copied from the author's website or the book jacket. --Spondoolicks 17:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but it's the context of Wikipedia we're talking about. If the article were cleaned up I might be persuaded to change my vote. --kingboyk 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Essexmutant 17:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have any of the complainants read the book in question? If so you might help by contribution! I am new to Wiki and would prefer help to hassle. Also note that it is an ongoing article not a 100% synopsis of the book and its author, if thats what you require then add it yourself Planktune 15:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't sit around all day writing and editing Wiki like some of you. You may type a thousand word article in one go. I can only afford the time to do it bit by bit. I would suggest that you give an article more time before you crusade against it. Planktune 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Art

inappropriate tone and unuseful info at all Clutcher 16:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Jonel | Speak 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edependence Day

This is the name of a marathon for the TV show Ed, Edd n Eddy. I can not imagine anyone actually looking for this information. NickelShoe 16:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Line of Polity

Utter nonsense, non-encyclopedic. See also:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skinner -- MisterHand 16:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no context, doesn't really make sense.--Alhutch 17:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should this perhaps be db-nonsense instead? It is incoherent. -- (aeropagitica)  18:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment apparently, this is a book by Neal Asher. I have put a notice on the creator's talk page inviting him/her to edit the article in such a way that we understand what this is supposed to be talking about. But even as a book description it doesn't make much sense to me. --MisterHand 18:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure gibberish. Who writes this crap? Atrian 19:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. MisterHand is correct that it is a book and one that probably would rate its own article if we actually had an article. This current "article" is pure gibberish and needs to be deleted. I dislike the apparent present practice of keeping such nonsense around just because the putative subject is notable. We should only keep such articles if the subject is notable and the article is intelligible. Madman 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) (I'll get off my soapbox now).[reply]
  • Delete - I wish i could be this imaginative. NJ 22:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pa. To be that imaginative would require a large dosage of something illegal. Dan 22:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment at my urging, the original author has provided some context, and modified the article. -- MisterHand 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would seem to me that the people requesting deletion have little or no clue about the subject they wish deleted, they consider it nonsense even though the article is far from completion. I guess if I would have written the next bit and come here to add it and found my article deleted I would have not been happy at all. All because some people do not have the common to research thier complaint before action. Instead of voting for deletion why not just keep your ideas too yourselves or add relevant information if you have any. Planktune 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. KHM03 17:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Empire of Reunion

Welcome to Wikipedia! If you'd like to add your vote to this page, please follow these instructions:

  1. Click the Edit link
  2. Go to the end of the page
  3. Use English
  4. Add a line like the following
*'''Keep''' Reason to keep ~~~~

This will create a line that looks like this:

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you continue to participate. --JeremyStein 14:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable micronation, article may also be a copyvio but contributor claims text is PD, delete--nixie 16:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete test article. Gazpacho 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it The text is public domain, I guarantee it and I will ask them to state on their page that it is PUBLIC DOMAIN. We are so many micronationalists in the world and I doubt nobody will contribute Claudre 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
  • keep itI'm ambassador of Republic of Orange in Reunion and don't agree with this delection, It's very important text to the new novice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.91.18 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
  • Keep it I disagree with previous comments since Reunion is one of the first and still is the biggest player in Portuguese-speaking (Lusophone) micronations, as well as is member of many intermicronational organizations both in the Anglophonia and Lusophonia. It is not a club or a non-notable micronation (have those who wanted to delete it, actually visited its website? Plus many people out of Reunion will surely want to contribute, as it has generated many other more micronations. -- Ralph, 22:24 5 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.141.81.52 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
    This comment above is mine. I didn't intend to signup to wikipedia just in order to add a comment, but now I was forced to due to the accusations of sockpuppetting. Also I was not aware of the syntax, now I am getting it. Cresci 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
  • Keep it Reunion is the biggest lusophone micronation, worldwide known, keep the page.. -- Tsavkko, 20:40 5 january 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.22.208 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
  • Delete. Micronations sometimes become famous enough, as is the case with Sealand, to merit an article. However, this micronation has not reached that stage yet, and this paticular standard of article will not help it get there either. Dan 22:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote tampering! - the above comment was removed by 200.152.2.245 when he added the comment below [29] --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Reunion has been portrayed by the media all over the world. Just look at some of the links I wrote below. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
  • Keep it Keep the description!! Everybody loves Reunion! -- Greenspan, 21:04 5 january 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.152.2.245 (talk • contribs) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
  • Delete NN fake nation, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Fake nation, yes, perfect for the category FICTITIOUS COUNTRIES, don´t you think? FICTITIOUS = FAKE. Claudre 12:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
  • Keep it!!! According to the Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, an encyclopedia is “a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.” Wikipedia must contain all the encompassing aspects of micronations. As to this subject, not talking about the Holy Empire of Reunion shall be unacceptable, because Reunion is the most famous among the Portuguese speaking micronations. It will be a shame for Wikipedia the deletion of this article. José --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
  • Non-notable? --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
    By the way, I welcome reductions and contributions to the initial article; maybe it´s too large, or even with an English that is not so good...But Reunion is notable. (I am the author, BTW) Claudre 23:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
    Please note that Claudre has already voted above. --JeremyStein 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeremy, I never wished to "vote again". I just want to say that Reunion has been in the media almost as much as Sealand. But, as your friend here said, "death to micronations". He forgot to say Sieg Heil! I wonder if he will be reported for trolling.... No... of course not.Claudre 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy[reply]
    Of the referenced articles that I can read (those in English), Reunion is not the subject of the article, merely an example. The subject of micronations is notable. Reunion is notable only as an example on the micronations article. -- --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy JeremyStein 14:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reunion is notable, and has been mentioned in sources outside of Micronations. And the fact that this isn't the first time a Micronation has been scrutinized like this shows that the Wikipedia should perhaps re-evaluate its stance on micronations. User:Tonerman 15:29 PST, 1/5/2006 --the preceding vote will be discount due to the official deletion policy
Comment - that category should be for countries created in notable works of literature, film, etc. Narnia and Oceana are good examples. --Ajdz 06:21, 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Harvey

Former official of minor political party. Who cares? Sceptic 17:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former official of minor political party. Is anyone other than the author and his friend interested in what meetings he did not attend?


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 2ch Babajobu 07:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon wa hansei shiru

Obscure meme (zero Google hits, apparently relevant only to one web forum). Ohnoitsjamie 17:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Moss

Former official of minor party - who cares? Sceptic 17:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate vote

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doomcore

Does not establish notability. Gives one example of a "doomcore" band which seems to meet the criteria for speedy deletion: Cobra Noir. I would have listed this for speedy too but it didn't seem to fit as neatly into a criteria. TomTheHand 17:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Burroughs

Most of it is humourous, unverifiable and non-notable Prashanthns 17:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable and a joke. "....Burroughs did an in-depth study on the the alarming preponderance of single mothers with multiple children. He has said he plans to look into the rights of "men who accidently impregnate women, only to learn the women want nothing to do with them and their child" in 2006" and " good for WP:BJAODN


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -Splashtalk 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dex Dexter (band)

Was tagged for speedy deletion by ^demon as nn-band, but article states they were signed to Trade2/Island Records, which is a notable label. They have an AllMusic entry for one EP, so I don't think they qualify under WP:MUSIC. If the consensus is to keep, then the article should be moved to Dex Dexter (band). howcheng {chat} 17:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep They made the cover of Melody Maker and were signed to a famous label, although it would seem they bombed after that. (A quick Google search reveals). --kingboyk 17:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Strike --kingboyk 11:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping with my original tag, so delete. However, I think CSD should be expanded so bands that fail WP:MUSIC can be deleted outright. It would save a lot of these CSD->AFD moves for bands. But that's just my 0.02USD. -^demon 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NN bands can now be speedily deleted, if that's what you're saying (see the top of this very page). I think the point here is that they have a claim to notability because they're in AMG and were on a famous label. --kingboyk 18:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand, but I still think CSD is too restrictive, nonetheless. --^demon 18:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a tough fight just to expand A7 from a single person to persons. I don't think we'll ever get a speedy criterion for bands who don't meet WP:MUSIC, and we actually shouldn't, as a) those are guidelines and not policy and b) there are some bands who cannot meet them due to the nature of the band (see Ghost Mice for example, who are inherently never going to meet the criteria but are notable nonetheless). howcheng {chat} 07:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I understand, it's just frustrating that sometimes we MUST bring things to AfD, due to policy. My opinion is that if it would draw a general consensus of delete, then AfD should be avoided. That's why I hate the "claim of notability" part, as almost every band and most people make a claim to notability, unfounded or not. --^demon 11:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophical Institute

No meaningful content Hirudo 18:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matsumiya

Japanese slang term. Punkmorten 18:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This listing is being withdrawn. The reasons are outlined at Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard#User:VMORO, User:Peter Isotalo, Bulgarian lexis, and Bulgarian vocabulary. If you feel this closing is in error, you are cordially invited to bring it up at WP:DRV. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian lexis

Page is an exact duplicate of Bulgarian vocabulary, created by a cut-and-paste move by VMORO (talk · contribs) after his page move (from "Bulgarian vocabulary" to "Bulgarian lexis") was reverted. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 18:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Standard title for this kind of article is XXX vocabulary. "Lexis" is a fairly obscure term that sorta excludes morphology, which is somewhat inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. There's simply no reason to avoid using "vocabulary". / Peter Isotalo 18:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete don't need duplicate content in WP. Atrian 18:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peter. I wouldn't mind a redirect, but if the page was already previously moved and unmoved, then the redirect already existed and I guess wasn't good enough for the author. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 22:38Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Duggan

Not notable canadian physician. Volunteering for Doctors without Borders is nice, but anyone with a medical degree can do that. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC). For clarity's sake, Speedy Delete[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nonsense/nn-bio/whatever. enochlau (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do it for Hank

Totally pointless. Skyscrap27 18:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Alphax τεχ 14:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange chicken

This page was created as a plug for Panda Express. It has since lost the mention to that restaraunt but I believe it to be innacurate none the less as it contradicts the General Tso's Chicken article. My suggestion is that it be deleted then replaced as a redirect to General Tso's Jasongetsdown 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 11:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World Military

Page looks like it was created for propaganda purposes, rather than for educational or information. The opening statement is loaded (and could be changed to a NPOV), and all editors to date have been anonymous ISPs. If anyone can change this to fit a neutral standard or merge this into a more relevant topic, I'm all for it, but aside from that, it looks like someone with an axe to grind and a book of statistics. Mitsukai 19:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vondruke

Neologism from Saturday Night Live. 96 unique hits on google. Seems not to have hit the big time. Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Orange chicken. – Alphax τεχ 14:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange flavor chicken

This article was started by the same anon who started the recently deleted Nullaby [39]. In its original form it duplicated the info in Orange chicken but with the addition of coagulated pig's blood and something called a Xu bird. Jasongetsdown 19:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 16:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micro ISV

Appears to be a random neologism with little currency. Stifle 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Unsure. It is a neologism/protologism, but seems somewhat known. Article may be promotional, since a book about Micro ISVs is to be released "this week" [40]. On the other hand, a book about Micro ISVs gives the term some credence. Book will be sold by Amazon [41]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 22:26Z
  • Weak Keep, Rewrite, Clean-up and Expand Seems quite a notable neologism, it needs to be rewritten to be more NPOV ComputerJoe 22:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of the stub and a micro-isv I agree that the term is a neologism, but with wide usage with small ISVs. The article surely has to be extended. Other sources [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] (I have nothing to do with the book) StephanSchmidt 09:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to lack of comments - please comment :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Northwest. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northwesterner

Non-global fork, already on wiktionary Stifle 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, since there's no hope of this being more than a dicdef or getting a more global definition. If someone can think of some specific characteristics of northwesterners that isn't original research, please tell. - Bobet 00:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting due to lack of comments - please comment :) WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was No consensus WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human security

One-line substub that appears to have no room for expansion Stifle 19:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand (no kidding.). Appears to be an active area of human rights research. Not everyone uses the exact same definition, but Googling for "human security" turns up several significant national and global commissions, task forces etc. dedicated to it. FreplySpang (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I expanded it to a two-line stub right after leaving the above vote. FreplySpang (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Punkmorten 11:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alberta E-Future Centre

Minor government entity. Not Notable. JamesTeterenko 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 17:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Unplugged Plus 3

Not notable enough to ever be expanded beyond stubbiness. If concensus is to keep, it'll need to be wikified and renamed to MTV Unplugged + 3. If to delete, I'll remove links to it. Delete. Jeandré 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Babajobu 01:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates and the Nazis

This article is a POV fork from Nazi Party


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mepsipax

merge with Conker's Bad Fur Day - not notable enough to be a standalone article NJ 19:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue_Juice

Seems nothing short of a commercial advertisement (branded oil for a brass instrument). Only link to the article is due to the sharing of a title from a 1995 movie (movie doesn't have an article yet). Stumbled on page through Dead-end pages project. —akghetto talk 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one sentence and an external link, so it's borderline speedy. FreplySpang (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAFTA Software

This is advertisement James084 19:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Leithp (Only contributor wants deleted and nn band) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-07 22:53Z


Supermarine (band)

does not meet WP:MUSIC as no listing on allmusic and google search turned up nothing related to band.-- Syrthiss 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Catholicism

Dictionary Definition. Spanish "Neo-Catholic" label not verifiable, Looked up Barzan, and others of that period never saw the use of that term. Was originally created as part of traditionalist debate.Dominick (TALK) 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Googling for "neocatholicism" shows that it is a significant term in contemporary discourse. If the part about Spanish history is wrong, it should be corrected or deleted, but that's a content dispute. FreplySpang (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a Move then? It is a dicdef. Dominick (TALK) 21:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to be more than a dic def - could use expansion (forgot to sign) TMS63112 16:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is expanded and contains more explanation than a simple dic def. --70.92.166.8 01:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant and more than a dicdef. It was originally created with the Spanish label only, was edited significantly in new sections to update to contemporary usage among Roman Catholic conservatives and traditionalists. DominusTecum 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Babajobu 18:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus_Mayo

This page is a hoax, made by someone as a joke. The real Marcus Mayo, as far as I'm aware, is alive and well at the moment! Thanks. PaulGorman 20:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All-America Football Conference Scores

Not sure it's a speedy. :( r3m0t talk 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. FreplySpang (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per FreplySpang. The AAFC was notable but a collection of its game scores isn't encyclopedic. I'm impressed that the article claims to contain scores from all four years of the AAFC's operation, then lists results from two years' games. No need to merge into main AAFC article. Barno 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 22:16Z
  • Delete for reasons stated above. -- Mwalcoff 01:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--The Monday Night Football page has a link to the scores of all 36 years worth of games. Since no web site currently has scores of AAFC games, this provides Wikipedia with the opportunity to be a unique source. I was told by the creator of this page that the other two years will be added today--with game summaries of each contest next on the agenda. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 66.213.16.180 (talk • contribs)
    Comment: "this provides Wikipedia with the opportunity to be a unique source" - this is exactly what Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia only includes verifiable information from outside sources and never original research. Stifle 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: What original research? It's been available from hard copy football ENCYCLOPEDIA'S for years, so the publishers of these books obviously believe it belongs in one. You want to go ahead and verify it, go ahead, but please don't tell me that it doesn't belong. What shouldn't be on Wikipedia is the number of god-awful writeups of countless subjects. Worry about fixing those instead of dictating what doesn't belong. User:Histmaven 12:22, January 7, 2006.
    It would be helpful if you actually cited your source. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All four years are now listed. Since the NFL refuses to recognize what went on during these four years of play, it is imperative that a web surfer be able to learn as much about the AAFC as possible. In conjunction with the regular AAFC page, I plan on including not only game summaries, but pages specific to each year, in order to include highlights and pertinent statistics. Deleting this page will only continue the myopia/ignorance about the AAFC. User:Histmaven 12:35, January 6, 2006.
    Comment: Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. If you would like a web surfer to be able to learn as much about the AAFC as possible, post it on your own website. Stifle 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate colletion of information, or a sports magazine. Stifle 13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Indiscriminate would mean that a hodgepodge of material exists--each year's worth of scores is separated. If Wikipedia really doesn't want to include sports, then they should delete any of the thousands of references to it. User:Histmaven 12:25, January 7, 2006.
  • Comment: Please refer to Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Sports results and its talk page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It now has all four years and a reference, and seems no different than Monday Night Football: Year-by-Year History (1970-89). Verifiable, referenced, not an indiscriminate collection of information, not original research, AAFC itself is notable, so no reason left for deletion. Turnstep 00:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In an attempt at compromise, perhaps one page for each year such as "1946 AAFC Season" or "San Francisco 49ers 1946 Season", etc., with an analysis and week-by-week summaries would help quell the complaints. That way, instead of 56 different pages, you would have a limited number of pages. I do think, regardless, that the score page should stay--with no further updates. Feel free to comment. User:Histmaven 1:52, January 8, 2006.
  • Delete. A summary might be suitable, but doesn't really seem necessary. Also delete two newly-created articles: 9/6/46: CLEVELAND BROWNS 44, Miami Seahawks 0 and 9/8/46: Brooklyn Dodgers 27, BUFFALO BISONS 14. --Wrathchild (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Guy Brummel

Doesn't seem to be very notable. Google returns nothing for Gerald Brummel that isn't us or a Wikipedia mirror, even though the article claims he did significant things for a major corporation. FreplySpang (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of LSTs

I question the importance and usefulness of a 38kb list of ships. The US ones at least have pretty obvious names anyway and I think that about 14 of this first section of 1070 links are blue at present. If anyone is interested in these vessels, I find it unlikely that they will search for this list specifically, as they will probably know the number of the vessel they are looking for. As such I am posting this on AfD, whilst myself Abstaining (I am not an expert on list policies etc. and I'd rather let more experienced persons than myself decide.) Dan 20:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment this may be a list for a project, to "fill in" missing articles. If so, it should be kept or at least userfied. I have left a query on the page creators talk page concerning the purpose of this list. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be 'obvious' with the USN LSTs, but it certainly is not so with Royal Navy LSTs, and that doesn't even consider LSTs that other nations had which could perfectly well be put on the list. There might be a case for making it a disambig page with links to national LST lists, but certainly not for deleting it completely. The list is structured list so far as I can see so it does not come under WP:NOT in that respect, or in any other respect. AFD is used for those articles that come under the terms of WP:NOT or for those articles that are thought to come under those terms. I cannot see which term of WP:NOT applies to this list. David Newton 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have removed the redlinks from the US list, because that info really doesn't tell us anything useful (unlike on the UK list), but this page is a handy jumping off point for the articles that do exist. GeorgeStepanek\talk 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - What is a "Landing Ship Tank" anyway?! Cyde Weys votetalk 05:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A ship used to deliver tanks (and other things) to a shore somewhere. Think of the famous Normandy Beach footage of soldiers poring out of those ships onto the beach. The military loves to be heirarchial and precise, so this is really a landing ship, tank which puts the most important noun first, followed by a qualifier. In a rational world, there would also be things like landing ship, artillery and landing ship, troop Turnstep 00:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's Landing Ship, Infantry (LSI) GraemeLeggett 13:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:LST-357 loading.jpg may help clarify what an LST is - it's a bit larger than "landing ship" might be interpreted as. Shimgray | talk | 20:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is consistent with the other ship lists. Sheesh. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 15:23, 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 DELETE, Babajobu 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette Syndrome Plus

Not notable term. Most google hits are irrelevant. r3m0t talk 20:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE and redirect to Lycoming, Babajobu 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lycoming IO-320

An engine. Not sure if it is notable. r3m0t talk 20:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No indication of what aircraft models use(d) this engine, or why it might be significant, except an unsourced claim of reputation for reliability. Merge into Lycoming article unless evidence of notability for this model is shown by end of AfD period. Barno 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. If you look at the google hits it seems to be real and in use and maybe quite common. Unless someone knows enough to say it should not be kept, I'd lean towards leaving it. If merged, we would need a redirect since it will likely be recreated in the future. Vegaswikian 00:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverified, currently. I will accept a merge and redirect. Stifle 13:50, 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 delete. howcheng {chat} 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blood and Guts Forever

Non-notable show. Eeee 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalar-Tensor

"The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation is one of the most popular alternatives to Einstein’s theory of gravitation." (Cambridge University Press have a book about it) I can't decide whether this is crackpot or just a pleasant alternative. r3m0t talk 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as nonsense as written. That wasn't my field of physics admittedly, but casual inspection seems to indicate it would be more easily rewritten if nuked from orbit for a fresh start. --Syrthiss 20:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I'm not sure if this is nonsense, but it certainly isn't patent nonsense which would be the speedy deletion requirement. Patent nonsense is a random collection of characters or words. Stifle 13:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first three paragraphs make sense, but really need to be rewritten to be more accessible. The remaining paragraphs make some sense to me, enough that I feel that this does not qualify for deletion as original research or nonsense, but really require expert input and may be too specialized for Wikipedia. The article probably should be renamed to Scalar-Tensor theories of gravitation. ManoaChild 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite The author really needs to determine the audience for whom the article is to be written. It doesn't look like there is a detailed-enough discussion for theoretical physicists to engage with and there is not enough popular science exposition of the topic for interested amateurs. -- (aeropagitica)  23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm only a casual observer of physics, but the material seems to be legitimate, and Googling a couple of terms matches. I think the suggestion to Rename is good, but I'd suggest "Scalar-Tensor gravitation" as shorter and just as valid, since everything in physics is a theory. Some combination of adding and rewriting would help make an introduction that would make it more acessible. Hu 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be legitimate. Guess it could be sent to cleanup (or a physicist who is also a teacher). Cyde Weys votetalk 05:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely makes sense. I've tagged with {{expert}} and {{context}}. Stifle 13:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page was changed in format and information. It now possesses more information and better context. Might only need more work of more people on it, as it may be a stub now. the information in it is verified in physical journals and should not be deleted.Nbez 17:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This vote was added on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crazy Dee page; I moved it here and fixed both AfD pages. bikeable (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The format and information in the page was changed by now, so that it is more comprehensible than at the beginning. Moreover, the name scalar-tensor theory (maybe scalar-tensor theories of gravitation) should be the right one (such theories are found under that name in physical journals). The name describes a wide amount of different theoretical models that use these scalar fields along with tensor fields. I think, other kind of scalar-tensor theories, should come here, too.

This theories (as models for nature) are surely used mainly on gravitation, but it might not have to be like that, although I don't know any Lagrangian of that form in other fields of physics. However, such Lagrangians (the basic of the theory) could certainly be used on other non-gravitational fields (I know, tensor calculus and metrica of General Relativity are used to work on sand and things like that), as part of phenomenological models (what would not say they are gravitational). However, it would be good if it is worked on the article... 141.70.111.178 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 00:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gao

Bio page of a non-notable producer. Eeee 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, default action is keep. Babajobu 05:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crash My Model Car

Potentially non-notable band. Was speedied, but undeleted and placed here by request of original contributor. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I suggest that the band are left in, due to their prominent featuring on major UK radio and TV networks - a la BBC, Beat 106 (now XFM), having played at large UK music festivals such as T in The Park - voted best UK festival last year, having supported notable artist Mark Owen on UK tour, having been signed worldwide with Universal Publishing, and V2 records, having played notable venues all across the UK, having been signed to Electric Honey Records - notable indie; having large fanbase before signed to any form of label; notable due to combining folk music in a unique sound; having been featured in many online and paper publications... and all of this for an indie band. Getting signed to Universal Worldwide and V2 is no small achievement. - BoorishBehaviour - 10.46GMT - 6th January 2006
  • Delete I'm sure I put this on speedy deletion, or agreed with it in any case. Delete as they do not meet WP:MUSIC. Come back when you have two or more albums. Stifle 13:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record - "come back when you have two or more albums." - This is not my band, and so I'd appreciate not being referred to as part of it ;) Second: The next album will be released on V2 in less than three months, and so if that is the concensus - then it shall merely be re-added in its entirety come that point. A bit of a frutiless exercise really.


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

The result of the debate was MERGE and redirect to Progresso, Babajobu 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickarina soup

Non-notable soup stock brand. 200 Google hits. r3m0t talk 20:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was MERGE to Crash Bandicoot, Babajobu 05:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Papaguma/Bearminator, Chick Gizzard Lips

Characters in Crash Bandicoot. nn? r3m0t talk 20:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as nonsense. r3m0t talk 21:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mattus

I think it's a hoax. "Mattus prostitute" on Google turns up not much. r3m0t talk 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 04:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thiel design

Somebody should make these companies speedies. Graphic design firm. ~300 Google hits. r3m0t talk 20:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Commons and Wikisource. Mo0[talk] 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cirdingis

Someone worked very hard on this photo-essay, but I don't think photo-essays are appropriate for Wikipedia. Not sure what the right resolution for this article is - no vote from me. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more discussion. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 20:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Golbez 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jocker City

Suspected hoax, probable vandal creation. Sunfazer 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted, recreation of speedied material. --Golbez 21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is here, if anyone wants it. -Colin Kimbrell 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 11:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadkill Records

Advertisement for non-notable record shop. Wrathchild 20:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etensive

Vanity. Web design company, not launched. r3m0t talk 21:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Punkmorten 11:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity (album)

Is just a direct copy from http://www.yanni.com/media/ethnicity.asp and is unlikely to be expanded anytime soon (none of Yanni's albums have articles). Wknight94 (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TechOCP

NN webzine founded in 2006. r3m0t talk 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spiritual Patterns

Delete what appears to be original research. Mindmatrix 21:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GPS waypoints

A list of GPS waypoints of places in Wikipedia. Not encyclopaedic. r3m0t talk 21:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 06:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Long Goodbye (film)

Text was taken from The Long Goodbye, but I restored it to that article. The book & movie are similar enough that they should remain one article, and the movie isn't notable enough on its own to merit its own article or to be anything more than a stub. Klaw ¡digame! 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who seperated it, and removed the movie info from the book page. The movie info has since been returned to the main page. It should be seperate pages, IMO, because the book and movie have almost nothing to do with each other. Robert Altman was attempting to make an Anti-noir film. Either way, it's two seperate things. Otherwise, why not just combine all books with movies, which it appears we aren't doing. This isn't a case of a book made into a movie, like say, the Big Sleep which was written for the film or the Postman Always Rings Twice, which follows the book closly. It would be like having the animated Lord of the Rings movies tacked onto the end of the LOTR book pages. Either way works for me. Just don't flame my talk page.Steve-O 03:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A book and movie typically go in one article if either (or both) lacks the notability to stand on its own, or if they're too closely linked to be separated. In this case, the movie isn't notable on its own, and its plot is extremely close to the book's. | Klaw ¡digame! 04:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —If that was the case, then why does The Big Sleep have two seperate entries for the film versions? An interesting argument. I would like to know what people think that have read the book and seen the film. I've added to the article today. Steve-O 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — both articles have sufficient content to keep them separate. Movie productions are rarely if ever exact duplicates of the novels on which they are based. So I don't have an issue with separate articles, as long as they are well-developed. — RJH 18:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As long as the film article is well-developed (i.e. not a stub), it should stand on its own. I think Steve has sufficiently expanded the film information to merit its own article. I think the precedent was set long ago that film versions can be separate from their novel's articles. They should only remain attached when the film is an integral part of explaining the novel (not the case here by a long shot) or if neither article can stand alone (two stubs combined to form a decent-sized article). Volatile 00:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The book is one thing and the film is another. Both versions are cultural and artistic artifacts on their own merits. I've read the book and seen the film; Chandler does his 1950's L.A. literary thing, and Altman takes it and runs with it in a purely 1970's L.A. cinematic way. Perhaps some editing and clean-up is warranted, but outright deletion is not.
  • Strong Keep -- The book and movie differ in notable ways. I can't imagine merging them into a single article. Andrew Levine 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metallion promotions

nn company, <100 Google hits. r3m0t talk 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Butler

Looks like he does nice work, but not sure he is prominent enough at this point in his career to be listed in Wikipediia

Who cares. It looks like Wikipedia is becoming just another elitist organization. Go ahead and cook in the stew of your own self-importance. Delete me. Mike Butler.


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minute diet

WP is not the place for Original Research delete  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    21:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or a vehicle for advertising  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    22:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. The article was very short anyway. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics about the economics of corruption

"Economics of corruption" is not a field within the discipline of Economics, so this list will never be populated, except perhaps by a bit of Original Research. Please delete. The Land 21:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikisource. Mo0[talk] 06:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Sources, & Revision History

This article is a copy+paste of http://www.vectorsite.net/twuav19.html, however it is not a copyvio because the original was placed in the public domain. It appears to be the closing section for the History of UAV FAQ. Obviously this article is misnamed and nobody will ever search for this name. Any useful source links should be merged to the appropriate pages needing them and this article deleted. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-05 21:50Z


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

The result of the debate was we don't need to delete to redirect, so redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 06:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Higure, The Still Wind

A card of Magic:The Gathering. r3m0t talk 21:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 06:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helvis → Elvis Elliot

Wrestler. NN? r3m0t talk 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


6 January 2006 (UTC)Why is this getting deleted? He's a real wrestler, he wrestles for TNA.

--Aguilafan 00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)Yeah, why is this getting deleted, I published it? Im willing to make any necessary changes.[reply]

--Aguilafan 21:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)How do I change the title at the top?[reply]

Comment: Page moved to correct name per WP:RM. —Nightstallion (?) 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_5&oldid=34025026"