Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

Purge server cache

January 1[edit]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. The article never had any content in its entire lifetime. — JIP | Talk 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Breslin Murphy[edit]

It seems to be some kid who has done his own bio for a laugh --Chazz88 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Hughes[edit]

Has this person contributed something of note to the fields of Mathematics or Philosophy? If so, it should be referenced to demonstrate a reason for inclusion on WP. -- (aeropagitica) UK 23:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to his homepage he hasn't. Speedy delete as nn-bio. Pilatus 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per A7. --Thephotoman 00:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete autobiography, I didn't recognize anything ground-breaking on the web page. Gazpacho 00:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smash World Forums[edit]

Non-notable, self-promotional fancruft DeleteKevin 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.
  • Delete nothing particular special, popularity is probably not easily verifiable. --Rob 01:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and email the page creator for verification. -- Mostly Rainy 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 03:30, January 1, 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I'm sick of you people putting up AfDs just for fun when you obviously have no idea what's going on just because an article is on a website. Are you guys just clueless? Ignorance is truly bliss. Look it up, we have guidelines on this stuff. You know what guidelines are right? Evidentally none of you have read them, so I would suggest you click here. Read them before you go off making pointless deletes because you feel like it. Does it not say "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community" is notable? If you'd bother to read the article you're motioing to delete, it says that they have almost 30,000 users, which, not only is notable, but also can be verified by going to the site. A few clicks around the internet and you'll realize that the tournaments organized on these boards are obviously giving the site an impact beyond its user-base. All of you need to start recognizing these guidelines before you go off AfDing. 12:31, 1 January, 2006 (UTC) - User:VanillaX
  • Delete - Nothing pointless about this AfD. It's a forum with no particular claim to notability beyond its community. When we say "has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community," we mean beyond its niche. Where's the media mentions? Where's the evidence that anyone outside the Super Smash Bros. community cares about these forums? Also, if it's kept, nuke the forumcruft. Nobody cares that there's a "Debate Hall" - every forum has one. FCYTravis 07:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Takes two seconds on news.google.com to pull up things on the tournaments this site has helped bring about. This article is from a media group in Belarus. That's an obvious impact. Oh, and I agree, the thing about the "Debate Hall" can probably go. - User:VanillaX
    • Comment - That press release argues for the inclusion of a (non-copyvio) article on Major League Gaming, not a forum which isn't even mentioned in the press release. The vast majority of the Google hits are invalid linkspam farms. FCYTravis 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per FCYTravis WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 14:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's all about the SEO. rodii 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article about this site was in the September 05 issue of Nintendo Power. I think that counts as a media mention. The site's individual rooms are not relevant, though. The 0utsider 20:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 22:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has a forum with almost 30k members, 1 mill posts. Has gained media attention in magazine Nintendo Power. Englishrose 23:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurance Doyle[edit]

From speedy. Some Google and Google News hits. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Google scholar indicates a publications by him. I find some 29 papers on Web of Knowledge by an LR Doyle on astronomical topics, which I believe are by him. Also appears to have been editor of the proceedings of at least one conference. Work is of the sort likely to interest the public, as evidenced by at least one article in Scientific American. So a verifiable scientist with a track record and a position of reasonable authority. Keep. Average Earthman 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Plus his work on animal communications seems interesting. -- JJay 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created it, but I'm not voting in this case. I was surprised when this was put on speedy as that seemed a bit extreme. That said I mentioned this guy when doing List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) and at the time things I said indicated I didn't think he was noteworthy enough to start an article on him. So that might explain some things. That said I did an article on him because I did find he was in Google News and also figured he might actually be important enough. Oddly I'm still not entirely certain of that, but he has a couple books at Amazon. I'm assuming that is the same guy as it's a Laurance R. Doyle book distributed by SETI, which indicates he probably is LR Doyle. "LR Doyle" gets a good deal more hits at Scholar Google. That said his books at Amazon have a sales rank that is lower than even that Kenneth Eng guy so I'm not sure. I don't know enough on notability for scientists and have said enough as is.--T. Anthony 03:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think everything gets tagged as a speedy now. There must be a competition going on. You were somewhat lucky since you had a full 11 minutes to edit before the tag. -- JJay 03:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but definitely needs to be expanded. TheRingess 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Average Earthman. Seems to have done some significant work on extrasolar planets and planet systems. (I wonder how many articles on scientists actually get speedied because some anonymous or just lazy and uninterested bypasser has tagged them as nn-bio.) u p p l a n d 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not much. A few end up at Speedy, but those are usually moved to AFD. - Mgm|(talk) 12:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He was chosen as editor for "Circumstellar habitable zones: proceedings of the first international conference" (intro written by Carl Sagan, mind you...). That honor alone makes him worth consideration, as he is obviously respected by his peers. His thesis, entitled "Voyager imaging photometry and radiative transfer modeling of the spoke-like features in Saturn's outer B-ring." was also quite good. I remember reading it two years after he finished it. He deserves a biog. article here.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the qualifier in List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) redundant? - Mgm|(talk) 12:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What qualifier? Do you mean the part that says "religious denomination"? Well no, that qualifier isn't redundant. If you forget capitalization and qualifier you get the List of Christian scientists, then see where that leads. I don't think I put any qualifier in adding him to Christian Science list except to say he works at SETI.--T. Anthony 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Give the editors a chance to fix it up a bit. Kmac1036 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Meunier[edit]

Some google hits, came second place in something. From speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Happy New Year. Mostly Rainy 02:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletions. -- Rob 01:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. I know WP is not paper, but doesn't seem notable. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sacrificial candidate in local election against a rock solid incumbent who won re-election easily. Is getting 6590 votes that notable? Can't count either - since when has 27% been "approximately 20%"? Average Earthman 01:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable NeoJustin 03:36, January 1, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable. FCYTravis 07:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's something else to say about - comes close. WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Might have been notable during the campaign but not now. Seems more interested in promoting his missionary-type things. First deletion of the New Year. Daniel Case 07:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - IMHO, notable, but barely so.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 11:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Ajwebb 22:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idahowiki, PatheticPocatello.com[edit]

Idahowiki is a wiki for Idaho-related information set up only a few days ago. PatheticPocatello is a webforum for citizens of the city of Pocatello, Idaho, with some 600 users and an Alexa rating > 4000000. Both websites fail to meet the criteria put forth in WP:WEB, besides Wikipedia isn't an advertising medium. Pilatus 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete PatheticPocatello, Keep Idaho wiki Delete both. --Revolución (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Already Speedied under CSD A7. Note that I am not the admin who deleted it, so perhaps the admin who did should sign here Werdna648T/C\@ 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe Cohen[edit]

  • Delete Looks like vanity --Revolución (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity publishing. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate. debating on a blank page? the page is gone alreay Mostly Rainy 02:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I listed it when it existed. It was later speedily deleted soon after my listing it here. Why would you want to recreate it? --Revolución (talk) 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying if the one who created the page wishes to put it back, with more accurate details happy new year Mostly Rainy 03:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict behavior[edit]

Tagged as a speedy with the reasoning

"1. "Conflict behavior" does not appear to mean what the editor says it does (e.g. google it w/ and w/o "fidgeting"). 2. The bulk of this page was pasted in from "Psychology". 3. The editor didn't finish: ("I'm amazed if you've read this far.")"

No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The text of the page appears to be cut-and-paste, with large sections having little-or-nothing to do with the subject of the article. If an expert and sift the wheat from the chaff then it may make a legitimate claim to existing on WP. As it stands, delete. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible copyvio...no, looks like it is a copyvio...speedy--MONGO 11:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I nominated this article for deletion, according to the reasons listed above. (Do you need to be an admin to vote? Is it okay to vote on an article that you nominated?) --Shunpiker 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't need to be an admin to nominate or vote. I think that a nomination is generally counted as a vote to delete, unless otherwise specified. However, it doesn't hurt to also vote to make it explicit. If you do, it's a good idea to mention that you're the nominator. -Rholton 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Is it really a copyvio? From where? To the above: anyone can vote, though only an admin can close the voting process once some consensus is reached. And yes, unless you say otherwise, it's implied that if you nominate an article for deletion, then you are voting "delete". --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite from scratch - as others have said, this is mostly cobbled together from bits of other Wikipedia articles. A Google shows "conflict behavior" exists as a term, but it does not refer to fidgeting etc. Tearlach 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. From what I can tell, this is a purely descriptive phrase, with no definite meaning beyond "behavior in/during conflict". Therefore, it would be at best a dicdef. -Rholton 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article appears to be a couple of original (?) paragraphs followed by a cut-and-paste of the entire Psychology article. As such, it is too trivial and unencyclopedic to stand on its own. MCB 04:54, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DiggFans[edit]

I thought this was afd'd already.... anyway the article says it all "around 250 members and over 1000 posts" (does not meet WP:WEB for the pedantic :))

  • Delete You gotta be kidding me... someone thought that forum was worth an article?→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 09:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not too offended by the page at all Eddie 10:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's being nominated for not meeting WP:WEB. Not being offended is not a valid reason to keep an article. - Mgm|(talk) 12:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this kind of stuff should be speedyable. It even has a hint of self-promotion, "the forum to watch in 2006"?! —Locke Cole • t • c 11:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable webforum, POV reportage at any rate. Hamster Sandwich 11:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and this should be speedy-able. Think this counts as a club? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete webspam--MONGO 11:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:WEB ComputerJoe 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable and appears to be an advertisement. Ajwebb 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm closing this. I can't believe we have to have a vote in order to delete such obvious cruft. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Roney[edit]

Delete: Not notable. Google has only 200 hits. Probably will never be more than stub. Anonymous contributor indicates possibility of vanity article. — Shadowhillway 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy A8 Delete by User:Zoe WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llafeht Publishing[edit]

Non-notable, self promotional. User is making articles about himself and his business set up to promote.. himself. Delete Kevin 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 02:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Should this have been deleted before consensus was reached? Cnwb 02:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Page was remade, is same as before. Kevin 02:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and see also his self-written vanity page, Ross Aubrey. User has been spamming himself in all sorts of articles, from "Classical composers" to "Humorists." FCYTravis 02:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as a copyvio from http://www.mp3.com.au/label.asp?id=4000. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robert Celmer[edit]

Non-notable mechanical engineering professor. No books or other works of note. Delete. Neutralitytalk 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete close to (and might be) an A7 speedy. WhiteNight T | @ | C 02:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing asserts nobility in the article. Cobra 05:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is difficult to judge the notability for academics, but I'll settle for delete on this one, for the following reasons: a. He is a full professor and head of department, but at a institution which appears to offer nothing higher than a master's degree in his field.[1]. b. I can only find 19 hits on Google Scholar (search for "R Celmer" OR "RD Celmer" OR "Robert Celmer")[2]. c. The same search on Google Books gets no hits.[3] d. No hits in the Library of Congress catalogue. I may also add that his PhD thesis from 1982 [4] seems to be unpublished, but I am not sure how important that is in a U.S. context, as it seems to be common that American dissertations are available only on microfilm. u p p l a n d 08:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am inclined to keep professors and the like, but Dr. Celmer appears to miss the bar per the research by u p p l a n d. Movementarian 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Uppland's comment and opinion. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no notable contributions yet.--MONGO 11:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are his articles in Scholar cited by others very often? - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at Google Scholar again, I notice that I seem to have overestimated his total number of hits. A few of those "R Celmer" are actually by other people called "R [initial] Celmer" and in other fields, such as metallurgy. As for cites: if I understand this correctly, the top one is cited thrice. Of the others belonging to the right Celmer, none have any cites noted. I'm sure one could dig deeper into this with looking in other databases. u p p l a n d 13:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Borderline speedy anyway. I'm closing this one. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WNEP Anchors[edit]

Most of the information already listed at WNEP-TV Smerge Tazz765 02:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Vine Christian Community[edit]

Totally non-notable. Zero Google hits. Only 1000 members at maxmimum. Madman 02:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I honestly can hardly believe anyone went to the trouble of writing that article. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Aubrey[edit]

Non-notable, advertising, vanity. User made their own page. Delete Kevin 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nomination. Oswax 03:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nomination WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not appear to meet requirements in WP:BIO. Movementarian 08:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity, low Alexa trffic, advertising promotional.--71.28.244.248 08:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This 'biographical' article *did* give me more than a few giggles, but not enough to inspire any sympathy. ;) chuck it into the River Styx.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:VAIN--MONGO 11:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (and move if appropriate). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Todd River Race[edit]

Seemingly non-notable "race" Down Under. Madman 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notable event. Perhaps rename to Henley-on-Todd Regatta. -- Longhair 03:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable event. Illustrative of Australian humour. -- Paul foord 03:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to its proper name per Longhair. Famous tourist draw and event. - Randwicked 03:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This curious event usually gets media attention in Australia each year. Cnwb 04:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per others. Please do more research before nominating an article for AfD. Ambi 05:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could do with a little more research and some wikification, but it's a pretty notable Australian event, is known internationally, and even crops up in a few fictional works (Terry Pratchett's The Last Continent is one off the top of my head.) Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 06:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. Very, very sloppy nominator. --Agamemnon2 14:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Definitely notable in Australia and internationally. Agree with renaming --Takver 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Desperately needs wikification, but the article itself has enough worth. NorseOdin 07:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important event - keep. Bduke 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reminds me of the Montana Golf Classic but lots more notable obviously--MONGO 12:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs cleaning and expanding, but a notable event nonetheless. Natgoo 12:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very famous race; agree it should be moved to Henley-on-Todd Regatta as per Longhair. --Daveb 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a notable event, especially in Australia. Ajwebb 22:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GetMADD[edit]

A public advocacy group whose stated objective it is to serve as a counterpoint to MADD. Never saw it mentioned in the news anywhere, and Alexa doesn't even give its website a rating although it tells that it has been around since September 2003. Nowhere close to WP:WEB, and Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for any cause, however worthy they may be. Pilatus 04:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per nomination. Kevin 04:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nuke it.--MONGO 12:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete low Google web presence suggests very little impact (yet). No Google News hits at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Pilatus and Starblind's researchs. - Phædriel 23:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 12:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Moved to last WP:BJAODN. :) --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Piss cycle[edit]

This article doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia in my opinion, also appears to be original research. Delete KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 04:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax, original research. --InShaneee 04:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. --Terence Ong Talk 04:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a new year's experiment. Happy '06! Two more minutes! - Lucky 6.9 04:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, utterly non-notable. --LesleyW 07:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Movementarian 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. -- (aeropagitica) UK 09:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Uncyclopaedia might want this one. ::shrug:: → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Uncyclopedia stuff, really. Pavel Vozenilek 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. CalJW 12:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOR--MONGO 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete heh Sceptre (Talk) 17:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --a.n.o.n.y.m t 17:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Flush it down the same place as what the page is about. Anthony Appleyard 18:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable. Ajwebb 22:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, either hoax, joke, or original reserach, it has no place here. - Phædriel 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 00:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've heard of this concept - I don't think its a hoax and it's more of a generally amusing but commonly observed pub topic than original research..anon 03:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bordering BJAODN. P.S. sending it to uncyclopaedia would be a transwiki, not a move Werdna648T/C\@ 12:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Uncyclopaedia, then Delete. - Liontamer 22:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. MCB 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Straight pride[edit]

  • Delete this homophobic neologism --Revolución (talk) 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is a mess, but I know that certain college groups have been organizing "straight pride" marches and days and I think there have been some lawsuits over this as well. We need an article that explains the issue, homophobic or not. I would also appreciate it if you could make more of an effort with your nom. Delete this is not good enough. -- JJay 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A check on Newsbank shows hits for straight pride going back to the 1980s in both the US and UK involving high schools, colleges, municipalities, demonstrations, etc. -- JJay 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. We don't delete White Power for being offensive to non-whites. A lot of the article appears to be original synthesis, though. Gazpacho 06:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs a lot of work, but I've definitely heard of the concept before and it does seem to have a following. Besides, as Gazpacho said, just because it's offensive doesn't mean it's unencyclopædic. —DO'Neil 06:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blue ribbon campaign forever! Rogue 9 07:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting stuff for being "homophobic" is ultimately counterproductive. By creating a balanced, neutral and NPOV article on the concept, we allow homophobes to destroy themselves with their own utterances. This vote cast by a gay guy. FCYTravis 07:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting topics just because they are controversial is counterproductive and not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Movementarian 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per JJay's and Gazpacho's comments. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Openly biased nomination. CalJW 12:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep group does exist.--MONGO 12:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is a more common occurence especially on high school campuses. Jtmichcock 18:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay Ajwebb 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. I'm not a fan of the "movement" (for lack of a better word) by any stretch of the imagination, but the concept exists and deserves to be included. Bindingtheory 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - gets almost 25K non-wikpedia google hits [5], so pretty notable. Also, I don't think it's neccesarilly homophobic. It can just be a place for straight people to celebrate their sexuality. Blackcats 04:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and get to work on revisions. The concept should be addressed, but the extreme overuse of "homophobic" makes most of the current article useless, offensive, and inaccurate. --Ajdz 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per JJay Werdna648T/C\@ 23:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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] 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Salmon[edit]

Non-notable teen musician. -- Longhair 04:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Psychic Mad Cow Exorcism Polka’[edit]

Non-notable book by an author currently on afd. Although the picture is worth 1000 words, as they say :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No listing on Amazon, but if evidence can be shown of the books circulation being above (5,000 requirements for an author in WP:BIO) then I will change my vote. Movementarian 07:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per Ross Aubrey's page mentioned below. -- (aeropagitica) UK 09:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nomination. Kevin 19:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Teen Tech Buzz[edit]

nn podcast WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete spam. Gazpacho 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It doesn't even make a claim to be notable. On the creators talk page he said that it has 50 listeners. Oswax 05:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity page, not useful as reference material. -- (aeropagitica) UK 09:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk mail--MONGO 12:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, this isn't vanity, its spam. Paul Carpenter 12:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn CLW 20:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amber-chan[edit]

The main character in a forthcoming web-based manga with a free host (geocities). See also Aibyouka-kun on AFD. No evidence that's its important to any existing audience. Kappa 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Doesn't meet notability standards in WP:WEB. -- Vary | Talk 05:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 12:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was - no consensus --Ichiro 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay and lesbian kingdom and Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands[edit]

nn micronation. Only 70 unique Google hits. Note that there was previously an AfD for Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked more closely at the articles, there's nothing to merge. And although it's not a true micronation, it's a verifiable historical event. --LesleyW 07:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, micronations are not notable, --Jaranda wat's sup 08:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • They're notable if they get noticed. Gazpacho 08:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirect Gay and lesbian kingdom to Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands as they appear to talk about the same place and the latter is a better article at first glance. The information is verifiable and Wikipedia has articles on other micronations. Movementarian 08:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Two pages covering the same subject is a waste of server space. -- (aeropagitica) UK 09:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I found Lesbian Kingdom, too - but it was identical to the above, so it's now a redirect to Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. If the vote here is for delete, that will need to go, too. Grutness...wha? 09:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy new year! Keep Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands and redirect and merge the other article into it. Blackcats 10:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, a handful of activists going for a picnic does not make a micronation and shouldn't make an article. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. CalJW 11:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Gay and lesbian kingdom to Keep Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Notable micronation. --Billpg 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I say keep it, it is a proven historical event that recieved a great deal of press coverage in Australia and within the worlds gay media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wowfm (talk • contribs) (moved from talk page)
  • Merge Gay and lesbian kingdom into Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands--MONGO 12:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it won't count, but delete both anyway. Ambi 13:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 70 unique Google hits speaks volumes here. Even small, obscure real nations have Google hits well into the many millions. Compare Tobago for just one example. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart 14:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • #REDIRECT [[Paradise]] Er, I mean Commment Doesn't something substantially have to have changed for the latter page to be renominated? It survived with a Keep, not even a No consensus. pfctdayelise 14:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While checking out the hits, I noticed that Australia's Attorney-General department mentions "Declaration of Independence of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands - Office of International Law ( OIL )". By means of comparison, Hutt River Province does not appear to have hits in ag.gov.au (it has hits elsewhere, especially in the Australian Tax Office). I think that one factor for notability would be how many people (and how many notable people) were involved in this protest. Andjam 15:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a micronations wikicity. If the article gets deleted, should it be copied to there? Andjam 15:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with Squiddy. --Daveb 15:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. An encyclopedia is supposed to inform people, not misinform them. This is just sillieness, which discredits the project. --Rob 15:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per Squiddy. WhiteNight T | @ | C 17:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Despite what people think, the Kingdom got wide press coverage in Australia and within the worlds Gay media and is an historical fact! The Australian Attorney-Generals department mentions "Declaration of Independence of the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands - Office of International Law (OIL)" and whilst no nation is yet to recognise the Kingdoms sovereignty neither does any country recognise Quebec and its fight of independance within Canada yet Quebec's plight is widly covered. good on them I say and please keep! John Hong Kong— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.220.30 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Survived AfD once already and there's no new reason why this should be deleted. I would like to know who keeps putting this page up for deletion and why? my only guess is that there is a homophobe within this organisation that does not agree with its content. The events took place and a search of the Attorney-Generals department in Australia mentions the Kingdom, as well as Independence documents were lodged with the United Nations in New York and the ICJ (International Court of Justice) in the Hague. There is much interest in the Kingdom in Australia particularly with the government of Australia winding back gay and lesbian rights, banning gay marriages, and removing gay and lesbian rights from its human rights charter so I say keep it!!! Sally New Zealand.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.220.30 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep see Conch Republic David Brisbane Australia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.220.30 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Whilst the Kingdom is not a micronation as such because the Coral Sea Islands are an external uninhabited Territory of Australia. the facts as stated in the page are true and correct. I agree with Sally and would like to know who the person is and why they keep putting this page up for deletion as it has survived AFD once already. Sucki Thialand— Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.220.30 (talk • contribs)
    • What do you mean by "keep putting this page up for deletion"? This is the first time I have put this page up for deletion. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion, not a vote by the numbers. Anonymous comments and ballot-stuffing are not accepted and may turn opinion against the article. Gazpacho 23:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gazpacho, We are a group of international backpackers working on Great Keppell Island, a remote island off the east coast of Australia and there is only two computers on the Island, and we signed our comments so they are not Anonymous! Please get your facts right before you make such comments!!!. We all feel this article should be kept and cant understand why this article is up for deletion again when this article has allready gone through this entire process just recently and survived. Sucki, Sally, John & David, 5:20 2nd of Jan 2006. (from 203.164.228.20)
      • Any user identified only by an IP address is considered to be anonymous. Movementarian 09:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; and redirect "Gay and lesbian kingdom" to formal title. Gilliamjf 03:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Generally speaking, micronations are non notable and this one particularly so. Roisterer 10:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the version Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands had an AfD in May 2005: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gay_and_Lesbian_Kingdom_of_the_Coral_Sea_Islands. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Gay and lesbian kingdom to Keep Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. Notable micronation. --Wowfm 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
File:Legal9.gif
File:Glk.jpg
  • Delete both. Australia has no ambassador to this "country" so therefore it should not be considered legit. Wikipedia should not be lending credibility to these fraudulent claims. Qarnos 22:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Australia does not have an ambassador to Quebec, or Palestine or the Conch Republic yet all these movements for sovereignty have articles listed so why not this one? Wowfm 23:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Carolynparrishfan 01:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems article worthy (but turn Gay and lesbian kingdom into a redirect.)-- Samuel Wantman 01:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verifiable historical event. Seems important to gay rights movement in the area. Kit 02:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - real, verifiable, notable. I've mainly heard about this in non-internet form, via newspapers or magazines. - Trysha (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep verifiable, if somewhat obscure, article. Secession received news coverage. Interesting twist on the same-sex marriage debate. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 13:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Wow! Who knew this island existed before they read the article? This article definitely need to be in Wikipedia. I believe Wikipedia is not only for looking things up, but also for wandering about and finding facts new to oneself. Also, it is verifiable and has been published on. -- ActiveSelective 09:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong Talk 14:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Micronations are unencyclopedic and this has only a few Google hits. Agree with Zoe. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is definitely a noteworthy micronation. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and legally nonexistant --Ajdz 22:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This project is an important part of the history of Queer Nationalism, however ridiculous such a thing might appear at the first glance. Gay Kingdom has enjoyed much attention in the year 2004 and is of course worthy of an article. The Yahoo discussion group for the Gay Kingdom is listing >700 members, this clearly documents the interest on the issue. The group is fallen apart into several fragments but it gave impulses for further developements. However, the article needs a critical re-work. | Vanrozenheim 02:05, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Angel[edit]

Incomplete nomination (1st and 3rd steps completed, 2nd not) by an anon user. Reason for deletion in edit summary is given as "RECOMMEND FOR DELETION, PERSONAL BIO". After looking at the article, I would hazard an opinion that the article provides no claims of notablilty, but have done no research, do not wish to vote either way, and do not personally care about the outcome of this deletion. I'm just the messenger. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Could probably be speedied, but I thought the claim of being an actor could be taken as a claim of notability. There are two IMDb pages for "Luis Angel" [6][7] the first is an actor and the second a composer. Neither seems to help satisfy criteria in WP:BIO. Movementarian 08:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, verify, and ask page creator to provide more details. -- Eddie 10:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speedy...article fails to provide reason for notability--MONGO 12:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Movementarian Reyk 12:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, one minor (probably non-speaking) role is not enough to call someone an actor, nor is it sufficient reason for an article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline speedy, but I have alerted the page creator of the discussion taking place here. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Academic dress of Loughborough University[edit]

This is a very college-specific list that is only information for people within the college, not an encyclopedia audience. Comfort 06:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is a collection of "Academic dress of..." articles, see Category:Academic dress. I would support merging some of them together, but I don't think they should be deleted. --LesleyW 07:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • - That category should be for academic dress items, not individual schools! Why should there be an article about the academic dress for every school? That may be information under the school's page. I doubt there's any usefulness in an article for the academic dress of every univeristy that exists! The "academic dress of..." articles should all be deleted! 67.67.236.35
  • Delete Too specific an entry on clothing items. There is no need for every college to create a page for their own congregational robes. -- (aeropagitica) UK 09:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, really too specific and of low encyclopedic value (even photos are missing). If there's something to be salvaged, put it into the university article. Pavel Vozenilek 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 67.67.236.35. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I certainly wouldn't want the Oxford and Cambridge articles to be deleted, so I guess this one should be retained too. CalJW 11:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Loughborough University. Different case from Oxford or Cambridge who set the fashion, so to speak. Dlyons493 Talk 12:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- far two narrow. Reyk 12:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Loughborough University. Too narrow for a separate article, but entirely valid within University article. - Mgm|(talk) 13:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be it in a much condensed and edited version. - Mgm|(talk) 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If really neccessary can merge condensed information into Loughborough University.--Daveb 15:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too specific. This isn't about a style of academic dress, it's about the colours used by graduates of Loughborough University. Add the information to Loughborough University, if you must. Pilatus 16:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, far too specific to be useful. — JIP | Talk 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if you are really interested in the academic dress of Loughborough University you should contact the university however this is far too specific to be of interest to almost any Wikipedian. Cedars 07:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L. L. Nunn[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by LambaJan but clearly claims importance, so bringing it to AfD instead to respect LambaJan's wishes. Seems rather notable/encyclopedic to me, however. A previous version of this was deleted for being a copyvio from [8]. howcheng {chat} 06:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 06:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh? I said, "Seems rather notable/encyclopedic to me." howcheng {chat} 07:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something needs to happen. After looking it over again it could possibly become encyclopedic if it:
  1. stops plagurising sections of that bio.
  2. links to company articles, not just colleges. And,
  3. puts a bit of why he's important in the beginning.

That said, there may be a place for him on the Wiki. LambaJan 07:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) BTW: Thanks for respecting my wishes.[reply]

  • Keep. I have rewritten the artilce based on the information provided. It could use some fine tuning from someone with actual knowlege on the subject, but I believe it addresses the issues raised above. The subject is definitely notable and easily meets WP:BIO. Movementarian 09:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, proper article on notable person. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rewrite. "Nunn financed the world’s first commercial A/C power plant." is sufficient reason for me. - Mgm|(talk) 13:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As an alumnus of Deep Springs and Telluride House, I have tweaked the rewrite. bhami 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nunn is well known in some circles, particularly the history of higher education. Plowboylifestyle 21:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed AfD. LambaJan 21:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Restored the notice. Please don't remove it until the AfD discussion is closed. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 06:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

German African Party[edit]

Possible hoax, or fails WP:V big time, only 10 google hits for the exact phase German African Party, and they lead one way or another back to wiki, and 6 for German African Party Namibia [9] Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You try and Google for it in German? 68.39.174.238 07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6 unique hits there, all wikipedia. --Jaranda wat's sup 07:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Perhaps you should try "German African Party" + "South West Africa", which is what Namibia was called until the late 1980s! Apparently it was an anti-Nazi party, and it is mentioned in documents at Yale (see [10]), though there seems to be very little about it on Google. Yale's enough to convince me that it's legit, though. Also mentioned by its German name at 08.02.1939 here. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Grutness CalJW 11:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn--MONGO 12:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how is this political party not notable? If you vote to delete, it's useful to give counter arguments to the one made by Grutness. - Mgm|(talk) 13:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. --Ichiro 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King Of Pop[edit]

My first AFD of 2006. Nonencyclopedic, totally POV ... really could have speedied this somehow but the author would learn better what should go on Wikipedia if I put it here. Daniel Case 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It needs a MAJOR rewrite, but it's a phrase which is commonly used, and not only in reference to Michael Jackson (ie. in Australia, some call John Farnham the king of Australian pop). Cnwb 07:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson. Kelvin Martinez removed the AfD tag and another Wikipedian redirected the article to Michael Jackson. I have restored the article to the original version with the AfD tag. I have also placed a warning on Kelvin Martinez talk page. Movementarian 08:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as before, no need to bother with afd. Gazpacho 08:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson. Yes, the media is responsible for starting to call him that which makes it verifiable and now it's a phrase commonly used to describe Jackson. If there's an Australian King of Pop it can be added or made into a dab, but there's no reason to delete it. - Mgm|(talk) 13:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Michael Jackson, who is widely acknowledged as such. --Thephotoman 13:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Micheal Jackson Sceptre (Talk) 18:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up. After MJ, there could well be another self-declared King (or a TV show by that name) and redirecting would trap the title. 18:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. AT the moment MJ is the King of Pop. Should the need to disambiguate ever arise, the redirect could be easily undone. There could be another King of Rock and Roll, but it is unlikely that someone will ever get the title from Elvis. Movementarian 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GTC Technical Support[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Lbbzman for nn-bio, but it's a company, so bringing it to AfD instead. The reason given was, "No assertion of notability - does not pass WP:CORP." No vote. howcheng {chat} 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into GTC if such an article exists. Otherwise delete. BTW - I had GTC dialup internet service for a while and their technical support sucks! Blackcats 10:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - the article exists as a disambig, with a link to GTC Telecom, which does not yet exist. Blackcats 10:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:30, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodybalance (exercise program)[edit]

Creating editor has removed speedy and cleanup tags. Google shows little here except a somewhat dubious vitamin/supplement line that shares the name. Earlier vote sounds like same article. Promotional. Daniel Case 07:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum: Link to blog doesn't work. Daniel Case 07:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete earlier AFD was about an article advertising the programme, it seems, whereas the current article is advertising a blog. See also Bodypump by same user jnothman talk 07:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep: is barely promotional; if anything is promotional of a web log. Seems to be somewhat notable internationally, but wish Pipera could supply me with particular sources. jnothman talk 02:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodybalance is a exercise program it has its based on the principles of Tai Chi - Yoga and Pilates. Bodybalance is internationally known in the world of aerobics. It has certain health and healing aspects to the program. Squiddy do some research on Bodybalance maybe then you will have a different view point of Bodybalance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipera (talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 January 2006

  • Delete. Promotional. Non-notable, unless shown otherwise in the article with good references. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:00, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D. Granosalis[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Heron with the reason "sounds like a fictional character, and does not exist outside Wikipedia/Wikiquote." Since he has a Wikiquote page, I thought it would be best to bring it to AfD instead. Almost all Google hits are wikimirrors, but there were one or two that had quotes from him (in German) [11] [12] that suggest he might be a real person. No vote. howcheng {chat} 07:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Granosalis? That name needs to be taken with a large grain of salt! Grutness...wha? 08:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Library of Congress catalogue, Academic Search Premier, ERIC database, and OHIOLink all turn up exactly nothing for 'Granosalis'. Considering that the name, as Grutness (humourously...) pointed out, appears to be a practical joke by someone with at least a passing interest in etymology... this one should be easy to decide.→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was deleted from the German Wikipedia in February 2005 (see de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/18. Februar 2005#D._Granosalis_--) on the grounds that it was short, lacked context, was a vanity article, and didn't satisfy the criteria for inclusion of biography articles. It was also pointed out on the German Wikipedia that Transfer Art (de:Transferkunst) was related to this article. That, too, was deleted, on the grounds that the only thing locatable related to it was a single company that "offers 'transfer art' as consulting concept". (de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/21. Februar 2005#Transferkunst_.28erledigt.2C_gel.C3.B6scht.29). I, like Howcheng and Pádraic_MacUidhir, can find no sources for this article. It is unverifiable. On the the Wikiquote article's talk page, the author states that "We are currently collecting and researching D. Granosalis' work and life for a publication (Maria Mejore)". This article thus appears to be original research, too. I have nominated the Wikiquote article for deletion. Delete. Uncle G 05:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the above research. We shouldn't be forced to do the original author's homework anyway. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:02, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bodypump[edit]

Advertising essentially the same as Bodybalance. Made by the same user, Pipera. jnothman talk 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete looks like advertising Pogoman 07:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advertising it it telling people about Bodypump I have not placed any advertsing on the entry?

There are numerous enteries for pop groups - IBM - Microsoft etc... on this site is that not advertsing?

pipera

  • Pipera, IBM and Microsoft are already well-known and their articles draw on written sources by outside sources not related to them. You appear to be trying to promote the blog to get something that's not known yet in the spotlight. - Mgm|(talk) 13:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Re-create when same size as IBM. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising. Cyberevil 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Advertising. --Thephotoman 14:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep is barely promotional; if anything is promotional of a web log. Seems to be somewhat notable internationally, but wish Pipera could supply me with particular sources. jnothman talk 01:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: I think advertising should be allowed if some kind of technology-based filtering could let readers filter it out themselves-- Marvin147 10:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what that means. And it doesn't say anything about the merits of the article or its topic itself. And Wikipedia:About is quite certain we are builting an encyclopedia and NOT an ad directory. Not that I oppose your vote, but your reasoning seems strange. jnothman talk 10:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is encyclopedic. If it were not describing an actual product for sale today, it would be similar to the cubit. Worthy to future historians? Perhaps, but how can we judge? -- Marvin147 10:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TestPilot 05:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. I'd also advise Marvin147 (talk · contribs) to stop inserting the same idea about "technology-based filtering" in every advertising AfD. It serves no purpose. AfD is not the place for discussions of policy, and such out-of-place "proposals" may be seen as disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:07, 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. – Robert 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brigadesoft[edit]

Non-notable "up and coming" software company with [poor and] incomplete web site. Given web site is low in search results for entities by this name. jnothman talk 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's Animorphs Forum[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Vary for being a non-notable club, but it's a web site. Claims to be the most popular forum for Animorphs fans, but only has "over 300" members. Already exists as an external link in the Animorphs article. howcheng {chat} 07:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy it. Sounds more like a personal page. -- Eddie 11:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Userfication would not be appropriate in this case. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 11:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't userfy! Allowing it, would lead to the userspace being used for advertising. User only used Wikipedia to promote the forum and edited no other article (except an image). If it's already in Animorphs as a link, it's enough. - Mgm|(talk) 13:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and agree that userfying would not be a good idea here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.Bjones 04:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 - this is an author request. -- RHaworth 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey O'keefe[edit]

this entry was created on a whim. I am thoroughly smitten with this girl and i did this in an effort to lightly impress her. I apologize for the misuse of this resource. I use Wikipedia all the time and very much appreciate its versatility.

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremesims[edit]

Crufty, and it fails to establish notability. The subject purports to be a splinter of a group which itself does not seem to have a Wikipedia entry. Seancdaug 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Thephotoman 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.Obina 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Phædriel 23:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator --Ichiro 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cemetary Gates[edit]

Heavy metal cruft, riddled with POV violations. Seancdaug 08:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep notable song by a very notable band. I tried to fix it up a bit. Cobra 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Other bands have pages dedicated to their singles, why not Pantera? The text should just keep to the facts though, at the moment it is fanboy material only. -- (aeropagitica) UK 09:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to be cleaned up, and a dab to the song by The Smiths, too. Cnwb 09:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. But deffo needs a dab to the song by The Smiths, as that song is even more reconisable.
  • Keep. But definitely needs a dab to the song by The Smiths, as that song is even more recognisable. Englishrose 12:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per above. --Thephotoman 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I pared it back even further and added info about its inclusion on a film soundtrack. I wasn't able to verify that the song was released as a single. If it was, we could strengthen the article by replacing the ad hoc table with a single infobox template (like Vision of Love). ×Meegs 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good stuff. We need more like this. -- JJay 22:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Keep POV violations can be fixed. It seems like a good post and doesn't seem like it should be deleted. --Chazz88 23:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article has improved considerably since I first nominated it, and it's clear that I underestimated its notability. I withdraw my initial delete vote. – Seancdaug 23:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwitea Street[edit]

I hate to do this to a New Zealand article, but it's just a suburban street. There is a soccer ground there, but in New Zealand soccer grounds are hardly major stadia - probably of a similar standard to larger high school sports fields in the US or UK. The details about the soccer ground could easily be merged into the entry on the club, and there's little else to say about the place. Click on the map at [13] to see what I mean. Grutness...wha? 08:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. – Seancdaug 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Why does it end at Parry Street? I thought it started there. - -Mgm|(talk) 13:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents minor streets are generally non notable.Obina 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironclad Keep It is quite big and also got the stadia. Compared to some of the other keeps we've had this seems quite reasonable. --Chazz88 23:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Vegaswikian 05:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep because it seems to be used as the name of the ground, not just the street, and has quite a few googles -- Astrokey44|talk 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. —Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings[edit]

Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's called the 9/11 memorial wiki. And since it is a wiki, its name is fine. It is not called Wikipedia to begin with. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite true. The url is sep11.wikipedia.org, and at the upper left corner it has the "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" logo. Blackcats 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at it, I'd say it is most definitely a part of Wikipedia. Qarnos 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not memorial. Pavel Vozenilek 11:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 9/11 precedent. - Mgm|(talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Whats 9/11 got to do with it? Why does the European event have to bow down to an american one? Jcuk 17:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's got nothing to do with 9/11 happening in America. It just happened to be a very well-known and larger terrorist attack. If we have a separate wiki for those victims (all 2000-3000 of them), I don't see why we should mention the victims of the Madrid bombings in Wikipedia. - Mgm|(talk) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, as above. Ajwebb 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found it useful when checking to see if any if my Spanish aquaintances had died
  • Keep; I am the person who made this article. I just want to explain why I think the English Wikipedia should have such an article. However, of course, if you think that this page should be deleted, go on. (Interested people can check this information in the Spanish version, if they understand Spanish.)
    • 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.

      I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).

    • 2) Before I made this article, I saw that someone (I don't know who), added in the Madrid bombings article, in the "See also" section, this hidden line:

      <!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->

      (as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article.
    • 3) P.MacUidhir argues that "Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable". I agree, bombings are not notable. But not all bombings are the same! Sadly, ETA is responsible for most bombings in Spain, but the Madrid March 11 bombings were not at all usual. It was the worse Al-Qaida attack in Europe. There died almost four times more people than in the 7 July London bombings. Millions of persons took part in the demonstrations against terrorism the day after (more or less the 28% of the Spanish population). Many poeple think that there was a political change in Spain because of these bombings (they happened three days before the March 14 general elections), and that the authors aimed this change; other people think that the former goverment lied supporting that ETA was the author of the attacks until the last moment, as they could lose the elections because of their support to the Bush' invasion of Iraq (it is still a very hot subject, and I don't want to give my opinion here, I just speak about the opinion of many people). I only want to say that obviously the Madrid bombings are, sadly, once again, a historical event, not only in Spain, but worldwide, such as the London bombings, the 9/11 or the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I am not speaking in this point about the number of persons who died, but just about the importance and consequences of the event.
    • 4) I saw that there was an article about the casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the names of all the victims, and I thought that there should be an equivalent article with the Madrid victims. I don't want to think that nationalism should be so important in Wikipedia (when we speak about worldwide events), and the terrorism victims in England should not be more or less important than those who died in Spain. I saw too that there is an article about the London victims in the Spanish wikipedia, without the names (in my opinion this article lacks those names). Nevertheless, in the 9/11 died thousands of men and women, and I think that it is better there an external link, not because those persons were less important, but just because it would be too large; but maybe some persons who died in the 9/11 should appear in wikipedia (the many firefighters who died there? People who saved other people? For instance, William Rodríguez became famous, but he didn't die there). I think that the queston is not as simple as "there should appear all victims of terrorist attacks or none of them".
    • 5) I made the article, as every article, thinking about it as a starting point. So, it should be extended and improved by other wikipedians. For example (as in the July London attacks), who died in each place (the Atocha Station, or El Pozo, or Santa Eugenia, or the Téllez Street)? How many? Where were first carried? What does Pilar Manjón (president of the Association for the victims of 11-M) think about the political reactions? These questions maybe could be too much for the principal article, but not for an article about victims, and it could contain interesting information for wikipedia. I think that there should be a page of the same quality as that one about the London attacks, and I hope that it will be so. I only contribute with my knowledge. I don't know many things about the London attacks, so I can't speak about them.

Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, for Ecemaml and Eynar's well stated reasons. GRuban 19:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks notable enough to me. I wouldn't expect to find this in a printed encyclopaedia, but that would be more down to space restrictions than anything imo. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This has nothing to do with memorials. -- JJay 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, even for an event as tragic as this. Sliggy 11:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, part of a major event. I'm not sure how useful the list of the names is, but deleting that wouldn't require deleting the whole article. And it doesn't provide redlinks for each of the names which is a plus. - Bobet 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Primarily a list of non-notable dead people (which sounds a lot like a memorial to me) and some information which, unlike with the similar London bombings article, we already have in other articles related to the Madrid bombings (if I missed something and we don't, merge it).--Last Malthusian 13:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • On re-reading the article's actual content, keep the article but the list/memorial/whatever you want to call it should be deleted. Keeping it would lead us to assume that you can't have a list of victims if the death toll is too small to be 'notable', and you can't have it if it's too big to include without disrupting the article. That would be bizarre logic to say the least. --Last Malthusian 17:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the precedent cited by Ecemaml, however I strongly recommend that a policy be developed to create a criteria for this sort of thing otherwise anytime an event like this happens -- major or minor -- someone will want to do a list article. IMO this type of list should only be created for the most major of these events (and Madrid qualifies). But it could get out of hand if someone wants to create an article everytime a car bomb blows up in Baghdad. 23skidoo 15:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article isn't about the individuals. It is an excellent part of the coverage of the event. Bhoeble 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful information --File Éireann 18:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per Eynal and Ecemaml. Cchan199206 20:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per 3 comments immediately above. --kingboyk 17:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eynar Werdna648T/C\@ 07:21, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamfuck[edit]

Non-notable slang term- 160 unique Google hits, for something Internet-based- and pretty much a dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nonsense. Could this be speedied? - CorbinSimpson 08:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism. Cnwb 09:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't mind introducing vulgar words, but when it comes to vulgar terms all bets are off. -- Eddie 10:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism, non-notable.--SarekOfVulcan 11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Obina 14:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Ajwebb 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. --Chazz88 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. - Phædriel 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Delete, non-notable neologism. - Liontamer 22:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Qarnos 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I've never heard the term before and I've been on the internet for a while now.-Deathawk 00:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spamfuck. Incognito 06:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as spamfuck Snakes 06:45, 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 delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noip[edit]

Apparent neologism. Delete.-Mr Adequate 09:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Gazpacho 11:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Not even funny.Obina 14:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dicdef at best. --Daveb 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. — JIP | Talk 20:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironclad Keep - Should definately be kept. I can see why it may need cleaned up. --Chazz88 23:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to explain why it should be kept? What makes it encyclopedic? Just because someone invented it one day doesn't necessarily mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. — JIP | Talk 23:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is not an encyclopaedia article about noips, whatever they may be, but is a dictionary article, describing the various meanings and usages of the word "noip". Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, this word is not attested. Delete. Uncle G 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mappum 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a made up word, but nobody will notice it is there unless they search it. People will only search noip if they know the word. Anyway, it won't use up much space on the wikipedia servers! Keep. mappum 010:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) comment really by 24.17.169.93 (talk · contribs), who has only ever edited the article Noip and this AfD.[reply]
    • "This is a made up word" pretty much proves our point. Just because someone makes a word up one day doesn't automatically mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. I can make up a word right here. "Splaw" means the same thing as "excellent". But no one else than I is ever going to care a flying toss about that word, even if I were to write a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia should not be used as a medium to gain notability for new concepts, it should only be used to document concepts that already are notable. If we allowed articles about everything just because "it doesn't use up much space on the Wikipedia servers" then we would have tens of millions of poorly written articles about things only their author will ever care about, and the actual real encyclopedia articles would get lost in the background noise. — JIP | Talk 11:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. crap. Incognito 06:32, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Rizzuto[edit]

Previously speedy-deleted. The original article contained non-notable content and included a link to a blog created to discredit the subject. This new re-creation contains poor references. I'm assuming the original contributions were meant as an attack page. -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not feed the troll".
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is notable, the article as it stands is fuly sourced and hardly constitutes an attack page, quite the reverse. I was confused about which link was which but am happy to leave out the parody website if Longhair prefers. I don't know how to test the prominence of a user but certainly a Google search shows very many references to Rizzuto playing an active role in public life in Melbourne. Seems very notable to me. Have also improved the sources with links to newspaper articles and and other links. Seems to be pretty comprehensively sourced now. Longhair seems determined to delete the article and is now saying the sources are low quality without elaborating. The sources all seem pretty good to me. StephenBengHo 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original article by User:Stephenho contained reference to this link, which the above author calls parody [14]. Troll alert!-- Longhair 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She's just an ordinary failed political candidate (to a local council, no less), who seems to have earned the obsession of some random guy (as evidenced by his "parody site"). The "sources" consist of a news story which she is not mentioned in at all, two blog articles, some minutes of a local council, and an alumni association entry which she appears to have written herself. There's practically no relevant Google hits about her, and I can't imagine this being of interest to anyone much else apart from its author. Ambi 09:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes as I said I was confused between two similar looking websites, either way I am happy for the parody one to be excluded if that's Wikipedia policy. StephenBengHo 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote check I gather this is a democratic vote of some kind. Can someone of appropriate authority please check whether Longhair and Ambi are the same person operating from the same computer or something. I don't make any accusations but I do find it interesting that Ambi popped up so quickly. Is this sort of check possible to ensure this voting process is legitimate? StephenBengHo 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You did ask for peer review did you not? -- Longhair 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, I'm a woman in Canberra, I believe he's a man in Geelong, and we're both Wikipedia administrators. But whatever. :) Ambi 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment if you're administrators all the more important that this check be conducted thoroughly and independently. StephenBengHo 10:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment -- I'm sure such checks are possible, but isn't your time better spent improving the article in question here, rather than to hunt us down? If Paula is notable, her article stays. It's that simple. Your time starts now. -- Longhair 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment As close to an admission as you'd hope to see. LOL. Vote early vote often. StephenBengHo 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a democratic vote. It's a discussion, albeit one where the number of people who appear to support one side or the other can affect the outcome. And User:Ambi, User:Longhair, User:Sarahe, etc. are all well-respected, long-time users. Pull your head in. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn and surreptitious attack page evidenced by external link. Sarah Ewart 10:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote check Also this user should be checked too as all three votes are probably the same person. StephenBengHo 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a woman from Melbourne, and I'm probably about five or more years older than Ambi. So no, we aren't all one person. Sarah Ewart 10:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do we go about requesting a check? I think would be proper in all the circumstances. StephenBengHo 10:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'Unsuccessful candidate in local government election' says it all really - the article can be created if and when she does something worth including in the encyclopaedia. Natgoo 12:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the lack of courtesy shown here to the subject matter of the article is disgraceful. Since when is being an unsuccessful candidate in something not noteworthy. I'm sure Wikipedia lists unsuccessful candidate Howard Dean. StephenBengHo 12:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Only until they're deleted :)~ . For a definition of disgraceful, review the content of the link you seem insistent to add to the article in question here. Pot. Kettle. Very black. Troll on. -- Longhair 12:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Howard Dean was the governor of Vermont for several years, and is now the chairman of the Democratic National Commitee, so he is far more notable than the subject of this article.--Sean|Black 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable for inclusion. --C S (Talk) 13:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The original (deleted) version of this article linked to User:StephenBengHo's attack site as if it were the subject's own website. That alone leads me to wonder why the hell we should want it here, well before we start to worry about such things as notability. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non Notable.Obina 14:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The guideline in question would be WP:BIO. pfctdayelise 14:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete. Non-notable would-be local politician. Sling it in the untidyness bin. Anthony Appleyard 18:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral on the AfD, but StephenBengHo should be prevented from editing this article. Too much evidence of personal involvement here. rodii 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely Strong Keep' The subject is notable for inclusion. Just because she is left wing and from Australia doesn't make a difference. --Chazz88 23:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll notice, if you scroll up, that many of the people arguing for deletion (myself included) are left-wing and from Australia. This ain't a case of systemic bias. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is, however, a case of a troll. He or she votes extremely strong keep on everything, often on topics with 100% consensus to delete otherwise. Ambi 07:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, subject is none too notable, subtle attack page. Also, I'm fairly sure that I am same person as Mark and Longhair, despite the fact the Longhair welcomed me, and the fact that I live about a hemisphere away from Fuddlemark :).--Sean|Black 07:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Roisterer 09:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Unsuccessful candidate in local government elections" NO. - Randwicked 12:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC), who says check yo self before you wreck yo self.[reply]
  • Delete. Currently non-notable. The Howard Dean argument is laughable. By the way, I'm left-wing, Australian, and I'm no-one's sockpuppet. --Canley 04:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. Agnte 05:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. as per nomination. --Martyman-(talk) 10:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Vanity article. total yawn about non-notable. Adriantame 14:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hill Fire Station[edit]

Wait wait... don't tell me! Fire stations getting articles now? Stop the madness. Yeah, it's... you guessed it... Firecruft. FCYTravis 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep from the article contents this building also has a mueseum in it. Sounds notable enough then. novacatz 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The museum mentioned in the article could be notable, but that would involve writing a completely new article at a new title. Ambi 10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If someone wants to write an article on the museum, I have no objection - fire museums are probably notable. But a fire station that happens to have a museum next door... isn't. This is how precedents get set, and I really don't think Wikipedia needs articles on every fire station in the world. FCYTravis 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an article about the fact that the building's historic, not that it's a fire station, per se. Historic buildings are encyclopedic, plain ol' fire stations are not. So I can't see how it's setting a precedence. Cnwb 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does this set a precedent for a separate article on every single one of the 79,000 places and 1.2 million buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the 1,100 California State Historic Landmark plaques, etc.? FCYTravis 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where in here does it say 1.2 million? I see 79,000 as the overall total, with buildings being a subset of that. --Rob 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not an average fire station. CalJW 11:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all fire station/high school/etc articles. Now. :) --Tothebarricades 12:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Aaargh, one of my articles on AfD! It's a grand old historic building in Melbourne. I'm planning to include photos of it soon. And it's not "firecruft" - it's local history. It's notable enough for the Enclyclopedia of Melbourne [15]. Cnwb 12:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This building is listed as a historic place and is important to the history of the area that it is in. Keep and expand. Movementarian 14:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per cnwb, and someone who knows about it can rewrite to explain its notability better. pfctdayelise 14:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for hisotrical signficance. --Rob 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Ambi and FCYTravis. --Daveb 15:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very important. We need more on fire stations and firefighting. -- JJay 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems more important than many fire station and hence is notable amongst fire stations. Evil Eye 01:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep heritage listed and not insignificant. -- Adz 05:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep fire stations are generally not notable, but this fire station is. Cedars 07:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important part of Melbourne history. Adriantame 14:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebekah Scogin[edit]

NN musician/director. Claims to be director of Ciambella Orchestra Internazionale. The subject gathers only a few hits, the orchestra just one. Decidedly non-notable. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Can You verify Rebekah's claims? -- Eddie 10:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you're saying, Eddie. Why would/How can Jeffrey (want to) verify an unverifiable claim? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non Notable local performer. Obina 14:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there was any mention of how much composition and where she's been 'played' might've helped me decide otherwise. --Alf melmac 22:47, 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 redirect. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm[edit]

Delete or Complete previous merge. Article was voted to merge for previous AfD, but the merge was never completed, after six months. This shows a lack of interest in the article and it should possibly be deleted, or the previous merge should be done. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, has been added to the Feynman article and is fair use. Gazpacho 11:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Gazpacho.Obina 14:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Richard Feynman. If the original vote was to merge, and the content is now included in the Feyman article, redirecting will finish the process. -Rholton 16:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Richard Feynman. It's been completely included there now. -Stefanf 16:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Bomber[edit]

An extremely minor kart that has only been shown in one game. Better belonged on Wikibooks or at the very least put on a List of Mario Kart karts or something like that Hbdragon88 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge NPOV material into Mario Kart DS and redirect and do the same to all of those karts by User:Xizer. - Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. Obina 14:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN + non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 15:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 20:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Egg 1[edit]

Another page about a minor kart that has only been in one game. Belongs on Wikibooks or in a much larger "list of" page Hbdragon88 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no concensus --Ichiro 20:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yamigo[edit]

Bartimaeus marked this for speedy deletion with reason "advertisement" which is not a CSD. While this is certainly an advertisement, I have not researched its notability and am posting on the basis of its marking for deletion otherwise and therefore give no vote atm. jnothman talk 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's advertising because it provides information on how to get it rather than what it does. Also it contains a lot of bad tone ("you" is generally not encyclopedic) and external links should not be embedded in the text. I'm not sure whether we should have a cleaned up version, so I won't vote. - Mgm|(talk) 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CanadianCaesar. —Locke Cole • t • c 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CanadianCaesar.Bartimaeus 13:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as per Richard Norton Jcuk 17:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This can obviously be improved. -- JJay 19:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CanadianCaesar. NeoJustin 17:13, January 2, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard MR[edit]

Another kart page. Minor kart. Belongs on Wikibooks or in a "List of" page Hbdragon88 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge NPOV material into Mario Kart DS and redirect and do the same to all of those karts by User:Xizer. - Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable.Obina 14:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN + non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 15:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (CSD A7). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Hall Schedule[edit]

Non-notable band -- (aeropagitica) UK 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, appears to be a tribute band. From official site without Alexa rank: The THS studio CD is finished and will be officially released soon! For information on how to obtain it, email Fred at <blanked>. or catch us at a gig. which tells me they aren't signed by a recognized label, nor are they sold by reputable stores. - Mgm|(talk) 14:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect; merge impractical. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poltergust 4000[edit]

Another minor kart page that belongs in a larger page or in a Wikibooks article Hbdragon88 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect. Better to combine these stub pages into one complete page about the game. -- Eddie 10:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge/redirect to WHERE? NSLE (T+C+CVU) 10:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You have Your answer below.  :) -- Eddie 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge NPOV material into Mario Kart DS and redirect and do the same to all of those karts by User:Xizer. - Mgm|(talk) 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN + non-encyclopaedic. --Daveb 15:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Cruft, non-notable. Redirects are cheap but redirecting from every item of every game would really be ridiculous. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pablo. Werdna648T/C\@ 07:21, 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 No consensus, between merge and delete. Merge it and its similar articles into Mario Kart DS if there is anything of value. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B Dasher[edit]

Another minor kart page that belongs in a larger page or in a Wikibooks article Hbdragon88 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (blatant copyright infringement). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for Healthcare eStandards[edit]

It's promotional material and much of the content seems to be ripped from this page. I don't see how this article can be considered encyclopedic.Reyk 10:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, very unencyclopedic form, nothing to be salvaged here, IMO. Pavel Vozenilek 11:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy, copyvio. --Thephotoman 14:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was (was a redirect when I looked at it). enochlau (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor Dale[edit]

Non-notable "emperor" of non-notable micro-nation. Likely A7, but claims questionable notability, --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Defer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and lesbian kingdom. I started merging there before the afd tag was placed. Gazpacho 11:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. CalJW 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with parent artilce should it survive AfD. If parent article is deleted then delete this as well. Movementarian 14:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Gay and lesbian kingdom if it survives, otherwise delete. Bkwillwm 00:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The mentioning in the article about the Gay and Lesbian Kingdom should suffice fully. The movement as such is relevant, whereas Dale Parker Anderson as a person is of no further interest; indeed his contribution to the theory and practice of queer nationalism can be neglected.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SheaBaseball[edit]

Non-notable fan website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The site does exist, however a Google search only shows 514 hits for the term "sheabaseball." I note also that someone attempted to avoid detection by not making Sheabaseball.com the title of the article, knowing it would be deleted, instead, they tried to name it to sound like a serious subject. If it is not a criteria for deletion, I think basic dishonesty in any manner weighs in my mind in favor of deletion. Further, the article is poorly written, and contains nothing notable. GestaltG 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I'm closing this one. For the record, this site's Alexa rank > 1,200,000.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (I don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poseur[edit]

This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. --Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this word is already on Wiktionary. Movementarian 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. dicdef at best. --Daveb 15:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A dicdef expanded with a load of POV. u p p l a n d 18:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. stupid article that would be impossible to copyedit or clean up due to the lack of any actual information. way too long and ridiculous for such a simple term. get rid of it. Jbenkato05 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In youth culture, posers are frequently talked about. It's not a high-brow subject but it's probably worthy of an article given what other articles Wikipedia keeps (e.g. high schools). Cedars 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We keep some crap therefore we should keep all crap, is a poor axiom to apply to the VFD process. And we don't need an encyclopedia of all topics talked about in youth culture, lest we become a glorified Urban Dictionary. --Tothebarricades 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the second point, Wikipedia does give a different spin to the topic compared to Urban Dictionary. On the first point, it's nevertheless the axiom I am choosing to use. To be honest, whether or not this article is deleted, I believe a Wikipedia article on posers will exist in a year's time. Cedars 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so as well. And I also think we should have one. But maybe it is best to start over. Punkmorten 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Cedars - it's encyclopedic. The article is quite repetitive at times though - this aspect could use improvement. --logixoul 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this term is a cultural phenom, not just a term. The article should be tagged with NPOV tag too and cleanedup. 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm with Tothebarricades. This article is absurd, and, beyond the initial definition, is not informative in the least. It is also incredibly poorly written, making it a chore to read. Maclaine Diemer 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A pain for the eye, and also looks like original research. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:50, 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. —Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sagar Sarkar[edit]

NN Musician fails WP:MUSIC google 'sagar sakar' +musician returns 10 hits MNewnham 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name is spelt wrong in the earlier check, it is sarkar google 'sagar sarkar'+ contraband returns several relevant hits. Further verification of sources on the article are also authentic. Google 'Packabelles' returns the band page and there is indeed a vrushali bokil in the band.

  • please check http://m.domaindlx.com/milinddate/Albums-Recordings%201.htm - Milind Date, the famous Indian flautist has recorded several albums on authorised labels, many of these are South Asian labels, but in all fairness would be very discriminatory not to consider. Sagar Sarkar and his band Contraband was the first musician Milind Date played with and even mentions this on the site. This fulfils Wikipedia criterion that the band should have at least one known artiste who has officially released recordings on known labels. In India Sagar Sarkar is well known as a pioneer of the Pune Blues scene. (that was User:Mifern NickelShoe 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • I suggest renaming this page to contraband (band), with a much more prominent link to Milind Date (who clearly does have a verifiable discography and easily qualifies for his own wikipedia article, and appears to be the only qualifier for a contraband entry), and if necessary, adding Sagar Sarkar as a redirect. The assertion that Sagar Sarkar is known as the 'Father of Indian Blues' appears totally unverifible (0 google hits) , and the single reference to Pune Blues in the context of a musical style appears on the band's site, pretty much making it a neologism. with that, I'll change my opinion to very weak keep MNewnham 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Ichiro 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3DXML[edit]

Article on proprietary XML-based language definition which reads like a press release to the company which proposed it Mecanismo | Talk 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special delete. By this I mean keep the page, but delete all this advertising content.I struggle to call this Keep. Obina 14:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What Obina said. Keep but rewrite. I only hope no one asks me to do the improving. GRuban 19:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, copyedit to change the advert tone-- Marvin147 04:00, 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 no concensus --Ichiro 08:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Adventure[edit]

Using google I have been unable to verify if this comic actaully appears in the Weekly World News - someone in the US could probably verify it more easily. The page has been speedied several times as nonsense. I also don't think that a comic that appears in a spoof newspaper is necessarily encyclopedic - all edits that aren't from the original contributor are fixing disambigs.--nixie 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep but clean-up. The character is legitimate though I don't recall if it's actually a comic strip. I thought it was a photo feature. Characters like Bat Boy from the WWN get their own articles, so Miss Adventure I guess deserves one, too. 23skidoo 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As 23skiddo already said, Miss Adventure is a legitimate character, but is not a comic strip. More of a fictional story that is continued each week. The article was previously deleted, but brought back for the reason of characters like Bat Boy getting their own articles. DaemonDivinus 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't why one justifies the other, the content of the article is unencyclopedic.--nixie 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. (It appears to be 4 deletes to no keeps). Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LE3 Multimedia[edit]

Little to no hits for this company on Google. Doesn't look notable at all. --Spring Rubber 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

I have the explanation for this vandalism, a user of the following board called "Orcus" (the Chris Mark Johnson character referred to) http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=77704

An idiot who feels that he can create a work of blatant self promotion, or simply for the gas of it, and call it an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages and nor does it offer itself as a free "company" promotion site I'm afraid. --Ariogasius 22:57, 20 December 2005(UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable company. Obina 13:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No claim of or evidence of notability. Tom Harrison Talk 14:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Softroute[edit]

Advertising for NN Corp MNewnham 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Finding some news coverage on this company as VOIP player that has issued a challenge to Skype [16]. -- JJay 23:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per below. Everyone knows Skype is unchallengeable. -- JJay 04:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. VOIP is something I've researched, and I've never heard of these blokes. Non-notable. Begone with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomlillis (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 merge and redirect; merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stay-Put Socks[edit]

One-time cartoon joke

  • Delete. Gazpacho 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with something linked to Ren & Stimpy. -- JJay 23:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Ren and Stimpy.Gateman1997 00:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obviously non-notable. --Tothebarricades 11:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Black Hole/Stimpy's Invention, the article on the episode in which these socks appeared. --Stormie 12:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This information on this page can be merged in to the Black Hole/Stimpy's Invention page with no loss. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Merge so non notable I would not even bother with redirect, but whatever.Obina 13:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. nn. --Daveb 15:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's a two-time joke. It's mentioned in the Crock O'Christmas album. Interesting info and potentially useful, but I can't see this growing into an article. Not enough of that interesting info to go around. Merge and redirect per Stormie and Aeropagitica. - Lucky 6.9 07:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete per Obina Werdna648T/C\@ 07:23, 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 keep --Ichiro 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Cardine[edit]

Article on very obscure steel guitar player. Isn't listed in allmusic guide and google test lists 279 hits. Non-notable musician and completely lacking encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as player with the Biscuit Burners, important bluegrass band, cds released and rated one of the best in 2004 by Chicago tribune. -- JJay 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Hmmm, The Biscuit Burners seem to merit an article but don't yet have one. This guy has done one solo album (which, judging by the songs on the Biscuit Burners website, is pretty darn good) but I don't think he's got enough notability on his own account. If the band had an article I'd say merge but they don't. --Spondoolicks 22:12, 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] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment doesn't being in a notable band automatically make you notable enough for an article? Jcuk 17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, does it? Well in that case it will be a keep from me. --Spondoolicks 17:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frenulum piercing[edit]

I'm moving this page be deleted for two reasons. 1) The information in this article is already at the appropriately named page frenum piercing and 2)There are several different frenulums in the human body which are pierced, making the name of this article misleading. Glowimperial 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The frenum piercing page appears to be more comprehensive. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Redirect. Obina 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move the frenum article here. More correct anatominall to use the term "frenulum" per Gray's Anatomy. Jtmichcock 18:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per (aeropagitica). Article is now superfluous. - Liontamer 21:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Aeropagitica. Werdna648T/C\@ 07:25, 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 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario References[edit]

The information on this page is duplicated at Mario. There is no real reason to even keep it as a redirect. JDoorjam 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep It may be duplicated, but in Mario all the appearances are embedded in the text. You'd have to do a lot of reading to get the same information as you can get from the list. If kept, probably should be moved List of Mario appearances. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the bottom of Mario is a concise table with all this information (in a better format, IMHO). JDoorjam 13:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do you mean the template {{mario series}}? Those are the games in the Mario Series, not all the games in which Mario has made an appearance. howcheng {chat} 22:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 11:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with rename, as suggested by Howcheng. It also needs to be linked prominently in Mario. ×Meegs 13:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of games with Mario and Delete. There are three lists now: this one of Mario cameos, List of Mario games of games starring Mario, and List of games with Mario which seems to be the union of the two. I did a couple of checks, and it seems like all or most of the cameos are already there. Since this is already here on AFD, I suggest deleting rather than redirecting since the title is pretty useless and it has no incoming links ×Meegs 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete are incompatible. If merge, we must redirect. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Denplan City Ground[edit]

A soccer field with 180 seats.

  • Delete, not significant. Gazpacho 12:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Winchester (is it in Winchester itself?) or Winchester City F.C. --Stormie 12:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This information can easily sit on the club's page. The stadium isn't notable enough to warrant its own page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Can merge information into club page as above prior to delete. --Daveb 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Roosevelt: A Biography[edit]

Not only is this 'article' quite badly written, but it also seems to be pointless to have a separate biography of a person, when they already have a (quite sizable) page to themself Eleanor Roosevelt. My gut feeling would be to salvage any relevant points from this which aren't already on the above article, merge them with it and then delete this one. I just thought I'd throw it open for discussion. Dan 13:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Repetitive entry per nom. No new content that I can see, BTW. Obina 13:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't check every detail, but I don't think there's anything to merge to Eleanor Roosevelt. ×Meegs 13:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me being too lazy, and uninterested, to read "Eleanor Roosevelt" in full. Dan 13:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francesca Newton[edit]

Promotion of a non-notable child singer. Vanity page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN artist, might be notable in the future, but not at this time. Bjelleklang - talk 13:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 13:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, using both "Fran Newton" "Hollywood Star" and "Francesca Newton" "Hollywood Star" on Google yielded no results. Not verifiable, though I have no objections once it can be verified. - Mgm|(talk) 14:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Harper (Character)[edit]

The one-sentence note on My_Family_(television) is enough for this character. -- (aeropagitica) UK 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • needs tidying but if Jim Hacker can have an entry why not this guy. Keep and tidy Jcuk 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article has potential and the character is from one of the few major British TV comedies still in production. Evil Eye 01:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Boland (author)[edit]

Unencyclopedic. Apparently somebody has mixed up a politician and an author with the same name. Valentinian 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 08:44, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gap State High School[edit]

This article is sadly someone showing off about maths comps from eons ago. It is vanity without the name. Dankru 14:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I removed the maths competition bit and added the Austrailia Schools stub template. It is very barebones, but am sure that it could be expanded. Movementarian 14:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ambi 15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please don't nominate any more high schools as they are not deleted. CalJW 16:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. AfD is not cleanup. The article will be rapidly improved now, but the nom is a waste of time. -- JJay 17:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, remaining stub just meets WP:SCH.Gateman1997 20:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for meeting WP:SCH requirements. Also, seems to have enough info available for further expansion. --Rob 20:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Longhair 01:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- All right, I accept the logic of not deleting and the content has been dramatically changed. At least the nomination got things changed (and CalJW, thanks for the tip) Dankru 11:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A lack of content should merit an {{expand}}, not an AfD nomination. Regardless, WP:SCH argues for the keeping of high schools, regardless of notability and vanity arguments.
  • Keep - meets WP:SCH requirements. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golden age hip hop[edit]

This can be mentioned in Hip hop culture instead. -- (aeropagitica) UK 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following on aeorpagitica's user page: 

lemme explain why this deserves an article:
1.Allmusic.com recognizes golden age as a genre 
2.Old school hip hop has its own page. 
3.There is plenty to talk about, of encyclopedic significance. 
Please remove the suggestion for deletion, or if you disagree, discuss this with me. Thanks! --  
Urthogie 14:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons, I suggest a speedy keep decision for this article.--Urthogie 14:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is already mentioned in Hip_hop_music#History, and there is no content that justifies a separate article right now. Hence, redirect. Karol 15:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it has no such content is I just started it! And by the way, the mention of it in hip hop music was thanks to my edit.--Urthogie 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, please add something meaningfull and I may be inclined to change my vote. Karol 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- not worth a seperate article. Reyk 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- can easily be covered at main hip hop music article. --Jamieli 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

I will prove its value as a seperate article. May I request a one week period of expansion before any action is taken as far as its removal? We can continue voting and deciding after that period.--Urthogie 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Based on the contents of the article as I have reviewed it today, I suggest that this article is now retained rather than deleted. The author has put work in to the contents and acknowledged that more work is to be done in order to make the page a useful resource for research and reference. -- (aeropagitica)  17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this vfd[edit]

I am removing this vfd from the page, as the creator has chosen to keep the article now that I have made edits. A new vfd may be placed if you feel that this does not deserve an article.--Urthogie 17:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good now. Karol 22:21, 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 Deleted before it could be listed here. Cobra 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arsim[edit]

Dictdef, neologism, and possibly hoax. Karol 15:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was deleted while I was listing it. 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Swartz[edit]

Vanity article about a relative unknown Maxplank 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known in the area of web standards (RSS, RDF). Only 140 unique google hits out of 499,000 total, but I take this as indicative of highly focused activity rather than non-notability. Notable for his work on the RSS 1.0 spec if nothing else. Has written an op-ed for the New York Times, spoken at conferences, etc. The article could use some expansion. rodii 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a kid who spams around the web his own name. The article was created by himself, and if you go visit his homepage he writes "he even appears on Wikipedia". WTF!!! He is a relative unknown, and it's all about vanity. He is just YET ANOTHER loser. 1:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.71.106.95 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, although it could stand to be rounded out and unfortunately does read like a vanity page right now. But he's mentioned several times in the RSS article alone. Totally Noteable. -- Vary | Talk 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've toned down the prose a bit. Better? -- Vary | Talk 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Better, although 83.71.106.95 up there added some condescending stuff that should have been taken out (which I did). I have no involvement with Aaron, never met him or corresponded with him, but I know his work. The comments above and the defacing of the article smell bad to me. The actual edits of the article by Aaron Swartz look pretty minimal to me, unless someone knows that anon 69.181.82.221 is him (not impossible). rodii 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did not create the article. I believe it was created by Andrew Morrow, who I'd never heard of until he sent me an email saying he'd created a page about me on Wikipedia. He said he created it because I was referred to in a number of other articles on Wikipedia. (There are 4 backlinks: RSS (file format), Paul Graham, Low-power, and Markdown.) And if it's bad form to link to one's wikipedia page from one's website, let me know and I'll take the link down. AaronSw 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The backlinks are very convincing. I've always thought the point of having notability criteria is to avoid cruft and keep only useful material...not to argue about if someone is "famous". Is Swartz notable enough? The answer to that should be related to, are the links to the page currently serving a purpose? I think "yes". --C S (Talk) 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm a knowledge management research scientist and I've heard of him and his work. (In fact, I'm referencing one of his publications in a paper I'm writing today.) Not sure if that means the average Joe would also be interested in him, but it does show that there is at least some audience for this article. —Psychonaut 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blackwhork[edit]

It's a term used by players of Battlefield 2 to refer to other players who use the helicopter to get points. CDN99 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not encyclopedic. Agnte 18:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Battlefield2. Stifle 00:12, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What would someone merge?--CDN99 03:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, gamecruft. — JIP | Talk 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- no merge. There is nothing worthwhile to merge. Gamecruft. Reyk 22:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:18, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Paul 22:40, 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 keep. – Sceptre (Talk) 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foil (band)[edit]

Smells Like Band Vanity. → Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - User:Superswade added this page because there were several references to the band FOIL already in the Wikipedia under the Tad and Willard (band) sections so I thought I would elaborate. I was planning on adding more info / other sections on lesser-known Seattle grunge bands in the future (of which I am somewhat of an expert). Bands like, The Derelicts, Coffin Break, Daddy Hate Box, Yeast, Resonator etc.) I guess if they are just going to get deleted I won't bother, since it would be a waste of time... I guess google is a better place to find detailed information that is wikipedia??? I was under the impression that detailed information was the goal of the wikipedia... I await your censure and rebuke. 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep has a member from a notable band Steve Wied. But he doesn't have an article :(. Cobra 19:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Jinian 19:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Stefani discography[edit]

Gwen Stefani only has one album, and currently has no plans to release other solo albums. Love.Angel.Music.Baby already has its own page, so this is overkill. Unless this article is cleaned up, and expanded to include more information, (work with No Doubt, guest appearances with Eve, Moby, Sublime, etc.,) then this page isn't needed. Josh 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletions. -- Rob 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to be mainly information duplicated from elsewhere. Flowerparty■ 17:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, can be cleaned up and expanded to include more information, per nom. Kappa 18:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge into Gwen Stefani mmm. sounds like fun Grutness...wha? 00:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above. It's too soon for a separate discography article. Can easily be accommodated in the main piece until she has more solo work under her belt. 23skidoo 15:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing to merge. all info is already in album and biography. -- Perfecto 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A ONE album discography? Oy. --Calton | Talk 07:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Gwen Stefani and I believe she has 2 albums, the other one is Maximum Gwen Stefani.--Dakota ~ ε 20:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If a discography article is created, it's usually because the discography is too long for the band/artist page, and will take up too much space there. Gwen Stefani only has basically 1 album, and a few singles from that album, but it's not an amount of information that is too large to simply put on her page. --G VOLTT 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small enough to live in the Gwen Stefani article anyway Werdna648T/C\@ 07:34, 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. — JIP | Talk 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Siemer[edit]

Delete. The only notability this person has is as editor of Quest Magazine, and the material also seems to be a vanity page. There is nothing notable about either the individual or the magazine. MSJapan 10:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- Rob 16:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, notability not established. Its main editor also claims it now to be a copvio as well. Phaedriel 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Grye 20:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author of article I am a newbie. I also created about seven articles, including one for another magazine, not at all connected with Quest. Five came directly from Quest Magazine. I created the articles with the understanding that Wikipedia policed them somewhat. I have been polite with the exception of one remark I made to user Grye who has been nothing but rude and a vandal by removing the source from the List of Masonic organizations (an article from Quest). The people I know at Quest want their articles removed because of the conduct of Wikipedians like Grye that goes unchecked.
    • Comment: Well, commercially published material can't go on Wikipedia. It's copyvio, or in this case, a vanity article. MSJapan 02:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nothing to merge; redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of software for accessing open files[edit]

Useless list with nothing but external links Hirudo 08:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim scholars[edit]

No entries in this page of any substance CltFn 18:27, 31 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawa Creek B-5[edit]

I think this is speediable, but I'm bringing it here for the entertainment value. Extremely complete entry describing a perfectly ordinary (and non-notable) apartment, its perfectly ordinary (and non-notable) undergrad residents, and their lifestyle. Nicely done, but in no way encyclopedic. Nominator votes BJAODN and delete. bikeable (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable hoax page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete I am frequently asked by fellow classmates to give tours of the apartment for possible place to live (they literally ask if they can come over and "check the place out"), and i thought this would be an easier way for them get to know the apartment without having to give tours all the time. This is not advertising in anyway, as i would be doing a favor for my fellow classmates by making this. Also wanted to make my first Wikipedia Article. Besides its obviously not taking up too much space and besides being reffered to the page by me, it will remain unknown to the average Wikipedia User. I know it probably goes against Wikipedia code, but this remaining on here would be a great referance for me to use. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, and this is verifiable useful information that many people will find useful. Please Do not Delete, its not hurting anything. Chrisboven 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As soon as you find yourself using the "But it's not taking up too much space!" and "It's not hurting anything!" arguments, you know that you are arguing the case for mis-using Wikipedia as a free wiki host. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. It is an encyclopaedia. If you want to advertise your apartment to potential occupants the place to do so is on your own web site. If you want some ideas for your first encyclopaedia article, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Uncle G 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chrisboven, I removed all the unverifiable info (aka everything beyond existence). As said, we can't advertise an apartment for you. I suggest you put "{{db|mistakenly created}}" at the top of the article, and we'll avoid a pointless 5-day debate here. You're very welcome to edit other articles in Wikipedia, but you won't be able to add any unverfiable information to any article (not even this one, not even for the few days it has left). --Rob 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I restored Rob's vote, which had been deleted by 67.162.196.106, who also made the unsigned vote below. 67.162.196.106, please do not alter other people's votes; it is considered WP:Vandalism. bikeable (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't Delete the article yet, it has not been settled Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.196.106 (talk • contribs)
          • I only removed the unverifiable part. Feel free to add back anything where you can cite a reliable source. --Rob 21:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob, i hope you also plan on deleting the thousands of sections on articles without citings here in WIkipedia, not just this one Chrisboven 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would love to remove thousands of uncited sections from thousands of articles. However, time constraints and popular opinion prevent me from doing that. Instead, whenever I find something with no sources *and* it's not possible to ever find any sources, and it's therefore *inherently* unverifiable, then yes, I do remove the section. I have removed a *lot* of sections, from a lot of articles. Occasionally, those sections are added back when sources are found, but usually they stay gone. --Rob 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete All the information is true and useful :— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.196.106 (talk • contribs)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for obvious triviality and unverifiability. Perhaps userify some of it. --Rob 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • BJAODN :) Reductio ad absurdum of Wikipedia's level of detail. Gave me a good chuckle - please preserve this somewhere. - Haukur 17:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also tells us the name of the chair in the apartment's living area.

    There is no speedy deletion criterion that covers this article. However, as the nominator explains, and as the article's author indeed confirms, this article is original research and unverifiable. It is a novel description of a place, created by a Wikipedia editor directly in Wikipedia from firsthand knowledge that readers do not have access to from any sources (let alone reliable ones) outside of Wikipedia. It is also an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a free wiki host. Delete. Uncle G 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Reyk 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this is not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Skeezix1000 13:22, 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. Jinian 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panic leave[edit]

Original research, unverifiable, Zero google hits on subject MNewnham 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with panic attack, with a request to cite sources. --Thephotoman 04:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Thephotoman. Stifle 23:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, neologism. -- JJay 23:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Magazine[edit]

Delete. This is a non-notable online magazine, with less than 10 relevant Google hits and no reputable citations that are not self-referential. MSJapan 10:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Its main editor also claims it now to be a copvio as well. Phaedriel 18:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uninformed, misinforming, insignificant, prob self-promoting. Quest Magazine's presence on Wikipedia is malformed. . Grye 20:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author of article I am a newbie. I also created about seven articles, including one for another magazine, not at all connected with Quest. Five came directly from Quest Magazine. I created the articles with the understanding that Wikipedia policed them somewhat. I have been polite with the exception of one remark I made to user Grye who has been nothing but rude and a vandal by removing the source from the List of Masonic organizations (an article from Quest). The people I know at Quest want their articles removed because of the conduct of Wikipedians like Grye that goes unchecked. -Edit by User:Wandering Writer, notation of which by Grye
    Is that a vote? For? Against?!? -OK to delete mine with the edit above. Grye 19:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. No useful information (only 1 line of content). --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney University Judo Club[edit]

  • Delete -- Longhair 14:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--cj | talk 14:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One of over 250 clubs and societies at USyd [17]; this one isn't prticularly notable. --Daveb 14:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article doesn't demonstrate notability. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge the fact it exists with USyd, then Delete Jcuk 22:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Roisterer 10:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is premature to call it non-notable, as the article does assert notability (the oldest in Aus). Also, non-notable clubs are now speedy candidates: Template:Db-club. So what's really wrong with this article, its severe stubbiness aside? -- Verifiability. pfctdayelise 11:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:21, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge then possible redirect. 58.84.72.163 11:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) me actually[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zahareh[edit]

Zahareh appears to be either non-existent or an implausible misspelling of Zavareh. I can find no town called Zahareh within 120 km of Isfahan on the multimap.com map of Iran. Google suggests it doesn't exist: [18] (compare Zavareh: [19]). --Muchness 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unverifiable with the information in the article. I can't find mentions of a town called "Zahareh" anywhere. And Zavareh is indeed around 120km from Isfahan (the city). Redirect if someone thinks it's needed. - Bobet 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typenex - Transfusion Safety Wristbands[edit]

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violation from [20], yet in its latest version the article asserts there is permission to publish the text here. So it goes to AfD.

  • This is a blatant advertisement, and there is really no need to have an entry on a specific brand of transfusion-related equipment. Wikipedia isn't an advertising medium for Baxter Healthcare. Pilatus 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Clean (if possible, see below) The page seems to contain enough generally useful information that it could be salvaged as an article, if the specific references to the "Typenex-Transfusion Safety Wristbands" is removed. Once those are removed, what remains is an article on a notable subject, which is blood tansfusion errors. The page should then be renamed to remove the brand reference, renamed to something like "Blood Transfusion Safety Systems" or "Blood Transfusion Errors" Now as to the copyright issue, that's another story, because we have no way of knowing if such permission was given. Salvaging the article then would require figuring out how much of the text is copied. If that cannot be done, then I am afraid it would have to be deleted and replaced. GestaltG 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of it is copied. Note that the release notice says "republished with the permission of Typenex Medical L.L.C.", not "Released under GFDL". Pilatus 18:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertisement (the simple solution). Anville 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Anyone can go to the relevant sources and write an article on blood transfusion safety. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 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. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champagne fashion brunch[edit]

Doesn't appear to be reference material. -- (aeropagitica) UK 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It looks like an attempt to advertise something. --Metropolitan90 06:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn advert ("registered trademark") with not enough background information to expand. --Interiot 10:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best a dictionary definition, or more probably an advert. Narrow scope, with constricted opportunity to expand or make encyclopedic. Sliggy 10:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:04, 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. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Schonewille[edit]

This article is nominated for the sake of completeness. A number of related articles have already been deleted (see AfDs for Support Local Trade, Adam Hayes, Martin Hudson, and Leon armstrong). I abstain on this nomination. Mindmatrix 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the people of St Helens not liking his pies make him particularly notable? I don't think so. Article waffles far too much as well. Delete. Average Earthman 13:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Earthman Werdna648T/C\@ 07:47, 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rent a crowd[edit]

This term was not invented in Australia in has existed for decades. Factually incorrect article. -- (aeropagitica) UK 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • So how come getting an administrator to delete the article entirely is the only course of action available? Has someone padlocked the toolbox? ☺ Uncle G 16:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is about 'a group of mates who endulges in drinking'. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleteas per nom Jcuk 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article as it currently stands per Squiddy. If the article is revised to discuss what "rent a crowd" normally means, I will reconsider my vote. --Metropolitan90 21:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what a pointless article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.234.60 (talk • contribs) 23:28 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. NeoJustin 17:26, January 2, 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete load of drivel. --LesleyW 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obesanes[edit]

Non-valid information, unproven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwhick (talk • contribs)

  • Delete hoax. Zero google hits, not found on any map. David | Talk 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain - check. --Blackwhick 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please make the effort to check for yourself. Uncle G 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax - 0 googles. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncertain, don't delete - may not be hoax. --Blackwhickham 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have already given us your opinion under your other user name, above, and in the nomination. Uncle G 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax (no Googles, doesn't appear on maps) or at least unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether or not it's a hoax or if the place really exists, the article should be deleted because it's only one sentence. As B.Wind said recently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfly Caught page, "One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make." From one sentence, we cannot determine the notability of the place, or the truthfulness or accuracy of any statements. If the writer cannot bother to write more than one sentence, or doesn't have enough knowledge or material to write more than one sentence, it should be deleted. For reference, pick up any bound encyclopedia and look at the entry for any major city near you. GestaltG 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • With respect to you and B.Wind, a tiny village and a major city are hardly the same thing, and similarly Wikipedia and a bound encyclopedia are hardly the same thing. In the former case, a village will almost always have a tiny article compared to a major city; in the latter, bound encyclopedias only ever contain finished articles - Wikipedia always only contains articles in progress. As such, a one sentence stub may be the start of a future featured article and - as long as it contains some information (like a village's location) - should not automatically be considered for deletion on its size alone. In this particular case, however, neither Google nor Ordnance Survey have ever heard of Obesanes, so let's all be sane and delete it. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not quite what I meant. Even in bound encylopedia entries for what one might consider obscure towns that almost no one has ever heard of, there is generally some standard information that is missing here. I was concentrating on the lack of information, such as approximate population, local industry, local places of note, form of government and so forth, usually found in material that is considered "encyclopedic." Your point about bound encylopedias vs Wikipedia is well taken, however, I have written article stubs and when I have done so, it has at least been one paragraph, and more than one sentence. So, I think size does have to do with it, again, I would say that one sentence doesn't even make a stub, and one sentence weighs heavily in my mind against keeping the "article." GestaltG 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, completely unverifiable, likely hoax. - Phaedriel 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete following Grutness. While a verifiable one-sentence stub should be allowed to survive and grow, this one seems to be a hoax: e.g. there is no Obesanes in the index of the AA Great Britain Road Atlas for 1978, and Morpeth is 14 miles from Newcastle-on-Tyne so a "village" can't be "close" to both of them. -- JimR 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - probable creation by User:Obesanes - only logical conclusion I can come to. --Sunfazer 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod[edit]

No Google hits, except in Wikipedia mirrors, looks like a hoax. Pilatus 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - definite hoax (I checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to be sure). The giveaway, apart from the lack of verification, is the joke definition for the Douglas Pouch, which is something else entirely (see Pouch of Douglas and Google). Associated articles with references to Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod inserted from the same IP addresses (i.e. MacLeod and Nicholas McLeod) have been fact-checked since the AfD first went up. Tearlach 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:26, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwidezation[edit]

Neologism. Zero results from Google search. Spondoolicks 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:26, 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 Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kitmouse_Nadorian[edit]

non-notable person Ttwaring 17:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin[edit]

Delete, not notable enough. The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion. He was never on TV, he only worked on projects that never aired. The notability of that title "International Magician of the Year" is heavily questioned: The award organisaton seems to not even have a website, and a search for the title leads to only 123 hits ([21]). So when one removes all that promotional hoopla, his notability has to be rated on this bottom line: Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the City of London. I strongly believe that those elements don't suffice that an individual be included in the wikipedia. Additionaly, the article sounds very much like blunt euphoric advertising, written by the person himself to jumpstart his career and business by taking advantage of the popularity of the wikipedia project. To any admin deciding the vote: I'd like to order a full sockpuppet and meatpuppet check on all people that have voted here, with an article of such a bad quality, all those "keep" votes cannot possible be the thruthful opinion of the well-educated general wikipedia public. Please do a IP-Address-Location&Provider-check, not just a "numbers of good edits" check which could be faked by a determined person. Thank you. Peter S. Several edits between 17:12, 1 January 2006 and 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • By puppets, I didn't mean you, Ragib. And yeah, I edit my own talk, the proper way would have been to have multiple signs at the end (since some of my old stuff stayed), but thought that multiple signs only added even more "noise". Peter S. 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not at all normal to do an IP check over an AfD unless there is substantial evidence of sockpuppetry -- more than just votes that favor what some think is a poor article. many of the keep voters have long contribution histories, have made hundreds or thosands of edits, on many different subjects. I don't see any plausibel evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, overall. Of couse legit editoes can have unwise opnions for a time, and IMO User:Peter S's substantive points should be substantively answered, but arging about socks is not the way to prevail in this debate, I think. DES (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (considering all those "keep" votes): Whoa whoa whoa people.... I think you need to slow down and take a look at this before you vote... The article as written makes it seem like he is notable, but it's written like a brochure for self-promotional purposes. For example, the extensive quote cited to Inside Magic is deceptive, as that quote was printed in Inside Magic, but it was quoting a student newspaper ("The Oxford Student has an incredibly positive piece about a young magician") -- the most important bit from that piece is that the editor of Inside Magic calls aladin "a magician I have never heard about." Furhtermore, he questions the student newspaper's claim that he left some society because it wouldn;t admit women as he knows a number of women in the society. This looks like a majorly deceptive bit of advertising by someone trying to give himself credential he doesn;t have. DON'T JUST VOTE KEEP claiming that he's notable without EVIDENCE that he is notable. He fails the Google test, and quite badly. The writer of this article created deceptive references, and sockpuppets have already been suggested. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well said, DreamGuy, thanks. Other misleading credentials include the link "NBC Today Show featuring aladin's Book of Cool", but "aladin" was never mentioned on the Today Show, just this book with 25+ different people in it. And it's not *his* book, he's just one of those 25 people. Peter S. 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:The dude was International Magician of The year 1991 [22]/ Yes, the article needs cleaning up and yes it needs to be made neutral but the magician is notable. Englishrose 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was he? Prove it? That source quotes some school newspaper as having made the claim, but we have no idea whether it's accurate or not. The source you list never heard of the guy, so you can;t take second or third hand information as if it were real. DreamGuy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. However the article is very much POV, so I'm going to tag it as such. -- MisterHand 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's first edit was on 30 december 2005 DES (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Speedy Keep Very notable magician. In fact he is a former International Magician of the Year. Englishrose 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Englishrose, the organisation behind "International Magician of The year" doesn't even have a website, how notable can this award be? There are thousands of such smallish awards with grandiose names. Bottom line is, Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the London gov, so I really really can't see how he's notable. Peter S. 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep as above. v notable and verrifiable. shoked to see this up for dele Tiksustoo 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's firat article edit, on 17 Oct 2005 was to this article. DES (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) However, this user has since edited a significant range of articeles. DES (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment After reading the aladin talk page I am very confused. Talk:Aladin Peter S. has been aware of this article since the 3 October 2005. He has disputed the POV of the article but never its notablity and has been trying to organise (and made)improvements to the article. Just seems strange. Englishrose 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but I never edited it, cause the article always looked "fake" to me. I though I stayed on the sideline and view what happens to the article, but it still looks like a huge self-promo-thing to me :-/ Peter S. 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. I echo the comments above. Very noteworthy and VERY well substantiated. In fact the article is possibly one of the most heavily annotated in List of magicians and so interesting that I have been itching to add to it as it needs to include his 'other lives' in greater detail - all of the latter easy to find through search engines and other websites. Might well be a candidate for starred article? And I must agree with EnglishRose - Peter S seems to be pursuing aladin for a reason which one cannot fathom. Very strange.Autumnleaf 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's keep it on the level of arguments, ok? I outlined my issues, if something is "strange", then it's "strange" to get personal for no reason, Autumn. Peter S. 03:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: Notable and verifiable. --Ragib 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Autumnleaf asked me to look at the article and the deletion entry -- even as a complete outsider to magic and the entertainment biz, I'm impressed by the guy's vita. However, the article needs to be toned down and put into perspective. Right now it sounds like he's the Second Coming of Houdini. Zora 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. notable and verifiable, even for an outsider like me. It's high on fancruft & pov, but that could be fixed. --Pamri • Talk 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Notable and verifiable. This is one of the better magic related articles. Grroin 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. What has already been said above, and I think it needs to be cleaned up to fit the standards of Wikipedia. --nihon 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Bonaparte talk 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete is my not for now... see my comment above... the credential appear to be forged, Inside MAgic never heard of him, claims of being on National Geographic, etc., unconfirmed. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A little google reveals [23], a National Geographic website that refers to aladin as a magician and management consultant. They may be taking him at face value. He certainly seems to be devoted to self-puffery. All the same, I should think that that any major falsification would have ruled out that particular TV show. NG has been caught in bad fact-checking in the past (the Chinese fossil that turned out to be faked) but they come clean about it and they aren't generally known for being a dodgy source. Zora 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Zora, that's a program about refugees, he was portrayed as a refugee. The article claims "He performs from bombay to las vegas and has appeared on National Geographic", which is clearly a misleading statement. As I said before, once you cut through all the promo language, you end up with a boring person that doesn't warrant an entry in the wikipedia. Peter S. 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • We've got articles about people even less notable. Better to turn your energies to deflating the article. You've alerted enough people to the hype that I'm sure it will be toned down. Zora 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Zora, he's roughly as notable as somebody that works at a bank and plays the harmonica in clubs at weekends. Do you really want to have every human at this level included in an encyclopedia, between Einstein and Churchill, just because he likes to spin such half-thruths? Peter S. 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments at Talk:List of magicians. This is one the many Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic artcles that should never have been written. -- Krash 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would instead vote to delete the Quotations about aladin if we had an Sfd! Neither Einstein nor the Alladin tale itself gets that luxury in an encyclopedia. It's simply called a vanity section! It gives a bad balance to any article mixing jokes w/ facts, peotry and magic. Please get rid of that stuff unless it is really relevent. Cheers -- Szvest 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
    • Hi Szvest, we tried deleting it before, but it's always added back: [24]. Believe me, editing the article won't change anything, and since he really isn't notable, it's of no use anyway. If you'd like to dig deeper and change your mind later, you're of course always allowed and welcomed to do so. Cheers, Peter S. 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the note Peter. I noticed that and I commented above my opinion re the issue but that is never releted to the Afd. I see the vote below as paradoxial; deleting an article because of a section and then rewrite it?!. And yes, I understand that the main reason behind the deletion is that you don't agree about the guy notability. Personally, true, never heard about him and thought that it was about deleting Alladin. I've read the article and the guy is definetly notable. Cheers -- Szvest 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Delete, but at the very least, remove the Quotations about aladin. What is this, the yellow pages? The whole article could be rewritten to three paragraphs once the POV and publicity brochure info is removed. Dyslexic agnostic 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I just rewrote it. Three paragraphs is just about right. I dunno how long that version will stand, but I do hope that other editors won't add anything back unless there's a reliable source for it -- not just claims BY aladin. Zora 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep hey a magician! --Snakes 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't see what the problem is here. The guy is a cultural adviser to Red Ken and got a huge profile in the Times in 1998, which I just read. Obviously deserves an article, but I don't understand why some editors just butchered what was there. -- JJay 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was the butcher. Link the Times article then, and we'll see what's notable. Look, you can't just say that what was there was FINE when many of the people saying KEEP were also saying that the article was over the top. Zora 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I don't know if the article is online, I get this from pay databases (in this case Newsbank). The reference has been added- It was a 3 page feature profile in the Times magazine. The article mentions all the awards that we had in the Aladin article that have been removed. Moreover, I can say what I want about the article, considering it's my opinion. I don't know how you voted and have no plans to check. -- JJay 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has distinct verifiability problems, not least because most, possibly all, of Aladin's self-publicity seems to be either exaggeration or outright fiction. Last year we had Alkhemi (AfD discussion), which was as far as could be determined a fictional company created by this person, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted, and for which no independent evidence of existence could be found. (It's possible that it is a one-man consultancy company that exists solely on paper, for tax purposes.) But that is far from the only apparent work of fiction in this person's publicity, it transpires.

    Mentioned above is the fact that Inside Magic is using The Oxford Student as its source for an article on "a magician I have never heard about". However, it seems that the only source for that article is Aladin himself. On Aladin's web site we have a quote from the article, describing it as a "3-page feature", published on 2004-02-19 by Tamara Cohen. However, going to the archives for that issue of The Oxford Student (Volume 37 issue 6) I find no such article.

    True, Aladin was a "subject of a documentary on National Geographic". But that was as a refugee, not as a magician. True, there is a Book of Cool (It's actually a set of DVDs.). But it isn't by Aladin. True, Aladin was a "government adviser". He was the vice-chairman of the Mayor of London's Cultural Strategy Group. And the article in the Times is inaccessible without a subscription fee, but given that it begins "Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals." and is an interview with this person I am highly skeptical of its accuracy.

    The key to notability here is being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources (e.g. magazine feature articles, books, and so forth). But upon investigation the whole thing turns out to be either built on sand or unverifiable. The Inside Magic article cites as its source an article in The Oxford Student that doesn't exist. I am unable to verify the purported 1999 coverage in The Hindustan Times, because its archive doesn't go back that far. The only person who appears to have even heard of the "Golden Turban Award from the Magic Academy of Bangalore" (or, indeed, the Magic Academy of Bangalore itself) is Aladin himself. The Daily Star archives don't go back to 1999, either.

    Strip away everything about this person that isn't verifiable, and one is left with someone who only satisfies the WP:BIO criteria because of the National Geographic documentary. Weak Keep. Uncle G 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Strong Keep Aloodum 09:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep. I note from the edit histories on this page that some contributors are active on 'south asian' pages. As a non-south asian I do wonder whether aladin is trapped in the wrong section; he is arguably a 'very' notable personage of Indian and Bangladeshi origins, partly based in the West, who is notable as an artist, magician, strategist and public official.  freedom Annawright 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The image on this page has no licensing information. I would assume that if this article is kept, then someone should determine whether it is being used properly (e.g., whether duplic domain, GFDL or fair use). I'd contact the person who uploaded the image, but that person only contributed briefly last August & appears to have left Wikipedia. -- llywrch 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would appear to me that Magicsucks (who uploaded the image) might be related the same anon user(s) (172.215.214.127, 172.200.195.231) who started and added to this page one day before Magicsucks registered. Additional users (Themeat, Waikiwai, and the curiously-named user Selfpublicitysucks) seem to have registered just to contribute exclusively to the article only to pull a disappearing act. Suspicious activity. And then there's Thegirlinwhite, another user who seems to have registered just to add to the article and also place references to aladin into various articles. She seems to have stuck around a little longer. -- Krash 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This Article is Misleading and Inaccurate. In order to judge the accuracy of this article, one would need expertise in the subject, right? Well, I may not be able to judge the accuracy of the scientific articles on wikipedia, but I have performed Sleight of Hand for over 30 years and have never heard of this individual. Additionally, the original article listed Sleight of Hand Artists that I not only *know*, but several of them have given me endorsements for promotional material. I've even gone to the trouble of contacting some of the most knowledgable Sleight of Hand people in the world and none of THEM have heard of this fellow. This leads me to believe the article was posted for purely promotional reasons. Keeping the article would lead people to believe that this indiviudal is one of the top Sleight of Hand Artists/Magicians in the world and this is simply not the case. Darwin Ortiz, Jon Racherbaumer, John Bannon, Paul Curry, Ed Marlo, Dai Vernon, John Scarne, Jean Hugard, Fred Braue, Larry Jennings, and about 100 others are the ones you want articles on, not this fellow. Questions? E-Mail me: steven.youell at gmail.com Steven Youell -- (unsigned comment by 68.7.141.95 17:36, 3 January 2006)
  • Comment I have managed to track down two of the articles.
    The Asian Age of 9 January 1999: aladin has the top right quarter of the 'People' page on page 21 in a four column article entitled 'Man with the magic lamp' which also has a photograph of him across two and a half of the columns; written by Abhik Sen:
    To mobilise support for the homeless, to walk some of London's roughest neighbourhoods in the middle of the night and charm street gangs off their crimes, to help the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser on youth and community projects, to coordinate and synthesise the work of South Asian musicians and artistes in Britain, and to do all of it at the same time, one would have to be a magician. That's precisely what aladin is, among, it has to be added, many other things.
    Indiaweekly of Friday September 10 - Thursday September 16 1999: aladin has practically the whole of page 25 in the 'Entertainment' section in an article entitled 'Master of Magic'; 3 of 4 columns to be exact, including a photograph stretching the width of the article, which is written by George Simpson. aladin was interviewed at the Institute for Contemporary Arts where he was appearing:
    aladin, amongst many other things, is a magician, live artist and producer/director. Born in Washington DC to Indian and Bangladeshi parents, aladin (his real name) was brought up everywhere, speaks English, French and Bengali, has worked with street gangs and been an academic, journal editor and government advisor. And this is just a small sample of the man’s achievements.
    Both articles cast him as a Renaissance Man and so have some fascinating background which I am going to include in the Wiki page. The quotations on aladin’s own website match up to the sources incidentally Autumnleaf 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Autumn, after those accusations, I cannot trust you. Please state a link instead of just entering text here. You could very well just have invented that story. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Peter, I understand that you're suspicious. Since I too believe that aladin has been editing his page with sockpuppets, I can understand that you'd look askance at any editor you didn't know. Well, Autumnleaf has been editing Indian cinema articles for a while now and she seems quite level-headed. I don't agree with her on this issue -- I think she has too much faith in journalists! -- but I don't think she'd lie. I'm not the best judge of people in the world, but I've certainly had no reason to distrust Autumnleaf. Zora 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not take your comments personally Peter. You are clearly in favour of an order of 'proof' none of us may ever be able to provide and I have better things to do - just ask Zora. I suggest you yourself email/call the key publications [PRINT newspapers] in question or get a friend to look them up. I would be particularly delighted if you would call up Asian Age and India Weekly - all the details are above. Of course, you WILL come back to this page after, won't you? Autumnleaf 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I already added the reference from the Times, which was a three page feature. Aladin was also written up in The Express on March 15, 2001. I have both of those articles of course. -- JJay 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The photograph used for the Asian Age piece above is by Nicholas Sinclair who is a notable(!) British portraitist as I just discovered via Google. Autumnleaf 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, a link here would have been worth a lot more than just stating something that you might just have invented on the spot. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Try a library. Or maybe you should have tried that before making statements about Aladin's notability such as: The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets. It took me one minute to disprove that and I did not make up the Times feature on Aladin-- JJay 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, you always have the all the Times from November 1998 handy at your place? Because that's what the reference says! What kind of a paper archive do you have at home? I highly doubt your sources, Jay. Peter S. 03:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Newsbank (electronic archives for 1,400 world newspapers). I also have access to Proquest, Ebsco and numerous other pay databases. You can doubt my sources, but I would suggest you refrain from making bold statements regarding news sources that you have not consulted. -- JJay 04:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article that states that Aladin helped "the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser" is almost certainly repeating Aladin's own exaggerated and fabricated self-publicity, and thus wholly suspect in all respects. Aladin was the chairmain of an advisory committee to the Mayor of London, which is nowhere near Cabinet-level. Uncle G 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's say he had 2 Dozen Articles about him in magazines and newspapers. That's enough to make him worthy of an article in a reference source? If so, there are at least 10,000 more amateur magicians waiting to use wikipedia as their personal promotional tool. Anyone with a modicum of talent and enough money to hire a press agent could easily get more press than that. Has he published any work in any of the trade journals? What are his contributions to the art? Has he lectured for the International Brotherhood of Magicians? How about the Society of American Magicians? How about for The Magic Circle? Has he even played the Magic Castle? WHAT?!? Tell me something he's done besides generate a few articles!!! And then tell me why those achievements make him high enough on the ladder to earn his own article in what is supposed to be a serious and accurate reference source.

    Steven Youell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs)

    • I'd vote keep for some of those 10,000 amateurs, even Steven Youell when he gets a 3-page spread in the Times Magazine. -- JJay 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • JJay-- if you believe that someone who gets a 3-page spread in ANY magazine automatically deserves an article in an encyclopedia, then you really don't have the respect for the Art of Magic OR Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I'm not sure how much credit to apply to your opinion given that you have not contributed to this project. You claim to be Steven Youell. The claim is of course unverifiable, although I have been able to determine that there is an aspiring magician by that name. Details are sketchy, though, because Mr. Youell, unlike Aladin, has apparently not been mentioned in any of the 1400+ newspapers included in the Newsbank and Proquest databases. -- JJay 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: I am more than willing to assist you in verifying my qualifications. You may e-mail me at steven.youell at gmail.com Allow me to repeat once more-- I don't think "notable" should be defined by how much press you get, but by what you've contributed to the particular subject. Go search your 1400 newpapers and find out how much press Karl Fulves has, yet he is a prolific author on card magic. How about Charlie Miller? If you don't know those names, then you're not qualified to form an opinion on who is "notable" in magic and who is not. Again, I am more than willing to verify my credentials to anyone posting here. steven.youell At gmail.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The only credential that interests me is your lack of participation in this project. That is why I can not give much credence to your opinion. Regarding your query, Charles Miller has been discussed in articles in Newsday, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Times of London. Karl Fulves has had his book reviewed in the Washington Post and the Times of London. Please submit articles on these men when you find the time. -- JJay 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your position now. Expertise in a subject is defined by how much you've participated in Wikipedia and how well you can use google. Brilliant. Now THAT'S how you build a reliable reference source. By the way, Karl Fulves has written more than a dozen books on magic and produced three of the most influential periodicals in magic-- The Pallbearers Review, Epilogue and The Chronicles. But you didn't find that from searching newspapers online, did you? Probably because the only people that care about that would be people who are knowledable about the subject at hand. See my point? SEY
        • We are not building a reliable reference source with your input since you have made no material contribution to the project besides this AfD. For all I know you are Aladin or David Blaine, rather than aspiring magician Youell. Again, instead of wasting our time with your opinions regarding notable magicians such as Fulves and Miller, who are not the subject of this AfD, please submit articles so we can improve our coverage of the field. -- JJay 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Comment'**** JJay-- you've made it pretty clear that you determine who is "notable" in a field based on press clippings and from what you can find out from behind your keyboard. You have repeatedly questioned my credentials yet you have not taken me up on my offer to substantiate them. I therefore question your journalistic integrity and consider the matter closed. My offer to substantiate my credentials, however, stands: steven.youell at gmail.com -- SEY
      • It's not useful for anyone doing serious research on historical/professional magicians to come across articles about amateur magicians because they have been linkfarmed into valid magic articles. That "aladin" would appear on a list among the likes of Houdini, Copperfield or even David Blane is utterly ridiculous. I know we're not here to debate "what links here", but I think this whole thing is capable of setting a really bad precedent for those 10000 awaiting articles. -- Krash 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable; the notability itself may not be just because he is a magician. It can also be because he is influential in the community etc. Linus Pauling is notable not just for research in chemistry but also for work in fostering peace. Vilayat Khan is considered a better Sitar player by connoisseurs of Hindustani music in comparison to Ravi Shankar. However, the latter is more notable and was awarded the Bharat Ratna as he worked on several international projects and built bridges between India and "the West." It may be that Aladin may not be as great a magician as others; yet, he is notable, precisely because he leveraged his seemingly low notability in magic to effect community service positively. Hence, keep. --Gurubrahma 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- on all of the above.
    I've managed a look at the Times article (being coy, lest the copyright police swoop) and it does state as fact a number of the items that we can't substantiate with google. But I *still don't believe it*. Sorry. The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker. All the rest of it seems to be repeating claims that aladin made to the writer. But if he had put on a magic show in India that had a cast of 800 magicians and was watched by a billion people (one sixth of the population of the planet, right?), surely there would be some record of it in google? Is there any TV show on record with a demonstrated viewership of one billion? Is there any Magic Academy of Bangalore?
    Googling furiously, I found the following curious note in ExpressIndia:
    Muthukad, who is popularly known as India’s Houdini, also runs the Gopinath Muthukad Magic Academy in Thiruvananthapuram, the first of its kind in Asia. "Magic with a mission" is the slogan of his institution. [25]
    If the Magic Academy of Bangalore is so famous that a billion people watched the show it sponsored, how is it that ExpressIndia doesn't know that there is another magic academy in India?
    Plus, I can't replicate much of anything in the article on aladin's supposed father, Abul Fateh. Certainly nothing that proves that he is aladin's father, or that various details given in the Abul Fateh article are true. There are details that could have only been supplied by a fabulist -- or possibly a family member who edits from sockpuppet accounts, and may be prone to exaggeration.
    I was originally trusting, but the more research I do, the more alarm bells go off. I know that it's upsetting for people to admit that they've been conned, but aladin seems like a con. A con who edits vanity articles from sockpuppet accounts. Possibly a notable con, but con nonetheless. I don't think it makes any sense to trust a conman just because he's South Asian, or argue that it's prejudice to distrust him. We're all human, and human includes grandiosity. Zora 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The fact that you do not believe the article is one thing. That is your right. However, statements like: The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker are completely out of line without factual evidence to back up the claim. Have you spoken to the reporter who wrote the story? Have you contacted the Times? If you had done any research, you would know that the Aladin feature was written by a well known investigative reporter in the UK. Please have the decency not to slander Ms. Brinkworth or Times journalism without real evidence. -- JJay 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • JJay, the only thing in that article that the reporter said that she personally witnessed was aladin interacting with some youths in a slum. I believe that she witnessed that. It's possible, and I have no reason to think that she would lie about what she had SEEN. (Of course, journos have done that -- does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell? -- but I see no motive here.) However, given that she reports as fact extremely dubious material that she can only have gotten from her interviewee, I think she's too darn trusting. Gullible. Journos can be. A friend of mine who was a magazine reporter wrote a long crusading article about a man who had a land claim against the state of Hawai'i, a claim based on supposed Hawaiian historical facts. I trusted the friend until I spent hours in the archives trying to chase down the "facts". I found that my friend had believed the claimant without checking anything, and that the claimant had been b!llsh!tting him. JJay, your faith in journos is misplaced. Zora 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Zora, for your search into the matter. I just want to comment on the Abul Fateh article, that his role in Bangladesh Liberation War is verifiable and he was the first foreign secretary of Bangladesh. Other than that, I can't find references for anything else. It may be possible that someone who personally know him added the details, including his relation with aladin. Thanks. --Ragib 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verifiable enough and notable enough for me. David | Talk 14:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dubious references. Only ones I can find are adverts or say they've never heard of him. josh (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the last few months, the credibility of Wikipedia has been questioned and I had no basis on which to form an opinion either way, since I really don't have any specific academic credentials. However, if this article is kept then I will sadly conclude that Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source. I could make that conclusion based on the fact that *I DO* have the expertise to judge whether or not someone is a "notable magician"-- and people who *DO NOT* have those qualifications are making editorial decisions based on magazine articles rather than extensive knowledge of the subject at hand. Wikipedia may be accurate in the Scientific realm, but if this aricle is kept, I will have no doubt that it's usless in every other sense. --Steven Youell— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete when mirror and smoke was cleared, there is nothing verifiable left. It was a mistake to start a vote and then to remove garbage. The magicial already did his rabbit-from-hat thing. Mukadderat 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Verifiable and notable. I haven't been able to contribute much to the Wikipedia project these days. However tomorrow morning I will take a cue from what has been left on my Talk Pages and drop in with some verifiable and verified material for discussion. Thanks thegirlinwhite 15:51, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Degz[edit]

Claims notability. Is a hoax. Discuss. - Bobet 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Whether it is a hoax or not, being the friend of someone famous does not entitle you to an article in Wikipedia. Movementarian 18:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete above Ashibaka tock 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Speedy Delete I've read a couple of notable Marley biographies and many of his associates have been mentioned. This Degz guy ain't one of them. --CJ Marsicano 07:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, possible hoax. — TheKMantalk 07:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN-bio, hoax Werdna648T/C\@ 07:54, 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. Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Matthews Southwest"[edit]

Advertising. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely (micronation)[edit]

Listing Orphaned AFD Page Vary | Talk 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are no other micronations tolerated on Wikipedia? This is crud about some guy that did a TV show. That makes it important? Wikipedia hates this kind of stuff! Look at the number of micronations that tried to add themselves to the list of micronations, none of them were tolerated! Why should Lovely? Becuase it was on TV? Is Sealand the only Micronation that has a page? There are hundreds of micronations on the internet, mabye three on wikipedia? Keep the pattern. Wikipedia hates nonsense. delete Kilroy Collins

I'm not trying to attack you here, but when you say "Wikipedia hates this kind of stuff!", you seem to mean "I hate this kind of stuff". As i said above, its not the most important article on wikipedia, but an article about a micronation serially televised on the BBC and hosted on their website is a lot more important than a lot of ridiculous stuff on wikipedia. -- jeffthejiff (talk) 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are 42 in Category:Micronations (One is the Micronation article and another looks to be made a redirect with another AfD, but that leaves 40.) --Billpg 15:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a notable micronation, at the centre of a popular TV programme helmed by a notable comic and author. Other micronations like Sealand have articles; Lovely, with its large number of people affiliating themselves to it, is as notable as Sealand if not more so. Jess Cully 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Lovely has over 53,000 citizens almost rivaling the Marshall islands. That many people cannot be ignored. David Lewis (Citizen of Lovely) 6th January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.103 (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.
  • Delete. This article is both innacurate and irrelevant. The associated websites are closed.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jared F. Warren[edit]

Non-notable vanity page. Jokestress 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:Jimfbleak -SCEhardT 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private School Gangstas[edit]

Unremarkable people or groups NJ 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathstation 9000[edit]

Neologism that some people made up and thought would make a great article. - Bobet 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian 17:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -- (aeropagitica) UK 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The underlying idea is interesting. It reminds me of "programming satan's computer." But it's not notable enough to have its own page, and certainly not under a made-up name. Tom Harrison Talk 20:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is a very famous concept on comp.lang.c, which is also a very famous newsgroup. — JIP | Talk 20:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very few Google hits. Ajwebb 22:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light Side of the Moon[edit]

Vanity page on a non notable Internet show that doesn't even exist yet. Presence on the web (besides from their own blog): 0 hits. - Phaedriel 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why dyou have to be a jerk?! I worked hard on this!! Me and my friend are trying to get our show up this week, and we wanted to be in Wikipedia. Were just starting out, duh we wouldnt be know very well yet! Can't you just leave it be? Geez!! Bert
  • Delete actually speedied once before in a probably out of process deletion, but anyway - it doesn't exist yet etc. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why dyou want to delete it? Its not hurting you now is it? ~~~~. Bert 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable. Wikipedia is not the place for publicity or advertising. If and when the show takes off and becomes notable, that would be the time to list it here. In the meantime, might I suggest you get a MySpace account? You should also look over WP:WEB. -- MisterHand 18:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The show kicks off in a week from today, so what would be the point of deleting the wikipedia now only to update the show's status in a mere 7 days? Besides the fact that MySpace hosts BANDS...how would that help? it'd be useless! Wikipedia is a free encyclodpedia for everyone's use, and if they wish to add a description of their show on it without quite advertising it then it's their right! Tell me, what's the difference between wikipedia's pages for "The Light Side of the Moon" and "Whose Line is it Anyways?" Sure they haven't had the chance Whose Line had, but if you're offended by this in any way by this, DON'T WATCH THEIR SHOW! Leave 'em alone! Everyone's got a point of view, and a right to bear their own opinions, but why don't we all save those up for bigger, more important issues, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.168.45 (talk • contribs)
      • Sorry, Kitsunetsuki22, but in addition to the considerations above, I also tend not to pay much attention to people who vandalize articles. - Phaedriel 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I never vandalized Bush, I put the stuff about him tapping phones etc., and who cares about Bush anyways? America sucks, too bad I live in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunetsuki22 (talk • contribs)
          • You just don't get it. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 04:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If and when they make a notable contribution to anything the page will have a reason to exist. Until then, there is no reason for it to be here. -- (aeropagitica) UK 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable show, advertising. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First become notable, then become the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion or advertising. --Metropolitan90 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Were just starting out, duh we wouldnt be know very well yet!" My sentiments exactly. --Tothebarricades 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ok, delete it if you must, but I can make it once the show is well known, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunetsuki22 (talk • contribs)

Not just known, notable, which is a higher bar to get over. And you shouldn't be writing articles about your own work anyway. If it's truly notable, some else will do it for you. Just get over the idea that Wikipedia is here so you can pimp your own projects. It's not like listing your site on Yahoo or something. Seriously: read this. rodii 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-> I'd say just let them delete it...Once you get viewers and fans and whatnot, then you'll have the support you need here at wikipedia- until then the people here obviously don't have their proof of your hard work at attempting the show... Let them delete your profile, keep it running, get viewers/more supporters/what-nots, then hopefully the people here at wikipedia won't be so hard on you. ...And I'm sorry I don't have my own Wikipedia account with which to sign my comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.173.9 (talk • contribs)


Pimp?! Ok, just because I'm from the south-side of Chicago doesn't mean I'm some fag ganster guy. but, ok, whatever.


Sorry about all of the crap guys, just delete my wikipedia article if you have to.

  • I would let them keep it, but if you at Wikipedia must...delete it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. enochlau (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabayama[edit]

There is no need for this page; the character is covered thoroughly enough in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX minor characters, and only appears in one episode. Setokaiba✌≝ 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep --Ichiro 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prize Winner![edit]

Speedied by another admin with the message

"Story Reader" books are really not notable enough for articles

Of course, that's not a CSD. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I don't see any problem with this. We do have an article on Tom Kenny. -- JJay 19:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most published books get articles, I don't see why it would be different just because this is a "story reader" book that comes with a reading cartridge thingy. That Tom Kenny has an article is irrelevant, though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7-band delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reddin[edit]

Band which does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines (have only recorded a demo, and "as soon as possible they will start recording their firs album."). Scott5114 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This band is not yet notable. Until such time as it is, the page should be deleted. -- (aeropagitica) UK 19:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable band, they don't even have their first album yet. — JIP | Talk 20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete tagged as {{nn-band}} -- MisterHand 21:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslaw Nowicky[edit]

The person referred to is referenced by few sites and seems to be famed for an unverifiable "cancer cure". I find this very suspicious; even if true, wikipedia is not for original research, which is what this would be. Mozzerati 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable. At most he is an academic who has presented a paper. Tom Harrison Talk 19:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. ~MDD4696 01:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. This article also satisfied several criteria for speedy deletion. Mindmatrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Catalina, Bolívar[edit]

Santa Catalina, Bolívar was listed for translation on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but remains untranslated after 2 weeks, so now its time to list for deletion. — TheKMantalk 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from translation page:

This entire article is in Spanish, I can translate it given time, but that I do not have right now. (This article is not present on the Wikipedia en Español) SailorfromNH 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by the footnotes, and the copy-and-paste style, it's ripped out of the "DICCIONARIO GEOGRAFICO Y CATRASTAL DE LA REPUBLICA DE COLOMBIA", and even cites the page number. Does that make this a copyvio, or is that source free of copyright? (Not found the source online yet, BTW, maybe from print...) Jamie (talk/contribs) 05:22, 18 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 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Loan[edit]

Non-notable vanity/advertising. I couldn't find any evidence that Kim Loan or D&D Media are any sort of "national phenomena". —Cleared as filed. 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Somebody moved it already to WP:BJAODN. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rear-toading[edit]

Two things wrong with this page: (1) - neologism if its not just (2) utter nonsense. CastAStone 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete now THAT is hilarious! WhiteNight T | @ | C 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tom Harrison Talk 19:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The author really needs to cite some usages for this phrase. Even then, it would be better off in a dictionary rather than an encyclopædia. -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as utter nonsense and probable attack page. bikeable (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, patent nonsense, potentially offensive. The creator of the article has also taken the time to write other similar "articles", equally nonsensical and homophobic. Phaedriel 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Politic_(slang)[edit]

Neologism. This belongs at UrbanDictionary.com. Delete CastAStone 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable neologism. — JIP | Talk 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for above reasons. --Tothebarricades 00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Social capital theory[edit]

there is already a page Social capital which should cover this theme; the actual facts in this page seem to be misleading (Glenn Loury may have used the concept of "Social Capital", but doesn't seem to have invented it according to a brief search) and it hasn't been cleaned up even after being marked in May 2005. Mozzerati 19:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pulling Tubes[edit]

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhardT 20:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. Could be speedied as nonsense. No Guru 20:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism. "Coined by Derek Wohlust" who gets a total of 8 Google hits. This particular usage of the phrase seems to be quite obscure. ManoaChild 21:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for the reasons given below. I am also speedily deleting Image:Becky.pdf which is a copy of this article's text. Uncle G 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potato queen[edit]

Even if this person exists, the article contains enough falsehoods and factual errors to warrant deletion - Tenerife as a graduation present? The UK coming in to being in 1995? -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nonsense. WhiteNight T | @ | C 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Google hits for "rebecca coyle" "potato queen" [26]. Speedy delete as patent nonsense, and as a second choice, delete as unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 21:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent nonsense. I tried speedy tagging it, but I'll just wait the five days. I think we need to loosen up the definition of {{db-nonsense}} a bit, to cover stuff like this. There does seem to be real Rebecca Coyle, who's a published author, but that's obviously unrelated to this sillieness. --Rob 21:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Past experience has taught that two editors are not enough to determine whether something is nonsense. Determining that something is patent nonsense can be done on sight, in contrast. Uncle G 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (speedy if possible, but I guess from Thivierr above, it's not). At best a joke.—Stombs 22:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not patent nonsense, because it is comprehensible. It's just a joke article, aimed at some woman called Rebecca Coyle and full of what are clearly in-jokes. This is in no way an attempt at a real encyclopaedia article. I'm going to speedily delete this, not as patent nonsense but as silly vandalism, CSD #G3. Uncle G 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Swechno[edit]

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

  • Delete, not in use long enough to transwiki. Stifle 01:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Too obscure, being a Swede I can't say I've ever heard of such a thing. Obli (Talk) 21:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Rut (locale)[edit]

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhardT 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The term does seem to exist but does not seem to be very popular (excluding references to the band and the play which share the same name). Also, this is barely a dicdef. The claims of authorship seem to be completely unsupported and are probably false, given the other uses of the phrase. ManoaChild 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:19, 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 deleted based on WP:CSD A6 on attack pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferndown upper school[edit]

The article is not about the school - rather it is about the author's problem with attending said school. -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination, although I assume that someone will clean up this article sufficiently during the AfD period to get it kept. --Metropolitan90 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was sppedy deleted by User:EdwinHJ. No prejudice against a recreation, but I agree that the article as it stood was merely an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Harris[edit]

Vanity page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, nn-bio. Googling "Jamie Harris"+"The Verdict" gives 2 hits about the show and the person, which are from the show's website (on freewebs.com). - Bobet 01:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, probably vanity CLW 11:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. (4 delete, 1 move). Mindmatrix 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once Moore[edit]

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously deleted on 16 Dec 05. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Once Moore/2005-12-11. The article was recreated on 27 Dec 05. It was mistagged as {{empty}} (a speedy-delete template). This new version is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version and therefore does not qualify for the re-created content speedy criterion either. However, the verifiability issues raised during the first AFD discussion do appear to still be relevant. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it to Hell it's first creation was a mistake, now it's a big mistake. The album has yet to be titled. It's an illusion created by the "fake" mandy moore site apparently. It should be deleted at least until Mandy Moore post it on her site. Parys
  • Move to Mandy Moore's fifth studio album and merge to Mandy Moore following a complete removal of all the information (and the album cover) that originated from http://www.media-press-release.com/release-69.htm, as well as the external "Hey!" lyrics link. The direct quotes from Moore and the list of people she collaborated with on the album are from reliable sources, however, and probably deserve a mention in Moore's article (at least until the actual title of the album is announced). I'd take out the false information right now, except that the article is currently protected. Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What if, god forbid Sire refuses to release the album? Then we would have an article for nothing. That press release isn't anything official, trust me, it's easy to make a fake one. Like i said DELETE. Parys
      • Exactly. That's why I'm suggesting a removal of the information that originated from the press release and a merge to the Mandy Moore article. Extraordinary Machine 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about the cover? And what about that song "Fear of Flying", i have heard no such song, and i have searched it, and all I found was a mirror of the wiki article and also Mya's album Fear of Flying.
  • Delete. Apparently a hoax, or at least not reliably sourced. We don't need a page on her next album until there's a definitive announcement about it. *Dan T.* 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, we'll just have to wait on mandy.

Parys

Delete Am tired of seeing this branded about. JackO'Lantern 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Police Notebook[edit]

Sounds like an ad (as said through template). Still, is it really worthy? ComputerJoe 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but expand. Website has an Alexa ranking of 8,420,[27] thus falls into Wikipedia's General guidelines for websites WP:WEB. Englishrose 22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, rather than expand. The articles needs its importance explaining. Englishrose 22:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment In light of FCYTravis's useful comment on Alexa, I retrack my vote until further info is revealed. No vote at this time Englishrose 00:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's the traffic rank for ou.edu itself, not the subpage. Alexa can't rank subpages. No vote at this time. FCYTravis 22:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't think the majority of OU's traffic goes to this subpage, which means it wouldn't qualify per WP:WEB. The site's url gets 591 google hits. If someone can verify that it's really "one of the oldest and largest law enforcement agency sites on the Internet", then keep. - Bobet 01:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy A7-band delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

T spigot[edit]

Obvious nn band Sceptre (Talk) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete Mindmatrix 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CKA[edit]

NN neologism. Randwicked 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. Created to promote website.Obina 17:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn. Neologism CKA is an accurate acroymn for this popular Canadian site, even google things CKA stands for "Canada Kicks Ass", see here: http://www.google.com/search?q=cka --Canadaka 23:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The google search you link is misleading, as although I get 895,000 results - many of them are not related to this. A more accurate search term indicates only about six unique hits. Delete. Barneyboo (Talk) 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn. All of the result links on your google search goto www.canadaka.net. Also on the above "CKA" search google suggests that "cka" should be "Canada Kicks Ass" (See results for: canada kicks ass) --Canadaka 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All of the result links on your google search goto www.canadaka.net - you're right, they do. But that doesn't suggest notability just because Google links to various pages within a CMS. The six or so hits it displays are a slightly more realistic indication. A search for cka -"canada kicks ass" shows how many entries on Google for 'CKA' have nothing to do with 'Canada Kicks Ass'. Barneyboo (Talk) 09:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please use correct AfD ettiquette. The proword is Keep, not Overturn, and please only vote once. It is also preferred that you use edit summaries, and let people know if you have a vested interest in the AfD debate, as your username suggests you do. Thanks, and Welcome to Wikipedia. Werdna648T/C\@ 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article thin on content but accurate as far as it goes. Within Canadian context both notable and relevant. --Kornelius 14:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable neologism. Stifle 01:17, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Canada Kicks Ass, then create a disambig page for CKA. --CastAStone 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • or move to Canadaka.net. either or. Either way, make sure the CKA page has a link to the moved page.
Delete- neologism. Reyk 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neologism; the site isn't that inherently notable, and even if it were, the title would have to be Canada Kicks Ass. Bearcat 22:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like advertising, and I don't find the reasons for "keep" above by people with vested interests compelling in the least. --C S (Talk) 09:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neologism, spam.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE as a copyvio, despite the majority of votes being "keep". — JIP | Talk 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kabalah Yoga[edit]

Page not NPOV - partisan to Kabbalah cult -- (aeropagitica) UK 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. pov violations are not a criteria for deletion (see WP:DEL) -- MisterHand 20:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Aparently 'Kabbalah Yoga' is a real thing, but the article as it currently exists is completely unencyclopedic. There is no need to let this dead-end orphan article hang around, waiting for someone to clean it up. - squibix 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kabalah Yoga is an art of posturing into the Hebrew letters, it is not a 'cult' to do so. Being the Kabalah Yoga is an exercise and a state of mind, it should qualify as an encyclopedic entry.
  • Keep if this exists. I like those images too. -- JJay 23:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a copyvio of [28] and has been blanked and tagged as such. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep NPOV violations are not criteria for deletion, per MisterHand. Werdna648T/C\@ 07:58, 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 keep --Ichiro 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlea Evans[edit]

Reality TV contestant that is not notable enough. She left the show after about two weeks, Big Brother fans barely remember her, she is overshadwoed by other contestants who were more notable but don't have thier own articles, etc. Chicbicyclist 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's important to present the objective truth on these people. -- JJay 23:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What objective truth? That they are not notable enough? A couple other constants such as Eric and Maggie, and especially Ivette had a far-reaching effect on the show and are alot more well-known by casual tv viewers than Ashlea. The only notable thing Ashlea ever did was being on the show with Janelle.Chicbicyclist 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me they are all the same since I have never seen any of these shows. I therefore vote keep for all reality contestants. -- JJay 06:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - IIRC there's some guideline about who is eligible for articles and I think they pretty well have to either win the contest or become notable in their own right outside the series. Remember these are just game show contestants when all is said and done; would you want to see articles done on everyone who ever appeared on Jeopardy? 23skidoo 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with articles on game show contestants. Big Brother's ratings average 8-9 million per week. Compare that with published authors who are eligible for an article according to guidelines with book sales above 5,000. Seems like a double standard to me. -- JJay 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.
  • Keep for being on a major hit show. Reality contestants on a show aren't the same as Jeopardy, as they are "characters" on a show, with a closer analogy to an actor of a hit TV show (e.g. for a hit sitcom or drama we might have articles on the character and the actor, in reality TV, the two are one). Generally, Jeopardy contestants have no national mainstream published sources of information about the lives of the contestants outside of the show, and little independent stuff about the show. In cases where a Jeopardy contestant receives sufficiently high levels of mainstream media coverage, relating to their show, and life outside the show, they may well qualify for a bio article. People do follow, in the press, the lives of these reality contestants, like it or not. Finally, I suggest more recent precedent is to keep an article like this (though not consistently). But, it probably would be good to discuss at WP:BIO some mention of reality show contestants. --Rob 16:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Debb Eaton can have a wiki article, then so should Ashlea. You can't just go around and start randomly marking articles for deletion like this. It's ridiculous. Jtrost 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That same argument has been used to justify the keeping of other very obscure reality conteststants, and in fact, the page for Ashlea Evans has been used the same way you used Debb Eaton. This is what prompted me to put it up for deletion. I might have to put the article for Debb Eaton up for deletion, too.Chicbicyclist 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is a bit strange that Micheal Donellan who appears on the same debate page as Ashlea is getting more delete votes than her. Micheal is alot more accomplished(being a well-established artist and all), stayed longer in the house and had a love affair with Janelle, arguably one of the most popular contestant on Big Brother USA, ever.Chicbicyclist 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable person on very popular (e.g. known to a large number of people) show. "ashley evans big brother" gets >16,000 Google hits (apparently the Ashlea spelling is not known to many people). Turnstep 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Viera Scheibner[edit]

Fails professor test. Doesn't appear to be much about them that can be verifed (uses a geocites site as a cite) Geni 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep what is a professor test? And who is them? She is the most notable vaccine critic, which is why medical (allopathic) people want to keep her suppressed. john 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can think of more notable without even trying.Geni 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You find anyone who has written two books devoted to vaccine criticism. Pray do tell and I'll open a page to them. It is just medical politics anyway, so save me the false reasoning. She is the number one vaccine critic which is why you want to suppress a page to her, end of story. I am dying to know what your Professor test is, I'd love to see you pass these rules over Brain Deer [29], who is only notable for his attempts, through the Sunday Times, in smearing Andrew Wakefield. john 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not the type of case where the professor test is applicable. Viera Scheibner seems to lead some kind of campaign against vaccination which has made her known and controversial. She may be on the fringe as a scientist, but that is not a reason to delete the article, just to make sure it is NPOV. "Dr. Viera Scheibner is a retired micropalaeontologist, without any formal training in health-related sciences, who tours the world claiming that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous and lead to a host of ills such as cancer and asthma. Professionals in public health or the clinical arena are from time to time called upon to publicly respond to her, or similar, claims disseminated during tours of Europe, North America or Australasia and in books and articles." Julie Leask, Peter McIntyre, "Public opponents of vaccination: a case study", Vaccine 21 (2003), 4700–4703 (PDF) If scientists feel a need to analyse and discuss her in scientific journals and respond to her publicly, that makes her notable enough. Up+land 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of their main fears is publicity for her research into cot-death and vaccination using a special cot monitor http://www.whale.to/v/scheibner.html which proved the vaccination cot-death connection, no mention at all. They have kept off the vaccination connection on the Cot death page. I have managed to get on the vitamin C prevention discovered by Archie Kalokerinos, but the headings have been removed and the comment about it being endorsed by Linus Pauling. john 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care whether she is right or not (and the article certainly should not express the POV that she is right), but the fact that she is controversial for something makes her a reasonable candidate for an article. Up+land 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy keep: Just another nuisance AfD. As the author of several books and numerous scientific articles, there ought to be some sort of applicable criteria for an author's publishing history, which Scheibner would easily fulfill. Ombudsman 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ombudsman, please have respect for due process. "Nuisance AFD" is not applicable where there are legitimate concerns about the subject's notability. The publishing history, uh, shows that she is not exactly a medical scientist. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm in favor of keeping this, although I hope it doesn't fall foul of Ombudsman's usual tactics. People need to know that this lady has no relevant qualifications, since she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists or by parents who've been suckered into these things. Even when this bio first appeared, however, Ombudsman went straight in to remove this critical information, as he has done with so many of these biogs intended to create (a false) sense that there is a body of medical opinion which thinks, eg that MMR causes behavioral problems. Probably, we'll end up having to rely on the drug industry to provide the staff time necessary to watch all this stuff, which will be a shame. Before long maybe someone could make up a page of all these characters - Scheibner, the Geiers, Yazquack, Wakefield, Bradstreet and all that crowd - and people will get a real good sense of what's happening. 86.129.115.248 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: 'No relevent qualifications' is ad hominem, and gives the impression you need a medical (allopathic) education to form a sound opinion on vaccination, which is complete nonsense of course, but a belief medical people like to spread and fertilise, for obvious reasons. And it is completely untrue that 'she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists'. I have been in this game for 10 years, and I can't recall one instance of that, that may have happened with a parent but so what, that is an easy mistake to make for a newcomer, and anyway, it gives the false impression being an MD is an advantage, when the medical education would be more of a hinderance. Also it gives the impression people are lying to make a better case, when any idiot can work out the truth doesn't need to lie. john 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please register on Wikipedia so we can count your vote. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable Australian anti-vaccinationist, with an article about her in the Vaccine journal in December 2003 PMID 14585678. And also notable for receiving the Australian Skeptics's Bent Spoon Award. Andrew73 18:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a notable vaccination critic and quack. --CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the above, and I'm closing this. If nothing else, she's a model by which quacks can be recognized as such, but that aspect needs to be stressed a bit more. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 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. – Robert 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thebadrobots[edit]

Non-notable band. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fails WP:MUSIC. Delete. --CastAStone 21:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I see nothing notable about this band, on the article or in the 24 google results. - Bobet 00:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It was deleted by EdwinHJ, not myself. CastAStone 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Jones (student)[edit]

Hoax, troll page. Speedy delete -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7 applies here. By the way, no reason to bring this to AfD if your nominationvote is speedy delete, I'd say...you could just have slapped {{db-a7}} on the page.SoothingR 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per A7, I also took the liberty of removing a link to the article from Christopher Jones, a disambig page. Obli (Talk) 21:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{db-bio}} and tagged as such. Reyk 22:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EditMe.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB on all three pointsSoothingR 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP. Editme.com is not only a website but a service that provices Wiki functionality to users and a super-affordable price.--AAAAA 00:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shitty spam. Incognito 06:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:19, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccination critics[edit]

"A compilation of organisations, books and people critical of vaccination." how is that an encyclopedia article? It's not a list either. Geni 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the best you can come up with? What is a list in your definition? john 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Lists of course wikipedia is full of examples of lists.Geni 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'The list may be a valuable information source'. If a list of vaccine criticism books isn't useful then you are living in allopath land, where vaccines are perfect, time to think about the children, don't you think? Most people don't even know ONE of those books exist, let alone 50, but top marks for trying to keep them suppressed. john 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A bibliography and s list of links do not an encyclopedia article make. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 12:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think my list of books is definately encyclopedic. If vaccination was so great, how come you have to keep suppressing? john 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: The article is an excellent antidote to the the documented suppression of data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the secrecy surrounding the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference, and the myriad conflict of interest problems that have plagued the tainted epidemiological studies purportedly 'investigating' the massive increase in the prevalence of vaccine injuries. Promotion of informed debate is the lifeblood of the Wiki, rather than the alternative, expemplified by this ill-advised AfD. Ombudsman 01:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit you are pushing a POV?Geni 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • conditional keep: In Vaccine controversy, John added a list of ten vaccination critics, with no balancing information. This is a violation of policy, and User:Jimbo Wales has repeatedly asserted that NPOV is non-negotiable. My goals are not suppression, but rather maintaining proportions that conform with policy. I think it would be more useful and maintainable to include a single list to Vaccination critics instead. So if John intends to use this new page instead of including long lists of individual critics, I think this page is valuable. But if he intends to use it in addition, then I wouldn't support it. So before I commit to a vote, I'd want to know more about John's intentions for the page. Who knows -- maybe we can use this page to help forge a sustainable compromise. --Arcadian 14:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think it's necessary to make deals with John on this. It doesn't make sense to include a long list of vaccine critics within several articles when we have a serviceable list. Put a link to this list on {{vaccines}} and we're done here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ten, I think that is a productive solution, but because John isn't the only person affected, I'd rather get consensus before changing the template. At Talk:Thimerosal#Summary_of_See_also_disagreement_for_RfC, User:InvictaHOG stated that "I'll take it as is, but would understand if Ombudsman et. al would prefer to replace pox party with something else more to their liking." Perhaps it would make sense to replace pox party with Vaccination critics. If nobody objects, then if this page survives VfD, then I'll make that substitution. I think Ombudsman supports the direction we're headed (he left a kind note on my talk page about it) but let's give him some time to respond. --Arcadian 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer a page like this that doesn't get shafted by allopaths, and a link from Vaccine controversy (which is an allopath page when I looked at it) and a page with a foot in both camps which doesn't appeal to me much, so I'd prefer a link here and to keep off that page, myself. Are you suggesting I limit my pages to individual vaccine critics? I think a page like this with all the books listed along with the organisations is valuable to offset the bias on all of the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. I may try and add 'the alternative view' to those pages but it will be a battle to get one or two lines in, let alone a header. I could put the alternative view (naturopathy, nutritional med, and homeopathy) for mumps and measles, for example, here and save all those edit wars on those pages. john 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The critics page would serve well as a hub for the template. As it stands, there is nothing else resembling a centralized nexus where a clear account of vaccine criticism is available. Surely, this article will eventually cover epidemiological vs clinical perspectives, data manipulation, pathologies related to vaccine injury (e.g., autistic enterocolitis). Maybe, when the Age of Autism has receded into the rear view mirror, hopefully by the dawn of the next century, this page will no longer be so necessary, except as an historical footnote. Ombudsman 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oh I don't know perhaps Vaccine controversy?Geni 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You would say that, you are the main hub for allopath/medical butchering of vaccine/allopathy criticism. The vaccine controversy page is a half way house controlled by vaccinators, so a link to a proper page on vaccination criticism is a good solution, but I don't expect them to give in without a fight, as vaccine criticism has been well suppressed for 150 years or so, which begs the question---what are they afraid of if vaccination is safe and effective????? Surely they would like everything to be out in the open to show vaccination is above reproach? john 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit its intent is as a POV fork? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at all the medical vaccine pages AND the vaccine disease pages they have all been written by vaccinators/allopaths, so if that isn't POV I don't know what is. If you would like to arrange a section on each of those pages for me to offer my balancing comments then I can do without any pages outlining the anti-vaccination viewpoint, but vaccinators like Hog can't take any criticism which is why he deletes all of my work. john 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) john 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there's a constellation of pages about vaccination that I think would be better of being compressed a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsgrn (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Can easily be merged with vaccine controversy, list of vaccine topics or just simply with User:Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - encyclopedias have articles, and this is not an article. I honestly think the champions of vaccine criticism would better serve their cause by writing one or more clear, NPOV articles rather than trying to insert these long lists into every vaccine article. There's lots of debate on the talk pages, but it doesn't carry over to the article(s) at all - instead, there are lists upon lists, trying to make up in sheer volume what they lack in content. Give me well-reasoned arguments instead of hysterics. Your lists here are closer to hysterics.- ddlamb 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: some could be merged with vaccine controversy; why is there a subsection for "anti-vaccinators" and critics of vaccination? --CDN99 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some vaccine critics aren't 100% anti-vaccination, eg Wakefield, not in public anyway, who was anti-MMR combination. john 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a list, and intended (as per User:Whaleto's comments above) as a POV fork. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Superb references and useful research tool. -- JJay 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Use a category for this. ' (Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!) 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bunch of nonsense intended only to push POV. Soltak | Talk 18:24, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Vega Martinez[edit]

Not-notable bio. Unverifiable. I could find nothing on this person with Google, so I marked the article {{unreferenced}} on December 20 2005. The article has been edited since then, but no reference has been provided. Dalbury(Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • come on Dalbury! Costa Rica is a very small country and of course we do not have extensive information on our people in the net, but this doesn't mean that our people is not important for us to be in such an important media as Wikipedia. You might find some information on this journalist on the net but as he was heavily active during the 80's and 90's most of his work is printed in hundreds of newspapers in Costa Rica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.196.77.182 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Please read the official policy on verification of material in articles. I have been to Costa Rica and I like it, but it is the burden of the editor adding material to Wikipedia to provide sources for that material that can be readily verified by another editor or reader of the article. So, tell us where the information in the article has been published. -- Dalbury(Talk) 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 08:00, 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 The result of this debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It was Deleted by EdwinHJ. CastAStone 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cord Tangeling Gnomes[edit]

This might be speedyable, but it certainly isn't encyclopediac. Its obviously false information presented as if it were true. CastAStone 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgot to vote: Delete --CastAStone 21:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke article, The Cord Tangeling Gnomes would make a cool band name, though. Obli (Talk) 21:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as obviously false; The cord-tanglers are not gnomes at all, but are in fact a species of gremlin. Tom Harrison Talk 21:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I believe this was speedied several times as nonsense, user keeps recreating it, I'm surprised that its not speedied.

TheRingess 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; like Obli, I was expecting a band article... - CorbinSimpson 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conor McAvinue[edit]

Hoax - potato mining accident etc. Manchester United don't seem to have a player with this name. Delete. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

+ Delete rubbish! SatuSuro 05:21, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barkaloo[edit]

I think this is a hoax; If it's not, then it's original research. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless original author provides a reference, I sent User:Closborne a message regarding the article just in case, I doubt it's real, though, Google gave me nil on the subject. Obli (Talk) 22:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom TheRingess 22:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ria, Noel[edit]

There is no discernable research value in this page. -- (aeropagitica) UK 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kramus[edit]

Non-notable band. -- (aeropagitica) UK 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natures Valley, Western Cape[edit]

Currently this page is a broken link to another wiki (I believe they meant to link to [30]). It fails to establish the notability of "Natures Valley". Nature's Valley is indeed a place in Bitou Local Municipality, Western Cape, South Africa. - Halidecyphon 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snaking[edit]

Snaking was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaking/2005-11-24.

An advanced technique that belongs on the Mario Kart page or in a FAQ or not even mentioned at all. Hbdragon88 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a collection of manuals, Wikibooks, on the other hand, is. Move it there if an article exists, if not, create a talk page for Mario Kart DS on wikibooks and put it there until someone makes use of it. Obli (Talk) 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Informative, but certainly not encyclopedic. Would love to see it on a wikibooks manual. -Halidecyphon 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the information here should be preserved but moved into the main article 'Mario Kart DS' with a minimized or removed diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelestar (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Gamecruft. Also, very unencyclopedic ASCII diagram. Move to Wikibook. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to snake (disambiguation). -Sean Curtin 04:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete TestPilot 04:31, 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 Now a redirect. enochlau (talk) 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restaurants in Namibia[edit]

Was listed for speedy deletion, does not meet CSD so moved to AfD. I think it's better suited for WikiTravel EdwinHJ | Talk 22:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Cuisine of Namibia (needs cleanup and expansion - but then the article is only 6 hours old!). There is a precedent for reference to specific restaurants in similar articles on regional cuisine (eg Cuisine of California). Humansdorpie 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand, as Humansdorpie wrote. GRuban 20:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename TestPilot 04:29, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Adams[edit]

Tagged as an A7 speedy but it claims some notability. I say Delete unless there is more verification. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Half her alleged notability is by proxy in the first place. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I tagged it for speedy) --CDN99 22:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Freebee[edit]

Non Notable songwriter. Delete CastAStone 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. He's non-notable and the article is an advertisement for his next tour. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Visit his website or surf the web for more information on his (confirmed) notability. MB 18:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conform WP:MUSIC:
A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.
Both his albums were released on Universal.
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Depending on what you call major (note: size of country not mentioned in the guideline), Humo´s Rockrally.
MB 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Appears to be well known in Belgium/The Netherlands, but little more. He might be notable in the future, but that's not a valid reason to keep at this point! Bjelleklang - talk 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Carolaman 02:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and withdraw my nom per comments by MB. --CastAStone 19:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this is an electronic encyclopedia we can include ALL stuff that exists. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 00:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article topic sounds qualified to me. --JeteyeMa 18:34, 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. – Robert 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Is The Next Google[edit]

I did not add this AFD, but the creator of the AFD did not create this page after about a period of twenty minutes. My view on this article is neutral Frag 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article about a random blog posting that isn't widely spread. 109 unique google hits for the term, mostly on other blogs. - Bobet 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT an indiscriminate etc. A clear example of why even the most loving inclusionism has to have a limit somewhere. Ashibaka tock 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing notable about that article. Blackcats 04:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. - Liontamer 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Muchness 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whale.to[edit]

Advertisement for a non-notable quack website whose administrator is a Wikipedia user. Delete. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable pseudoscientific website. Alex.tan 00:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So speaks a vaccinator. john 12:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • John, do not attack voters. Attempts to "reveal bias" in AFD votes are usually ignored and often lead to backfiring to one's disadvantage. JFW | T@lk 20:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • A knee jerk--when you hear a politician's vote for his party wasn't due to politics. I have a (bad to some) habit of speaking unspeakable truths, and you aren't outnumbered 10 to 1 with them claiming impartiality in due process, have 3 editors following you around deleting your edits using ad hominem as the reason, with a few others deleting pages you made. john 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn website. Please note that User:Ombudsman is adding links to this site to all sorts of Wikipedia pages. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I disagree with the content on the website, the website has generated a fair amount of controversy on Wikipedia (e.g. see Talk:MMR vaccine) and is notable in that regard. Wwhether or not whale.to should be linked to in the external link section is a separate issue (favor not linking to). Andrew73 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page seems to have sprung from the seemingly intractable RfC on whale.to on Talk:MMR vaccine. Basically, the RfC was meant to determine the appropriateness of whale.to for external linking on a variety of sites. Several editors suggested that whale.to receive its own page in lieu of links on the multitude of topics that whale.to objects to. Personally, if having its own page stops Ombudsman from spamming it on the medical pages, I'd support keeping it. InvictaHOG 04:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: You even deleted two published books of Dr Kalokerinos [31] such is your desire to suppress vitamin C and vaccine critics. And your argument to delete links to whale.to is pure ad hominem. If anyone was a spammer I would consider your deletion efforts as allopathic spamming. john
    • But it isn't. it has its own page and he's still spamming all of the pages with links to it. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN (and the deal described above, even if it worked, amounts to obtaining inclusion by blackmail). Tearlach 04:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This site is substantially comprised of a highly misleading selection of copyright material taken from other sources with no evidence of permission. Such republication is an identical theft to the theft of copyright music. The intent of whale.to is to mislead. 86.129.115.248 09:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. user 248 is an ad hominem abusive attack. This is the best argument that is offered, esssentially eg 'pseudoscientific', 'quack' are common ad hominem terms, and there is never going to be an argument against linking to an on-line book eg on the salk polio vaccine www.whale.to/vaccine/bayly.html except ad hominem. Just suppression of allopathy criticism. john 14:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep No other vaccine site crops up at the top of google searches as often and with as much pertinent content as does Whale.to. The site may well have the greatest breadth of vaccine content to be found anywhere on the net. With the growing prevalence of autistic spectrum disorders overwhelming medical service providers, devastating families, financially depleting school systems, and wreaking havoc on the health and well being of millions of affected children and families around the globe, wherever mass vaccination programs have spread, the role of Whale.to in overcoming the suppression of scientific knowledge has long since achieved notability. Ombudsman 07:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, notorious POV/troll magnet on Wikipedia for several months now. Outlet of regurgitated material from other sources, no original material available. Inadequate as a reference (see Talk:MMR vaccine and associated RFC), let alone as the subject of its own Wikipedia page. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alexa rank 105,354, well below the WP:WEB cutoff of 10,000. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --WS 23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the amount of links to the site from wikipedia are, by now, practically notable in and of themselves. Michael Ralston 12:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that's a circular argument. To create notability all a webmaster (or his proxies) has to do is dump links to his site all over Wikipedia and it automatically becomes worthy of its own article? Have you read WP:WEB? JFW | T@lk 14:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pseudoscience, troll bait and garbage. Incognito 05:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looking at the site, I can see no way it qualifies under WP:WEB and the article itself doesn't actually contain any particularly relevant encyclopaedic content QmunkE 12:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the site may be notable in the unbelievable amount of nonsense it contains, but only for that reason. --CDN99 15:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete However, John and other supporters Who the hell is John? Article terribly written. And it looks like there was no need to write it on the first place. TestPilot 04:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John is mentioned in the introduction and is the same john replying in this thread! InvictaHOG 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Self-serving and non-notable. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established in article or in arguments here; notability through internal wikipedia controversy does not establish notability in the world at large. siafu 14:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I'll abstain for now, but I have a question for John that may help us work through these issues. You keep adding links to your [deprecated source?] website to many, many medical Wikipedia pages. Are you doing this because you believe whale.to is currently a notable resource, or because you are hoping it becomes a notable resource in the future? --Arcadian 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't added any links for weeks, I'll be back in the saddle in a week or so. I did a Wiki page some time ago which had a few links pointing out the allopaths game, and I'll update that in due course, eg deleting pages I have done such as Lily Loat, and attemting to delete these Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics, that one took an hour to do. While I have been off whale.to for a few weeks, for various reasons, I have been doing Wiki pages, eg National Anti-Vaccination League, started this one Harris Coulter, so I may do more of that as Wiki certainly needs more of a balanced viewpoint as nearly all of the vaccine pages and vaccine disease pages (for starters) are purely allopathic thinking, with no vaccine criticism allowed, and I enjoy doing that. I did manage to create Archie Kalokerinos and put his vitamin C cot death prevention on the SIDS page---after a big battle on the Talk MMR page (not sure that was worth the talk). But at least he seems to be still up there, fingers crossed. I may put a link to the Wiki page I have done on The National Anti-Vaccination League, rather than duplicating it on whale.to. That needed doing and I doubt I would have done it if I hadn't come here, so that is one plus point. I have the books on the shelf. I can't see Wiki ever improving on my pages eg Scheibner www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html, unless you have a document facility, and can keep the allopaths from deleting them or the links. As to your query about whale being a notable resource, I feel (IMO) it is the most valuable resource on medicine on the internet, right now, but i don't expect anyone who hasn't done the research I've done to see that, especially allopaths for obvious reasons, the main reason being the lack of real knowledge of most people who have been fed propaganda, like I was. (Medical) Truth is very simple, but really annoying to man, as Goethe said. I have the best vaccine document resource on the internet, especially smallpox. I have taken apart vaccination already, so any additions will be gilding the lily, but I will have all the relevent smallpox books up there one day, as I like to be thorough. john 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more detail to the page. I believe it is NPOV, but further review is of course appreciated. --Arcadian 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the bogey words (demons, implants, etc) that User:InvictaHOG are using in his ad hominem ploy are also on wiki pages. So I am mighty curious to know how come it is OK for Wiki to have pages to Alien implants, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Skull and Bones, Demons, but NOT OK for me to have them?? john 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Goes to credibility, as the TV lawyers like to say. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 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 Attack page (It was literally one line of text consisting of a personal attack) WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cookin' With Romeo and Juliet[edit]

It was originally started as an insult page (check the past revision in history), but was blanked earlier today. Upon Googling the name, I found that it was an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but an unnotable (besides its reference to the Shakespeare play) episode hardly deserves its own article, even if it actually had content. Frag 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burmle[edit]

This article can never be expanded, because no furthur information exists. Any info relating to Burmle belongs on the relevant LEXX episode page. LeonWhite 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:08, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Hall[edit]

This page is about one of the dorms at The University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign, which already has its own detailed explanation of their housing situation. This doesn't come close to being notable enough to have its own article. I'd say merge, but, again, the U of I already covers this, so... Delete. JDoorjam 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I don't see anything at all notable about this dorm. Blackcats 04:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TheRingess 08:56, 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. enochlau (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Belles[edit]

This group appear to be students, rather than professionals, and not sufficiently notable to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. --Whouk (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --NaconKantari 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFDs at the end of the day need to be voted on too! Delete. Blackcats 04:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakuto[edit]

Found while looking at 0 length pages. Reverted blanking, but bringing to AfD. Not a real Bionicle character. Google search of shakuto bionicle turns up 5 unique hits of which it looks like this is either fanfic or person's msg board name. JLaTondre 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. - Bobet 00:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Blackcats 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NeoJustin 17:32, January 2, 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Data Technology Services[edit]

Non notable company and product, article is practically empty.TheRingess 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Cyberevil 02:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - less than 1,000 non-Wikipedia Google hits is pretty darn low for a tech company! Blackcats 04:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of significance in article. Claimed notability is not substantiated: googling "Image Wizard" + "Data Technology Services" gives 5 Wikipedia mirror sites. Sliggy 10:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no significant content, little evidence of notability. Cedars 02:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Izehar 19:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to meet WP:CORP Werdna648T/C\@ 08:02, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_1&oldid=1116878858"