Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 6

< February 5	February 7 >

Purge server cache

February 6

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to ain't. Babajobu 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hain't

Dicdef at best. Article gives no indication that the word was ever widespread. Fishal 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with ain't.--Esprit15d 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ain't. Apparently it's a semi-cromulent but nonstandard word. --Kinu 00:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ain't. --Revolución (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. Stifle 11:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted as patent nonsense and vandalism. "After this time period has expired, then the male must perform a spell on the female. This is a very important part, because if no spell is casted, you must restart from the beginning." Yes, sure. - Mike Rosoft 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeety Bop Skeet AKA " The James Bowman"

Non-encyclopedic, non-notable, vanity page. --Last Avenue 00:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite unencyclopedic, vanity, lack of notability.--Shella 00:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Royboycrashfan 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-D — S/B tagged patent nonsense and speedied. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Speedy delete: G1. --Kinu 00:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nonsense, vulgar, unencyclopædic, you name it Avi 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as SickAssFetishCruft. Unfortunately it probably isn't patent nonsense... ++Deiz 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. Grandmasterka 06:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per juvenile retardation. Also a possible attack page candidate. --Agamemnon2 06:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, and nonsense. Deletion exists entirely because of pages like this. --Wingsandsword 07:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, following re-write. BD2412 T 19:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

List of UML tools

~~Delete~~ Redundant to Category:UML tools; WP is not a list of links Karnesky 00:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tried to clean up the list by slashing & burning non-notable links. I'm a little more happy with it--enough to withdraw my Delete vote. Not so happy to actually vote keep, though (I think it should just be a cat, but it is no longer the least maintained software list). --Karnesky 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all above.Keep after removal of external links, per arguments below that the category and list would serve different purposes; i.e., the list would point to relevant articles that have yet to be created. --Kinu 00:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)); updated Kinu 18:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Royboycrashfan 00:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Keep, but remove external links. Royboycrashfan 09:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if linkspam can be removed. -- Avi 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete linkspam Ruby 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby, the above can be parsed two different ways: 1) "Delete the article because it is linkspam", or 2) "Delete that portion of the article which is linkspam". I'm guessing you intended the first, but could you please clarify your intentions? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you delete this, the content will appear inside UML Tool. This also adds more information that the category as it allow for a brief description of the tool. It's also somethign that is useful. Mjchonoles 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as linkspam.Blnguyen 05:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Blnguyen 23:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but eliminate the external links. There's nothing wrong with list articles. Melchoir 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Keep but eliminate the external links. JIP | Talk 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, list has added explanation which cannot be included in a category. Lists and categories serve different purposes and therefore cannot make one another redundant. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. If you delete this, there will be a great pressure to create a separate article for every entry. If you delete this and this gets through, please consider deleting all articles in Category:Lists of software too (for example List of wiki software). As per the "link spam": If it helps to overturn the delete request, I would propose to remove the external links on those entries that do have an article. But please note that then that should be done on all articles in Category:Lists of software as well (please note that on several software articles there has been no consensus to do so in the past). Please also note that these kinds of lists previously resided in their respective article (For example I split off List of Petri net tools from Petri net. The question is, will this be moved to Petri net back then?). This here will be a precedent. So I would recommend to take due care on this. Thank you for your careful consideration. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is sufficient debate not to have a "speedy" keep. I think that any notability should be prerequisite for list inclusion in lists such as this, so several stubs wouldn't be a bad outcome to this: they would provide an instant test over whether a product was useful or just more link spam. I have started cleaning up the lists that are in Category:Lists of software, including List of wiki software (partly by rming external links and non-notable products). But one list at a time! Some of the articles in the wiki list need to be stubbed. List of UML tools is my most controversial List AfD, but it also has:
- one of the highest level of link spam
- so many programs which are non-notable
- very little effort to clean it up and keep it clean has been made (people have even thwarted past efforts to remove the external link cruft)
- an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)
- the category includes all of the programs in the list and some which aren't in the list
List of Petri net tools does need a clean-up, but people have been making efforts to do so. I haven't yet touched it. Again: One list at a time. There's no reason to move these lists back to the original articles. But that's not an excuse to keep poor lists. Categories should be used when they can provide enough information. Lists should be kept to the same standard as if they were kept in the original article. This list hasn't been kept to that standard; the link spam is just terrible.

--Karnesky 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the highest level of link spam" do you really talk about List of UML tools?? "an unmaintainable (or at least unmaintained) breadth of focus (see discussion page on last question of AfD)" there was nearly zero discussion about deleting List of UML tools. "very little effort to clean it up" - whoops?? how that. As you can see I have kept that list quite clean without much discourse among contributors. I'm really asking are you really talking about List of UML tools? Puzzled. --Adrian Buehlmann 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I've had that List of UML tools on my radar (watchlist) since ever. But I'havent read anything about your concerns on the talk there. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

46 external links when only 17 articles are in wikipedia. Even rming external links for blue links, this is 29 external links & 17 internal ones. Since notability should be a criteria for inclusion in the list, a list shouldn't have more external links than internal ones. If you can clean up the list & it is useful beyond the category, I'll gladly change my vote. Right now it is more spam than not. --Karnesky 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The elinks for softwares that have an article can be removed. No problem. What I see a problem is, with "non-notable". Who decides that? I can tell you: this is very slippery ground, especially for such a low edit traffic article as this is. If you remove a certain product, the contributor can be very upset if you have not a clear concept what goes on the list and what doesn't. They will quickly create articles. I don't think this is very helpful. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links for blue linked software should go. At least some of the external links in the External links section should go. Notability should be dictated by Wikipedia:Notability_(software). This is one reason why I'm in favor of a cat, rather than a list: the notability of every tool (article) would be tested through an established procedure, rather than turning to a spam-filled list. If a tool doesn't warrant a stub article, it doesn't warrant inclusion in a list. Contributors should not be upset by any bold removal--they can create stubs or argue notability. Without this figure of merit, my vote will stay delete--the list would be uncomprehensive and unmaintainable. -- Karnesky 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can imagine, I disagree with Wikipedia:Notability (software). BTW, it has only proposal status. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, not listcruft. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is valuable. The cat doesn't really replace the list; even the redlinks (which wouldn't show up in the cat) have value, since they point out tools which don't (yet) have wikipedia articles. The list is a valuable resource for people looking for UML tools, let's not destroy that in some quest for wiki-purity. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I look a little time and started looking closer as some of the redlink entries. Take GNU Ferret, for example. Looking at the Ferret web site, there's really nothing that deserves an article of its own. It's a work in progress, and statistically, most projects at Ferret's level of development are doomed to wither and die. It certainly doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (software), for whatever that's worth. But, as one example in a list surveying the field, it certainly deserves a mention. I could write a GNU Ferret stub, which would certainly improve the blue/red ratio, but it would be making a wp:point for no good reason. As time goes on, some of the red links will turn blue, and new entries (of one color or another) will get added. I don't see anything bad about that -- RoySmith (talk) 23:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune. I agree with Karnesky, external links for which there is a wikilink should go. But I think accusations of linkspam are going too far: a good faith effort to maintain a useful list—even if you think it's not a useful list—is not spam. —rodii 03:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list that is redundant to a category, an invitation to create a load more articles on nn software, and a list that is of interest to only a limited number of people, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories don't make lists redundant. With lists we can do things we cannot do with categories, like adding annotations or sorting non-alphabetically to name just a few. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Lists and Categories absolutely do NOT make each other redundent, and who cares how many people its of interest to, I thought this was an encyclopaedia, not a popularity contest! Jcuk 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep great list Tim | meep in my general direction 23:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as attack page and biography without assertions of notability. Capitalistroadster 00:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas_J._Costigliola

Delete. Complete garbage, non notable, etc. Xyzzyplugh 00:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. That would be of interest to nobody. Royboycrashfan 00:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A6. Clearly an attack/hateful page. I can see in its original version that it wasn't, but that page would be a speedy delete: A1 anyway, as it provided no context as to the subject. --Kinu 00:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Utterly ridiculous and unencyclopedic in every way. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Speedy delete — As nonsense Kareeser|^Talk! 00:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, after consideration of sockpuppet voting. Mailer Diablo 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoHomers.net

An article about a non-notable forum. Alexa rank for web address yields a result of 276,755. 10,500 members, sure, but how many of them are active? Kareeser|^Talk! 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE

If you came to this page from http://nohomers.net or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. Please remember this is not a simple vote, but rather a discussion. If you wish the article kept, you should make logical arguments as to why the article should stay. Please add your votes to the bottom and sign them with ~~~~.

Delete. Looks like WP:VSCA. --Kinu 00:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, only 432 unique Google results. Royboycrashfan 00:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete We must keep this page, as Andy said, another forum with less members has the right to have an entry, and this site was mentioned on a DVD, so I don't see why we shouldn't be allowed to keep it on here. ~~Buh 12:31, 6 February 2006 (CST)~~
- Comment: The above comment was not added by Buh, a non-existent user. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete per nom. Avi 01:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If they have been referenced by the actual producers of the Simpsons, then they are notable and the article should be Kept. Avi 04:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Don't delete. It's mentioned by the creator and producers of The Simpsons on DVD Commentary Tracks multiple times making it one of the most notable Simpsons sites on the web and most influential on a television show. There is an active community with active posts just as many other forums that are mentioned on Wikipedia. Looking Glass 09:25, 5 February 2006 (EST)
Don't Delete As Looking Glass said. The board has been mentioned in commentaries and referenced on the show. In addition, staff of the show have held Q&A sessions on the board and visited it. It is the most well-known Simpsons site, and the Simpsons community is rather large. Rekart 21:38, 5 February 2006 (CST)
- Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it This site is perhaps the most well known of any Simpsons forum on the WEB, it has been recognized by people who work on the show. The article is well structured and insightfull. KEEP. Curtis 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User has only twelve contributions to a total of five articles plus this AFD. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A "non-notable" forum? Ridiculous... their community is huge and is as popular this decade as Alt.tv.simpsons was during the 1990's. The site & webmaster were also mentioned in a Blender_Magazine article this past summer (snippet from Blender). Also, this is what Simpsons creator Matt Groening and producer David Mirkin had to say about the site on one of the Simpsons DVD's: (Groening discusses NoHomers.net) AlJeanRules 23:01, 5 February 2006 (CST)
- Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD, his user page, and the talk page of the article. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete This is a significant forum in a rather large internet community. rexgrossman 22:07, 5 February 2006 (CST)
- Comment: User's only contributions are to this AFD. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Che-Lives has a wiki entry that has escaped deletion, and has a smaller forum than nohomers.net (had fewer than 9000 members at its height). che-lives.com's Alexa rank is 301,907. Not to accuse Che-Lives of being non-notable; rather, to note that smaller websites have had their relevance contested and have proven themselves worthy. Andy 03:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how a site that is officially recognized by the actual staff of the show is considered "non-notable." The active community is very large and site itself is extremely informative. Kudoshido 18:15, 5 February 2006 (HST)
- Comment: User's first edit. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Please do not delete the wiki page on such a significant messageboard. nohomers.net is one of the best online communities you'll ever find, "Simpsons" discussion or not. Keep it. Ericbighead 04:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: User's only contribution. Stifle 11:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey astroturfers, thanks for making it easy to see which ones of you are astroturfers. No authentic Wikipedian phrases their votes that way. Ruby 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign that this site meets our website notability guidelines. Capitalistroadster 04:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: ~~all but two of the "Dont Delete" votes above are by users who signed up today. The other two are recent. You can draw your own conclusions from that.~~ To use a homerism, D'oh! There's already a notice saying this above --Fuhghettaboutit 05:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'll admit that I'm a "sock puppet," as the site calls it, but that doesn't make the argument itself any less valid. The site has been cited on the show itself and in DVD commentaries, what other notability do you need? It fits under the Wikipedia Notability criterion #1. Reference AlJeanRules' argument to see why. --Rekart 23:42, 5 February 2006 (CST)
  - Comment: The name sock puppet is totally wrong in cases like this and we should probably change the title of the policy, but nobody has done so yet. Also the only other term known thus far is meatpuppet which is just as terrible. The point is that your arguments will be more important than the sheer number of votes. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rekart. Because you made a valid point and the number of users is enough as well. Dr Debug (Talk) 05:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm surprised I hadn't heard of it until now. I think it meets notability guidelines. -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surprisingly informative article, and free of stupid forumcruft like who the moderators are and who argues with whom. As long as it stays that way, it seems worthwhile. FCYTravis 07:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly notable site, to the point that it was even referenced on the show The Simpsons, a fact confirmed by former director Lauren MacMullan. (screenshot of the reference) -- Gino |Talk ∙ Contribs | --Ginothewino 07:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As much as I hate the sockpuppetry that is going on, it seems to be just barely notable enough to squeak by, since it appears to be recognized by the creators of the show, and referenced on the DVD's. --Wingsandsword 08:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, sockpuppet is a slight misnomer here for the policy, but the spirit of it that the raw number of comments by recently registered or anonymous editors carries little weight here needs some name, and it's most typically used in the "sockpuppet" sense of somebody inventing myriad personas to agree with them. If users of nohomers.net want to save this article, use logic and reason, persuade other wikipedians why it should be kept. Just a lot of votes saying "keep" when you are new here aren't going to go far, that's part of why the name of this process was recently changed from "Votes for Deletion" to "Articles for Deletion", to clarify that it's not a simple vote, it's a discussion to come to a consensus of the community. --Wingsandsword 08:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's interesting how ~~votes~~ affirmations of "don't delete!", in those words, seem to be the mating call of the endangered forum, yet never crop up in any other AfD ; ) . Adrian Lamo ·· 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but I'm slapping a NOR tag on it. Those claims to notability have to be verified. Melchoir 08:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- not sure if this is what you meant, but I ripped the section of commentary in which NHC was mentioned most prominently. (commentary snippet) if this is inappropriate please feel free to remove it. EhrenS 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sock puppet supported. JIP | Talk 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not entirely. Melchoir 09:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is sockpuppet supported, that's not a valid reason to delete an article. Just imagine the chaos of sockpuppets supporting the keeping of a valid article just to get it deleted. Please base your vote on the article, not the people supporting it. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep informative article. Site was recognized by show producers even made it onto DVDs. Notable enough for me. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The site is a fairly notable in Simpsons circles. Compu te r Jo e 10:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I think NoHomers is a very important part of the online Simpsons community. If Alt.tv.simpsons deserves an entry, then so does NoHomers. Rubber cat 10:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: NoHomers is probably the most popular Simpsons forum on the internet. Hell, it even recieved a mention in the season 6 commentary by Matt Groening. Keep it. Removing it from Wikipedia would be a slap in the face to all the people who over the years have made NoHomers what it is. --Wastelandsw 10:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa rank does not suggest notability, however much arm-waving might go on. The argument that other cruft justifies all cruft is not persuasive, and there is no verifiable evidence of significant external coverage. Google and Yahoo searches for inbound links reveal very little external interest, most users ever online was 471. It claims a bit over 10,000 members, but there is no way of verifying this or telling how many of these are still active (so that doesn't sound like a "huge" community to me). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The site does not claim to have 10,000 members or over 1,200,000 posts. That is listed right on the site. That is besides the point. In this case, the notability has not been gained because it's huge (however, the size is quite decent), but because of different things that have already been listed. Those reasons are relevant.

--Looking Glass 06:58, 6 February 2006 (ETC)

Keep : sorry, but this (soon-to-be) deletion seems to be entirely unreasonable. just because the site has decided to flood wikipedia with sockpuppets does not mean it is not notable. it has been mentioned by the writers and voice actors of the Simpsons on the DVD commentaries, twice. it has held personal, direct question and answer sessions with three other Simpsons executive producers (different ones from those who mentioned it on the commentaries). both current executive producer Al Jean and former executive producer Mike Reiss have submitted public statements to the board. It has been referenced directly on the show itself. It has at least three Simpsons animators registered as members. Alt.tv.simpsons, which has an article, has had less direct interaction with writers/actors/animators of the show, has never been referenced on the show's DVD commentaries, and has never been referenced on the show itself. And no, its numbers are not enormous, but considering it's a unofficial, privately-run forum with a specific topic, it's pretty large. --Jamieli 12:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I think this just barely makes it under the wire of WP:WEB (if the claims of commentary on dvd and other evidentiary claims supporting notability are true). I note that if you parse the language of the WP:WEB section, a case can be made for both keep and delete. Criterion: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Is the DVD commentary a fit? First we have to look at all claims and decide whether that's "multiple." Fairly easy to say the DVD is non-trivial. But does mention in the dvd render nohomer "the subject" of this published work? I would say no. As stated in the exclusion section immediately following, this does not include "a brief summary of the nature of the content." I vote weak keep because of the (possibly trivial brief summary) mention of nohomer, but nevertheless in apparently multiple non-trivial published works. --Fuhghettaboutit 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this site is notable, if any fan-sites ever are... and some must be. Mangojuice 21:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If a fan site can be major enough to have an influence on the show itself, than it should be worthy enough to be a Wikipedia article. I have actually heard the NoHomers mention on the DVD, and the way the staff talk about it, it's clear that it's an influential site. --DVD Smith 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've deleted a couple (positive) comments regarding the forum by two sock puppets who, oddly enough, are banned members of the site. Hope that's fine with you guys. :) --AlJeanRules 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this gets kept, which I have a feeling it will, I'm going to start working on an article for the HomestarRunner Wiki, and it's going to have to be kept too for the same reasons. Not that I'm against keeping these sorts of things; I just hope we're prepared for the precident we're setting. --Maxamegalon2000 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly do you call this, then? May I depress you further? =) =) =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry, but it does need to be cleaned up. Although many of these comments are by users of the forum, some do make valid points (AlJeanRules particularly), which is what we ask them to do. With one or two exceptions, I don't have any complaints about the discourse of those members that have contributed to this discussion. - N (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Over 10,000 users? Wow. Wiwaxia 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mentioned by the creators, some of them post on this forum and even mentioned on the show once. Uncke Herb 05:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website. Sock flood. Stifle 11:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless those mentions by the creators are verified by external 3rd party sources (hosting the info on nohomers.net doesnt count as 3rd party IMHO). I will change my vote should the verification be presented. Also, the article needs cleanup as it does contain some forumcruft. Zunaid 15:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC). Changing vote to keep following arguments below. Article still contains extraneous info that could be pared down, however the subject seems notable. Zunaid 07:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say the DVDs/episodes themselves are perfectly acceptable, very easily verifiable sources. The main mention of the website on the commentaries is on "Homer The Great", in the season six box set. The mention of the site in an actual episode is in the episode "Sleeping With The Enemy", during the bowling alley scene. --Jamieli 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's an audio clip from a Simpsons DVD mentioning NoHomers.net (the voices you will hear are Matt Groening and David Mirkin, and this is already posted above): (commentary snippet) --- AlJeanRules 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable. Socks and cleanupability irrelevant to notability. Turnstep 15:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many other sites out there that are much larger and more successful that do not have their own site. It seems that this site was created by members only for the publicity, internet sites should not be given wikipedia articles because of their instability. Who knows how much longer that this site will be around anyway? Sure, it was mentioned by the Simpsons creators, but only because it's one of the few large simpsons forums out there. I can understand why Alt.tv.Simpsons has it's own article, because it was a pioneer and is still well known after 15+ plus years. Only the initials of nohomersclub were used on the show, and in the background so only members would get the reference. If the members REALLY must have an entry, why not just give them a small mention in the main article? --Scorpion0422

Scorpion0422 indicated that he wanted his comments removed [1] and seems to be having problems in doing this, so I'm trying to help out here. My personal choice is No Vote. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 03:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: User deleted his original anonymous post since he has a history of vandalism on The Simpsons. See [2] for evidence of removal of the original entry. Dr Debug and tried to remove it again(Talk) 03:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete under G6, A1, and a whole buncha other things Grutness...wha? 01:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Algormortis

Does not meet WP:BIO, among other things. --Kinu 00:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G1. Patent nonsense. (Forgot to vote!) --Kinu 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AfD is not necessary if you feel an article should be speedy deleted. I agree, but there's no need for this. Royboycrashfan 00:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ack... yeah, I realized that just as I added the deletion templates to the page. I'm a little slow today. Thanks for catching it. :) --Kinu 00:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vail Resorts

Not a notable company. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 00:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Over 6 million Google hits, and I know for a fact that Vail is a popular ski resort. Royboycrashfan 01:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Royboycrashfan Ruby 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Publicly traded company (MTN) with 3,700 employees. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Keep as popularly traded company. Capitalistroadster 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: let's Google these things before we nominate them. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all traded companies. And please have someone who knows the template add this info to the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand — per Royboycrashfan. Perhaps a separate section for each resort. Kareeser|^Talk! 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Royboycrashfan and Bill W. Cnwb 22:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company in a very notable ski area. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable company. Siva1979 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above DVD+ R/W 00:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Ashman

Non-notable as written Avi 01:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Royboycrashfan 01:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he's an international cricket umpire - notable enough. QazPlm 01:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per QazPlm. Staffelde 01:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International umpire and first-class cricketer see Cricinfo [3]. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per QazPlm. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Test umpire who did 14 tests. Dr Debug (Talk) 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Really pushing the boundaries of notability here chaps... IMO Test Umpires are not inherently notable, unless e.g. seriously prolific to the point of record breaking (like 100+ tests) or famed for their character / personality. No problem with an article about Dickie Bird, for example... I don't envisage a significant, seriously informative expansion to this in the future so I'm going with delete. ++Deiz 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per others. Dead 40 years and still listed on several cricket web sites. Notable enough for a non-paper encyclopedia.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Keep. If he'd played 6 games for the Boston Braves, then become a baseball umpire this wouldn't be up for deletion. Monicasdude 04:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it goddamn well would. Not all of us are monosyllabic Americans with beer helmets. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid ad hominem attacks and remain WP:CIVIL during AFD discussions. Hall Monitor 18:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perhaps there is nothing particularly special about this umpire, but he is a lot more notable than other sporting figures.Blnguyen 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the least, he was a professional (test-level) athlete in his sport. --Kinu 06:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he played cricket (professional sportsman) and he was an umpire in several international test cricket matches (major sporting event) which is similar to being an umpire during Wimbledon for tennis or the Superbowl for our American friends. Certainly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since I am prepared to extend the definition of competing in top-level sport per WP:BLP to include umpiring test matches, even if he hadn't had a prior career at the top level; I'm not completely convinced that playing for Orange Free State qualifies there. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sports geeks worldwide need information like this RatherConfused 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep International cricket umpire. --kingboyk 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Our job is not to decide whether we think umpires are notable, but whether this particular umpire is considered notable by third-party sources. The answer would seem to be yes, so keep. Turnstep 15:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Seems to be notable enough for a comprehensive non-paper encyclopedia. - N (talk) 15:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this international cricket umpire is worthy of note. Hall Monitor 18:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added reference from Cricinfo.com. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Splash Reason: nn-bio. --light darkness 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jon The Baptist

Non-notable Avi 01:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I see a red link. Royboycrashfan 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins must have tossed it. Avi 01:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Console Wars Australia

Non-notable discussion board, delete per WP:WEB Hansnesse 01:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looks to me like vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Captain Jackson 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that it meets WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
Delete. Per Capitalistoradster. Cnwb 02:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - forum with only 158 members -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Roisterer 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, patent non-notable web forum: 158 members. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 10:56Z
Delete per everyone, although an article on the competition between consoles from an Australian perspective would be interesting. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all above. Arnzy 16:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Perhaps in the future.... --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of accounting software

~~Delete~~ Redundant to Category:Accounting software Karnesky 01:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we also have a comparison of accounting software. (unsigned comment by JzG)

Redirect to comparison of accounting software. I've already merged the few unique programs from this list to the comparison. I don't see any reason to keep this list now!--Karnesky 21:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Change to keep per Nelson Ricardo's comment. Royboycrashfan 01:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categories are inadequate. They cannot hold red links for future articles, for example. If the aerticle is voted for deletion, then the deleter must ensure the list is copied back to the main accounting software article. --Nelson Ricardo 01:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they can; include the red links in the commentary section of the category page. It just is not common. As for me, delete - Skysmith 12:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note There are no red links in this list. Furthermore, I've added the appropriate cat tag to all articles in the list. If, in the future, people want to request articles on accounting software, there are already mechanisms to do this without using this list. -- Karnesky 01:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky, page has been around a while with plenty of activity but Wikipedia articles are not just lists of links, internal or external (WP:NOT 1.5.2). On that basis this is delete as (re: Karnesky) the info can and should be found elsewhere. ++Deiz 02:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Rather than having a red link in an obscure list, it would be better to simply create a stub article on any program to be added to the category and let it be fleshed out later. Stubs are much more encyclopedic than red links.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Delete since that's what categories are here for. -- 9cds^(talk) 03:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As long as we're citing wp:not, "Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." This list article has structure not reflected in the corresponding category. There is no policy or consensus against having a list and a category with the same scope. I don't understand the reasoning on this AfD at all.Melchoir 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I agree that lists can be fine. I made no complaints about lists of links in the AfD. However, the only "stucture" this list lends is in licensing. So why not create two subcats to the main category accounting software? The reason for this AfD is that the cats are more maintainable than this list & the list, itself, adds very little (licensing). --Karnesky 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be harmful to sub-split a category with only 34 articles. This list page is the only way to have all the items on one page, yet still sorted. Okay, so it currently sucks. It could use further breakdown by purpose, or maybe a short description of every item. It can be improved. Melchoir 08:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would it be harmful? I actually think having a cat of Free accounting software would be useful, as it could be cross-listed under the Free software cat. -- Karnesky 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Because there would no longer be a single place where you could see all the items. One of the purposes of a category is to guide the reader between its articles. Splitting it would make it less efficient. Melchoir 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The reason categories exist... Compu te r Jo e 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a harmless list article. JIP | Talk 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (changed vote, see below) Categories don't make lists obsolete. Lists allow for organization which differs from alphabetical order and annotation which categories can't. Needs some explanatory info added, but otherwise okay list. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I interest Sir in a comparison of accounting software, one careful owner, only slightly shopsoiled? ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, merge and redirect to comparison of accounting software. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as written, redundant per category, will change to keep if some encyclopaedic information is added (e.g. modules available, whether it's tax accounting or small business book-keeping or whatever) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MgM says merge and redirect - following a long tradition, I agree with mgm :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, lists add information categories cannot. In this case, I do not think that a list is necessary. Lord Bob 18:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ouuplas 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a list which provides information the category cannot, together with the category, is more beneficial than the category alone. --bainer (talk) 08:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to create one, then - this list does not contain anythign a category can't. I'd change my vote if it did (and by that I do not mean redlinks). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to category. I do not see what information that a category doesn't provide. If you want to make the division between free and proprietary, use subcategories. There is no information on this page that couldn't be put on a category page. Stifle 11:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. Lists and categories are complementary, not competitive. Seems like a useful, verifiable list with a well-defined criteria. Turnstep 15:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems like it until you compare it with comparison of accounting software which is massively more useful and contains encyclopaedic content as well as the links which would be provided by a category :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a good point - the two lists are certainly competing, aren't they? Since one is a beefed-up version of the other, I'll switch to merge duplicated information (if any) and delete. Turnstep 12:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good arguments on both sides. Currently, this list is more flexible than the comparison table, and (perhaps not a coincidence) there is now another red link on the page. However, the list is essentially duplicated by the comparison table. Suggest the comparison table article doubles as the list article. If necessary to have items which are not within the table, these can be in a separate section. Slowmover 17:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the redlink was for Peachtree Software, which did have an article. --Karnesky 18:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Judge Dredd. moink 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawmaster

Comicruft. All relevant information is already and should be on Judge Dredd. Delete. Kinu 01:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the article creator I'd like to see it kept, however I can see the argument for it perhaps not being notable enough on it's own. Perhaps an article on all the vehicles in the Judge Dredd universe rather than separate ones is a reasonable compromise? exolon 01:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. If there are more vehicles to be described, a new section in the Judge Dredd article would be the way to go. Redirects from vehicle names would also allow readers to gain context when looking up specific vehicles.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Jeez, just redirect it. No need to put it under afd. What's so hard about that? ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't think a redirect was necessary. I wanted to delete it, and maybe I'm not the only one as per the above discussion. That's why I listed it on AfD. You can suggest a redirect without the attitude. Jeez. --Kinu 03:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deleting it isn't necessary, either. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh, Jeez is so incivil. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu Ruby 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, it's unlikely that anyone will look under this name for anything ut the Judge Dredd topic, so it'll be useful to have a redirect. I've seen no argument for why we need to delete this outright that couldn't be served better by redirects. Bill W above seems to almost be arguing for redirects too. Night Gyr 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Judge Dredd. I don't see any valid reason to delete this. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Judge Dredd per Mgm.--Isotope23 18:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Judge Dredd per Mgm. --bainer (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 was to delete the article. Croat Canuck 02:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Being of the Beautiful (Plato)

nn term used only by one person in his translation of three plato dialogues Heah ^talk 01:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, vanity(?) Royboycrashfan 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Avi 03:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plato is notable; those who translate his works generally aren't. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per EWS23. --Wingsandsword 08:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 RoySmith: CSD A7 --light darkness 02:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silenoz

Non-notable Avi 01:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. Royboycrashfan 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7 per Royboycrashfan. While Googling for this band does yield a reasonable number of results, the article in this form does not even come close to asserting whether this meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 01:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 discussion was to delete the article. Croat Canuck 02:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Ryders

Delete. Google for "night ryders"+rap yields few relevant results. Does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC. --Kinu 01:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 01:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. If somebody can provide proof they meet the WP:MUSIC criteria, then things change. --Wingsandsword 08:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Compu te r Jo e 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I thought this might be an article about the nickname I give to Montreal Canadien Michael Ryder, but no such luck. Delete as a non-notable band. Lord Bob 18:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, and place {{deletedpage}} on both pages; vehemence of IPs is appreciated and noted, but judgment of more experience editors is accorded more weight. Babajobu 03:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villain (Knox movie) and Knox (animator)

Delete. Originally put up for PROD. Likely vanity; doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Also seems to fail crystal ball test. --Kinu 02:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Comment: The related article Knox (animator) was put up for PROD as vanity and WP:BIO failure; added here as part of this AfD since PROD is removed. --Kinu 02:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I wouldn't necessarily say it's crystal ball, though. Royboycrashfan 02:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- True. It's easy to put a release date on something that you'll be releasing. :P --Kinu 02:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um this page actually has more info about the movie than Knox's actual site...I actually learned alot about the movie from this page, so i dont see why you should delete it. Same thing with the Knox page..Knox isnt just some nobody who makes movies that only his friends watch, he has millions of fans who know about him. I say keep them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.231.8 (talk • contribs)
- this page actually has more info about the movie...: Wikipedia is not an advertising medium, nor is it designed to be a primary source for information. If there is more information here than on the "official" page, it effectively turns this article into both of these. --Kinu 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep! this page wasnt being used to advertise the website. Me and Marshal(Knox's close friend) added that info because there was a notice saying that there wasn't enough info on the movie. The knox page has been deleted before, but was created again. People obviously think that this page should stay. - Brady Lowery

Comment: That means this is vanity. Royboycrashfan 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship." the knox page wasnt created by me or any of knoxs freinds, all we did was edit some things and clean up the page. - Brady Lowery

You made several major edits to the article. It's still vanity even if you didn't create it. Royboycrashfan 05:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

im just saying that if you guys delete this, some other person will just come along and make a whole new page about this guy. Alot of online film makers have there own Wikipedia pages, so why delete Knoxs? plus he even has more fans than most of them.
Speedy Delete — Per Brady Lowery (above) this is recreated previously deleted material. Don't know how to verify that, but I'm sure someone else here does. If it's true, it's CSD:G4
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
- Good catch, Bill... didn't even notice that phrase in that reply. If that article does in fact get deleted again, whether by speedy or consensus means, I recommend the use of {{deletedpage}}, to prevent yet another recreation, which is mentioned as highly likely in one of the other comments. --Kinu 06:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This isnt a duplicate of the first Knox page, which i only saw once, and it basicly just talked about how hes a clay animator, and it didn't have much info on it, and it didnt even list his movies (when i saw it anyway), and i dont even think the first Knox page has the same title (i think it was Knox claymation or whatever). This page was most likley created by someone who didn't even know Knox had a wikipedia page before. I dont see any reason why this page should be deleted.....the "villain" page, yes...but the "Knox" page, no, I dont see anything bad about the "Knox" page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)
  - That call for inspection was actually being directed toward an admin, who can access the original deleted page itself and make an objective assessment. --Kinu 07:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok cool, other than that, why is this page being conidered for deletion in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.73 (talk • contribs)

81.98.65.35 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)Keep this page up![reply]

- Above user has no contributions beyond commenting on this AfD. --Kinu 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I hadnt heard of this guy before and i found the article fairly interesting. An 18 year old releasing a claymation movie that apparently grossed over $30k must be fairly notable, no? But the articles are full of unsourced rubbish, so meh. -- jeffth e jiff 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with extreme prejudice, non-notable, meatpuppetry and threats to violate policy further. --Malthusian (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep I actually do know who Knox is. I've seen acouple of his movies about a year ago, but my friends at school are always qouting his new video's. So i say that this page is indeed notable. 172.145.175.36
- Comment: Knowing who he is and quoting him are not the same as notability. --Kinu 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
so abunch of people all around the world, who dont know him personally and have NEVER talked to him, yet still knowing about his work dosn't make him notable? the guy has atleast 2 million fans, i think he deserves a article. Why wouldnt he? That "notability" thing even said something about the person needing to have atleast 5000 fans, or have sold 5000 CD's(in his case, DVD's)..the guy has sold over 6000 copies of his movie....and this is a 18 year old guy (who started when he was 15). I think that is amazing. -Brady Lowery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.163.100.203 (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete as {{db-repost}}. Stifle 11:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please clarify under what name was the article formerly created and deleted. Neither Villain (Knox movie) nor Knox (animator) have any deleted history. Also please note that speedy deletion of an article doesn't automatically make its re-creation a speedy deletion candidate (unless the new version meets speedy deletion criteria), and a re-created article after "Proposed deletion" is excluded from speedy deletion for that reason, or from nomination for {{prod}} once again. No vote. - Mike Rosoft 18:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so let me make my vote explicit. Delete, unless the claim that he had made 50,000 dollars on one of his movies is verified/referenced, in which case I'll change my vote to weak keep and cleanup. - Mike Rosoft 10:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This guy is a major geek icon. His works ARE notable. I mean, King of the Portal? 5 times? On Newgrounds? Having the most Top 50 movies on Flashplayer? Not to mention the fact that he's put out a DVD that's made truckloads of cash? Admittedly, this article needs a bit of a tune-up, but it still should be kept! This guy is an internet VIP! But, by all means, delete the Villain page. Sincerely, 67.173.8.132 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Knox may not be famous or important in the real world, but he is definitly internet famous. I think it is reasonable for him to have a single page about himself, his works, and how he creates them. On the otherhand I think the Villian page should go.
- Unsigned vote by User:69.81.47.113, who has only three contributions apart from this comment, all to Knox (animator). Please note that votes from unregistered or newly registered users with very few edits may be disregarded. (See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators.) - Mike Rosoft 11:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep user: Rob Meehan 5:28pm, 7 Feb. 2006. What's the point of deleting the article, sure, it needs clean-up, but you don't to be a bitch and delete it. Knox is famous on the interent, and of all things, deserves a wikipedia page. His movies are known all over the internet. I don't think this is a "waste of space", as some of you keep bitching.
- No such user account; vote/comment was actually made by unregistered User:65.26.121.53. - Mike Rosoft 09:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is internet famous. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Holy crap, Villain isn't just a stupid internet movie, it is a Napolean Dynamite style movie, a real movie. Knox will one day be a pro film maker (independent thoiugh). He deserves a pge and a Villain page. DELETE DUMB kLAY WORLD OTT PAGE THOUGH? HOW MADE THAT!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.154.215 (talk • contribs)
- Anonymous user above has no significant contributions beyond commenting on this AfD and on a talk page for a related article. --Kinu 23:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus that article should not exist as standalone; no consensus as to whether it should be deleted or merged, therefore merge. Babajobu 03:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leets

gamecruft, put up for prod, but template deleted, so here we are on afd -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, smells of vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 02:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mmm, crufty goodness. --Kinu 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are many articles on Wikipedia about creatures from computer games. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 02:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as GameCruft and LeetCruft. You guys sure know how to have a good time... ++Deiz 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Leets have quite a following with websites like Leets Roxxor and Leetville popping up. Some people even making plushie leets themselves and online comics featuring strips involving leets such as GU_Comics. --Thundera 02:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC) (The preceeding comment was written by the creator of the nominated page. All of this users edits have concerned the nominated page.)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopedic subject. Pilatus 02:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anarchy Online. It's apparently a creature in that game, and it doesn't appear to really warrant an article of it's own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wingsandsword (talk • contribs) 08:05, 6 February 2006.
Yeah, merge. Melchoir 08:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, gamecruft, not notable enough. And here I thought a leet was a vegetable... no, wait, that's a leek. JIP | Talk 09:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect with Anarchy Online per WP:FICT. Please express opinions with a little more words. Being cruft is not a valid reason to delete. We do have a featured article on goombas, after all. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, when I pick up an encyclopedia I love finding cruft-ridden crap in it... anyway, based on length, content, notability of subject and number of people familiar with / likely to be interested in the subject, comparing Goombas and Leets is impossible. ++Deiz 12:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So perhaps comparing these to goombas is a bit over the top. I still don't see why they should be deleted instead of merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So merge... I do take exception to the fact that just because WP is a web-based entity people accept that WebCruft is more acceptable for inclusion... ++Deiz 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikipedia should try to encompass all knowledge, meaning goombas and leets and world of warcraft and everything else should be included. --Thundera 22:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anarchy Online. Not notable enought for a standalone article.--Isotope23 18:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per MacGyverMagic, otherwise delete as insignificant gamecruft. Lord Bob 18:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with a merge and redirect to Anarchy Online if that would please you all. --Thundera 18:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Anarchy Online.--Shella ° 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Anarchy Online although if someone can find a large online presence I would be inclined to change my vote to keep. (A google search turns up a little bit about them and a lot of other things. It is thus difficult to determine whether or not they deserve their own article. Possibly someone else knows more about this subject?) JoshuaZ 22:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Anarchy Online as per above. --bainer (talk) 08:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Appears to be game/fancruft. Not deserving of its own article. Stifle 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Leets are an important fixture in AO. Im sure if this was a WoW topic this would never have come to afd.--Pypex 15:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be famous. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important enough topic to keep, although I would be Ok with a merge. Arundhati bakshi 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Comparison of image viewers. Babajobu 03:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of image viewers

~~Delete~~ Redundant to (and less comprehensive than) Category:Image viewers. Only two redlinks, of questionable notability. Karnesky 02:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect, per MacGyverMagic. The comparison is missing: Thumbsplus (non-notable?), ~~GThumb, imgSeek, and Xv.~~ The cat might have others worth adding to the comparison --Karnesky 15:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merged all but Thumbsplus. Not convinced of notability. Please redirect if AfD goes that way. --Karnesky 21:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another in a series of link spam articles Ruby 02:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 03:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and redirect~~ to Comparison of image viewers, which is infinitely superior. Melchoir 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Merge and redirect per Mgm. Melchoir 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Comparison of image viewers (which is a lot more informative), but don't delete as I'm sure some of those programs are still missing from the comparison and adding them after deleting this list would violate the GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note I agree with your conclusion, but how, precisely, would adding them after the fact violate the GFDL? -- Karnesky 15:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GFDL requires us to retain the edit history for all the material we have. If we retain the content, we are not allowed to delete the edit history at its earlier location. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per MgM. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Mgm. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 13:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a longstanding tradition to keep both list and comparison pages of software. It's impossible to merge this page to comparison page because the latter must contain the information that this list doesn't provide. Grue 14:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite being "impossible," it has already been merged (except for the non-notable redlink of Thumbsplus). --Karnesky 16:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 as non-notable biography.--Alhutch 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gondek

Delete: Self-Promotion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveblack (talk • contribs)

Delete, vanity. Royboycrashfan 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. NOTE: This is a page that is similar to Noel Z. Gondek, which is the subject of a previous AfD. I would also add Gondek and Noel Z, Gondek to one of these nominations as well. No wonder that first sentence ("hard nosed, fiscally conservative community advocate") looked familiar. --Kinu 02:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Campaigning on WP tsk tsk Ruby 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Vanity, self-promotion, non-notable Avi 03:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, word for word recreation. Shanel 03:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bellerock entertainment

Article was deleted on 23rd January. I don't have access to deleted articles, but from memory this is very close to being a recreation. It's also very loaded with positive spin - spam, I would say. Delete, speedy if it's a recreation. kingboyk 02:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: G4 per nom if a recreation; delete per nom otherwise. --Kinu 02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G4. Royboycrashfan 02:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Darboux

This is an entry on an academic with no indication that he is particularly eminent in his field, thus failing the guideline for biographies. A cursory Google search gives no indication of prizes won or wide recognition in the field; many hits are in fact for Wikipedia mirrors.

The article states that Michel has a few papers and patents under his belts, but academics publish papers and submit patents, that (and administration) being the work of an academic and all that.

The article talk page says that the article was created after a request on Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics. There is a Gaston Darboux on the Mathematics Genealogy Project, though, and it may be possible that the requester just mixed up the name. Pilatus 02:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to fix this article to keep it from being PROD'd but this gentleman is not sufficiently notable to evade AfD Ruby 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO or the unsanctioned but seemingly applicable professor test. --Kinu 06:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page you cite is neither policy nor guideline and was written by a single user less than two weeks ago. Monicasdude 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, below the threshhold of notability.--Isotope23 18:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Stifle 11:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep weak notability. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as BJAODN-trolling, utter nonsense. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al qaeda number three

Seems like it was made for a BJAODN. Karm a fist 03:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete bullocks Ruby 03:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even worth a BJAODN. --Kinu 03:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hit Dice?! This is patent nonsense and has been tagged as such Avi 03:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleting as BJAODN trolling. - Lucky 6.9 03:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russell oliver

Non-notable Avi 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7. Doesn't even begin Weak delete. On the fence, but leaning toward delete at the moment. Tries to assert notability, but probably doesn't meet WP:BIO. Hard to say based on Fuhghettaboutit's research. Sounds like the "Federated" guy who bashed in the TVs (boy, I just dated myself), except only of local interest. --Kinu 03:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC); amended Kinu 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you want added to it? He's very notable in Toronto and the surrounding area. --iansmcl
Delete local color, every town has one of these guys Ruby 03:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a cult figure in the town, which according to wikipedia's tutorial on bios is okay. --iansmcl 03:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the Fence. He seems to enjoy some degree of fame, at least in Toronto. See:

[4] [5] [6].I would have to research more to see where on WP:BIO he falls. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Although he may be somewhat notable, the article doesn't assert notability. Royboycrashfan 04:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The parts about appearing in commercials and in a film are an assertion of notability. Whether notability is established is another question. Capitalistroadster 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A valid point; changing my vote to reflect that. --Kinu 05:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand, notable, don't think he fails WP:BIO, but article should be expanded as per Royboycrashfan -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs a lot of cleanup, more explanation of notability, but it's not delete-worthy. There appears to be potential here for a modest, decent article. --Wingsandsword 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his first Google hit poses the age-old question "Russell Oliver: Jewellery Fetishist or True Patriot?" -- what's not to love? Adrian Lamo ·· 20:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known and established in Toronto. The article definitely need expansion. sk 21:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I planned on expanding the article after I initially posted it. - iansmcl
Keep Ouuplas 03:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ugh. I suppose this isn't the time or place to regale anyone with tales of the time I actually dreamed that Russell Oliver was running for mayor against Mel Lastman. (Imagine the campaign debates...they'd be the part that scared me into waking up.) Expansion definitely needed, but probably, albeit reluctantly, keepable. Bleah. Bearcat 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. you must keep the cashman, he's more than famous. -- Marvin147 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a similar personality in Vancouver here. The Captain, who runs a thrift/pawn shop. Funny late night ads and he's quite the celebrity. I should see if he has a Wiki entry yet. --Dogbreathcanada 02:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known celebrity in the Toronto and author says that he plans on fleshing it out.
Keep and expand --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. obviously notable. article references added. don't bite the newcomers. -- 70.28.153.94 05:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 discussion was to delete the article. Croat Canuck 02:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron McKay

Delete. Looks like a nn bio to me, probably created by Cameron McKay. A search for his company gets less than 150 hits and even a search for the somewhat common name gets under 1000. Mrtea (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be vanity; fails WP:BIO. --Kinu 03:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu Ruby 03:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Actually google with with nurv technologies in quotes returns only 10 distinct hits and with name of article subject, gets 0 hits. No assertion of notability in article. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this embarassing nn VanityCruft. And Cam, black isn't as slimming as you might think ++Deiz 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, VanityCruft. Royboycrashfan 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bio of a CEO whose company has just opened its first office. Capitalistroadster 04:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as extreme vanity.Blnguyen 05:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is not about the subject, rather it is about the subject's non-notable company. This violates WP:BIO with a failure to assert notability. (aeropagitica) 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity, but be nice! Body image comments are probably superfluous. -- Samir |Talk ∙ Contribs | 07:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: needs a new staff photographer. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, non-notable. Camillus (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity sk 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wow, a nice gesture on part of my employees turns bad. FYI, We are a new company, but have serious dollars invested in our group. I think its good, as it is a dictionary and if you want to learn more about me its available. I'll hold off on having our company put up on here since the attitude is not what I expected. burlingtondude 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for deletion - 21 votes to delete or transwiki, 14 votes to keep. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/RuneScape skills for a summary of the votes counted towards this determination. Please work together in reducing and merging these articles to the extent that such is a practicable solution. BD2412 T 20:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

RuneScape skills

The total list is:

RuneScape skills
RuneScape locations
RuneScape dungeons
RuneScape quests
RuneScape runes
RuneScape economy
RuneScape items
RuneScape gods
RuneScape random events
Castle Wars
Kalphite Queen
Dagannoth
TzHaar Fight Cave

Delete All as fancruft, these should be merged into the the RuneScape article then deleted Prodego ^talk 03:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify, I do not mean merge all the content into the main article, I mean, anything that is deserving of mention in the main article (i.e. RuneScape skills), should be mentioned. Most of these articles topics are adequately covered in the main article, and some should just be deleted as they are unimportant to the game(i.e. Castle Wars, Kalphite Queen, and Dagannoth) anything that should be covered can be summarized in the main article, we do not need a 600+ word article on the Kalphite Queen for example. Prodego ^talk 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most I play RuneScape and I think most of these artilce are not needed, but I beg of you, please keep the RuneScape god page, it is so helpful.
If they are merged their edit history needs to be retained per GFDL. You cannot delete the history of content that is merged. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fancruft. Royboycrashfan 04:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is not a reason to delete. Please explain what makes this supposedly unencyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT an FAQ, game guide, or a free host. WP:IS an encyclopedia, and this information belongs on a game help site, not an encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter stuff Prodego ^talk 02:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. I play RuneScape and find that these articles are totally unencyclopedic. The information belongs on one of the many forums that fans can post to. JanesDaddy 06:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do delete them all, the resulting page will be very messy. For that Reason, Keep J.J.Sagnella 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. RuneScape is a major game, and the articles are already adequately merged, we don't have individual articles on each dungeon. We have quite a lot of detail on a number of games, and I see no reason why RuneScape should be an exception. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as gamecruft. I don't play RuneScape but I take User:JanesDaddy's word. JIP | Talk 09:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia ISNOT GameFAQs. FCYTravis 09:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For example, RuneScape locations is nothing different from locations in Lord of the Rings which are getting separate articles instead of being lumped together. Besides, it simply can't all be put into the RuneScape article. It would get too long. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep You just cant merge these into the RS article. It would make it far too long! All these articles are useful, and many have already been cleaned up to make them into great articles. RuneScape is a major game, and these articles provide a great deal of useful information. They are merged in to general articles, and the RS series has been greatly improved in the last few months, with economy being almost completely re-written to meet standards, quests actually re-written to turn it from a game guide into a useful and factual database of quests, and every other article has either been cleaned up or is in the process. A lot of work has gone into these and I see them all as good articles that should definately be kept - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most, or transwiki before deleting - To merge would mean enormous pages (though some may be reasonable merges) - to delete would be an insult to all who provided content and edits - if they must be savagely curtailed, please aid in transwiki to RuneScape Wiki - some re-edit, movement of images etc would be required, though it would avoid the waste of deletion or massive cutbacks in a merge. Ace of Risk 17:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- So what if they have 58 edits? People who have 58 edits dont have common sense or opinions? It doesnt take someone with thousands of edits to see that deleting these articles would create an extremely long RuneScape article - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "An insult?" Sorry, there's nothing personal implied here, but the content is simply not appropriate for Wikipedia, per what Wikipedia is not - a game guide. It is, however, appropriate for the RuneScape Wiki, and transwiki to that site would be perfectly fine. FCYTravis 18:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From Wikipedia IS NOT Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides. If merging all the articles would produce too long an article, it just proves how badly written they all are in the first place. Guides should be kept in places like http://www.runehq.com/, http://www.tip.it/RuneScape/, http://RuneScape.salmoneus.net/, http://www.nomadgaming.com/index.php?page=rs2_guide, http://www.gamefaqs.com/computer/online/game/562728.html, and the like. JanesDaddy 17:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How did you think of that one? The longer the article, the worse it is? And lots of the pages have been hugely re-done to avoid being a game guide, and instead become a databse of information (I myself have worked on the economy and quests articles). If the pages are game guides, then can be cleaned up. Deleting them is way too drastic. There are series for a number of other games, and I dont see them up for deletion - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, WP:NOT a game guide. Lord Bob 18:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that there is quite a bit of fancruft here, yet there is no reason to delete all. To put all encyclodedic information on one page would be messy, long, and hard to understand and navigate. Wikipedia should be easy to use. Keep. --Driken 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modify to be more factual/to the point this would probably be fully possible. Cutting out the guide bits with information/guides to players, and keeping in information about the game itself. Clq 21:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. These articles can be edited down. Let's try that first before just deleting them all. Cruft can be removed, you don't need to kill encycloepdic content for that. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What's it to you if we have them here? They don't break any solid rules, there are similar articles about other games, and I feel that they are necessary. The people who want them deleted obviously really hate RuneScape.Dtm142 23:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we put a lot of work into those! And now the anti-RuneScape/Deletionist community wants to throw it all away/merge it all into one or several oversized articles that will hopefully only take one minute to load on the next Windows computer. Dtm142 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. The articles here contain a vast and helpful amount of information and resources. Game guides are not encyclopedia material?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gin_rummy

I then petition the removal of the rules of Gin rummy in the Gin rummy article, such rules can be found on external sites very easily, just as you all have proposed for RuneScape.

Take your arguments into consideration folks. Keep all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.126.56 (talk • contribs)

Quote from WP:NOT(What Wikipedia is not) "Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."

Delete all and merge any worthwhile info into the main RuneScape article. --Revolución (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, valid information for RuneScape fans, let's reward people's good faith in merging stuff. Kappa 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is valid for RuneScape fans, and all available on RuneScape sites, such as this one, but Wikipedia is encyclopedia NOT a game guide for RuneScape fans. Prodego ^talk 02:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for RuneScape fans. I'm glad that this information is all available somewhere else, thus proving it is not original research. Kappa 03:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it all. Is it hurting anyone to keep it here? People put work into making those pages what they are and I find them very helpfull as I play RuneScape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.203.178.45 (talk • contribs)

Comment - These all belong in http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/RuneScape, not in the main encyclopedia. If a merge produces huge pages, it proves that the writing style is very poor (despite previous attempts to re-write) because the articles lack conciseness, and also lack primary sources. JanesDaddy 03:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks per WikiProject CVG content guidelines: "Articles on computer and video games should give an encyclopedia overview of what the game is about, not a detailed description of how to play it. Such topics should be moved to Wikibooks computer and video games bookshelf. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: if the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it's unsuitable." --Muchness 04:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, primarily for the same reasons as stated by Sjakkalle. These articles were edited many times to remove text that made them seem like game guides. However, they still need to be improved to better clarity and remove non-encyclopedic content (which is not a reason for deletion). KBi 06:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks. Goes there rather than here.Hohohob 06:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (some) or Transwiki. RuneScape is becoming a very large article (65K at time of writing). There needs to be somewhere for elaborations to spill into. At the very least, merging the RuneScape series articles into RuneScape would result in an incredibly huge article, even if all the "guide-like" stuff was thrown away. However, I do agree that some RuneScape articles, such as the ones concerning individual enemies (or specific classes of enemies), are non-encyclopedic and do not belong in Wikipedia. Also, one of these days I'm going to go through the RuneScape article to move out all the guide-like stuff. It would be nice to have somewhere to move that stuff to. Someone42 09:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to the RuneScape Wikicity, or to Wikibooks, or Wikisource. Wikipedia is not a how-to or game guide. Stifle 11:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The pages are spilted, as the article RuneScape is too large. no point on remerging them. if the articles are informative, there is no point of delete as a pedia, unless highly offensive materials included. RuneScape Items and RuneScape Skills is questioned to be inculde in this area, it is heavily crossed linked to the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gspbeetle (talk • contribs)

Transwiki as per Stifle. This is not a how-to guide and these articles would require more work to fix than delete and start again. -|Localzuk ^(talk) 13:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki as per above. Just fyi there are a lot of similar articles on the wikpedia dedicated to certain games that can be considered the same thing such as StarCraft units and structures --Larsinio 14:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: they help players and people will just put them back up if you delete them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcdd77 (talk • contribs)

Transwiki or Delete. I don't play the game and can't imagine how anyone who doesn't play the game would be interested in reading about dungeons in RuneScape or any other such gamecruft. If it is valuable and there is a RuneScape wiki, take it there. --Habap 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I dont play WoW, I dont live in China. Are you going to delete those articles too? What a stupid way of looking at things. If you vote delete based on the fact that you dont play it and therefore dont care about it, then there would be little left - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 20:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against transwiking if there's somewhere that will have them. These are all how-to guides or highly specific information of interest only to those who already play RuneScape, wholly lacking in context or even content for a non-RS-playing reader. Conceivably, they could be merged and pared down into one or two more-encyclopedic articles, but that's time better spent paring down and rewriting the RuneScape (which could be that one merge target anyway). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikibooks:RuneScape. Jaco plane 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most, for the already stated reason that to do otherwise would make the RuneScape article enormous.Deus Homoni 02:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, optionally Transwiki. Wikipedia is not GameFAQs. Nifboy 03:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I play RuneScape as well, but I don't think there needs to be so many articles about the game. --Ixfd64 06:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you want to delete these pages? At least just make a game guide wiki or something — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.156.6.54 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 February 2006

Weak keep. I am not interested in RuneScape at all, and I've seen all these articles mauled badly, both by vandals and well-meaning but inept editing. They are certainly very high-maintenance, and a magnet for fancruft. It does seem, however, like there is too much legitimate, encyclopedic content on RuneScape to fit in a single article. For this reason, I'd prefer it if the articles were kept, and were cleaned up to meet Wikiepdia's standards. --Ashenai 09:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insignificant articles. As all RuneScape players should know, the game site has its own forum, which would be clearly more suitable and more attractive to RuneScape players wanting to know something about the game. Much of the information in the pages are available in-game as well, meaning that posting articles specifically on skills and quests seems to be redundant. As a RuneScape player myself, I do not pay much attention to articles and simply "pick up" on the game information while playing. --Yunzhong Hou 14:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most, I think it should be kept and\or organised in a portal style. --Kash 14:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Yes, a portal is a good idea, as there is already a WoW portal - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TzHaar Fight Cave ended with a keep concensus, the same should apply to this whole AfD, as they are in the same series - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do you figure? Prodego ^talk 16:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little disingenuous, as on the 6th, people were advised NOT to comment there and, instead, to come here to comment. --Habap 18:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's VERY disingenuous. Move them all to wikibooks:RuneScape, delete them from here and you can make all the articles as long as you like. JanesDaddy 20:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the way to go. Transwiki then delete Prodego ^talk 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dtm142 23:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, if merged it would be far to long and strung out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.195.117.44 (talk • contribs)
Transwiki These should be transwiki to wikicities and then deleted. No matter how much we try to control it, new articles just keeping showing up everywhere with tons of faq-like information. It would be better to force it into a single article that vaguely describes the game. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego ^talk notes the edit count ONLY of those who disagree with his nomination - if high or low counts are relevant, they are also relevant to the experience or lack of for those who support the nomination. Now if a disinterested party was noting lack of experience, it would be fair, but it appears that the nominator is seeking only to negate the views of those who are anything other than deletionist. Some work is needed, sure, but deletion would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The coverage of some areas is excessive, particularly in "list all" sections of the main article, and rebalancing with the series pages would be better than stuffing the main article. Ace of Risk 13:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all users with less then 300 edits have been marked. The reason I note the edit count at all is because people may be directed here from a RuneScape forum or such, and asked to "vote". Note that this isn't a vote, but a disscussion. Prodego ^talk 15:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person with 1 vote has stated their opinion in the exact same way as everyone else. Frankly, I dont think it matters too much how many edits someone has. It doesnt take 2000 edits to realise that merging all these articles into 1 will create a complete mess. Now please state the edits counts of people on both sides, or nobody -

• | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodego, as an admin you're supposed to be unbias. The way you have handled this so far has been quite bias. J.J.Sagnella 16:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated the page for deletion, so how could I be unbiased? Also, I am not an administrator. Thirdly, I did state the edit count for all users with less then 300 edits, regardless of how they voted. And finally, users with very low editcounts likly haven't read the policies of Wikipedia. I do not think these articles should be merged anymore, but transwikied instead. Prodego ^talk 18:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Prodego, don't be so biased. No, we know that you're not an admin, but you want to be one according to your user page. Dtm142 18:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yeah, don't be so...whoops, sorry. Don't know what cameover me. Transwiki to RuneScape wiki. Failing that, delete. RasputinAXP _talk _contribs 20:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fancruft for nn game. Grue
- How is RuneScape not notable? - • | ĐÜ§§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Runecraft is a very notable game. These articles, while somewhat different, are very similar to several other series of books or games that have multiple articles. How many hundreds or thousands of articles exist for the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. To dismiss these articles as pure fancruft doesnt hold much weight when compared to how many minor articles have been created for other series like LOTR. If we're going to get rid of these articles, a serious look into similar series articles will also have to be taken. --ScottyBoy900Q∞ 02:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. ScottyBoy is right. Objectively we can't look at the game as a fringe piece, because there are a lot of players out there. And so if we treat this similar to other major works, most notably the LOTR series, a serious change to the format of ALL these works would be necessary. Quote Prodego: "And finally, users with very low editcounts likly haven't read the policies of Wikipedia." This is my first edit ever. But I have read the rules on several occaisions and use wikipedia almost daily in my studies. Thanks for your vote of confidence in the less-vocal among us.

--Loadtoad419 02:16, 11 February 2006

Comment: Not sure it would be proper to add to the list that late in the game (so I don't), but RuneScape clans should have made the list as well. Algae 09:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That deserves to be deleted, completely bias, competely useless. I'll make it a Redirect Page.J.J.Sagnella 09:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Chi Alpha

There have been many articles on Wikipedia wherein a fraternity or sorority has written an individual chapter and the article has been subsequently deleted.
Refer to

If one looks at this proposed article for deletion it is very well written and done in a manual style fitting Wikipedia, however I don't see this as a strong point as to why this article should stay. There already exists an article where Dartmouth fraternities and sororities are described. (Dartmouth College Greek organizations). So why is there a need to have a seperate article for each fraternity chapter? It seems like an overkill. Granted, these chapters are old and notable but then again there are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of chapters of any national fraternity which bear the same characteristic. What's to prevent the floodgates from opening and have many individuals use Wikipedia as some de facto free web service such as geocities.com to advertise their greek chapters?

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason listed above:

Keep - The references you describe are to individual chapters of national fraternities. However, these are local fraternities without association to any national organization. They also all have significance to the campus. Phi Tau was the first coed house and one of the early fraternities on campus. Kappa Kappa Kappa was even the second local fraternity in the nation. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 03:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with Smith120bh. The arguments against the pages you reference are that they are chapters of national organizations. The same cannot be said of Phi Tau, Kappa Kappa Kappa, or Alpha Chi Alpha. They are indeed old and notable, as Dysepsion has already conceded, but he is in error when he suggests that there are hundreds or thousands of chapters bearing the same characteristic. They are unique. Tri-Kap is the 2nd oldest fraternity in the country. Phi Tau was the first coed fraternity at Dartmouth College, all the more notable given the initial acrimony when the College first integrated. Given that the primary argument for deletion was based on the erroneous presumption that these articles refer to one chapter out of hundreds or more, when in fact, these are unique organizations, I ask that the articles on Phi Tau, Kappa Kappa Kappa, and Alpha Chi Alpha be kept. --Jedsa 04:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I don't understand is why are there seperate articles for these fraternities when one describes them already exists? (Dartmouth College Greek organizations). Also, is the fact that they are "local" the only saving characteristic to keep these articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dysepsion (talk • contribs) .

Comment (relevant precedents) - Dartmouth College student groups has a number of relevant precedents here, where sections were moved out of that article into their own article. Dartmouth College Marching Band (which has AfD-decided keep precedents amongst it and other Ivy League marching bands), Dartmouth Jack O'Lantern was given its own article (and has passed AfD proposals I think twice now). Collis Center. The Dartmouth (also passed an AfD). And the fact that they are local is a factual statement that your proposal has erred with. The organizations have historical campus significance that has been briefly summarized already by me and other voters. --_└^Smith120bh/_TALK^┐ 04:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Delta Alpha in which a Dartmouth fraternity which had a seperate article was merged. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Phi Tau fraternity is a local, not a member of a national. Informative page about legitimate brick-and-mortar item that has existed for a century. If we have wikipages for every random band that didn't even last a decade, why delete these pages? Womble 04:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per nom, to Dartmouth College Greek organizations. This is what was done for other frats with no national affiliation. See, for example, House System at the California Institute of Technology. As in that case, none of these individual frats are notable. The collection is. -- Karnesky 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, doesn't seem so important. What's with all the fraternity articles? Where's Omega Omega Omega? JIP | Talk 09:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the cited AfD's were all local chapters of national fraternities, and so could be merged with the national. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phi Delta Alpha was an article small enough to be merged with the list of fraternities, but these articles are more complete and well written. As far as notability goes, where do you draw the line? I know from experience that each of these houses are known by at least hundreds of students at the school, and thousands of alumni. Phi Tau (I should disclose that I am an alum of Phi Tau) has been written about in the New York Times, as Milque and Cookies is a unique tradition among fraternities, hosts dozens to maybe a hundred thru-hikers on the Appalachian Trail each year and has been written about in hiking magazines because of it, and has several notable alumni (I will research and provide citations in the morning). — λ 09:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For one thing, it's bad form to nominate three separate (and arguably unrelated) articles for deletion in one vote. As others have noted, the Phi Tau article, for example, is not about a local chapter of a national fraternity, but an independent organization that has its own unique history. In fact, the history section is a very notable component of this article, as it documents the fraternity's decision to break away from the national fraternity organization over the issue of segregation. I don't think that could be adequately rolled into a sentence or two in a larger article. The fact that these articles get a paragraph or two summary mention in another article is no more a reason for their deletion than, say, deleting Religion in Brazil would be justified because religion is mentioned in a paragraph or two of the main article about Brazil.--Kharker 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With Greek System at Dartmouth.Letoofdune 04:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both Phi Tau and Kappa Kappa Kappa have interesting and interesting histories, and are both local Frats, unlike the cited AfDs. Phi Tau is also one of only 3 co-eds in the Big list o' Frats. Jdubrule 06:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fraternities. Merge if you must. Stifle 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if verifiable Tobias Conradi (Talk) 17:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Phi Tau article contains numerous verifiable citations.--Kharker 22:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with several of the above comments regarding the fact that this is a unique and local fraternity, as opposed to a national fraternity with dozens or hundreds of chapters. In addition, one should consider the history and interesting name as facts that add to its value. 23:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Keep I agree with many of the statements above concerning the uniqueness of local chapter history and individuality. It is important to keep in mind that unlike chapters of national fraternities, local houses are all individually autonomous organizations with networks of alumni that have been accumulating for decades. Each house is individually responsable for uniqiue social, campus, and community service initiatives. To merge these articles (not to mention delete them), would be a misrepresentation of the Dartmouth greek system and the greek system as a whole. 18:30, 8 February 2006
Keep Most of the above make a good point, but I see no reason not to allow a unique, individual house its own page. Though the metaphor is not entirely correct, it would be like deleting an individual church and just lumping it into the "Church" category. If it is, indeed, a truly unique environment, let it stay.
Keep- Alpha Chi deserves it's own page. it's a local fraternity and it's sweet. keep it please.
Keep - I agree with Smith120bh-- there is NO national chapter of Alpha Chi Alpha. It is a very unique house with it's own history; much of the information unique to this organization would have no place under the general Dartmouth Greek organizations entry. Alpha Chi Alpha has been written up in the New York Times magazine for its history and tradition. --Zach Mayer
Strong Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 03:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certification of voting machines

There is a lot of information in this article; however, there is very little context. Further, the information looks like there may be some copyright issues; however, I was unable to find this information on the referenced website. James084 03:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -- 9cds^(talk) 03:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as jumble of words not apparently in an order sufficient to convey anything useful. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 04:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 9cds. Royboycrashfan 04:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 9cds. --Kinu 05:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, the content sucks, but the article is important. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Recreate with some real content. Grandmasterka 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grandmasterka. Articles at least need to convey some information to be kept. If you think it's important, put a useful stub in its place. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed vote, see below. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup/Keep, important subject. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 10:54Z
Keep. Already listed for cleanup. See "Problems that don't require deletion" --William Allen Simpson 15:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I routinely tag these articles with clean up tags even if they are on AfD. This way if they survive AfD they will appear on the various cleanup lists for further attention. I don't think that the fact that an article is tagged as cleanup automatically gives it a pass to stay. This article, as it is written right now, has little or no context. Also, the fact that an article is on AfD does not preclude it from being cleaned up. If somebody can turn this article into something useful I am sure that everyone that has voted for delete would be willing to reconsider their vote. James084 15:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No evident copyright issues; quoted materials apparently sourced from non-copyrighted US govt publications. Since the subject is notable, and the nominator describes the article as containing "a lot of information," there seem to be no grounds for deletion. Monicasdude 15:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please keep my comments in context. I said there is a lot of information; however, no context. The reason the article is being nominated is a lack of context, not that it does not contain any information. James084 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And my point, which you're not responding to, is that that's not a reason for deletion under the applicable Wikipedia policy. Monicasdude 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded with context. Though more cleanup is necessary, it should be comprehensible enough to be kept. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 19:05Z
Article should also be renamed to Certification of voting machines in the United States —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 19:09Z
- Disagree with restricting to United States. Voting is a world-wide issue. --William Allen Simpson 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly needs some cleanup and wikifying, but this is an interesting subject and should be on wikipedia. Agree with Quarl re naming. Mangojuice 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, could still use a lot of editing, but at least it has context now. I would prefer moving to Voting machine certification in the United States (note how it differs from the previous suggestion). - Mgm|^(talk) 22:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The name you suggest sounds good to me. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 22:49Z
Keep per Quarl. Very important subject. Dr Debug (Talk) 07:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and send to cleanup per those above. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 KnowledgeOfSelf --light darkness 04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Sin

Delete. Seems to be a vanity page with no indication of why it is noteworthy. Nothlit 03:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 04:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Hoax, (no google hits), never won a national HD eating contest (that's held at coney island). stuffed up his anus?! This should be speedied under nonsense, db-bio, and sheer stupidity. It has been tagged as such. Avi 04:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Avi. Just what the world needs, a poster child for fat losers. ++Deiz 04:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. WI:NOTOUTLETFORTEENANGST. --Fuhghettaboutit 04:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rubber bandits

advertising and doesnt seem very notable, most of the google hits [7] are for the comedy duo which is at The Rubber bandits -- Astrokey44|talk 04:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete advertising. Hbackman 04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement. Royboycrashfan 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 05:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Wingsandsword 08:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisment. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for advert to begin with. It is a new staples product, it DID win an award, but I do not think that makes it notable per se. Avi 16:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kramkalas

Seems to be non-notable, advertising. I can't read Swedish, so if someone who understands that language could check this out and enlighten me if I'm wrong, it would be appreciated. Hbackman 04:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 04:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA. --Kinu 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:VSCA. --Wingsandsword 08:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable unless proven otherwise Avi 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn.Blnguyen 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, no context to speak of. Stifle 11:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 03:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Asia Cafe

Delete: Non-notable cafe. Sounds like small music venues that exist dozens-at-a-time in every community in the civilized world. Not sure what happened with the reviews. That's a joke perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google search for All Asia Cafe yields 9,310,000 hits, which is a sure sign of notability. Royboycrashfan 05:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Those words are common. Google search for "All Asia Cafe" (with quotes) yields 23,600 hits. This is still a lot, but considerably less than allowing all pages not to have the exact phrase. --Karnesky 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another one of those Cambridge, Massachusetts articles that've been popping up on AfD during the past few days. While there are references to this venue (i.e., even the more specific +"all asia cafe"+cambridge yields 12,400 hits), the article itself reads more like a restaurant review than an encyclopedic article. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --Kinu 05:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I completely agree with the second sentence of the nomination, I don't think that makes it non-notable or non-encyclopedic. Perhaps I am becoming an inclusionist, but it's an institution in its area, and that's good enough for me. bikeable (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the menu and (unsourced, evidently fake) reviews as unhelpfully unencyclopedic, leaving us with a small stub. bikeable (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not every small café deserves their own article. Furthermore, the precedent seems to be to delete articles on small local businesses even if they have local notability (I remember a couple such articles about restaurants in Princeton coming to AfD; I voted "weak keep" on both and I think they both failed.) I'm sure this café is less notable than those places. On top of that, I think a lot of bars and cafés here in Minneapolis will get a high google number because they're listed on a lot of local venue sites, band sites and other such crud. Nonetheless, the only such venues in Minneapolis that deserve an article are probably the Quest (venue) and First Avenue. I would hate to see thousands of local café articles and this could set a really bad precedent. Grandmasterka 06:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; seems pretty clear-cut to me. Melchoir 07:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, clearly no encyclopaedic information to be had here. WP:NOT a travel guide. --Malthusian (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete ... I can attest that this cafe is known, but not exactly an "institution in its area." It's perhaps worthy of mentioning in an article on Cambridge nightlife, but it doesn't need its own article unless someone can find more interesting info on it. Mangojuice 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bikeable Lyo 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable TigerShark 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn.Blnguyen 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Stifle 11:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bikeable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't see where this place is an "an institution in its area" as Bikeable said. The links on the article certainly don't support that. In fact, the Boston.com link is just a little review page where three of the four reviews are "Poor"! That sounds more like a place on the verge of shutting down. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ruby 16:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Marketplace, Inc.

Delete — Clearly advertising. Not notable. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Delete, reads somewhat like an advertisement. Royboycrashfan 05:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Launched... on 2006-02-05"... enough said. --Kinu 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement, as Kinu pointed out, the article being created on the same day the site opened really seals it. --Wingsandsword 08:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertisment. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Advertising! Avi 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ads.Blnguyen 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So how do companies get added to Wikipedia normally? Please advise. --Amartinezfonts 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Companies get articles by meeting the criteria listed on this page: WP:CORP - If you feel the company in question meets these criteria, you should state your case here. If the company does meet the criteria and was listed on AfD in error an administrator will end the discussion and the article will remain on Wikipedia. Web sites get articles in a similar fashion, by meeting the criteria listed here: WP:WEB
  — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 8, 2006, 01:47 (UTC)
Delete advert. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghubowski

Keep. Popular company in Champaign-Urbana (IL), just because you didn't hear of it doesn't mean its not notable.--Jghuman2 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Long time resident of Champaign. I gotta say, you playa-hatas have got to show some respect to a Midwest (well just Champaign-Urbana) based company that has reached cult following status.--Lez Zeppelin 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note Lez Zeppelin's first edit. --M @th wiz 2020 23:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note Mathwiz2020's 3073rd edit. --Lez Zeppelin
Not notable firm. Spam. Delete abakharev 05:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is their website, then this meets the criteria for WP:VSCA. --Kinu 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 05:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Patently non-notable. Self-promotion/advertising as well. --Fuhghettaboutit 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam, advertisment, & non-notable wrapped up all in one delete-worthy package. --Wingsandsword 08:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, advertising. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Advertising Avi 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ads.Blnguyen 02:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dalail ul Khairat (That which brings blessings)

Looks like source text; possible copy violation. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 05:53Z

Delete as probable copyvio. Royboycrashfan 05:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it as such. Royboycrashfan 05:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copyvio. --Wingsandsword 08:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 12:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete copyvio; lifted from here if anyone was interested Ergot 19:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyvio.Blnguyen 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it to WP:CV. Stifle 11:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I think it should be deleted I have to agree with Stifle with leave it to WP:CV James084 01:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indicatears

Article about a gadget that lights up your ear. Appears non-notable: 54 Google hits for indicatears. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 05:56Z

Delete, smells of vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 06:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. --Kinu 06:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just plain ridiculous Avi 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia guideline for brand name products (no list for this minor product to be merged into). --Fuhghettaboutit 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 cleanup. Mailer Diablo 04:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Storyline

Unlinked, duplicates information available in a better form elsewhere, and not sure it's the appropriate style of article for Wikipedia. juli. ^{t ?} 06:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The timeline is okay (there are many articles written in this fashion), but the character descriptions have got to go. Royboycrashfan 06:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of fictional timelines here on Wikipedia, like Dates in Star Wars and Timeline of Star Trek. This needs cleanup to be sure, but it's not fodder for deletion. --Wingsandsword 08:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this obsolete with Mario#Biography? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But clean up. JoshuaZ 23:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with clean up per Wingsandsword. Essexmutant 05:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mainly because it's similar to separate discography pages for musical artists. However, agree with RoyBoy that characters should be deleted. Also, better screenshots besides the nondescriptive title screens should be added.--Ataricodfish 07:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up. --S iva1979^{Talk to me}15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EWMG

Unremarkable unused vanity protologism. EWMG, let's nix this. Adrian Lamo ·· 06:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Protologism. (Would've said "Per nom," but protologism is too fun to type.) — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Delete. "Coined by Jeremy Swinarton in 2005." Who? Exactly. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, and this reeks of that. --Kinu 06:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, as per Kinu. (aeropagitica) 07:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Protologism, vanity, non-notable and unverifyable. --Wingsandsword 08:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 09:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity, unverifiable and protologism. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's next, EWMAHGAWD!!!11!1one!!1!1eleventy!!1!1?--み使い Mitsukai 15:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot EWMGBBQ!!1!!1 ;)

Strong delete EWMG, get that OUT of here. Avi 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Protologism ? That's made my day. Angus McLellan 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And if this AfD is successful, it will undoubtedly become a paleologism. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 6 February 2006, 21:03 (UTC)

Comment: you mean there's no article about Eleventyone? *shocked* . Adrian Lamo ·· 20:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually eleventy-one. --Fuhghettaboutit 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian vigilance

WP is not a game site Amcfreely 06:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA. --Kinu 07:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ample prescedent for deletion of Videogame Clans/Guilds. It really doesn't belong here. --Wingsandsword 08:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 09:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gaming clans. (I would propose speedy deletion according to the new CSD A7 expansion). - Mgm|^(talk) 10:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a game site. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn Avi 18:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Knights of Westmarch

Apparently someone's video game clan--PatCheng 07:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA. Just like every other video game clan. --Kinu 07:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination: just being a video game clan/guild doesn't mean you're worth a wikipedia article. --Wingsandsword 08:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 09:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all gaming clans per precedent (CSD A7 if possible) Mgm|^(talk) 10:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Toss on their steel-clad kiesters. This is supposed to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA not NWN. Avi 18:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but the most notable gaming clan articles out there. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShardsOfChaos

Found this incompletely listed on AfD; properly tagging. Deservedly nominated by another diligent user. Delete as WP:VSCA. Kinu 07:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam --PatCheng 07:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:VSCA --Wingsandsword 08:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanispamcruftisement. Royboycrashfan 09:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Wings and Roy Avi 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above.Blnguyen 02:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BMW E28 M5 Vin Codes

This article consists entirely of a list of automobile VIN (serial number) ranges for a particular model. This type of information might belong in a BMW wiki, or an enthusiasts' web site, or conceivably Wikisource, but not in an encyclopedia. MCB 07:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listcruft. --Kinu 07:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nomination. --Wingsandsword 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. Lacks context, unencyclopedic. Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've considered nominating this myself a number of times, but similar lists exist for almost every other manufacturer, so merge to BMW or ultra-weak keep MNewnham 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Transwiki, though I can't imagine there would be anyone but a few law enforcement personnel who would actually be interested in this. If this were to be kept (fortunately consensus seems to be going the other way) I'd insist on equivalent articles about MAC address ranges assigned to Apple iMac G5 hardware. Haikupoet 04:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no comprehensible content. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seeing as Wikipedians would not look at this information, and people needing the info would not look at Wikipedia for it. haz _{(user talk)}^e 21:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per haz's excellent argument. Stifle 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tofu wrestling

Delete This article seems to mainly serve as a link to the PETA video, and there is little possibility for expansion. Lesgles 07:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be just a link to a PETA video. Maybe the link belongs in the PETA article, but it really doesn't warrant it's own article. Not even enough really to merge meaningfully. --Wingsandsword 08:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Royboycrashfan 09:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is only for promotion of PETA, it doesn't actually describe anything about tofu wrestling. JIP | Talk 09:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopædic Avi 18:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tofu wrestling itself isn't notable, whether or not PETA's tofu wrestling campaign is. --Revolución (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everything above. Essexmutant 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neverside

Another Internet forum that hasn't demonstrated notability outside its own community. Fewer than 50 20 unique Google hits and no apparent coverage from any external source. FCYTravis 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:WEB. Melchoir 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination and WP:WEB. --Wingsandsword 08:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alexa rank of 90,209. This screams WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 09:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, non-notable web forum. 2006-02-07 will be the 1-year anniversary of the previous deletion :). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 10:52Z
Delete per all above. --Kinu 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:WEB Avi 18:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lots of Google hits, but about 9000 of them get dropped if you exclude forum member profiles a la +neverside +forum -site:neverside.com. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I can't get past hit number 21 without getting the "we've excluded duplicate listings" message. FCYTravis 21:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Geogre as "Lame joke" —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 19:17Z

The Wisemen

Bollocks. Just check the first version; the author later removed the worst of it. Melchoir 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probable hoax. --Wingsandsword 08:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a hoax. Royboycrashfan 09:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable/hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 10:49Z
Speedy delete Patent Nonsense and tagged as such Avi 18:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Unconventional Weapons and Warfare

Nonexistent government department. Exactly one unique Google reference [8] from a crackpot site. One sentence article, and the author even notes on the talk page, "if this agency does not or has not ever existed, then please correct me". Delete as unverifiable. MCB 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: of course the DUWW would arrange to have this AfD'ed .... :o . Adrian Lamo ·· 08:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nomination. Crackpot, unverifyable conspiracy theories don't belong here. --Wingsandsword 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. US Government Departments generally get more than one Google hit so original research. Capitalistroadster 08:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Of course, as Adrian mentioned, this could be a secret government conspiracy, so maybe we shouldn't...what to do, so confused...hell, delete it anyway.--み使い Mitsukai 15:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. --Rory096 18:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No context AND No content (A1 & A3) and tagged as such. Avi 18:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A1 as tagged. --Kinu 20:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acts-celerate

It's your standard forum article. 125 total Google hits. Not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 08:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, another redlinked forum creator with a soon-to-be redlinked forum. Adrian Lamo ·· 08:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable forum. JIP | Talk 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, smells of WP:VSCA. Royboycrashfan 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising for the website.--Alhutch 11:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 18:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Candida diet

Some sort of page of tips for a disease. The tips are given with "my mother" as the source. Without more reliable sources (that is, we need to be able to check it), I don't think the content of the article is verifiable and looks like original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research. --Wingsandsword 08:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, nonsense, hoax. JIP | Talk 09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. Royboycrashfan 09:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original Research. Although I believe there exists documented evidence that mirrors much of this, the article as written is OR and should be deleted until a valid one is researched, constructed, and referenced. Avi 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet, Why not wait to delete until there is a better article? As mentioned above much of what is said is verifiable from other sources so it isn't as if the content is in gross error, just the way it is written could be better.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Perthshire Tourism Association, South Perthshire, South perthshire and Southern Perthshire

South Perthshire is not a traditional county of Scotland, these three articles were all created by User:Wdez aparently as a vehicle to spam a link to "Southern Perthshire Tourism Association". Advert, plus non-notable. Thanks/wangi 00:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to what you said, the three listed pages are almost completely redundant. Royboycrashfan 09:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as spam. 'Southern Perthshire' is not used as the name of a geographical unit, except in the case of the Tourism Association (see Google [9]). ::Supergolden:: 10:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the association (perhaps adding a weblink to the Perthshire article). Redirect the rest to Perthshire (or secod choice delete them). --Doc ^ask? 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam-city.--Mais oui! 18:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Advertising spam. We should start applying corporal punishment for violations this egregious. Avi 19:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete all; block user. --Kinu 20:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wangi is a Scottish Wikipedian of good standing and I trust his judgement on this. User Wdez on the other hand edited an article on Blackford, Perthshire implying it was a suburb of Edinburgh. Capitalistroadster 00:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of trains in films

A woefully incomplete list of films and TV shows which feature trains. Could be massive and isn't doing much that couldn't be done more efficiently by way of a category tree. Delete kingboyk 09:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has attracted quite a number of additional entries from other users, which in my opinion makes it worth having. I am therefore in favour of keeping it. Tabletop 09:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 09:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment this is more of a list of films with trains. I would support keeping if it was brought down to films in which trains played a significant role like Runaway Train, otherwise delete as unmaintainable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but it desperately needs a rename. This isn't a List of trains in films - it's a List of films featuring trains! Grutness...wha? 11:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, low encyclopedical value but high cost to maintain.

A quote from Uncyclopedia [10]: "[Wikipedia] is actually database including such things as: lists of trains, Mortal Kombat characters, one-time villains from Mario games, road intersections, boring suburban schools, garage bands, cats, ..."

Pavel Vozenilek 17:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all train fans should be able to find Night Mail. On the other hand, Category:Films featuring trains is not such a great idea IMO. Kappa 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a rename and a bit of cleaning would be the best outcome? --kingboyk 01:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a database. Appears to be an almost unlimited list, created just for the sake of having such a list, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 11:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- So there is no imaginable value for readers in being able to find any examples of films with trains in and the contributors who created this list and/or support its inclusion are essential just being self-indulgent? Kappa 13:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes. Zunaid 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep train nerds live off this kind of thing. Just because you feel its unimportant doesn't mean that it isn't of the greatest importance to other people.--Pypex 15:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely didn't say it isn't important or that I'm not interested! It was an editorial nomination that the list didn't meet it's billing and as billed could get very, very long. I'm waiting now for someone to propose a move that can be agreed on and that the nomination will inspire some editors to make the list more focussed and improve it. If other editors think it can't be improved and is too hard to maintain, there will be delete concensus instead. That's how AFD works. (I'm grateful to Kappa too for reminding me about Night Mail - too bad it's 20 quid on DVD :( ) --kingboyk 15:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as pointless listcruft per Stifle. Zunaid 15:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. What's the problem? Grue 14:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's important that this kind of article is deleted because otherwise Wiki will be open to all manner of databases and anorak tendencies. Some films have trains at the very core of their narrative - L'Homme du train, Strangers on a Train etc - but on the whole this kind of listcruft is an open-ended project with little chance of a credible end product. Delete this article before any further advances are made into the world of non-notable lists. doktorb | words 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misnamed and overly broad article; WP is not a list of links (even internal ones). If this is notable info (I don't know that it is), just make it a category. -- Karnesky 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. moink 01:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surf's Up (film)

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR per discussion Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This film isn't scheduled for release until 2007, and according to the edit history it's not even known which studio is making it. Delete. kingboyk 09:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Royboycrashfan 09:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, IMDB has a bit of info on the Sony producing and distributing it and since they're already filming, the cast part of the article is clearly verifiable. It's not making any crystal ball claims. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. In-production project from major studio with highly notable cast. Meets the "crystal ball" policy standard that "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Nominator should have checked verifiability by reviewing already existing IMDB link. Monicasdude 15:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I did. But it's one IMDB link and the film is a year away. It could be pulled yet. I think we shouldn't be publishing articles on in production movies until they are ready. --kingboyk 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then you simply shouldn't have nominated the article, since it's in compliance with the applicable Wikipedia policy, and you should withdraw your nomination. Monicasdude 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability? Please add some credible sources to the article and I will consider withdrawing the nomination. For now, my nomination and vote stands. You shouldn't worry about it, if I'm as blatantly wrong as you suggest (which I might well be) other editors will soon let me know. --kingboyk 21:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article is "verifiable" if sources for the information can be found, as they can in this case. There's an IMDB link in the article, and IMDB information is generally considered verification here. You're arguing for deleting articles which don't meet your standards for listing references, which is by no means Wikipedia policy; you're skating on the edge of a bad faith nomination now. Monicasdude 22:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that IMDB articles are user submitted and not necessarily reliable? If I'm wrong in that then I will certainly withdraw. If I'm not, then I won't - one year is a long time in the advance, and we have no business publishing vagaries about a nowhere near ready film. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I'd appreciate the input of an admin here, or another experienced user, if I'm so advised I'll withdraw it. --kingboyk 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a couple of refs, including one to the NY Times. While WP is not a crystal ball, the release date of a movie is merely the end of a lot of long, verifiable work. Turnstep 01:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Movie references within The Simpsons (seasons 13-present)

Seems to me that this isn't encyclopedic. Of course an enyclopedia should have some detailed information on The Simpsons, but I don't think it needs to cover minutae like this. I'm throwing this out to the community to see what others think so I'm not placing a 'vote' just yet. kingboyk 09:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 09:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just realised there are a few others covering other seasons which arguably ought to be listed at the same time, but I'm too tired to do it right now. If someone want's to tag them pronto and add them to the debate that's fine by me. Otherwise we'll roll with one and see what the concensus is. --kingboyk 10:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge the other seasons into one big article. There's plenty of movie references on The Simpsons, and with it being one of the most notable shows in the history of TV, I don't see why they shouldn't be covered. Possibly, TV references and the like could also be included and the whole thing changed to "Cultural references" or similar. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a Simpsons fan site or a free web host. Appears to be a list which is potentially very large, but only of interest to a very limited number of people, who are dedicated fans of the show, i.e. listcruft and fancruft. Stifle 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Delete per Stifle. Zunaid 15:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thursday, May 14, 1998

Non-notable date in history, delete it and any links that may point to it. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:46, Feb. 6, 2006

Delete per nom. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 10:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect anything useful to May 14. If nothing can be merged, delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who wants to remember 1998, anyway? Captain Jackson 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --light darkness 17:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete per Mgm. --Rory096 18:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing of import links in. Toss it. Almost all of the items are redlinks anyway. Avi 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth merging. The founding of milkandcookies.com does not belong on the main May 14 page. (Hey, that site's page is up for AfD too! Coincidence?) --Kinu 20:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nothing happened that day. You can trust me, I was there ... :) Adrian Lamo ·· 02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 04:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TriTrack

NN car that has been in development for 30 years [11] Interiot 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Royboycrashfan 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
car is in a very active stage of development and may be built in the near future news. Skweiner 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but where are their dedicated power grids under existing highways and pick-up/drop-off units for the batteries at exits? Nice idea in theory, but it is not being built for another 25 years at the least. Avi 19:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not under active development. This page was changed since it was in {{prod}}, but it previously said that the car couldn't be prototyped until they were able to get support from investors (and the page isn't on archive.org, sorry). The page currently says the car would be ready 4-5 years after they get investors. While it may well be notable once it's been released, it's not currently notable enough. --Interiot 19:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With attitudes like this, how can it ever be built, even 100 years from now? The system is patented, and TX law was recently changed (6/05) to mention the system. Are wiki pages only for projects that you can go to the store and buy? There are many aspects to active development that are done prior to physically putting nuts and bolts together. The car is notable now because it is a ready-to-go design that solves many of the foreign oil dependencies that are such hot topics right now. Skweiner 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We wish the car the best, and hope it succeeds, and once it does, please come back and make sure the article is well-written. However, companies and products should be notable first, and then afterwards are put in the encyclopedia. Some future products are found on Wikipedia, but typically they're by established notable companies, where the likelihood of the product being released soon is very high. --Interiot 01:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avi 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kinu 20:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Babajobu 04:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ross C. DeVol

Non-notable. pos vanity. Compu te r Jo e 09:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if cleaned up. Currently much vanity in the article, but I think he is notable enough. DeVol appears on national television and radio programs to discuss a variety of economic topics such as CNN’s "Moneyline" and NPR’s "Talk of the Nation." He is frequently quoted in printed media such as The Wall Street Journal, Investor’s Business Daily, Los Angeles Times, Forbes, The Economist, Time, Business Week and many others. Claim seems true [12]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 11:18Z
Speedy Keep. Obviously not standard vanity, as the author worked on dozens of articles that aren't particularly related. An article shouldn't be deleted simply because its author didn't properly wikilink the content and holds a favorable view of its subject. As Quarl notes, there doesn't seem to be any genuine notability dispute. Monicasdude 15:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is not a speedy keep. A speedy keep requires the nominator to withdraw and no other delete votes. Please choose another vote. Stifle 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. Not according to the speedy keep policy. A user who votes "speedy keep" isn't required to change his vote just because someone disagrees 24 hours later, especially in a content-free comment like yours. Monicasdude 20:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Needs to be cleaned up and properly referenced, but the appearance of notability is there, IMO Avi 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until and unless verified. Stifle 11:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quall. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 21:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smart village

Possible advert. Compu te r Jo e 09:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you beat me to it! Delete this ad about a non-notable place. Grandmasterka 09:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ad. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. I've cleaned it up. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 11:15Z
Delete Advertising as current. Non-notable even if not. Avi 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: South Bay, Boston, Massachusetts is a 10-acre planned development that was kept by consensus. Smart Village is a 450-acre planned development. Counter systemic bias. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 23:52Z
Keep per Quarl TigerShark 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl. --Revolución (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl. DVD+ R/W 00:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberservices

This seems like a non-notable-neologasim. The majority of hits for this are companies. Compu te r Jo e 10:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Electronic commerce. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 11:03Z
- To elaborate, I think > 100,000 Google hits makes it notable at the minimum as a synonym for e-commerce, and the fact that all these companies are using the term is a reason to keep/merge, not to delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 20:14Z
tw Wiktionary (or delete) Avi 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no such thing, just because its usually confused as a synonym of Electronic commerce, does not mean it is really a synonym of Electronic commerce. Marketing talk in order to create false differentiation. Pls also see Philippine Cyberservices Corridor --Noypi380 08:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cyber per se is an "English" word that means more than Information Technology or the Internet or E-commerce. Cyberservices therfore enhaces the e-services which can be wider and more modern if not the "in" thing for the real world of Computers as most games use this term too. I am for rentention of this term due mainly that the English language is an alive language that need more useful and more meanigful "terms" to keep it in most contemporary, illustrative abd descriptive about the Internet related services. (70.170.72.180 03:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete neologism. Coffee 14:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the guidelines, Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms does not state that a neologism is automatically deleted, but suggests a "google" test. There are over 100,000 hits in Google, and over 10,000 hits in Groups! Further, if you do a search within results, you will find that this term is over 10 years old, having been in use since 1995. Perhaps the most notable proponent of this term in the USA is the National Center for Supercomputing Applicationsof the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. A quick perusal of their website will make it evident that cyberservices is much more than just electronic commerce. Keep I say, since I was the author of the article. Dondi 18:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. It's not a neologism; if anything, it's a word that was in wide use in the early (commercial) Internet era and even previously, but has now been largely supplanted by other, more specific terms referring to particular services, ranging from electronic commerce to online banking. The "cyber-" prefix seems to have peaked in the 1990s. I would keep it as a historical concept, but note that is is now somewhat of an archaicism, with a list of links to more up-to-date articles. MCB 18:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with MCB on NCSA's use of "cyberservices". NCSA is a research institution; its historic use of "cyberservices" is unrelated to this article's use of cyberservices. From Philippine Cyberservices Corridor (AfD discussion) I now have a better idea what this term is commonly used for. It seems like a euphemism used by developing countries to make industries like call centers sound more exciting. If that is the case then it should be documented as such. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-08 22:10Z
I don't concur. The term is business process outsourcing. Cyberservices is not a term used to make industries call centers exciting in the developing world. Frankly, I am already excited with the term BPO. :) --Noypi380 08:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helluin

Dicdef of a non-notable word in Tolkienese ;-) Delete Grandmasterka 10:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 10:38Z
Delete dic def Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PJM 12:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No Context, if we have a Sindarin or Quenya version of Wiktionary, it maybe belongs there. Avi 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwikid, keep the thorough rewrite. Babajobu 04:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cooke Manuscript

Obviously a directly copied speech should be ~~deleted~~ transwikied! ~~But is this notable/related to something notable?~~ Grandmasterka 10:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grandmasterka, This is an ancient text written in 1450, this version an 1890 transcription of an 1847 translation, & yes, it is referenced by the History of Freemasonry article, which is referenced by the Freemasonry, Knights Templar, & List of spirituality-related topics articles. Grye 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikisource. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 10:38Z
Transwiki to wikisource. Original material belongs there, not on wikipedia. ::Supergolden:: 10:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wikisource. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 10:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki source material should be at wikisource, not deleted. Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: Transwiki I'll work on it, but it'll take a while, I'm unfamiliar with Wikisource & it's late here in CO. Grye 10:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
tw I am going to attempt the transwiki now (my first) Avi 19:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwikied here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Matthew_Cooke_Manuscript

Took data about Cooke manuscript and created proto-article. Change vote to Keep

Keep Avi's rewrite. u p p l a n d 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. --William Allen Simpson 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of all single-digit-single-letter combinations

List of mostly red links. The blue ones link to various unrelated things, so there's no point in having this. It's listcruft, Delete. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't like using the the word cruft, but since most of these combinations will remain redlinked forever, I'd say it's pretty useless. Mgm|^(talk) 10:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and move to Wikipedia space. They are not subject to AfD (meeting none of the criteria). This is part of a family of articles, for the List of reference tables, the root base for the orphan prevention system, and abbreviation expansion techniques. They are not dictionary entries, although Wiktionary has nearly identical tables to provide a root for its articles (of course). The related tables for three-letters were moved 2005-09-19 19:29:27 according to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TLAs from AAA to DZZ (2nd nomination) et alia. --William Allen Simpson 13:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In looking at the history, note that this was originally created as a byproduct of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/August 2005#Template:GNumber, about the same time as the series of AfDs on these related lists. There is a legitimate use for these root lists. Lately, I've been using them every day. --William Allen Simpson 14:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone reading this encyclopedia who cannot work out how to get to the article for the single-digit-single-letter comination of their choice? I don't think so. Just a waste of perfectly good bits. Delete. DJ Clayworth 16:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete waste of space. Camillus (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace, to sit alongside the TLA ones that were moved there last year. (That's a keep by the way) -- Francs 2000 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Completely unncyclopedic waste of space. Zunaid 15:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as a totally unencyclopaedic article. It's beyond Wikipedia:Listcruft. Way beyond. Stifle 19:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MOVE to Wikipedia space, it looks like it was forgotten in the mass move some months ago (back in September 2005) when all such lists were moved into Wikipedia namespace. Move to Wikipedia:List of all single-digit-single-letter combinations, and also move List of all two-letter combinations to Wikipedia:List of all two-letter combinations. This will make things match the Wikipedia:List of all single-letter-single-digit combinations companion page. - 132.205.44.134 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT the following were moved to Wikipedia namespace: Wikipedia:TLAs from AAA to DZZ, Wikipedia:TLAs from EAA to HZZ, Wikipedia:TLAs from IAA to LZZ, Wikipedia:TLAs from MAA to PZZ, Wikipedia:TLAs from QAA to TZZ, Wikipedia:TLAs from UAA to XZZ, Wikipedia:TLAs from YAA to ZZZ ; see the talk page: Wikipedia talk:TLAs from AAA to DZZ for details of the move discussions. And the related AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TLAs from AAA to DZZ (2nd nomination). 132.205.44.134 00:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia namespace. - EurekaLott 18:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hahnchen 22:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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/merge adding merge tag for further consideration. W.marsh 04:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Victory Gin

Not notable outside of Nineteen Eighty-Four, and hardly notable within it either. Robin Johnson 10:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slight merge and Redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four. It was notable enough within it for me to recognize it by name :). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 11:00Z
I didn't recognize it, but, then, I haven't read Nineteen Eighty-Four in a couple o' years. Redirect to Nineteen Eighty-Four; I doubt there's much worth merging. Lord Bob 18:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per WP:FICT. Just redirect if there's nothing to merge. Does not contain enough info to warrant own entry. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there's just not enough material about this beverage in the source material to expand it to a longer article. (Thus wrote Orwell: "It's uncreatively named booze. It tastes awful." Can't really make it much longer then, right?) Might warrant a mention in the main article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to book article. Haikupoet 04:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep if stuff like this is going to be deleted then why do we have a fictional beverages catagory.--Pypex 15:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To include articles about fictional beverages. That doesn't mean we should have articles about all fictional beverages, notable or not. Robin Johnson 16:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Hindson

I was cleaning this up and the more I cleaned it up the more I doubted it. It is the sole work of User:Heavenonearth, who has no other contributions, and conveniently forgot to mention that most of the "several doctoral degrees" are from unaccredited institutions, or that the one that wasn't was from an institution accredited only to first professional degree level. The "more than twnenty books" drops to two when you go to Amazon, and the sales ranks are 350,000 and 650,000 respectively (although it is a "proper" publisher, albeit one which restricts itself to evangelical Christian output - reviewing the authors list, nons leapt out at me as names I recognise but it's a couple of decades since I was active in the evangelical movement). It has been edited by Gastrich and socks, which does not necessarily make it vanispamcruftisement but does raise a red flag. Slightly over 400 relevant unique Googles, maybe a bit less as I didn't check more than a small sample to see if it was the same Ed Hindson. In the end I think this is a puff piece inflating the importance of the subject; I call WP:BLP. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 11:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vanitycryftisment. Non-notable, I suspect this is a hoax. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 11:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. PJM 12:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously meets notability standards, even though he may be the evangelical world's answer to Kadee Strickland. Current host of widely syndicated, long-running television show. [13] [14] The odds are that his books push him over the notability standard, too, especially the one cowritten with Jerry Falwell. Notability in a market Wikipedians look down on is still notability. Monicasdude 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't look down on it, I an an active Christian and own evangelical books. On the other hand, I see a lot of evangelical "personalities" as vainglorious. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 16:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be notable. --kingboyk 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. A person with a television program and at least two books to his credit is notable enough for mine. Gets a number of mentions in books about fundamentalism in Google Books [15] where he is described as one of two of Falwell's righthand men. 23 results in Google scholar [16]. Hindson appears to be both notable and verifiable. Capitalistroadster 01:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you want to add that? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Monicasdude and Capitalistroadster. Kappa 01:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. per Monicasdude. I really don't understand the bias against undereducated people and television shows or books that happen to take a particular slant. Isn't that the very definition of POV? I'm voting weak because he is barely notable enough in my opinion. Logophile 13:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Avis

Looks very suss. Googling "Scott Avis"+Hampshire gives 14 hits, almost all of them for the actor Avis Scott and none of them for this guy. "Scott Avis" + cricket gives only six hits, none of them relevant. Cricinfo also has no information about this prodigy. Unless someone can come up with some corroboration, I'd say we adjudge this article to be out of the crease when the bails were lifted. Grutness...wha? 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - can't find anything on him at all (insert cricketing pun of choice). Staffelde 12:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kinu 00:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a 14 year old playing cricket for a county let alone England would be on Cricinfo and would have plenty of attention. Possibly a youth player but not mentioned in article. Unverifiable, probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. mikka (t) 04:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Holocaust victims

This needs to be brought up again. The list is insulting for the rememberance of the millions ommitted, as well as unmanagable, and unworkable Dahn 11:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:I have moved this onto a '2nd nomination' page - the previous AfD debate can be found here --Doc ^ask? 11:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There is a Category:Holocaust victims and Category:Nazi concentration camp victims (this page already belongs to both). If the relevant biography articles are linked to the categories, they update themselves. - Skysmith 12:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of notable people killed in the holocaust. I see a value for such a list but agree with nominator that the title is problematic. (This is an ideal candidate for the new proposed deletion procedure - why isn't it there?) David | Talk 12:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with renaming per David. Page/article like this illustrates the intent of the Holocaust designers to destroy a culture as well as a population. Monicasdude 15:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Keep. As Dahn mentioned, such a "comprehensive" list would be anything but; however, narrowing it down to David's suggestion makes it more realistic, managable and would in many ways illustrate the horror of the holocaust more than a "full list".--み使い Mitsukai 15:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per David, and clarify the criteria for inclusion. Provide sources unless they are in the articels linked to, in which case say that. DES ^(talk) 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarify inclusion criteria. On Wikipedia, Lists of people are lists of notable people by definition, otherwise, they wouldn't have an article to link to. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep do not rename. I'd like to see a general notability criteria established for all person lists. MLA 16:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial. I fail to see how this list really benefits anybody. Stifle 19:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no rename. The word "notable" is unnecessary by wikipedia traditions. Also, "killed" is narrowing and prone to wordplay (killed directly/indirectly/ etc.). If a KZ died of typhus or heart attack, like Jura Soyfer he is still eligible for this list. mikka (t) 04:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dahn 11:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linguistory

delete comedy central neologism. Melaen 12:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Urban or otherwise. --Kinu 19:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 00:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable neologism. Stifle 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific miracles of Qur'an and subpages

Aims to prove scientific foreknowledge in the Koran. Delete unless completely rewritten (using neutral point of view), and renamed. Delete all subpages, which are mostly empty anyway. - Mike Rosoft 12:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Afd is not a place to present ultimatums, you cannot say improve this or it will be deleted. One could argue that by calling for article improvement you are in fact recognizing that it should exist.--Pypex 15:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I can call for scrapping most/all of the current content, and creating a proper article instead. Claims of scientific foreknowledge in the Koran (and Bible) may well deserve a mention in an encyclopedia, if presented in the proper way, but I hope we can agree that the current article is useless and needs to be disposed of. - Mike Rosoft 10:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be disposed of so that people could build on its existing content? This isn't a one strike and your out system. I don't quite see how "needs improvement" became equated to the "needs to be deleted for XYZ policy violations" we so frequently see.--Pypex 22:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that this article needs improvement is a gross understatement. In its current form it simply has no place in an encyclopedia, and no article at all is better than this one. I don't think it would be of any use as a basis for an actual entry, either; but if somebody (you?) wants to, I won't prevent him. But the condition is that there must be somebody interested in it. Until/unless this happens, there is no reason to keep it around indefinitely. (After all, it can always be undeleted should there be any need for it.) - Mike Rosoft 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the subpages and probably delete this as well per WP:NOR unless it is extensively rewritten and cited. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the article seems to be one sided but with all the preaching about islam going on wikipedia it seems only fair to allow this article to balance things out. The article seems to be written in good faith to provide an alternative point of view and most of its contents are verifiable facts. It has been just initiated and will be completed. Give it a chance [hassan Khalid]

I started this article and the sub-articles as a teamwork project, not as an individual work, I have invited lots of pepople for completing the work. I'm sure many people are interested in completing this work.Arash Bikhoda 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR and POV. Neutral POV means within an article. You can't create an article to "balance" others (Be Bold and go fix the others! And "project" by its nature implies OR. -Jcbarr 17:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --kingboyk 20:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and NPOV Avi 21:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and lack of neutrality. --Kinu 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all the others, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Stifle 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jwissick ^(t)^(c) 05:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 04:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tacluchnatagamuntoron

tagged with {prod}, untagged. Still looks like fancruft. Merge possible, but this looks on the face of it to be sub-trivial. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere or keep, real fictional device. Kappa 12:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a legitimate Stargate item, merge with List of technology in the Stargate universe. If not, delete it, of course. PJM 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hmmmm...there's already something listed there called a "Tak'unit'agaminituron (Tak)". It seems to be the same item. How about some input from a Stargate buff on this? PJM 12:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only 1470 google hits. Not notable. --Sleepyhead 14:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to general Tak, both seem to be common spellings of the device which is a legitimate Stargate term. JoshuaZ 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or failing that merge into List of technology in the Stargate universe. It's from the show. Bryan 07:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless nonsense. Merge contents into article about Stargate technology because this will never be expandable. Grace Note 07:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 cleanup. Babajobu 15:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Muir

I'm sorry about this, I really am, but I keep coming back to this one. What troubles me here is that the original AfD got bogged down in personalities and meatpuppetry, and the second debate did not actually address the fundamental issue: it's all very well for Larvatus to assert that this is a "notable and well-loved" Usenet personality, but that's not actually evidence as such. I have spent some time looking around this one and found that (a) he has fewer Usenet posts in the archives than I do, despite an allegdly much longer history (yes, quality beats quantity, but the entries are often mundane). His publication list is short, not indicating a prominent academic, and a Google search also turns up under a third of the hits that I get. I am absolutely convinced of my non-notability, so I find my self asking: why are we keeping an article on someone who is apparently less notable in the fields for which he is supposedly notable? Especially when its creator and main defender is a self-confessed blowhard who has a history of questionable judgment (see this arbitration case and this deleted vanity autobiography). So I come back to comparing with standards I can visualise. My friend Tony Raven is a long-time Usenet poster, who Googles more than Muir and turns up more on the archives; he has a publiscation list, a PhD, is director of Southampton University's spinoff programme and has started a few moderately successful companies. I guess if the bar is set at the Muir level I ought to be clicking that red link. But I don't think it is (although my personal standards for notability are quite likely above the community norms). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 13:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable enough, with a decent list of publications and fame on Usenet. He even had an asteroid named after him, which is more than can be said for a lot of people who have their own Wikipedia articles. JIP | Talk 14:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the subject meets notability standards independent of the asteroid; but I also think the asteroid naming itself indicates notability. If it's worth listing the asteroid names (as Wikipedia does), it makes no sense to exclude identification of the individuals asteroids are named for. "Who was Mr/Ms X" is a reasonable question for someone looking at that list to ask, and, since Wikipedia isn't running out of cyberspace, it's a reasonable question for Wikipedia to answer. Monicasdude 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to accept this asteroid argument if you can show me where I can find out more about asteroid naming and the exclusivity thereof, I know you can buy star names but I understand this does not apply to asteroids? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 15:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't buy star names. Several people and organisations claim you can, and for a specific sum of money, they store your name in their database and send you a certificate. All globally accepted scientific communities and official records view these databases and certificates aren't worth wiping your butt on. JIP | Talk 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup — The person looks notable enough, but for me, the fact that there are "alternate nicknames" for this person really drag down the article. I suppose he is an active contributor to Usenet, but I'm an active contributor to MSN Messenger, yet nobody calls me by my nickname, ;-) I suggest that the usenet references (particularly) the names be removed. However, because I am not a usenet participant, nor do I know this person, my suggestion can be ignored if it isn't the right thing to do. Kareeser|^Talk! 15:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. --GeLuxe 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup He's a widely published and cited scholar in geophysics. Google scholar returns 69 hits, mostly for his own articles and books with some cites [17]. His bibliographies at Stanford are impressive [18] [19] FeloniousMonk 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If in doubt Keep. I trust the other editors' judgement that this is a notable fellow. --kingboyk 06:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the "asteroid=notable" camp may wish to visit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzveta Dmitrieva Pokrovska and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/18190 Michaelpizer. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

15:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone PHP Framework

50 google hits. Not notable. Sleepyhead 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like WP:VSCA. --Kinu 17:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not even finished yet, according to the link I followed from the article. "It will have the following features (some are already implemented):" --kingboyk 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable software. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:32Z
Delete per WP:VSCA Stifle 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Paquito

The article seems like nonsense. It has been over a decade since I saw the Transformers episode "The Gambler" so I don't remember whether this character actually appears in it or not, but judging by Google hits, this character doesn't exist in Transformers. "Gyconi" gets Google hits from Transformers sites, "Don Paquito" only gets Google hits about a hotel in some Spanish-speaking holiday resort. I also searched Google for "Vegeres", which the article mentions but fails to explain what it is, and got no sensible results. Also note that the Gyconi article was full of mentions of Batman, Robin and the Joker on Cybertron, which anyone who spends all his life in his parents' basement watching 24-hours Transformers marathons knows to be utter rubbish, as the copyrights of those characters belong to different companies. I think this is some kind of joke article. Delete. JIP | Talk 14:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Highly probable that this is a fake character. Searching for this name yields only one Transformers-related result, a message board with somewhat disturbing undertones... read if you're in the mood. :P --Kinu 19:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 21:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as probable hoax. Stifle 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nateshift

Just started this year, very non notable, not clear what it is exactly and a Google search yeilded 2 unrealted results. Esprit15d 14:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rory096 14:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete clanity. Brighterorange 19:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clanity. --Kinu 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CScruft. Stifle 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 14:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Howard, Jr.

Vanity article of/by a professor of neurology. No real claim to notability, not even a list of publications. Fails Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics delete BadSeed 15:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the page you cite is neither policy nor guideline and was written by a single user less than two weeks ago. Monicasdude 22:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7. Does nothing to assert notability. It's a resume. --Kinu 21:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per below comments. --Kinu 01:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ... or, at the least, userfy with Howardj0503, the creator and subject of this article. --Kinu 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete db-bio Avi 21:26, 6 February 2006(UTC)
- Delete Publish or Perish-wise, how reknown is he throught his field? What makes him more notable than any other Dr. Tom, Professor Dick, or Adjunct Harry? -- Avi 00:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly not a speedy delete. Given standard academic usage, the listing as "Distinguished Professor" is a claim of notability/recognition (as the self-professed Yale graduate above ought to know). Subject of article shows a significant record of professional activity, involvement in medical advocacy/research groups, etc, and if he wrote the article himself (as seems likely) he's as guilty of modesty as of vanity. Note than none of the advocates of deletion have bothered to do any of the standard/appropriate checks using non-Wikipedia resources. Monicasdude 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment prey tell, what is this "distinguished professor" award? Who awards it, to whom is it awarded and on what criteria? This article shows precisely no activity worthy of inclusion. It is a list of titles he has held. All academics are judged on what they publish, not by the positions they hold or the number of "distinguished professor" awards that they receive. Twice you've said "he's as guilty of modesty as he is of vanity", have you ever heard of him? Do you know who he is, and more importantly, what are these qualities which he was too modest to include? If they were in the article the I would reconsider my nomination. --BadSeed 23:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Distinguished professorship is generally given by the faculty member's University. For example, this gentleman's institution, UNC gives out a lot. It is not a reflection or judgment by a jury of peers in his field; the criterion for "distinguished" status in that sense of the word is publication and acceptance of theories/practices/ideas by that person. --Kinu 00:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the website for his department, for comparison to his peers. Oh, and his endowed professorship is named for his father. --Kinu 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you inferring this statement from the fact that [20] says "James F. Howard Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease" rather than "James F. Howard, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Neuromuscular Disease" ? Note that the webpage title is also "James F. Howard" rather than "James F. Howard, Jr." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:40Z
    - It's safe to assume that endowed professorships are named for the person who made the endowment, as per the first link I provided in this thread, and not for the person who holds them. If it was his father, then it is named after his father. Then again, if it was he who donated the money to the school, then it would simply be dumping cash to move up in the department. Not judging him, in any case, but just trying to figure it out. --Kinu 00:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - [21] "the newly created endowed chair in his honor from the Broyhill family... creation of an endowed professorship named after Dr. Howard. The chair will be called the James F. Howard, Jr. Distinguished Profesship." —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:59Z
        Thank you for the third party reference. But, context: Dr. Howard has been giving exceptional care to a family member for the past several years. The family has agreed to express their gratitude through the creation of an endowed professorship named after Dr. Howard. At the least, it sounds like more of a "pat on the back" from someone who can afford it (possibly a higher-up of the Broyhill furniture company, which is based in North Carolina?) than a academically-deserved-only title as asserted by Monicasdude. Again, I'm not "hating on" the gentleman, who clearly does good work in his field... but I am somewhat puzzled and not convinced as to why he deserves an article more so than any other professor, because of his ability to make tenure and achieve endowed status. --Kinu 01:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was a sufficient claim/assertion of notability to meet the Wikipedia threshold in that regard, not that it proved notability. The original nomination for deletion indicated no claim/assertion of notability. And I would think it should be apparent that an academic who achieves tenure and an endowed chair is, by objective standards, more notable than any of the minor celebrities (pornographic video performers, unsigned draft choices by professional sports leagues, Pokemon characters, etc) who are by consensus deemed notable. And I'm puzzled by the argument, often seen here, that an individual is no more notable than anyone else having the same credentials, bypassing the question of whether simply having the credentials is itself notable. Monicasdude 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't read the part about care to a family member; that does sound like a pat on the back. For my part, I may have lower standards for keeping articles on professors than other people. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 01:47Z

Delete certainly not a speedy. Professor is a assertion of notability, but resumes aren't articles. Mgm|^(talk) 22:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full professorship via tenure track makes Dr Howard far more notable than the average professor, most of whom don't make it that far. PubMed search on "Howard JF" reveals 58 articles, all of which are in this Dr Howard's area of expertise (electrophysiology and neuroimmunology); I'm sure it's the same guy. Full disclosure: I am also a neurologist and clinical electrophysiologist. Ikkyu2 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that of those 58 articles, 6 or so are by an Australian dentist, not the neurologist in question. Doesn't alter the gist of the argument. Ikkyu2 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ovid search found 45 papers in 27 years, some are review articles. Note that publishing alone is not a criteria for fame in one's field; it's how often these papers are cited in others' original research. After all, there are academics who inflate their numbers. --Kinu 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, the present discussion is about whether or not the individual meets the criteria of WP:BIO. I think we've put that to rest. I agree with others, above and below, who suggest this article is not WP:PERFECT as is and requires consensus editing. Ikkyu2 01:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you perhaps expand the article then? Give an overview of his research, is it important in the field and if so, why? I don't believe that a simple list of the positions he's held (even if they are senior ones) is a sufficient assertion of notability. If I look up a professor on wikipedia I would expect to find something on what the guy did, not on how big his office is.--BadSeed 00:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the article needs to be expanded, but just wanted to note that "assertion of notability" is usually used w.r.t. "not a CSD A7 candidate". The professorship positions don't warrant an automatic keep, but they do preclude an automatic delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:47Z

Keep per Ikkyu2, notable academic. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:20Z
- I've cleaned up the article. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:31Z
Keep, distinguished professor. Kappa 01:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kinu argues that the title of Distinguished Professor isn't good to go by. 45 papers in 27 years isn't so much, especially for a clinician, who can gather large amounts of data from the patient that he treats. Besides, the journals that he publishes in (Neurology, J. Neuroimmunology, Ann. NY Acad. Sci) are on the weak side. Aand let's look at it like this: if he was known for any advance in the field this fact would occur to anyone in that field and it would say so in the article. Instead, the article is a collection of biographical trivia, nothing beyond a CV. Pilatus 01:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On what do you base your assertion that Neurology (Lippincott-Williams-Wilkins, informally the "Green Journal") is a journal that is "on the weak side?" On the contrary, it is to the speciality of neurology what the New England Journal is to that of medicine. ANAS is not a "weak" journal, either. Ikkyu2 06:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd call Neuron a strong journal. Brain is also good, then there is J. Phys.. Papers in Science, Nature and PNAS (watch which track!) would also boost the case for notability. Pilatus 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those journals are indeed strong journals. However, none of them even will even consider a paper that has to do with clinical neurology. With the occasional and eccentric exception of "Brain," they publish basic neuroscience. Dr Howard is a physician and publishes in medical research journals. Is your "delete" vote predicated on the fact that you consider clinical neurology research to be somehow less notable than basic neuroscience research? That would be odd. Ikkyu2 12:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually yes. Medical research is kind of an odd thing and physicians are often more concerned with "helping patients" than with "doing science". Why don't we continue the discussion on my talk page? Pilatus 12:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Your assertion that medical research is a fringe pursuit and automatically non-notable is ridiculous and I will not discuss it. You should withdraw your vote. Ikkyu2 04:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could User:Howardj0503, whose only edits are to this article and its talk page be the author of his own article? Pilatus 01:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it's safe to assume Howardj0503 is James Howard, as the nomination for deletion said. We frown upon autobiographical articles, but if he is indeed notable, we should keep the article anyway. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 07:30Z
  - What worries me is that James is a Distinguished Professor with an endowed chair and won't tell what earned these honours. Pilatus 10:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reasonable presumption, and his LoPbN entry is the product of an IP w/ nearly equally focused interest in him. But while autobios are a bad idea almost w/o exception, do bear in mind that the question before us is not whether his version is a good one, but whether the topic would turn into an encyclopedic article after sufficient research.
    --Jerzy•t 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Independently reached opinion mislocated during ed-conf & later restored. Jerzy•t 07:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Distinguished" professorship, without mentioning what criteria for selection and/or particular accomplishments that lead to the honor, is concerning. It leaves the reader wondering why the subject is notable? If someone familiar with the honor/professor/field could provide this information (with sources), it would helpful. —ERcheck @ 05:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's already established above that a family who enjoyed his medical services paid to have him endowed. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 07:15Z
Del, tentatively. (And A7 probably mistaken, for the record.) Nearly all med school profs are important, but not a lot are notable. I'm being treated by two of them this week, whom i respect and value, but i'm not putting either up for a WP bio.
--Jerzy•t 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, recognised as a Distinguished Professor in his field by his university. The assessment of importance has already been done for us in this case. --bainer (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The title "distinguished professor" per this individual was not given by the University of North Carolina for this individual's excellence in his field; as mentioned several times above, it was an endowment in which the recipient was specifically named. --Kinu 08:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are you asserting that the title of Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina can be bought? You're going to need to prove that, because it's a pretty wild assertion. There's no way UNC would have conferred this title on Dr. Howard without the consensus of their Academic Senate, no matter how much endowment was offered. Also, if you read his articles, he's pretty clearly a leader in the field of single-fiber EMG for myasthenia diagnosis; he pioneered major refinements in the technique. You should consider confining your commentary to things you understand a little better. Also, I request that you either stop this smear job immediately or start providing references for your incredible assertions. Ikkyu2 11:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - The University, as you stated, evaluated Dr. Howard's contributions and found him meriting the "Distinguished" honor. Including specifics of the accomplishments and contributions of the Professor should eliminate this brouhaha. —ERcheck @ 13:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I made no such smear; I was basing this on evidence found. I noted that University does give out distinguished professorships based on merit, as per [22]. These are ones that go through the "standard" channels for endowed professorships as established at other universities: the benefactor makes an endowment to the university, and the university determines who shall receive them. I then compared that to this specific situation, and noted that, based on a source provided by Quarl, that this particular endowment was given to establish this professorship, per the stipulation that it be named for and be held by this individual, per his service to one particular family member of the endower, and not his accomplishments in the broader sense of the word to his field, his patients as a whole, or his university. Last time I checked, those are verifiable facts, per what little information is avaiable, and I have repeatedly stated that no such smear was made. --Kinu 15:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be more important than average professor and thus passing "professor test" on WP:BIO. Anyway, if article about Paris Hilton or wrestlers is kept, why not articles about people who actually can do anythink. --Jan Smolik 10:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Applause. Too many AfD discussions confuse celebrity and notability. Monicasdude 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Paris Hilton is notable because people write about her. That's fine. Now James Howard here, we are still trying to establish if someone has written about him. The question is: does an endowment given for service to a particular person establish notability already? If that is not sufficient, are there any other achievements hat might establish it? Pilatus 17:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would welcome more articles about academics such as this. Edgar181 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets the minimum requirements of WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 17:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy, does not appear to pass the professor test. Citations needed. Stifle 19:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Per Hall Monitor and per this quote from Monicasdude: "more notable than any of the minor celebrities (pornographic video performers, unsigned draft choices by professional sports leagues, Pokemon characters, etc) who are by consensus deemed notable."
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – February 7, 2006, 19:53 (UTC)
keep. -- Vansig 22:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edgar181. New Progressive 14:02, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete DES ^(talk) 18:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Jain

Non-notable bio, possible vanity page, possible attack page. Subject is actually a CS graduate student at Arizona Mangojuice 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Also note: article was marked for speedy twice; article author deleted the mark. Mangojuice 15:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. db-attack. Weregerbil 15:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A1, A6, A7. No context for expansion; attack page; notability not even close to being asserted. --Kinu 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EChip

Delete The article is written to make EChip look notable, but actually reads like an advert. No source information other than link to manufacturer's site Bugturd Talk 19:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain On the basis that other similar articles already exist within Wikipedia! It is a first draft with other links to UK Education sites to follow showcasing the methodology of Systems design used within Electronics teaching in UK Schools.

--BPSmith 20:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BPSmith is the author of the article in question, and has no other contribs aside from userpage. The article links to the eChip webpage, which (you guessed it) will sell you an eChip. --Bugturd Talk 21:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — The program looks similar in function to Microsoft Visio. Just because it is similar doesn't make it special enough to have its own article. Perhaps if there were notable accomplishments made with eChip, then the program may have an article. Kareeser|^Talk! 15:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say delete. While I appreciate Mr. Smith's efforts, this system just doesn't seem to be notable at the moment. Maybe if it ever catches on. --Optichan 20:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert Avi 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA and WP:V. Stifle 19:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 15:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decisions (professional wrestling)

Dicdef, not enough content available for expansion. Should be transwikied and merged with wikt:decision before deleted. kelvSYC 17:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if it can be made into a non-dicder entry. Youngamerican 14:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep', important aspect of pro wrestling, not suitable material for wiktionary. Kappa 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stub. Although I think the second definition is more appropriate to pro wrestling than the first. Essexmutant 05:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Iron Man match. --bainer (talk) 08:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no merge. Relevance to Iron Man match is not verified (and I don't think its true). Second definition cannot merit more than a single line as decision = result. MLA 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Qinghai Huading Industrial Company Limited

I don't see how this is anything other than an ad. No assertion of notability beyond exisiting as a company. -R. fiend 17:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Advertising, nothing more.--み使い Mitsukai 15:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per R. fiend. Any notability should be the first thing added in an article. Kareeser|^Talk! 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advert Avi 21:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not an advert, listed on Shanghai Stock Exchange, helps fight systemic bias such as that induced by AFDing large Chinese companies. Kappa 01:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. There're less than 1000 corporations on the Shanghai Stock Exchange. ×Meegs 04:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPWG

Does not assert importance, and is pretty irrelevant as far as Wikipedia articles go. If the article could be expanded to prove its importance, then I would support keeping it. haz (user talk) 16:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable DJ Clayworth 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avi 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — I actually think that industry standards groups of this type are fairly notable. This one sets the "mechanical and interface specifications for the displays used in notebook PCs". It might be better to rename this page to "Standard Panels Working Group" — RJH 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, see Wikipedia:Importance. Stifle 19:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 04:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chie Yamayoshi

Non-notable "video artist"; no entry for Yamayoshi or see the world by train on IMDB; few Google hits. Delete —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-31 15:23Z

Delete is that reference is the best that can be found, not notable. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I personally have no vote on this, but have some information on this. She's somewhat of a rising star in the Los Angeles art scene, from what it seems. She was also an Fuji TV broadcaster, but Japanese Wikipedia does not have an article on her.--み使い Mitsukai 15:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Avi 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep, Fuji TV broadcaster. Kappa 01:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pj yarns

delete . un-notable bowler. Melaen 15:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable enough. Latinus 19:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it should be speedied, but I'm holding back as he did place in several events. Avi 21:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Geogre's Law. Stifle 19:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki. W.marsh 04:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden

dicdef . delete. Melaen 15:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete.--み使い Mitsukai 18:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete per above. JoshuaZ 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mark for expansion. Stifle 20:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 moink 09:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Mason

Just a stub at the ultravanity spectrum.

Delete, or disambiguate if there are other notable people with the same name. --Nintendude 14:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a run-of-the-mill criminal. Clearly not vanity. DJ Clayworth 16:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't seem to be vanity to me. How would this rapist be editing from within prison walls? Johnleemk | Talk 15:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, to me, vanity is a generic term referring to a non-famous person with fewer google hits for the name. (unsigned comment from anon)

keep Hardly vanity. This may be the actions of a typical criminal in some parts of the world, but certainly not in others. Certainly worth keeping for study references. Jerichoharris 15:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 05:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Absolom

Fails google test and seems non-notable Broken Segue 23:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- > Stuckist. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 07:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't verify the sources, but if what is said is true he seems notable. Founder of an international art movement seems like enough. DJ Clayworth 16:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 15:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep I cleaned up a bit. Article cites sources, and I have heard of stuckism. Brighterorange 19:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get five Ghits for "absolom stuckism" (no quotes) and only one for "absolom stuckist". This is a discouraging count for a proof of notability. D e nni ☯ 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nine unique hits for Philip Absolom [23]. Google books comes up empty [24] as does Google Scholar [25]. Founders of international art movements attract interest from scholars - this guy hasn't. You can draw your own conclusion. For mine, he is almost unverifiable and certainly not notable. Capitalistroadster 01:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've checked out the Walker Gallery, a national UK Museum [26] and he is listed there, but as Absolon, with an n, not an m. There is another article on Wiki with the proper spelling. This one is just a duplicate with the same material and the name spelt wrongly. Tyrenius 12:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete DES ^(talk) 18:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Mody

Non-notable bio. Tagged for speedy but tag was repeatedly removed by the author with no explanation. Mangojuice 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and a warning to the article author about monkeying with the Delete tags.--み使い Mitsukai 16:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:BIO violation - failure to assert notability of subject. (aeropagitica) 17:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Utterly fails WP:NMG. Google may not be the final arbiter of notoriety, but only 3 (unrelated) hits is indicative enough for me.
— Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) [ 22:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC) ][reply]
Speedy delete: A1 or A7. No context for expansion; notability not asserted. --Kinu 17:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SceneSpot

This website never quite attained notability, and is now shut down. Vossanova 16:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kinu 19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TigerDNA

No-one uses this software. It's not even notable enough to be merged into Tiger (hash). — ciphergoth 17:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. — Matt Crypto 18:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. I agree. "In my personal opinion" is a bad sign in an encyclopedia article. Brighterorange 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Brighterorange. If there's the need for any sort of first person pronoun in the article, it's probably not a topic that's encyclopedic. --Kinu 19:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merged to comply with GFDL. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O.A. Accidents

I merged this page into the Olympic Airlines main article. It doesn't need a seperate article for this info. Dbinder 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (nominator) Dbinder 17:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom.--Esprit15d 19:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to retain the edit history and comply with the GFDL. One needs to somehow retain the edit history after merging to attribute the original material to its contributors. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Argento. Please do not modify it. The result was flag as copyvio. The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons, however, the page history is still available. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mira Chudasama

Not notable; few editors (possibly the same user); < 500 hits on google --bd_ 18:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I actually get <20 unique hits for "mira chudasama"; most are weblogs or self-referential. Fails WP:BIO. Reads like WP:VSCA. --Kinu 18:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per Kinu. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) – 6 February 2006, 19:14 (UTC)
Delete The artist may be notable but the article doesn't asert this. Citations and references relating to her influence on her peers; cultural impact; critical appraisal or notable exhibitions should be provided. The article also appears to be written in Indian English, so should be cleaned up to conform to the WP standards for article grammar and syntax if kept at all. WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Essexmutant 10:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 07:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A8, copyvio). howch e ng {chat} 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsource human resources

There is already a page on outsourcing. This one is also POV and advert-ish Bjones 18:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's an ad. --Kinu 18:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Copyright violation. --Esprit15d 18:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This situation is covered. Pavel Vozenilek 05:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (I've changed the {{copyvio}} tag to a {{db-copyvio}}. Stifle 20:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, even after minus-ed the sockpuppet votes. Mailer Diablo 05:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Smurfs and communism

This page appears to violate Wikipedia:No original research, see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. References cited at the end appear to consist mostly of blog entries and geocities pages and so forth. -- Curps 18:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out below, it seems there was a prior AfD, which I didn't see because it was nominated under the previous title Smurf Communism rather than the current title. -- Curps 19:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So...would you agree with the speedy keep option? --BorgQueen 19:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nomination was in good faith and my delete vote would still apply, for reasons given in the nomination above. Four months since the last nomination is not an unreasonably short time, although I might have waited at least six months had I known of the prior nomination. -- Curps 19:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because not using "geocities pages and so forth" is for scientific articles, not cultural/internet phenomenas where such sources are easier to justify and in many situations neccesary. Debolaz 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I VOTE TO KEEP IT
Keep per previous deletion attempt. BrianSmithson 18:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per previous deletion attempt --Larsinio 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on the link you provided, it looked like the previous deletion vote was a mess of sockpuppets and unregistered users, even a few unsigned votes--64.12.116.202 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See below for comment by user 205.188.117.65, who analyzed the previous AfD. -- Curps 00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The communism metaphor in the Smurfs is a reasonably well-known concept. I recall I've read an article mentioning on it in Reader's Digest. If the quality of the references cited here does not reach our standard, I'll give it a try to fix it. --BorgQueen 19:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known, interesting, even if the article could use a little bit of cleanup work--Tailer Wag 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new user, see Tailer Wag (talk · contribs). -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems silly but ultimatly well written, keep pending a few better sources--Hellio'bati' 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new user, see Hellio'bati' (talk · contribs). -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Silly but verifiable as a theory --kingboyk 23:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I pitty the foo' who tries to censor wikipedia Mr.T
This is a brand new user, see M_Tea_square (talk · contribs). -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cleanup. The subject may well be reasonably well-known but the presentation of the arguement is woeful. Manual of Style refers. (aeropagitica) 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep why are people always in so big hurry to delete notable articles from the encyclopedia?--Heffer hound 23:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new user, see Heffer hound (talk · contribs). -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No problem with the content, but clearly OR. Note one single citation! Dsol 23:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG keep only a silly noob would nominate such a notable topic for deletables--H00p y0w 23:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new user, see H00p y0w (talk · contribs). -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP set of very interesting facts, coincidences that shall not be censored --Mateusza 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new user, see Mateusza (talk · contribs). -- Curps 00:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The following was posted to my talk page regarding the previous deletion vote: Articles for deletion/Smurf Communism. -- Curps 05:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) I am reposting it here:[reply]

You don't notice anything fishy about most of those keep votes?

[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]???? I've never seen 19 sockpuppets on 1 AfD before--205.188.117.65 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While I can agree with the sentiment of the article, it does strike me as OR. D e nni ☯ 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I heard about this from my Government teacher at St. John's College High School back in 93... so its definately not OR. Its a common example... I think its worthy of at least a brief mention, perhaps a merge into Communism as a subheading "Communism in popular culture"? ALKIVAR™ 02:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the references for this are Geocities sites and the like. Would want stronger references before deciding to keep something like this. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, e-mail forward cruft. Gazpacho 08:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much "emial forward cruft" are internet memes, and thus have encyclopedic sginfiicance --Larsinio

You'll notice that every article linked from that article mentions some definitive source. This doesn't, which makes it unverifiable. Just read it, it's weasel terms from beginning to end. Gazpacho

Keep, but needs a cleanup Marminnetje
Keep and cleanup. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:V. Zunaid 16:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why delete, why not just cleanup? Sources are listed form which it can be verified, it just needs to be fereferenced --Larsinio 16:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup Jaco plane 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internet meme large enough to be notable. However it should be re-worked as an internet meme article, discussing not only the theory, but the history of the meme (where it started, who started it, time line of key eventsw etc..) which is more valuable contextual information for future researchers. --Stbalbach 17:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the exemple is also known in Quebec (diffrent culture and language, so the information traveled). Many people used this cartoon to illustrate the concept of communism. Bragador 17:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide any reference for this? -- Curps 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. No reason it should be deleted Buzda 19:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete due to sock flood and WP:NOR. Stifle 20:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the NOR I buy, but a sock flood should hopefully never be a reason to keep or delete. (whose to say the socks aren't by someone hoping to get it deleted? :) - Turnstep 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure original research, trying to sneak into wikipedia in the guise of an internet meme. (Not to mention the sockpupppet flood here, for the second time) Raul654 21:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its definately not 'pure' original research. I originalyl started this article, and I based all the content on every single smurf internet webpage i could find. --Larsinio 22:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, it's much closer to a copyvio [46], then it is to OR--64.12.116.202 14:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

^KEEP This article is finally starting to make some progress, currently in the process of improving the citation and external links sections, would be a shame to kill it while it's still a work in progressSmithe377 22:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a brand new user, see Smithe377 (talk · contribs). -- Curps 23:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no reason to delete, not OR. Turnstep 02:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as a valuable reference on a culturally significant phenomenon.--StAkAr Karnak 03:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The culturally significant phenomenon would be what exactly? That paranoid people with blogs have too much free time?--64.12.116.202 14:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep and cleanup. There is some interest in the matter, no matter how ridiculous it is, but the article needs a good cleanup and definitely better sources. And it is better to have it separate than to fill half the Smurfs page with it, as it originally did. Fram 09:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very popular interpreptation, and as with all other common intepreptations of cultural works, Wikipedia should document it. --Tmh 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ahem, [47]--152.163.101.11 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kind of Keep that Screams with the Power of Glamdring. This meme actually dates back to the mid 1980s and before, passed around on bulletin-board systems and in newspaper articles before that. It predates a lot of the whiners who are voting not to keep. --165.193.104.40 22:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, well thanks, user's first and only edit--152.163.101.11 00:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since Smurfette was the sole female Smurf, it is also a commentary on the situation in Communist China where a disparity in baby genders has arisen. ;-) Ruby 01:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Madame Sosostris 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have All your base are belong to us, don't we? -- Michalis Famelis 18:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. JeffBurdges 05:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. W.marsh 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes Fictional 15

Seasonal spacefiller from Forbes magazine. I don't believe a list of fictional characters lited in order of made-up net worth is encyclopaedic at all, at best there could be a small note that it happened on the Forbes article to show they have at least a rudimentary sense of humour. Contents may violate copyright, if anyone cares. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 19:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge info from the Forbes list with the respective characters. They all have articles.--Esprit15d 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, yes, but in what way is a made-up net worth of any encyclopaedic value? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Every shred of info about any of the characters is made-up. The characters are fictional. However, Forbes is good for nothing if it isn't good for its list, so why not add it to the articles. Just because something doesn't deserve it's own article doesn't mean it has so place at all in Wikipedia.--Esprit15d 14:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would dispute the assertion that Forbes is "good for nothing if not good for this list" since the ability to pluck a figure form the air for the net worth of Scrooge McDuck hardly speaks to the fitness of Forbes to cover real-world issues. This is, in essence, non-canonical fan fiction. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 12:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's encyclopedic because it has apparently become an annual series that Forbes Magazine has put out. -- OldRightist 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - I recall seeing a fair amount of news coverage on the 2005 list (which is linked), but the page only has the 2002 list. Shouldn't be too hard to write out an intro paragraph and incorporate new information. The list provides an interesting reflection on pop culture and social values. --waffle iron 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Smerge. Lots of magazines have annual columns; doesn't make them notable enough for their own article. I would bet that the majority of the Forbes regulars don't even have Wikipedia articles. This article is just a reproduction of the Forbes article and is borderline copyvio. I recall that there were a number of errors and omissions in the 2005 version; it was just in fun and doesn't hold up to scrutiny. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:12Z
Comment. Someone recently raised concerns over the copyright status of such lists but had to be selected by a panel not a vote to have status. We might want to seek advice although so far no-one has objected to my knowledge. I am partial to Forbes given that is where i got my username - Malcolm Forbes called his car Capitalist Roadster. Capitalistroadster 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You raise a valid point. Not deleting this article is postponing the inevitable. We are almost knocking on the door of such lists not being a part of WP policy. Hundreds of such lists have already by deleted. That's why I say merge, since the information is of interest though, and Forbes is both notable and verifiable.--Esprit15d 14:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this list is kept, it will have to be updated regularly. You can see the current list at http://www.forbes.com/home/lists/2005/11/29/forbes-fictional-rich_cx_mn_de_05fict15land.html --Valentinian 11:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep good for wikipedia 128.253.214.55 12:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Good in the way that made-up facts about made-up people are good for all encyclopaedisa, no doubt :-D - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

13:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Super Bowl per nom. Redirects are cheap. :) Mailer Diablo 05:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl L

Delete. This page isn't necessary yet... there aren't even pages for Super Bowls 47-49, so to have a page for 50 when cities haven't even had a chance to bid for the previous few SB's is a bit much. SonicAD 19:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Redirect per RJH, since I for some reason hadn't originally considered it. SonicAD 06:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT: "individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item." - Bobet 19:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We only have information on Superbowls through Super Bowl XLIV. This is a crystal ball page.--Esprit15d 19:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. I'm somewhat surprised the creator of this article didn't make the other ones while they were at it. --Kinu 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until the circumstances of this event are confirmed, there is no need to have the page on the servers as it isn't useful for research. (aeropagitica) 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Deleted or not, it will remain on the servers forever. Stifle 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:08Z
Redirect to Super Bowl for now. Short of Armageddon, this event is very likely to occur. — RJH 16:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per RJH. Stifle 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Partially for not being needed, and partially for forcing me to read the entire Superbowl article to find out what it IS. --King Nintendoid 13:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. People in discussion considered ranking enough to keep article. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milk and cookies

~~Non-notable site. Avi 19:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I stand corrected--Keep -- Avi 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what makes this site non-notable in your opinion. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to admit when I am mistaken, the ALexa rank is sufficent. -- Avi 22:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable website based on enormous Traffic Rank for milkandcookies.com: 7,110, Google hits: 900,000. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 19:35Z
Keep per Quarl Ruby 19:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Look more closely: Google yields many results, but only 34 unique ones, of which most are weblogs/stat sheets. --Kinu 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, but I trust the Alexa rank [48]. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 20:25Z
Keep, that whole "unique hits" thing is a fallacy ... I only get about 300 of those for "microsoft.com" : ) . Adrian Lamo ·· 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quarl (not that I've ever heard of it). --kingboyk 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per traffic ranking. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Creek Derby(Band)

Delete as nn-band. Probably could be speedy, but I'll assume good faith with this one and run it through AfD Bugwit grunt / scribbles 19:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable band. 26 unomitted Google hits. Tagged as {{nn-band}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 19:32Z
Speedy delete as non notable band. Per Google search only 97 hits.--Esprit15d 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A7 as tagged by Esprit15d. --Kinu 19:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' WP:NOT myspace. Amcfreely 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. -- RHaworth 20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External Links Cindy Sheehan

Wikipedia is WP:NOT just a collection of links, and they have been moved back to main article --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Article creator should also be warned.--Esprit15d 19:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: A3. "Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere..." --Kinu 19:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Kinu -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley Floyd

Non-notable person. Can't find actor on IMDB, full name on google, album on google, nor album on amazon.com. Googling for "Bradley Floyd" gives hits but can't see anything that looks like a notable actor/writer/comedian. Weregerbil 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also possible vanity. --Kinu 20:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable person, likely a vanity entry. - Bobet 01:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Stifle 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 03:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skon

This character isn’t even seen in any of the series, this page is clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Trekcruft. Skon is only mentioned twice in the Trek franchise. Would also remove link at Vulcan (Star Trek) to eliminate the redlink, out of paranoia of possible recreation. --Kinu 20:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or at the very least re-direct to Spock or the Vulcans. Captain Jackson 21:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Slight merge to something like List of minor Star Trek characters. This is not a keep vote. Stifle 20:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. W.marsh 00:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shenmue III

Delete. Sega and Yu Suzuki have stated in repeated interviews and press releases that Shenmue III is not in development. The entire article content is based on nothing but fan speculation, with no actual factual (or even relevant) information to speak of. - Rikoshi 19:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thunderbrand 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't be a jerk. Its detailed and well written on all the information given. Its fine staying.. PhantomStrider 1:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. See WP:WWIN. Stifle 20:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Solkar

This character isn’t even seen in any of the series, this page is clearly not notable enough. Philip Stevens 19:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trekcruft -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Trekcruft. Solkar is only mentioned twice in the Trek franchise. Would also remove link at Vulcan (Star Trek) to eliminate the redlink, out of paranoia of possible recreation. --Kinu 20:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unimportant outside a limited number of Star Trek fans. Stifle 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at the least merge this with either the Spock or Sarek article. JesseG 03:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vulcan (Star Trek). Essexmutant 10:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. W.marsh 00:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ShiKahr

This is a fictional city that isn't even seen in fiction. Philip Stevens 20:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Commonly accepted spelling in the TrekVerse is Shi'Kahr, per Memory Alpha. --Kinu 20:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hera1187 07:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move or Delete. Stifle 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Vulcan (Star Trek). Essexmutant 10:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (speedy deletion criterion A7). howch e ng {chat} 21:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sever (musician)

Lack of notability — Anarchivist | (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His 15 minutes are up. --Kinu 20:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any verifiable claim to notability. Adrian Lamo ·· 20:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Artist needs to have minimum of two charting albums to satisfy minimum criteria for notability; WP:Music refers. (aeropagitica) 23:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. Stifle 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion A3. enochlau (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SHS WW2

Appears to have been created to host info for a highschool class. Wikipedia is not a hosting service. Strong Delete. Fightindaman 20:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A3. "Any article whose contents consist only of links elsewhere (including hyperlinks, category tags and "see also" sections)..." --Kinu 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This page as such is not an encyclopedia article. However there could be something usable, depending on what the (apparent) school project is like. This could generate some useable "List of WW2 <whatevers>". But these people may need tutoring on how to create lists (unless they can figure it out quickly-ish on their own). Maybe host this top level project page on someone's personal page. No, I'm not volunteering to mentor them :-) (My excuse: live on wrong continent / time zone, not native English speaker.) Weregerbil 20:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy I'm not one that typically likes the userfy option, but I think it fits here. I don't think that this SHS creations are right for the namespace, but it might be more fitting in their Userspace. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 20:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, userfy is OK. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:05Z

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Dixon

Hoax, been on dead-end pages since last Nov.MNewnham 20:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For being Canada's biggest pop singer, I'm surprised no one has heard of her. Amazing. --Kinu 20:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete {{hoax}} article [49], [50] . Google searches record low numbers, several being Wiki mirrors. The spelling mistakes in the article also point towards a crude attempt at a hoax. (aeropagitica) 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable/hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:04Z
Delete as unverifiable, possible hoax. Stifle 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 15:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WorldNET

A football (soccer) tournament held between members of email lists for supporters of various teams. I am not sure a competition of such amateur status qualifies as being notable enough for WP (or else every Sunday league competition is also eligible). Delete. Qwghlm 20:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a well-organized but nonetheless amateur league. Google (massive query needed to make more specific and remove AT&T-related results) doesn't make this seem very significant. --Kinu 20:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable amateur football event --kingboyk 21:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Original Author) Well known in the Internet mailing list based football supporters community, many of which consist of many hundreds of users most of whom do not participate directly in the event. (Item 1 in 'Importance criteria' of Wikipedia:Importance#importance_criteria). Guinness 14:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random amateur league. Stifle 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. -- Elisson • Talk 21:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nominator Andymarczak 10:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A known and serious tournament in real life. If a football competition is only notable by means of being "professional" (whereas "professionalism" is defined as being recognised by FIFA and its affiliates, such as The FA), without regards to its real-life seriousness, then I would say that this criteria of notability is being too narrow, a bit phony, and falling too much to FIFA's monopoly. --Pkchan 04:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu Ruby 04:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --Angelo 16:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Kien Cuong

The Vietnamese-language article has just been deleted via AfD, with notability being the apparent problem. I have no opinion on the matter, but thought it needed a hearing here. - N (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't look like it meets WP:MUSIC. Reads more like a resume. --Kinu 21:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and the decision at vi.wp. Stifle 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Avia 08:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Www.yesfans.com

Delete - Advertisement Splat 20:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA --Kinu 20:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete advertising; delete as per nom. (aeropagitica) 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Yes (band), which already has an xlink. 6,399 registered members. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:03Z
Delete per WP:WEB. No redirect. Stifle 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Punkmorten 10:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bullette

Wikipedia is not a game guide. Create doesn't seem to have any notability outside the game, and doesn't appear to be a major creature either Hirudo 20:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gamecruft. Google finds nothing significant. --Kinu 20:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to an appropriate list; this is one of the signature D&D monsters. The reason Google doesn't turn up much in the way of significant hits is because the title is misspelled; the correct spelling is "Bulette". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep real fictional creature. Kappa 01:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Move to Bulette (the correct title as per A Man In Black). There's already a whole slew of things at Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and this is just as notable as most of them. - Bobet 01:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as one of the most notable D&D creatures. Move to Bulette. Stifle 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Gordon (Watford)

There are 8,500 County Councillors in Engalnd alone Delete -Doc ^ask? 20:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable enough - local councillors are seriously small political fry. MLA 17:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, failed election candidate. Stifle 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn per nom. Essexmutant 10:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew J. Camp

Delete Not a subject or entry of significance; an irrelevant information page D2K 20:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: A7. Notability not asserted. --Kinu 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Non-notable biography. (aeropagitica) 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lakefire Labs

Small company that has not actually shipped a product. Advertising/"WP is not a crystal ball". Preference is to delete. Thanks. RJH 21:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kinu 21:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete they can try again when they release a notable game. Sayeth 14:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sayeth. Stifle 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Marc Roc Productions Far East Video

Probably a vanity article about a non-notable porno producer. Delete Dr Debug (Talk) 21:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deltabeignet 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typical response from the self rightous monitors that seem to have nothing better to do than protect their intrests thru Wikipedia. As this is a web resource, vanity article or not "probably" is not an excuse. And wher are the standards set to define that? This makes this section poor in content because it has become a private playing field for those who obvioulsy do not have the background to moderate a dynamic and varied field such as this. Let it be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinggism (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom. And, unsigned, no one is protecting any interests, aside from what Wikipedia is. Not trying to bite, but for all you know, pornography might be an interest of many here. It just so happens that I cannot find any relevant information about this individual or his company referenced elsewhere. Compare to, say, Ed Powers or T.T. Boy. This just doesn't meet WP:BIO to me. --Kinu 23:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. Wyss 23:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. James084 23:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. DES ^(talk) 01:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Redwolf24 01:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xoxohth

Note: Only votes voiced by registered users with a minimum number of outside edits count. This is done to prevent stuffing.

Current valid tally: 7 Deletes (fvw, h8er, Sasquatch, lotsofissues, DavidH, introvert, & nabla) , 2 Keeps (Anne & Exeunt)

Please take a look at Vfd/Precedents, in particular it is advised not to put tally boxes on vfd pages. There isn't a specific minimum number of edits to vote, and whether a particular vote is actually counted or not is decided by the closing admin. --Mysidia 08:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable, nor a useful article. --fvw * 07:14, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

VERY STRONG Delete, CSD, Speedy. This is the Wikipedia, not a commercial, for-profit advertisement service. Are we not men? Let's guard our Wiki! Deeeh 02:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete, ~~or at least clean up. If this is relevant then it needs to be improved severely.~~ 66,000 Google hits, but only 44 are displayed since the vast majority are from xoxoth own webpage xoxoth.com. Usrnme h8er 09:04, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're going by Google rankings, then this is just as strong of a keep as Brian Leiter's Philosophical Gourmet Report, aka Leiter Report. Google "Philosophical Gourmet Report" and you get roughly 16,000 hits. Google "Leiter Report" and you get only around 8,000 hits. Google "Xoxohth" and you get 63,000 hits! If any pages are vanity, it's the PSG. Graham Wellington, QC 22:16, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Graham Wellington, QC (talk · contribs), has edits only to Xoxohth and this vfd

True, but since 62,960 of these are from their own homepage I stilll dont think this is a very good result. I could design a massively interlinked website that automatically had a million hits on google. Or rather I could write a piece of software that did this for me... Not a single visitor... But a million hits...

Delete unless some notability can be shown. Alexa shows that this ranks below the 100,000 mark. We are not an advertising medium. that being said, good luck with your board. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Keep There's an article for College Confidential, which is a similar site that also sells college admissions consulting services. It seems unfair to tilt the deck in favor of sites with a more profit-oriented focus. Amcfreely 13:02, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Amcfreely (talk · contribs) has edits only to this vfd

I've actually made a number of other edits, but not logged in.

Keep It's in the process of being cleaned-up substantially. It's an important, useful, popular website, and its revised, added-to article could be a good contribution to Wikipedia. Anne M. Daniels 03:56, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm the principle author of the new xoxohth entry, and I'm also a regular on the message board. While the site is not widely known in the public, it is widely known to law school applicants and law school students (and to a lesser degree, college students) and even some law professors (see Brian Leiter and Eugene Volokh). Exeunt 04:31, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete I dislike articles about medium sized websites (the CC article included). Turns into a dictionary of insider culture that only insiders can edit. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:10, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though further information is lacking on Wikipedia, this board's influence is great among law school admissions committees and applicants. Graham Wellington, QC; Xoxohth regular 02:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

(Preceding comment by 208.63.200.3 (talk · contribs)

comment probably not really notable enough in the Web world, but what's especially bad is the NPOV, including a list of posters, who certainly aren't notable or even real ("Sexpert - Garrison Keillor"). DavidH 02:27, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete Website vanity, unlikely to ever be encyclopedic or NPOV. DavidH 04:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Delete - if it weren't a bad joke already, it is advertisement, POV, and not encyclopedic. - Introvert ^talk 07:23, 2 August 2005 (UT

Delete Nabla 23:21, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:Uma.T

(Preceding user's first edit was to Xoxohth and on Aug 1: Uma.T (talk · contribs))

Comments from unsigned/unregistered users

Keep. Why are people saying "Wikipedia is not a commercial, for-profit advertisement service."? This is in no way a commmercial or for-profit website. The people running the website have no particular interest in getting more people to the site since virtually every law student at a big school is aware of it already. A ton of far less notable sites have unchallenged wikipedia entries because they deal with computer- or technology-related topics that wikipedia editors are typically more interested in. I have no affiliation with the site and thus no "vanity" interest - I'm just saying that this site is definitely well-known among a large group of people and is thus undoubtedly encyclopedic.

comment If Brian Leiter's Philosophy Gourmet deserves a page, this site surely deserves a page. The list of posters is a quick reference for posters new to the board who have trouble with the way the board works. Unlike other message boards, there are no avatars, no personal pages, no sigs, no images, nothing. It is helpful to have a place to find basic information about the most influential people on the board. As someone who has been using Xoxohth for most of its existence, I recognize many on the list of prolific posters. I would hardly expect this to be the case with new posters. The acronyms section is also indispensable to users who are new to the board. Otherwise, there's a steep learning curve to properly use and understand the board. 208.63.200.3 02:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC) (Graham Wellington, QC [as above])[reply]

Keep. This website is an extremely valuable source of information for those either going to law school or thinking about going to law school. This website is starting to be mentioned by scholars (Posner, Leiter) and has been mentioned by the Dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. This website is growing and more people will be looking for information on it.

Very strong keep. This website is becoming a more and more important source of information to law students and even to admissions committees of law schools. As a result, people outside of XOXOHTH have begun taking notice of this site. The Dean of Admissions at the University of Pennsylvania Law School has mentioned XOXO, as have legal scholars such as Brian Leiter. The relevance of this website is continually growing, and soon each of the 100,000+ prospective law students per year want to learn more about XOXO.

(Preceding comment unsigned by OralAdvocate (talk · contribs)

- Strong keep. This board is well-connected to the law student community and beyond, and its educational purpose fits well with the mission of Wikipedia. Hazelrah; xoxo reader.128.59.88.160 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong strong keep. This is the indispensible board for hard information for law students. Admissions committees from law schools read it routinely to check out what law students are saying. Some cleanup is in order however. (preceding unsigned comment by 207.237.33.8 Sasquatch′↔T↔C 08:01, July 29, 2005 (UTC))

Get rid of this thing. I can't believe they didn't even mention me as a prolific poster! (Madcat)

Strong keep. This is a very well known resource amongst law students, and is interesting for its contributions to the culture and the lexicon of LS admissions.

- Keep, very helpful.

(Unsigned comment by 68.1.235.250 (talk · contribs))

- Keep, probably the best I've ever known.

(Unsigned comment by 24.107.18.105 (talk · contribs))

Keep. Helped me get into a top 3 law school AND filled my working hours with fun, friends and amusement.

Unsigned comment by 24.61.5.224 (talk · contribs)

Strong keep. I met my wife on xoxohth!

Unsigned comment by 24.61.5.224 (talk · contribs)

Delete - vanity/advert - (can't hardly see for the sock puppets) - Tεx τ urε 17:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. How can you say this isn't notable enough when there are entries for sites like CollegeConfidential which have fewer hits, fewer posts, and fewer users?

(Preceding unsigned comment by 66.28.244.170 (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 Speedily deleted as repost. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xoxohth

Non-notable website, unverifiable. --M @th wiz 2020 21:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website. Alexa ranking is just 132,129, and it is a reposted article after an earlier consensus was to delete (which is grounds for speedy deletion). --Rory096 21:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grilled Garibaldi Sandwich

appears to be users own creation 0 google hits Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable, WP:NOT instruction manual, created by user on CDVF's "temp blacklist" (i.e., the user has had his changes reverted or deleted since I opened the program), no content whatsoever. --M @th wiz 2020 21:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete semi-pathetic vanity attempt by author Avi 21:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not The Joy of Cooking. --Kinu 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP is not a cookery book, instruction manual or vanity publishing house. (aeropagitica) 23:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very much nn. Amcfreely 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've eaten this sht before and it tastes good. Mmmmm.. Gribaldi...--Lenev 02:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastapottamus

A singing hippopotamus appearing in The Simpsons. This page was nominated for speedy deletion as being non-notable and then replaced by a redirect to The Simpsons. The redirect was then nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion by Melaen, who said, "I've found only 26 entries for a google search with Fantastapottamus+Simpsons all from wikipedia and it's mirrors", but I think this is the proper forum. While I am at it, delete. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Avi 21:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect I'm sure there's a list of minor Simpsons characters this could be put in. Mgm|^(talk) 22:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with One-time characters from The Simpsons. --bainer (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per bainer. Essexmutant 10:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. No search hits in The Simpsons Archive for Fantastapottamus or Fantastapotamus, and no relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia mirrors. Punkmorten 10:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was move. W.marsh 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic MediaWiki

Delete. Misplaced policy discussion. Rmhermen 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{somoveit}}? - Mgm|^(talk) 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to project namespace. I won't be bold and do it myself this time, as the last time I moved an AFD article across namespaces it was reverted. Would suggest nominator move it and withdraw AFD. That's if you don't believe it should be outright deleted or think it belongs on meta, of course. --kingboyk 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikipedia: or preferably meta. Stifle 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both articles. Mailer Diablo 05:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asiaerotica.com and Asiaerotica.com Productions

discussion for deletion of Asiaerotica.com

Tagged as a speedy, but it doesn't meet any of the CSD. Deltabeignet 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. See also the other non-notable contributions by the same user. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per rationale at AfD for related article. --Kinu 23:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. --Rory096 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — This nomination can be merged with Asiaerotica.com Productions to make discussion easier. (I have no idea how, though). My vote stays the same, delete as with related AFD nom. Kareeser|^Talk! 00:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete alexa rank is 1,039,202. No evidence of notability citred in the article, nor in this debate. does not fulfill WP:WEB. DES ^(talk) 00:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion for deletion of Asiaerotica.com Productions

Delete Author deleted {{prod}} template. I can't reapply the template based on the rules of the new deletion system being tried out, so I'll put it here. Bugwit grunt / scribbles 20:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

there is obviously an atempt on the part of biased parties here to keep legitimate studios from being listed. Asiaerotica is a pioneer in its genere, and the attempt to delete information on the studio is tantamount to censorship of a REAL and VALID part of the online adult industry landscape. Wikipedia is not there to support the vested intrest of an intrenched few, it's about listing and giving information on the full diversity of the subject matter at hand. This is especially important with regard to groups like Asiaerotica which seek to "think different" about the adult industry. Obviously, some here deem that important to suppress. Who's profits are they trying to protect? And where is the central "authority" on what is a legitimate and valid "adult" endevour? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinggism (talk • contribs)

Delete. Non-notable. Dr Debug (Talk) 21:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. Also, Chinggism, you will probably get more people to listen to you if you don't go off accusing people of censoring and of about Wikipedia trying to "support the vested intrest of an intrenched few" JoshuaZ 22:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave as is Well it is beginning to look like the "porno" section on Wikipedia is a popularity contest. To delete valid information is censorship. And I dont mind incuring the ire of the powers here that be. It is obvious that information to supress information on a valid producer, no matter how "obscure" by whomever's standards is biased in my opinion. There is no accepted academic board on this topic. There are vested commercial intrests and those that seek to warm up to them. I feel that to delete the entry, espcially in this field is an attempt to limit imformation on what is going on in this genre to the same crap that is popped up in our faces at every turn on the web. No matter how many usernames you submit under.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chinggism (talk • contribs)

Delete per nom, Dr_Debug, and JoshuaZ. Alexa rank: 1,039,202. <300 GHits. Not very widely known or considered significant in pornography circles. --Kinu 23:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and most of the above. James084 23:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Just because you think it is notable doesn't make it notable. Kareeser|^Talk! 00:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete deos not fulfill WP:WEB nor WP:CORP. Cites no sources. No evidence of notability presented in article or here. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

discussion for deletion of both

delete per noms of both

comment I merged the discussions per a suggestion by Kareeser J\/\/estbrook Talk VSCA 00:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in this case the merge was probablty a poor idea -- just put them next to each other and cross-ref. DES ^(talk) 01:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matrena prisiazhniuk

Vanity. She even bothered to put herself in the list of anarchists. Bayyoc 22:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I should have speedied it. Wonder if I should just delete the AfD tag and add the speedy tag.

Speedy delete: A1. No attempt to assert notability found in article. Tagged as such. --Kinu 22:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, default action is keep. Babajobu 04:24, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hargitay Ákos

Not sure if this person is notable. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 22:37Z

Delete pending further research. I find nothing on this individual except for a few references to the information listed on IMDb. --Kinu 22:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I tried looking for him on google but not really many hits. Then again, google hits doesn't equate notabilty IMHO. Delete for now until references can be brought up. --† Ðy§ep§ion † 03:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, bordering on Strong Keep. While Google hit level may be moderately low, the available information indicates rather clearly that the subject of the article is regarded as notable by those who cover the field. [51] [52]Wikipedia should not reinforce public ignorance of the arts. Monicasdude 17:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neural technology

Delete non-notable buzzword already covered by neuroscience. 10K Google hits, but only 849 when "-holographic" is used to weed out hits for Holographic Neural Technology. Sayeth 22:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as discussed at this Wikipedia Neuroscience Project Neurogeek 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already covered in neuroscience article. Non-specific term, not used in the field. Nrets 01:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TomUK

Delete doesn;t meet criteria for WP:WEB Bill 22:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:WEB violation - non-notability of subject. (aeropagitica) 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Amcfreely 23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Katherine Horton

Previously deleted page. Not an exact recreation. Delete. kingboyk 22:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not for mere collections of external links, and the bulk of this article follows as such. It is also not for memorials or soapboxes to bring criminals to justice, and it is very likely that this article could turn into one or both of those. Unless information surfaces to the contrary in the future, the crime itself, while tragic, is not notable. --Kinu 23:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Repeated attempt to post similar content; should warrant a {{deletedpage}} tag. --Kinu 00:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet again. This page shouldn't have been recreated, the previous AfD standing. WP:NOT section 4 refers, memorials to the dead. (aeropagitica) 23:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP not a memorial Ruby 02:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, what content is here belongs on Wikinews (to where we cannot transwiki due to licensing). If the consensus is to delete, recommend the closing admin add a {{deletedpage}}. Stifle 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flashing 12

Appears to be a neologism. There are a couple mentions on the web. At best, this should be transwikid to Wiktionary. I'm hovering mid-way between Delete and Transwiki aa v ^ 23:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above aa v ^ 23:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete posthaste per all above. --Kinu 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, unverifiable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam James William Mckay

Delete - Autobiography, vanity and non-notable. waffle iron 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nom--Bill 23:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:VSCA. --Kinu 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. sigh. aa v ^ 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable film-maker, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 23:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 21:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vanity article as nn. Essexmutant 10:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Dogbreathcanada 02:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous photos from WW2

Collection of unsourced photos which appears to have been put up solely for the use of a highschool class. See SHS WW2. Delete. Fightindaman 23:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Creator of page has made edits to only one other page, SHS WW2. Amcfreely 23:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-07 00:00Z
Delete per all above. Wikipedia is not a picture post. Images themselves should be tagged for deletion as well. --Kinu 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — At the risk of ruining somebody's school project... per nom Kareeser|^Talk! 00:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a picture gallery. These photos might be reasonable on on articels about aspects of WWII, if properly sourced. but this ins't such an article. DES ^(talk) 00:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although I believe that Wikipedia can contain galleries, this is one is so context free as to be useless. Plus there is the issue of unsourced images, most of which will have to go. (Please see and comment on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries.) Dsmdgold 16:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as context-free gallery of unsourced or noncommercial images. If they were available under GFDL or some other free license, I'd suggest transwiki to the commons. But they aren't. Stifle 20:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion. enochlau (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey Way and Kait MacDonald

Musicians who do not play together, but appear in a fictional written serios titled "The New Jersey Affairs". Individual articles for these two are sufficient; this looks like spamvertising for the "serios". Delete. prod tag update: I originally tagged this {{prod}}; it appears to have been speedily deleted and recreated, which I take as a contestation of proposed deletion, so here we are at AfD. bikeable (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's original grounds to {{prod}}. --Kinu 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD A7 and so tagged. If for some reason not speedy deleted, delete as non-notable. One of these guys seems to be notabel, but the pair, as a pair, has bno claim to fame. DES ^(talk) 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete DES ^(talk) 00:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gareth Haigh

not notable aa v ^ 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above. aa v ^ 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable vanity biography. Tagged as {{nn-bio}}. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-06 23:55Z

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete DES ^(talk) 00:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Nassoori

Another nn gem from this user (I've mentioned WP:BIO to them) aa v ^ 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete aa v ^ 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocitizen

Silly dictionary definition with negligible content -- Aim Here 23:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per rationale at AfD for Euro-citizen. --Kinu 00:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef Ruby 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
d Pavel Vozenilek 04:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. --Ter e nc e Ong (恭喜发财) 05:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 05:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euro-citizen

Silly dicdef - author reverted my last proposed delete -- Aim Here 23:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not encyclopaedic, not do I think it should be on Wiktionary. The word "obviously" should never be used when explaining things... Kareeser|^Talk! 00:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete dictdef at best. Neologism. DES ^(talk) 00:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DES. --Kinu 00:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dicdef Ruby 02:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
d Pavel Vozenilek
Delete --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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