Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 10

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log
< December 9 December 11 >

Purge server cache

December 10

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disasterlabs

edit

Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section header made this not show up on Dec 8 log. Re-posting so it gets its full 5 days consideration. Abstain, but 324 displayed hits[1] and an Alexa rank of 1,072,081 doesn't seem very impressive. 24.17.48.241 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Gonzalez

edit

Does not meet notability requirements. Velvetsmog 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Westchester_PC_Users_Group

edit

Completely idiosyncratic non-topic. Also, even though it's a non-profit group, it seems like advertising to me. This should be on Google, not Wikipedia. Belmore 00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept per a general consensus that high schools are notable FCYTravis 04:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell High School (Lowell, Massachusetts)

edit

Lost, orphan article on obscure, non-notable school Mecanismo 00:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Frans Morsch

edit

I originally tagged this as a speedy but it was removed. Guess I have to move it over here. Non-notable bio. Stifle 00:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Gradwohl

edit

I nominated this for speedy deletion too, but it was removed. Barely-notable singer and article has very little room for expansion. Stifle 00:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prosthetic Records

edit

The article is obviously spam/vandalism Mecanismo 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It should be speedy. Who's idea was it to restrict speedy deletions so that this sort of thing cannot be labelled as {{db-spam}}? Tell me, that I may strangle them. These nominations are a waste of everyone's time. Reyk 02:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam. V. Alex Brennen 03:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep. This is far from a speedy or vandalism(!). It's not spam, it's a valid stub. It's just their address and a list of their bands, with no claims or boasts made. It doesn't even give their web site. Some of those bands are notable -- Even I recognized Lamb of God (band) which has six records out and a Wikipedia article. All That Remains has an article. I don't know if the others do -- I checked some but not all, not finding any more articles (which doesn't prove a band is not notable). Prosthetic Records gets a lot Google hits, too. I don't know what the policy or precedent is on record labels, so I'm not going to vote, but its an artistic endeavor so I'd tend to give the benefit of the doubt. I'm gonna leave it to others who are more familiar with this sort of thing, though. (I do note that nominator also just nominated Lowell High School for AfD resulting in a speedy keep.) Herostratus 07:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not spam; it is blatant spam. Delete unless rewritten. - Mike Rosoft 12:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mike Rosoft. Ifnord 17:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that any comments before this one, do not reflect the article as rewritten by Pburka. Please don't count them when closing. - Mgm|(talk) 00:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted (blanking by creator). - Mailer Diablo 04:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wake ups

edit

Advertising for a brand of caffeine tablets. ERcheck 01:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A winner is you

edit

Non-encyclopedic. ERcheck 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (or at worst, no consensus). bainer (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Majestic Realty Co.

edit

Delete Any article that leads with advertising raises eyebrows to its notability in my book. karmafist 01:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Editor is confirming prior delete vote; do not count twice.


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Music Box (game)

edit

Vanity article, no actual product has been commercially released; appears to be more like a fan-produced game Howie ☎ 02:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mindmatrix 01:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo PC

edit

This reads just like a sales ad and looks to me like blatant advertising DanielCD 02:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Meyer

edit

not notable, vanity Avalon 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Was he a manager at either of these corporations? Because that's pretty much the corporate counterpart of a professor. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glen stollery

edit

Autobiography of real person. Minor assertion of notability. ERcheck 02:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. --HappyCamper 03:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Islamunism

edit

Neologism; few Google hits. Psychonaut 03:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was (Speedy) delete - please see this talk page for full context regarding the closure of this AfD. Thank you. --HappyCamper 03:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secularism nazi

edit

Neologism; no Google hits. Psychonaut 03:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily kept - Encyclopedic subject that got vandalized. FCYTravis 04:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ducks Unlimited

edit

This page is more or less an advertisement, and provides no content suggesting it could be made into a quality Wikipedia article. Benandorsqueaks 03:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. bainer (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of female surgeons

edit

Closer's notes
This came to no consensus because the non-deletes, despite being in the majority overall, couldn't decide whether to keep as is, rename, or merge somewhere else. Any future nominators, keep in mind that the deletes were in an overall minority here.

Do we need really this list? Lists of women in $TRADITIONALLY_MALE_PROFESSION are as unsuitable as the n "Lists of Jews". Wikipedia is as much a vehicle to boost pride in one's gender as it is to boost one's pride in one's ethnicity. Pilatus 03:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment you missed the point of deleting the article. And please, do not create another useless list article. After all, category pages should be used when creating a simple list. --Mecanismo 20:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to criticize anyone for this vote then criticize me. I suggest you read my reasons first, though. Durova 21:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean world, not country. Wikipedia is not just about America. --Bucephalus 17:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point blank: the band

edit

No evidence that this band passes WP:MUSIC. Jkelly 03:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirected to properly finish the merge per policy, see links below. - Mgm|(talk) 00:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Decisionsupportsystem

edit

I have completed a merge of this page's remaining significant information over to the more-complete Decision support system article. I believe that this article is now redundant and can be deleted; it is an orphan and so does not even need a redirect. Steve Summit (talk) 03:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Der Dragon Warrior

edit

The game is technically not related to the Dragon Quest game series because it was created by fans. It is not a commerical game and there are a lot of fan made Flash games. J. Nguyen 04:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Day

edit

This appears to be a joke or vanity page. eaolson 04:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dang

edit

Not notable singer, not in allmusic. No released albums. No tours. feydey 04:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete under CSD G4 karmafist 05:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust factualism

edit
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a very short article with no context other than spam, blah blah. FCYTravis 04:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FlyGuyCrew.com

edit

Advertising. Delete. worthawholebean talkcontribs 04:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hungry Hungry Hypocrites

edit

Non-notable band, hoax, and so on. Delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 04:59:27Z


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Email hack

edit

Of the dozens of definitions for "email hack" I could think of, this would be... well, it wouldn't even be on the list. Someone tagged this for speedy deletion, but I don't think that's appropriate. Nonetheless, it should still be deleted. I'm not sure what specific policy to cite; maybe WP:NOR, since this definition seems quite original to me. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 05:04:14Z

  • Delete, that's certainly not what an "email hack" would be. — JIP | Talk 09:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is no more a hack than something written in Leet. Bergsten 10:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although it more or less has some justification, as above this is very far from being the most common usage of the term, and the most common usage is so obvious that it would be deleted as a dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsense page --Mecanismo 12:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BTW the same user created Domain hack describing the same thing with web domains instead of email addresses. Firebug 18:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - However, domain hacks are somewhat growing in popularity and probably merit an article. I wasn't aware of that name for them (I've only seen del.icio.us and I was in fact wondering if that sort of technique had a name), but if del.icio.us is a domain hack then j@mes.com is certainly an "email hack". Unfortunately, I've never seen anybody use an "email hack" before, so I can't comment on whether it's a practice as widespread as domain hacks or whether it's non-notable and therefore worthy of deletion.
    • Comment - I have a hard time accepting either domain hack or email hack, English language hack maybe. If the terms are used, they both need disambiguation. domain hack could also mean DNS hack. I have never heard the term email hack, but I think it would imply doing something technically clever with an email (the message or the software handeling it, but not the address). If these things are to be regarded as hacks the terms domain name hack and email address hack would be more accurate. But the hack is not in the realization that a word can be divided into parts or that the character '@' looks a bit like an 'a', it's in the idea of choosing it as a name. Thus in my opinion the best name for both things would be name choice hack. Bergsten 22:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is referenced, consistent with domain hack which is similarly referenced. Unless there's a particular reason why someone sees this as either untrue, not the standard definition of e-mail hack, or else not suitably notable, I see no reason to delete this. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you re-read my nomination, you'll see that I do very much doubt that this is the standard definition. If there is any standard definition, it derives from "hacking email" (e.g. "An email hack has been going around the office, make sure your virus definitions are up to date!"), not from some cute typographical game. Should your vote be counted as a delete, then? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-11 01:45:58Z
Well, this is the difference between "hack" and "hacking". A "hack" is just a way to change something - it doesn't imply any criminal behaviour. While "hacking" often does. "Email hack" therefore means as per this definition while "Hacking in to e-mail" is what you are suggesting. I cannot imagine anyone saying "Oh no, someone did an e-mail hack!". No, they would say "Someone hacked my e-mail" or "My e-mail has been hacked". Thus they have different meanings. Of course, this kind of thing is covered already in computer hacking where you can read up more about the difference between criminal hacking versus just changing something. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think this should be covered by Wikipedia, but I don't think we need two separate articles on what is really just one topic. What concerns me is the names of the articles. As described above I think they are unclear and some what misleading. But the references for them are no good either, the only ones to mention the terms email hack and domain hack are the ones related to the site xona.com. The said site makes no claim (as far as I can see) that the terms are in wide use, they also use us as a reference for the term domain hack. This makes me think one of two things is true, either the term was coined here and they started using it, or more probable they coined it and use us to push their term through. Bergsten 01:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep per general consensus that high schools are notable. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Garfield High School (New Jersey)

edit

Unlike the other Garfield High Schools listed on the disambiguation page, this school does not appear to have any notability other then the attendance of a member of the New York Jets football team. Benw 05:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh... fair enough. :) I'd expand the article if I could, but sources are lacking. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 08:27:25Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [5]. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Made_in_california

edit

Total self promotion of a nonotable company. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a propaganda Machine' policy. Bjorn Tipling 05:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of this debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [6]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 05:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Nicholson

edit

Borderline nn-bio. But I suppose the assertion that he was an "astonishing" football player is an assertion of notability. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [7] --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Saxophone

edit

Complete fiction. Delete for being in violation of the 'Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought' policy.' Bjorn Tipling 05:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by Neutrality [8]. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JANDGE Day

edit

This article is a hoax, there were 0 results for JANDGE Day on Google. Delete for being a hoax. Bjorn Tipling 06:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intentional web

edit

Is this notable? I'm not sure. Abstain. Neutralitytalk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a real term. It refers to tools (websites & applications) designed for users to gather information based on their intentions. Amanuelt 06:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 400 google hits, most don't apply. Here's one from Oreillynet [9], though I'm not sure it applies. Amanuelt, do you have a link to the presentation about the site? [10] Also, intentionalweb.org is really sparse right now, with almost nothing in the blog or forum, is it intended to be a commercial site? --Interiot 07:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; yet another neologism that isn't in widespread use. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-10 08:31:01Z
  • Delete as a minor neologism (per the O'Reilly developer blog etc.) which appears more or less completely unrelated to the article's current content. For the record I'd vote delete even if it were refactored - <500 Google hits does not indicate a subject worthy of coverage here. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is nonsense. The google test lists 400 hits but the majority of them reffer to something completely different from the article's issue. It seems that it is a simple pet project based on an attempt at a neologism. --Mecanismo 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep. The presentation I made will be posted by Monday 12th. The term came about from a section of cognitive psychology which studies intentionality.
    • Intentionality in psychology is sometimes referred to as 'thought without representation' eg. if I said 'it is raining' you can assume that I am referring to where I am, so you change what I said in your head to 'It is raining where he is' There are many cases in conversation where we don't explicitly state things but the meaning carries because of conventions or our knowledge.
    • The intentional web refers to information which are intents of the visitors that is not physically represented in information the web.
    • The intentional web initiative site (which is linked in the article) is meant to be a community site for developers to be able to work together to enhance user experience, working from the site user perspective instead of what is usual the content creator/publisher side. The site will house, aggregated blogs on intentional web topics, forums, and articles. Amanuelt 15:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We chose this term because it will not be confused with other existing terms. I know it has a low hit count on google, that is a good thing for now. When microformats was announced and posted here there was very little in google until about a month or two went by. But thanks to wikipedia I was able to contact the people working on it right away. The term has so far received positive remarks at the presentation, and on IRC channels when discussed. Amanuelt 15:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough hits. Amanuelt, I appreicate your enthusiasm, but notability must come before the Wikipedia article, not after. Firebug 18:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. Wikipedia's mission, as every encyclopedia's, is to list information on already notable subjects. An encylopedia's purpose isn't to make those subjects notable. Therefore, if your argument justifies anything then it is the deletion of the article, which is more than deserved. --Mecanismo 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like original research at this point. Not notable. ++Lar 19:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thank you all for your input and reactions. If you feel it is wiser to repost this once the term enters regular use, I will accept your decision as I am new to posting on the wikipedia. My intentions were to provide a place where people can look to see the proper definition of the term. Amanuelt 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest then, as others have, that you consider creating or enhancing a site for it elsewhere (presumably enhancing this site), to capture the information about it in more detail than could be done here (encyclopedic means a precis, not in depth exposition), and Google will find it. Over time if the term and concept catches on and is used in real life, people will be falling over themselves to create this article. But for now, it seems self promotional, something that Wikipedians tend to frown on. Also, it may be useful to disclose your affiliation when you argue for or against deletion... as the primary author of this idea/term some would expect some bias in favour, which you should make explicit so your words carry more weight (advance disclosure defuses revelation by others). Note also that the concept itself seems fascinating and seems to have a lot of potential, and if it can be reduced to practice, might be a very important advance. Wikipedia is not the place to publicise things, though. Hope that helps (all IMHO only of course)... ++Lar 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you're mainly looking for a definition... one fallback users may use, after trying Wikipedia, is Google's "define:" operator [11], so maybe it's possible to SEO that. --Interiot 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research, Not notable and vanity. The term, as defined in the article, overlaps with my (day job) research area; and it's not one I've heard at all. It seems just a term for a simple application of Semantic Web principles. Also, I note that despite Amanuelt's claims, there doesn't appear to be any tools that actually use this term to describe themselves.


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woodman Cup

edit

I'm not certain whether this actually exists, and if it is, it is certainly isn't notable. The website has nothing to do with the article. TimBentley 06:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 01:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Elexmas

edit

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "non-notable neologism," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush Derangement Syndrome

edit

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "neologism, Urban Dictionary is not a reliable reference," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology over reality

edit

If the internet has a plentiful supply of anything, it's catalogues of logical fallacies. Funny, then, that this one is only listed as a logical fallacy in Wikipedia itself and WP mirrors. Original research, delete. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, as the original and sole contributor, Haseler (talk · contribs), of this aticle marked it as such.--Sean|Black 08:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Energy Crisis

edit

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "nnonencyclopedic essay," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inhilation Therapy Association

edit

This page was listed for Afd by User:66.191.124.236 with the reason "advert and misspelled as well," but the deletion process was not completed. —Brim 06:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Plum

edit

An article about the main character of a series of novels; articles about the series itself have not been written yet. Delete. Neutralitytalk 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If the article on the work itself becomes long, then giving major characters an article of their own is good practice.
This giudeline makes perfectly sense to me. That's why I think the article should be about the series (regardless of the article title). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of voting systems topics

edit

This initial list has been supplanted by Category:Voting theory and it's 3 sub categories Category:Voting theorists, Category:Voting systems, and Category:Voting system criteria. Scott Ritchie 07:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Scott Ritchie 20:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lenge

edit

This article is written from original research. I also think the subject fails to meet the requirements in WP:BIO, but I don't speak french and I could be wrong. Movementarian 08:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 10:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Grassi

edit

Non-notable entry, does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria, has only recorded a couple of demos Akamad 08:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian Society of Colorado

edit

Delete Non-notable. Google search for "Vegetarian Society of Colorado" returns 293 results. Their own site only has one listing for 'in the news', a 2003 article in the Durango Herald. AKMask 09:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ThePit

edit

Blatant vanity/spam for a non-notable discussion board. (Has no Alexa rank; their provider's traffic rank is 79777.) Delete. - Mike Rosoft 09:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FOTGR

edit

Currently rather POV and unencyclopaedic in tone (which is fixable) article about an organisation which appears to be not in any way notable. Most Google hits on FOTGR are for cameras, once those are excluded the number of hits on FOTGR is below 300, and even those are often not about this project. Might (just) be justifiable with reference to systemic bias, I've voted keep on that basis before now, but I really don't see that in this case. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily kept as nominator has withdrawn his nomination. FCYTravis 23:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UNITED cRACKING fORCE

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Time Machine (radio)

edit

"Internet radio" (i.e. not radio at all) show which hasn't quite reached the dizzy heights of having its own domain name yet. Some evidence of minor discussion in web forums, but not of any true media coverage or significance. This is the editor's first and (to date) sole contribution. Already seems to be on Wikicities, I see no reason why it can't stay there until it becomes well-known. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IPod Guide

edit

As the title suggests, this is one person's guide to the iPod. Adds nothing to IPod that I can see. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silly hat club

edit

Seems to be a joke religion amongst a handful of people, run out of a local restaurant. --CBD ☎ ✉ 10:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thirsty Thursday

edit

per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: "Thirsty Thursday" gets 57,900 google hits [17], and isn't a recent term as the article claims. Not that this means it should get its own article though . . . peachlette 22:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Peachlette. Because of T T going together, this actually has a wide variety of independent origins, and is used to mean several different things. It is similar to Formal Friday, a term coined on Triple J radio a year ago that is now in common use. Thursday can be a good day to go out and drink since Friday is just one day, and on Thursday nobody else is doing it. Much better than going out to drink on Wednesday or Tuesday or something. lol. It has merit. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 00:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just came up with some random phrases like "wicked wednesday" and "funky friday" and got a shedload of Google hits. Unlike Casual Friday, this isn't an established custom, but more likely just a popular name for a bar's drinks promotion. - Hahnchen 01:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thirsty Thursday is a legitimate college phenomenon with several years, at the very least, of history behind it. Just because no one's decided to write a peer-reviewed study on it for a sociological journal doesn't mean it can't be in Wikipedia. Bombsaway 03:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment* Regardless of your feelings on the matter, the fact remains that "Thirsty Thursday", as it were, is a phenomenon worth noting in Wikipedia. Binge drinking goes by many names, and Thirsty Thursday is one I happen to hear very often.
  • Comment This isn't something I "made up in school one day"; it's a pharse I've been hearing with alarming regularity since I matriculated in 2002, which I feel bears explanation. Bombsaway 05:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reach Around

edit

I don't think Wikipedia is a dictionary of sexual slang. This appears to have been copied from here (note repeat of spelling error). User's sole contribution. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 10:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Brighton Wok

edit

Promotional. This 'independent' film is looking for investors, and is unlikely to gain a proper theatrical release. Not notable. The JPS 10:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Novice Brand

edit

Non notable. Can't find any google results, so unverifiable. Promo. The JPS 10:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cecil's Flea Circus

edit

Cannot be verified. Non notable. See also this afd. The JPS 10:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cashier Joe 90

edit

Non-notable. Unverified. Similar articles also up for AFD. The JPS 10:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was revert to October 21, 2005 version. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tether

edit

Currently a NN musician which is far too brief to assert importance. Does not cite reference. Previous versions of this page have been moved to wikitionary. Expect sockpuppets to 'contribute' to this AFD. The JPS 10:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ruse

edit

no evidence given of importance File Éireann 10:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 18:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Venskus

edit

Vanity/non-notable. It mentions a nationwide campaign of some sort but no results. Snurks T C 10:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note that an application to protect this page has been made. This is not practical as the opportunity must be given to others to have a vote on this issue. We will continue each day to put back deleted votes, as I have been doing. No vote shall be lost.--File Éireann 16:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness to User:BBwoman1, who gave me some trouble today, she appears to have reformed.--File Éireann 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
it should be noted that User:BBwoman1 is actually a guy. Also, you can compare similar work for Www.ufck.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whelck (talk • contribs) 2005-12-11 00:05:59


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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. CSD A1, nonsense. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gossam Commando

edit

Its been here for nearly a month and still doesn;'t give any useful information. File Éireann 10:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was booby delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Large Breasted Women

edit

13:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Vallery Irons, of the TV Show V.I.P. "She shows ample cleavage and was first said to wear at 38D bra; then 36DD and finally 34D." : Terrace, Vincent (2002). Crime Fighting Heroes of Television. McFarland and Co. ISBN 0786413956.
  • DeleteTheRingess 01:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listcruft. Not even a category is justified. Stifle 14:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry to interrupt the PC groupthink, but this is arguably far more useful than some of our 1,000s of fictional lists, such as List of fictional Elvis impersonators. -- JJay 17:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's your point? We're not talking about those others, we're talking about this one. I'm objecting to this one on the grounds of verifiability. Is verifiability "PC groupthink?" Dpbsmith (talk) 17:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Object on any grounds you want. There are many ways to set criteria for this list that would allow verifiability, just like with any other list. The point is, Lara Croft as well as many fictional female characters, are known for breast size- a fact that also significantly inflated Angelina Jolie's bank account. -- JJay 18:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK, I've edited the article to make it possible to achieve verifiability; listed the single character for which we currently have a source citation; and moved the rest to the article's Talk page. If nobody reverts my changes and there's general consensus that the criteria I propose (bust measurement of 38 inches or more, attested by a verifiable source citation) I'll change my vote. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I, for one, have no problem with any criteria you want to impose, although I believe it's more a matter for contributing editors to hash out over time on the article talk page. Naturally, I would welcome your switch to keep. Given the current vote line-up, however, isn't this conversation just a wee bit academic. -- JJay 19:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in present form provided there is general agreement that the a) list must state a well-defined criterion, i.e. one for which it can be determined objectively that the criterion is met, and must include only entries meeting the verifiability policy; specifically, entries accompanied by verifiable source citations that make a specific statement that shows that the fictional character meets the criterion. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See, I wasn't so off-base with my groupthink remark, which was meant to shake things up a bit here. You are truly a man of your word. Now, if we can convince some of the other 15 delete voters that large breasts can be verified in fiction, just like in real life, we might have a chance to save this info for future generations. -- JJay 21:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing indiscriminate here. The issue speaks directly to the fictional representation and objectification of women, and can be analysed from the allegorical, societal and commercial standpoints, among others. It has been a feature of fictional female portrayal, from the Greek gods through renaissance painting and up to present day game design. -- JJay 17:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undoubtedly there is scope for an article on the fictional representation and objectification of women. No question. Whether it can be done without straying into OR I don't know, it probbaly can. And it will need to cover periods when fictional breasts (and the semi-fictional "ideal" portrayed by models) were small as well as large. It would be an interesting and thought-provoking article, in exactly the way this isn't :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - POV, or rather, two POVs. Seriously, in many cases, verifying a "38-inch breast" would be difficult to do for many fictional characters... and virtually impossible for cartoons. Does Blondie qualify? On the other hand, investigating the visual evidence would be characterized by some as "fun." B.Wind 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does Blondie qualify? Unfortunately, pending verification, no. We need more than visuals. Sorry. But these are good questions that need to be asked. -- JJay 00:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult? Indeed it is very difficult. Fact-checking is always difficult. But it is what is needed to build an encyclopedia. What's required, of course, is not a measurement of Blondie's bust, but a good verifiable source citation in which someone says what her bust measurement is. It can be an estimate, but it needs to be a published estimate by someone reasonably authoritative. It can't just be the opinion of a Wikipedia editor. Perhaps there's an interview with Chic Young somewhere or something like that. If you think a specific bust measurement sets the bar too high, you could argue that all that should be required is a verifiable source citation describing Blondie as "busty" or "chesty" or "large-breasted." (Might be easier to find such a citation for L'il Abner's Daisy Mae... Julie Newmar... Mmmm....) Dpbsmith (talk) 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) P. S. Or "buxom." "Buxom" is always good. I've already found a reference to Edie Adams playing a "buxom and bouncy Daisy Mae," but of course that is saying that Edie Adams was buxom, not that Daisy Mae was. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, here we go. Catherine Donaldson-Evans of Fox News—and you can't get more authoritative than Fox News, right? says here "By now, you'd think Blondie would be ready for retirement—after all, the buxom suburban housewife and star of her own comic strip recently turned 74." Anyway, a verifiable designation of Blondie as "buxom." You could say, her endowments are fair and balanced. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Buxom. Hm. That's supporting evidence, but not good enough for inclusion. We need some details on bra size. -- JJay 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non verfiable and also what sets the bar for "large breasted"?Gateman1997 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

HardcoreSounds.net

edit

Alexa rank >3,000,000 Google finds only one hit (the site itself). Domain registered Jan. 2004. Forums claim a whopping 370 members, which if the thread list is accurate means an average of under 2 posts per member (I hope they are archiving, otherwise they are clearly wasting their time!) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marianist LIFE

edit

spam, plain and simple. Can anyone think of an appropriate speedy criterion? Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete: joke/vandalism. Thue | talk 18:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"hairy dork"

edit

Delete:this page is not encyclopedic - nn - vanity --Dschor 12:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jargonaut

edit

Cross between a dicdef and a website advert. —Xezbeth 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; default keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noise Metal

edit

Delete this metal pseudo subgenre. This article basicaly describes the band Mastodon, which already has an article. Spearhead 12:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are other red links/not linked genres on that list. Second this seems only to refer to Mastodon and lists a whole bunch of red links otherwise... Apparently not a notalbe genre, and if Mastodon uses it themselves, it can be mentioned in their page (which I did add to that page btw). A good reason nevertheless to delete or redirect is is the article state "There aren't many noise metal bands" Spearhead 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • JJay, I don't quite understand your point. If this is deemed not to be noteworthy, can't we simply delete its reference on that list? JoaoRicardo 19:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Guys please check List of heavy metal genres again. This is a great and long list with only two redlinks as far as I can see. Why create more? Furthermore, there is an entire paragraph on Noise Metal in that list. Deleting that info is a matter for discussion with the editors of the list. Also, if Noise Metal exists as a genre, and even if Mastodon is the only Noise Metal band (not that I believe that), then it deserves an article. -- JJay 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hum, I see what you mean now. Sorry. I thought it was a real list, with nothing but a sequence of genre names, when it actually provides a small description for each. I've left a note on its talk page asking people to join the discussion here. JoaoRicardo talk 19:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's cool. If the editors of that list (who know much more about heavy metal than me) decide that Noise Metal shouldn't be there, then I would probably vote delete here. But if the genre does exist, then I don't think the article really hurts anyone. Maybe you should switch your vote to abstain or keep, in the interim. -- JJay 19:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • FYI I actually am an editor of many metal related articles and I have been trying to clean many pseudo metal subgenres. Also not that the list it is on says "These genres are not generally acknowledged as metal genres" Spearhead 19:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disasterlabs

edit

Article appears to be an advertisement of poor quality. Shawnc 00:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section header made this not show up on Dec 8 log. Re-posting so it gets its full 5 days consideration. Abstain, but 324 displayed hits[19] and an Alexa rank of 1,072,081 doesn't seem very impressive. 24.17.48.241 00:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Norris (band)

edit

Completing nomination for User:66.191.124.236. Punkmorten 12:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Net-centric information environment

edit

Extremelly obscure article based on an attempt at a neologism. The google test lists 160 results. Article is orphan Mecanismo 13:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Åma Band

edit

Does not really meet WP:MUSIC. A staggering 18 Google hits, and 1 hit on a Norwegian search engine. Punkmorten 13:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Seán Kelly (GAA President). howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Kelly (GAA president)

edit

Orphan article not in english Mecanismo 13:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Transwiki to the Irish Gaelic Wikipedia if article not there. Merge if Wikipedian of Irish background says there is something of value there. Ensure that this becomes a redirect to the other article.

Capitalistroadster 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GFFI FITNESS ACADEMY

edit

It's an advert. Howie ☎ 13:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Transwiki to Wikibooks. Owen× ☎ 01:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water in the desert

edit

Is this article really needed on Wikipedia? Doesn't look like it belongs here at all. --Mrdie 05:22, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Games during 1999-2000 swason

edit

Unencyclopedic fancruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Aecis praatpaal 14:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The title is vague and ambiguous, giving no indication other than the period. There is no reference to notability of the particular football club. While seasonal summaries might be considered encyclopedic in a broader context (summaries of important teams, changes, championships and that sort of thing, especially for a whole league) this is more something that belongs in a sports almanac. DeathThoreau 16:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be an attempt to recap the 1990-2000 season for the Dutch Football Club Feyennoord Rotterdam, although "season" is incorrectly spelled. The football club is notable as they are one of the top teams in Dutch football, but this is not a good candidate for an article, as Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Movementarian 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can evolution be guided by God?

edit

This is another POV-fork by user Ed Poor presenting his particular take on the possible ways to answer the question "Can evolution be guided by God?" He ignores the fact that there are articles on theistic evolution and progressive creationism which already address this question in an NPOV manner. He reinstated this article claiming it wasn't properly AfDed when it was speedily deleted. --ScienceApologist 14:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was BJAODN. - Mailer Diablo 06:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgoatpig

edit

Either a hoax or non-notable unless author can provide citation File Éireann 14:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Deere Buck, John deere Gator

edit

Unencyclopedic. Information belongs best on the manufacturer's web site. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 23:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 14:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guided evolution

edit

More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc|☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It's not a POV fork, because it does not push for any particular point of view. Please see the distinction which Wikipedia:Content forking makes. And if it contains inaccuracies, please correct them instead of nominating the entire article for deletion - which simply wastes everybody's time. The whole point is to make a balanced (i.e., NEUTRAL) account of what religious people think about evolution. Uncle Ed 16:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It pushes the POV of User:Ed Poor who cannot seem to bring himself to edit the articles on the subject (say evolutionary creationism). --ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ed tries to explain why his personal essay is not POV enough to be a POV fork; this is absolutely irrelevant. What he needs to explain and doesn't seem to want to is why this article deserves to exist when the subject is already covered on Wikipedia. Ed is in fact using a classic POV-forking trick: select an alternate name for an existing subject which should be a redirect but turn it into an article expressing your own POV on the matter instead. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Guided evolution isn't a religious idea solely—or at all. It is overwhelmingly more often linked to planetary seeding than religious views. The article fails to be accurate at the first sentence, and then just rambles on without any attempt to place the idea in context or with reference to other ideas of development. User:Noisy | Talk 19:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit

More of the same. I had it redirect to evolutionary creationism, but yah, OR. — Dunc|☺ 15:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what part of this article you feel violates Wikipedia's "no original research" policy.
Or if it should be a redirect, as you previously had it, why did you nominate it for deletion? What info does it contain which you feel is non-encyclopedic? Uncle Ed 15:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't say anything not said elsewhere in a better way, it just sort of rambles its was through variously flavoured slices of piffle. It is also factually incorrect; "Any other account of changes within populations (or the emergence of new populations) of life is Creationism, not Science" when alternative scientific theories have been proposed to account for evolution (they were wrong but they were nevertheless science).

It is on VFD to circumvent aggressive bullying tactics from certain users. — Dunc|☺ 15:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, this is another example of a personal research essay by User:Ed Poor about the subject of evolutionary creationism. When User:Duncharris redirected the article, Ed Poor decided that he wanted the article reinstated as is. "Guided evolution" is another example of a creationist neologism, it should just be deleted anyway. Are people really going to do a search for "guided evolution"? --ScienceApologist 16:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 16:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Cymet

edit

Delete. Totally self-promotional Daniel Case 16:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Let it Snow" Rituals

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (I counted 3 deletes, 2 keeps, 2 non-votes, 2 uncounted comments). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005

Acharya S

edit

Apparently an author in the field of comparative religion, but her "notable theories" are as about as groundbreaking as a plastic shovel in permafrost. Assertions of notability may be valid, but I don't know if the publication of a few pieces of "pulp academia" are worthy of inclusion. Tom Lillis 09:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be a great loss if there were not some article on Acharya S. She is an important figure in contemporary religious debate. The extent to which she has been a subject of often vituperative controversy is a measure of her significance. It is unfortunate that because of her controversial nature that she has been subject to treatments that are obvious hatchet jobs. To have no reference to her whatsoever, however, would do the curious reader, as well as the realm of religious polemic, a great disservice. The article should be improved, not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjulka (talk • contribs)
Comments by Cjulka have been disregarded (user's only edit). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • A point which is stated in both of her books. These observations have been made since the beginnings of christianity even by the church fathers themselves. That said, there is absolutely no reason to keep this piece on Wikipedia because it is nothing more than a defaming hit piece. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point: Bringing her child into all of this is about as low as it gets and if nothing else that should be erased immediately. It is obvious that much of this article is does little more than humiliate and disparage. -el Lobo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.31 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by "el Lobo" interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • I concur with Lobo....erase the disparaging remarks represented by Zarov and while you are at it...delete him too. This person is not worthy of receiving ANY respect as an editor or "professional" writer, any more than a zoo monkey. If I sound disparaging of him, it is because he deserves it. Spreading information about her personal life is tantamount to the tactics of a "National Enquirer", not the professionalism of what claims to be an Encyclopaedia. She is a living breathing person and anyone should have her permission to say anything personal about her in a respectable forum such as Wikipedia claims to be. The last time I looked, the Acharya S. site as laid out looked reasonable enough, but apparently, the monkey is busy changing it. I might suspect he is a stalker, what with his fixation on the author. Rene/Skull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by "Rene/Skull" interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • I concur that this piece should be permanently deleted, on the grounds that it was written as a propaganda/hit piece by user:Zarove. In addition, others have colluded with this intent. User:Crazy Eddie (an admin?) writes that this is about what he can "get away with" in an effort to make the author "look like a nut". This is not good for the author, whose reputation is being deliberately tarnished, nor is it good for wikipedia. ^^James^^ 20:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by ^^James^^ interpreted as delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
    • What exactly is the problem with the article ? For someone who knows nothing about this person, it doesn't read too much like propaganda. She seems to have a decent number of google hits. Tintin 21:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it should be made clear that the article has been cleaned up to make it "fair" while this deletion process is going on, to give it the "best chance" for survival. So no, the current version does not reflect the last eight months, which included blatant factual inaccruacies, that were pointed out time and time again and were consistently ignored. It has been suggested to Zarove by an admin that he refrain from adding back the "unresolved issues" until after the deletion process is over. If I haven't misread... why is there need to present a whitewashed version during the deletion process if it wasn't understood to be unfair in the first place? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ^^James^^ (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. Users should be aware that this article has been involved in an extensive edit war, accumulating more than 350 edits, many with acrimonious comments left in the edit summaries. The talk page has accumulated so much discussion that it has three archives. ◎DanMS 18:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by "DanMS" interpreted as a non-vote. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • Keep. As told in the above comments, it has been edited extensively and also by at least 5-6 notable wiki contributers. There are also many internet sites discussing this controversy.--Raghu 04:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neither a member of the wiki community, nor of Acharya's list. I surfed in on a whim awhile back, it's been interesting to follow.
Perhaps Zarove isn't the best person to write the definitive version, since he appears to have an axe to grind. For the same reason, neither should anyone from Acharya's group.
To bemoan some "conspiracy" against her is to trivialize the word. The talkpage entries are there for the world to see. I'm currently conspiring to check my email, and will do so within the hour. Later this evening I've conspired to do some laundry.
Many criticisms of her work exist, in varying quality, and it's ludicrous to expect Wikipedia to wave them away with one token sentence and two links. Check out the wiki entries for L. Ron Hubbard, David Icke, Lyndon LaRouche, Mother Theresa even. (Granted, the neutrality of the Mother Theresa entry is in dispute. Apparently she's the victim of "malicious gossip.")
I don't think Zarove's final version was particularly hostile to her, although Zarove himself is. (It's not difficult to see how he might have gotten that way.) Points that were simply factual and emotionally neutral have been construed as attacks. Anyone who can't tell the difference is not up to the job of editing his work.
He's essentially correct in this: it's not about him. Pull him out of here, let someone else attempt a consensus version, and what will happen? Anything that doesn't function as a press release for Acharya S will be challenged by her followers until it does.
Or until Wikipedia tires of listening to them. Given its vindictive reputation--if the Church of Scientology can live with criticisms of L. Ron Hubbard, the church of Acharya S can do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.104.35.169 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by 70.104.35.169 (talk · contribs) disregarded (user's only edit). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
    • Comment. 12/11/05
The author of the above claims to have just come here on a whim being neither a "wikipedian" or a member of the "church of Acharya". The above person did not leave a username, so shall be named "dual personality", since they dont know the meaning of conspire! Dual (for short), has no idea of what is transpiring in this wikipedia "rumor-mongering' and "libellous" affair. Neither has "dual" taken the time to learn more about how others have been victimised in a personal way that has affected their reputations by lies posted here. Apparently "dual', apart from the condescending nature of the post, shall not be the one to develope a fair consensus, because said person has already made up their minds.
Zarove didnt become the way he is because of Acharya's defenders. He is simply that way by choice, spreading personal and defamatory information and otherwise being fixated in the manner of a stalker. He better take seriously what he is doing because it could end badly for him with legal force being set on his tail. He has made insinuating and downright threatening statements to the effect of getting more personal information on her. What has that to do with what should be a simple matter here at Wikipedia? He has the defense of being anonymous right now, but he will be found out and tracked for the statements he has made and has no business doing so. If the founder of Wikipedia does not take serious action about how things are done here, he could find his reputation and Wikipedia's going down the toilet.
I do not believe in censorship, but when it comes down to some nobody or anybody, hiding behind anonymity, failing to uphold expectations of quality with civilised behaviour and academic standards...they deserve the "boot". In the real world, a journalist or writer would interview the subject, do the research (supposing they have that capability) and address matters without prejudice. Zarov has clearly represented himself, NOT to have these high standards at all. Yes, this is about him, because he is the AUTHOR of the wikipedia site on Acharya. His bias and the strings to which he is attached are in question....just as the above "dual's" lack of understanding of the harm this forum has by unprofessional fruitcakes. In fact, I consider "dual's" blase attitude insulting. Rene/Skull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.223.140 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not going to vote at this point, but the accumulation of these rambling screeds shows something of the difficulty of keeping the page in line with NPOV. The page content relates to a small corner of a wider controversy. Charles Matthews 09:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Charles Matthews interpreted as non-vote. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:23, Dec. 18, 2005
  • Keep: Acharya S is, from my POV, a notable kook, and on that basis deserves an article. If I am wrong, and she is not a kook, then she needs an article even more. I agree that both Zarove and the followers of Acharya have been very argumentative (very argumentative!), but that does not mean that a quality NPOV article can not be written. If anybody has a problem with individual contributors, then they should take out an RfC against them - not try to delete the article itself, just because you are unhappy with the current version.
Now that finals are over, I'm planning on investing some time and attempting to work out a suitable compromise that everyone can agree to. (The criticism section needs reworking - we have criticisms from three main primary sources, and Acharya was kind enough to write rebuttals. The criticism section needs to both better summarize the criticisms - with sources! - and provide summaries of those rebuttals. Zarove also wants a biography section - something I agree with in principle, although I am not happy with his current version.)
Yes, I am biased, and I freely admit to that. But I am also willing to work with my opposite numbers. And I might just be a bit more open minded than you think. And no, I am not an admin, I wouldn't take that job if you offered it to me. I'm just an experienced wikipedian. crazyeddie 19:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Acoustic black metal

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was yet another non-existant metal genre. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Spearhead. Leyasu 00:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- In theory, this could be a real metal genre -- any combination of acoustic with metal would be distinctive enough to be instantly recognizable. The question is, is it common enough to qualify for an article -- would people come looking for it? I vote Abstain due to lack of knowledge on the subject. Haikupoet 04:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CyberBunker

edit

This article needs to be removed as we've revoked wikipedia the rights to use our trademarks after a series of incidents of our publication being changed, most of them questioning wether or not we would be a souvereign state or not (which is not up to anyone else except for us to decide), some even insulting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cb3rob (talk • contribs)

  • Keep; no compelling argument has been made. Wikipedia does not need the right to use your trademark in reference to the product or group which it refers to. See Xbox, for example - Xbox is a trademark of Microsoft, but we need not request Microsoft's permission to use the term. (Also note: This user has repeatedly blanked the page in question, violating WP:3RR, and moved it at one point to Removethisnow.) --Zetawoof 02:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Zetawoof mentioned, no argument has been made to show any copyright/trademark violation. Cb3rob, you seem to have issue with the article being edited ("incidents of our publication being changed"), I could be wrong about that assumption. But, if that is an issue you have, please understand that once an article is added to Wikipedia, it is placed under the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows the article to be edited. - Akamad 08:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that there is no given basis for the 'trademark' argument. However, this seems to have originated as a not particularly notable vanity page by the same editor who now wants it deleted. Is this content really relevant? --CBD ☎ ✉ 14:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia must not give in to unfounded legal threats. Thus, whatever my opinion of the object's notability, I vote Keep as a matter of principle. Firebug 18:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, When publishing something under the GNU license, the orignal author still retains copyrights over it, and is free to license it or un-licence it under whatever kind of conditions he prefers in the future. As for the trademark issues: we do hold trademarks in the Netherlands, the Republic CyberBunker, and other countries on both 'CyberBunker' and 'CB3ROB'. Our problem with the whole wikipedia thing lies in the fact that people who have no authority over our territory whatsoever keep changing the article as if we would not be a souvereign state, which is the only 'vandalism' i can see in this whole scheme. We intend to keep changing this article, if nessesary with all computer force we posess, to either contain the facts as they are, or not be displayed at all. (The above unsigned comment and vandalism threat was made by User:80.126.178.93. All of its contributions, about a dozen in all, are to CyberBunker-related articles. As a suspected sockpuppet of User:Cb3rob, it should be disregarded, and blocked for legal threats and threats of vandalism. Firebug 18:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
No. When you contributed to Wikipedia, you agreed to allow the material to be used under the specified terms. You don't have the right to now demand it be removed. Nor do we need your permission to refer to a trademarked name for purposes of comment or criticism. Firebug 18:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. Enochlau 01:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi DeVries

edit

Doesn't look very notable and not much content.

Delete GoldenGirl 05:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Media Skare Records

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was only link is Silent Civilian, also on AFD. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Miser Pesche

edit

A very short article describing an allegedly well known person with no Google hits; no sources provided." Shawnc 17:26, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Vanderlinde-Abernathy

edit

Completely non-notable. 4 pages on Google, a lot of them are from either Wikipedia or school websites. Vanity page.Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per nomination. Vulturell 04:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Series difficulty curve

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was neologism with no google hits. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 09:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Zizilia

edit

del wikipedia:verifiability. A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. No reputable traces on web, no references. mikka (t) 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ProUnreal

edit

Tagged for deletion by 66.191.124.236, with the edit summary "nominate AFD -- non-notable gamers website". Completing nomination.

  • Delete:My vote: the article is for a site that appears not to meet the proposed requirements of WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 636,047; Google shows just 21 incoming links; forums have only 4703 registered users in total, including inactive users and those who have never posted even once. According to the article, this site is not even listed in Epic Megagames' community links section, let alone referenced in mass media. Delete accordingly. — Haeleth Talk 16:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Haeleth's research. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hello, I disagree. While you may think the scope of this website is limited, it is very well known in some circles of the gaming community for how bad it is when someone makes a post there (those that attended lan party like quakecon). Even though it does not meet the criteria of 5000 registered users per WP:WEB, it is at 4,700 which is only 300 less than the stated amount. And as such, it would have 5000 registered users, but it is notorious for anyone out side of the "old school" ut99 community to register and post there, as it is the pit of the internet gaming (which is WHY it isn't posted on unrealtournemnt.com, because it has the notorious reputation of having a large group of flamers who show no respect to Epic Games). As Beyond Unreal[20] is the home of all fans of the unreal engine and its universe, prounreal is the home of competitive unreal. CombatCarl, Dawgpound, lotus, cursive, and many other professional videogame players make regular posts there (or formally did before the decline of unreal tournament and it's subsequent lacking communities). As for its alex rank, unreal tournament has long been out of favor with videogame players, as they have flocked to more realistic titles (even quake 4 has bombed after its intitial success with only 700 players online, at peak times), it was previously much more popular. user:Ghrog


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 09:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mauri Kaipainen

edit

This article appears to fail WP:BIO. The only hits I'm turning up in a google search are blogs and archives of emails, etc. Furthermore, it's been a stub article for over a year, so there doesn't appear to be much chance of it being expanded out into something encyclopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 17:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand. 31 articles on Google scholar makes it capable of expansion see [21].

Capitalistroadster 17:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Geek and the Freak Show

edit

Non-notable podcast (I hate that word) about a high school's goings-on. Non-notable.-- Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 17:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sports As Social Integrator

edit

Non-encyclopedic, borderline original research? D-Rock 17:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Britney Spears. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Preston Federline

edit

Baby has done nothing notable, except being born to Britney Spears and that guy. I don't think this child warrants his own article. - orioneight (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Child is already discussed at Britney Spears. Do we really need this as a redirect? - orioneight (talk) 17:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Someone reads the kid's name in a magazine, searches for it here. Wouldn't it be preferable to get sent to Britney's article, rather than getting a blank page? Joyous | Talk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, you're right. I'm probably just a little frustrated that their are so many biographies of noteworthy, deserving figures, whose articles are in such poor shape, and yet we have editors who think that a two-month-old baby deserves his own encyclopedia article. Look at the Britney Spears article, and then compare with people such as Pierre Curie or Howard Percy Robertson. I think sometimes that efforts here are a little misdirected, and its sad that a two-month-old baby——who has done nothing but crap his diaper——should need his own redirect, because that's the kind of information people today are looking for. *sigh* - orioneight (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted by User:RHaworth. Jamie 08:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BPO , Data Entry , Data processing , Data Conversion , Offshore service provider , Data capturing, back office operation

edit

Looks like someone pasted an entire spam email into an article and then gave it a horrible name. Speedyable under G1 and/or G3, is it not? Agamemnon2 17:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy, for sure, as per nominator. Lord ViD 17:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, it is pure spam. --Eeee 21:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right to exist

edit

Snowspinner restored this but neglected to list it on AfD, as the discussion on WP:DRV clearly mandates. It has had a previous AfD. -Splashtalk 17:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created this article because I feel that it is an important concept that needs to be included on Wikipedia. Much of the widespread controversy in the Middle East revolves around certain nations denying Israel's right to exist, and that exact phrase is indeed very widely used, as Google will demonstrate. I certainly do not deny that my article needs some work and improvement, but that is what the collaborative Wikipedia process is for. I don't know what was there before when it was deleted last time, or how bad it was, but I deliberately tried to include arguments for both sides and include sources, because of the rules specified on Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If the article is badly flawed in some way, please let me know and I will try to fix it. Crotalus horridus 04:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - No hope of there ever being a NPOV article. "Right to exist" is merely a simplification of the Zionism issue and wikipedia doesnt need to have articles on simplifications. Put it on wikitionary. jucifer 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I could list a hundred articles with even less hope of ever being NPOV. Marsden 17:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gtplanet

edit

Delete. Non notable web site. Thunderbrand 17:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 01:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Meersman

edit

Keep it. He is funnay as all get out. I listen to him when I get the chance, and I know of many others at the University of Illinois and other colleges that do the same.

I'd like to see some comments on how notable this "famous" radio personality really is, as there's even no article for WPGU-FM 107.1. I'd say delete. feydey 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd say keep it. I've heard his stuff, he's great. He's a real big deal in Central Illinois. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.221.82.188 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, if he's notable, it's in a very limited area. Googling "Tom Meersman" gets 572 results and I couldn't see this particular Tom Meersman on the first few pages. - Bobet 02:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with prejudice. I don't know whether that means anything but it sure is nice to say. Ashibaka tock 05:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I thought of nominating this when I first saw it but I just didn't feel like going through it. Must every morning DJ be "notable"? Most of them get fired and move somewhere else every few years, and they all rip off each other's best material anyway. Or accuse other ones of doing so. Oh ... he spoofed Survivor. Wow ... a DJ with some balls. That's what we need. Daniel Case 07:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pending verification, Weak keep or redirect to WPGU article, if it exists. By definition very few radio personalities are notable outside their home markets unless they've achieved some level of notoriety for other projects they've done. That said, I think the bar for notability in this case is also lowered somewhat. I'd say the criterion has to do with their effects on the local market -- in Boston, for example, Loren and Wally on WROR and Matt Siegel from WXKS are both significant morning jocks with name recognition even among those who don't listen to those stations. John Lander from WBMX and David Allan Boucher from WMJX would be middling cases, while someone like Hutch from WZLX or Kevin Reading from WROR probably wouldn't rate inclusion at all. Haikupoet 04:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat votes

edit
  • Keep I listen to him on the web in Tucson. He's great. Not hurting anybody having him on there, and I was pleasantly surprised when I saw him up there. I remember laughing to that stuff thats on there about him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.227.116 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep, Google "Dr. Meersman" and he's right there the first guy. I've heard his stuff, it's great.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.198.227.116 (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 no consensus; kept. Johnleemk | Talk 10:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of translations of Fuck

edit
    • Keep it!!

move to wiktionary, where it truly belongs. mikka (t) 18:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was move to User:R4gnar0k. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Hamilton

edit
  • Speedy delete. Yeah, absolutely no problem at all, feel free to wipe it from the database. It was merely a joke page (if it wasn't obvious from the self-sending up) to demonstrate to a friend how to create a Wikipedia article. - R4gnar0k

A vanity article for a 19-year old university student who has yet to achieve sufficient notability. Delete. Sliggy 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I agree a better solution is to userfy. Sliggy 23:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Davidson

edit

Previous nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Davidson. Renomination request by an anon at WP:AFC. Seems like good-faith, so I'm finishing it up. Kappa 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ariabel

edit

Delete: The page is an unencyclopedic vanity page a doting parent wrote about their very young daughter. Hu 18:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sayula

edit

Article that should be about a town in mexico is hijacked by an article on some mexican personality. Article is badly written and orphan. Mecanismo 18:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Club D

edit

Article on obscure event organized in an obscure college Mecanismo 19:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you also presented it as an obscure event at an obscure college, when it is actually a major event at a well-known college. Many events/clubs etc at colleges and universites could merit articles. -- JJay 21:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The themed party can only be considered a major event inside the Derwent College and maybe to some extent in other colleges of the university of York. The event is trully not notable outside of that. Therefore that doesn't give it sufficient notoriety to deserve an article on an encyclopedia. Besides, what I defined as "obscure" was the Derwent College and not the University of York. To put it simply, the school is notable but the place where they teach two courses isn't by itself all that notable. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed JJay, it is perhaps the most well know event at the whole Univeristy, certainly the biggest and hosted by the first college to be opened at the Univeristy of York, one of the top univeirsties in the UK. Certainly not just any old event at any old university. Evil Eye 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I Know and presume that Mecanismo did not have time to research it before making the nom, which should now be withdrawn. -- JJay 00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you can read above, I indeed researched the subject and the article is indeed worthy of a deletion. Local campus parties aren't notable enough to earn an article on any encyclopedia. --Mecanismo | Talk 13:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aketarak

edit

Band article that doesn't seem to have any releases or a label, fails WP:MUSIC's guidelines for band notability. Not on AMG, 26 hits on Google [30]. --W.marsh 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good nomination, Will. You give the case for deletion (i.e. why it isn't notable) and refrain from voting. That's great to see. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 05:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of jazz bands

edit

Underdeveloped article made redundant by more complete Category:Jazz ensembles Mecanismo 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mo0[talk] 08:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Illingworth Song

edit

Not notable File Éireann 19:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SamStock

edit

Pretty blatant advertising Bjones 19:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisment Removed


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 22:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Science Reading Room

edit

Article on room which may or may not exist in the churches of a cult Mecanismo 19:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, really, they do exist. Thirty million Google hits. The Land 19:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, they're definitely real and pretty widespread.Bjones 19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and hopefully expand. I see these everywhere and I'd like to know more about them. Snurks T C 19:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. These are real. Joyous | Talk 19:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely. There are Christian Science Reading Rooms in many cities and have been for many years—at least 40 years to my memory, and probably much more. The article needs to be expanded. •DanMS 21:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They exist in pretty much any community that has a Christian Science church, of which there are about 2000 worldwide. There's one within about a quarter of a mile of where I'm sitting right now. 51000 Google hits on exact phrase "Christian Science reading room." There's a directory of them at http://www.churchofchristscientist.org/worldwidedirectory/ . They are an important part of the Church of Christ, Scientist which is usually considered to be a legitimate Christian denomination, is included in our List of Christian denominations (under "Non-trinitarian"), and at least a million adherents. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC) P. S. Umpteen hits on exact phrase "Christian Science Reading Room" in Google Books and www.a9.com book search, most of them attesting to how ubiquitous they are. I've added a paragraph about this to the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oh yes these are real, though I've heard less about them recently. There was an All in the Family episode I remember where the entire family was quietly reading -- way too quietly, for a comedy set -- and Archie came into the room -- "What is this, the Christian Science Reading Room?" -- huge laugh, but that was the 1970s. Antandrus (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's proof they're real: they're mentioned in The Simpsons. In "Lisa the Skeptic," Flanders complains that science tells us "things we don't want to know--important things" and sets off an anti-science riot which attacks a museum, a laboratory, and a Christian Science Reading Room. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Christian Science, and its Reading Rooms, are much more familliar in the U.S. than elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is a Christian Science Reading Room where Mecanismo lives, in Lisboa, Portugal, located in the Christian Science church at Av. Rainha D. Leonor, 15-A Loja, 1600-683, and open Wednesdays from 2 to 5:30 p.m. Telephone 217 571 451. Or at least that's what the search page says he lives. Of course you have to misspell the city name as "Lisbon." Dpbsmith (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Over 2000 of these worldwide. I have been to the main one in Boston and that would probably merit its own article. Jtmichcock 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, obviously. Gazpacho 10:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's one across the street from my law firm. And consdering there's a million Christian Scientists worldwide, and non-believers like me are allowed inside, I bet there's thousands of rooms worldwide. Plus, they aren't a cult; they just have very atypical beliefs. --Mareino 17:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really obvious keep. This is just a special name for what most people call a "church" and for what I call a "church building." It's just as real and valid as "mosque," "cathedral," "synagogue," "temple," "shrine," and (for Jehovah's Witnesses) "Kingdom Hall." Seeing an AFD notice for this was shocking. The "cult" assertion is utterly irrelevant. The fact that the submitter calls it a "room" when it is really a building shows he didn't check up on it much. In fact, the article should make this more clear. Would also like to see someone expand the article with more information on the assemblies held in reading rooms (what other people would call "worship services"). Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, but I think you miss the distinction between Christian Science Reading Rooms and Christian Science churches. You may be confused because the term for people who conduct Christian Science services in Christian Science churches on Sunday is "readers." The churches hold worship services on Sundays and usually look recognizably like churches. They say "First Church of Christ, Scientist" on their façades, except for the Mother Church in Boston which is The First Church of Christ, Scientist. I don't think Christian Science Reading Rooms conduct organized group worship. We do have an article on Church of Christ, Scientist, by the way. IMHO the nomination could have been more courteous. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks for clarifying. I was definitely confused. So the Reading Room is more a library, then? The article could definitely use more info, and it sounds like I'm not one to add it. :) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 00:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SEN-NET

edit

Incoherent article about what seems to be a school project. Non-notable. 'Delete'. Catamorphism 19:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is SEN-NET ?, after reading the introduction I still don't know. Delete per nominator. feydey 20:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Judging from their website (link on article page), SEN seems to stand for seniors (at the Czech Technical University in Prague). The SEN-NET apparently is an internet portal that has been established for the Department of Computers, Faculty of Electrical Engineering at the university. All the best to the seniors and faculty, but this does not seem particularly notable. •DanMS 21:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; seems to be a non-notable regional school project. Article is difficult to follow. MCB 08:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the most chaotic stub articles I've ever seen. deosn't seem to have an encyclopedical importance. --Mihai -talk 10:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alberto Laspina

edit

Bio of a musician. Just going by the claims of the article, doesn't meat WP:MUSIC because the first release isn't out, and won't be until 2007. Having serious trouble Verifying any of that... all of 3 Google results for his name [31], 2 of which redirect to casino webpages for me. --W.marsh 19:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chankast

edit

The software has no awards, merits, notability or special qualities. Promotion. feydey 19:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the first (and currently only) Dreamcast emulator capable of running commercial games. The article would need massive cleanup and expansion though. About 113,000 Google hits [32]. Well-known in emulation circles. However, it is also no longer being maintained. -Le Scoopertemp [tk] 02:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Scoops. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i'd say being the first emulator for a platform is a "special quality". I researched and added some more information and a template, but the article has a long way to go. --ThrashedParanoid 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:02, Dec. 17, 2005

Webmonkey ash

edit

Probably non-notable biography, but making some claim to notablility. Joyous | Talk 19:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN --Schmiteye 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

he is well known in internet circles. 'weebl and bob' gets millions of hits..and the webcomic list is also very popular. both are well known sites particularly the weebl and bob one. but if hes not well known enough for wiki im sorry --Aubiekat 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, weebl and its creator get hits, but this is a totally different person, just professionally connected, a webmaster i'd guess. feydey 20:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well i see your points. if i can get a promise an entry for the webcomic list won't be non notable I'll write one about it. it really is an interesting site--Aubiekat 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I suspect no one can promise you that. But you yourself could review the notability guidelines and the deletion criteria and decide for yourself if you feel the site is notable before you invest time in writing an article. Some thought starters: (don't answer here, just think about them): How many users does the site have? What other sites reference it? has it had articles written about it in printed media? have notable webcomics authors cited it as an influence? Does it provide a meaningful service that other sites do not? Does it have industry presence? Are the owners included on convention webcomic panels?These pages may also help: WP:GD and WP:WEB If you conclude that the site would not be judged notable enough for a Wikipedia article, consider an article at Comixpedia Hope that helps. ++Lar 17:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or at least seriously amend it. Webmonkey Ash might well not be worthy of an entry, but then he has coded the Weebl and Bob website which gets millions of hits (meshinks), although I would say that the webcomic list doesn't warrant a seperate entry, although certainly on Comixpedia. At least change it so it doesn't look like his mum wrote it Perks 11:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Only two voters were citing all the articles added to the nomination, but since the articles are essentially identical, and are about the same subject, I will delete them all.Mindmatrix 01:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic calgary etc

edit

Advertisement File Éireann 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Atomic tea, Calgary tea, *atomic, Atomic experience, which should all be deleted as spam. Morwen - Talk 20:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Panocracy

edit

Term fails the google test. Appears to be original research. Article is orphan. Mecanismo 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pick of India

edit

Company spam. Sole editor is Pick of India. Site has an Alexa rank of about 276,750. --Deathphoenix 20:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not notable enough to merit an article. --Cswrye 20:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct me if I am wrong...but isnt this supposed to be an encyclopedia. I would think that company information if any would also merit inclusion. If you feel that the external hyperlinks are a problem they can certainly be removed, but I dont see the merit in deleting the article as the company information may be usefull to some other users...Pick of India 20:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough delete it if you feel that this it is not "notable" enough. I would have thought that the term encyclopedia would mean a repository of information (and in my view any and all information because you never know what is relevant to whom). I could understand your views if the intention was only to try and get PR for the site, but I assure you that was not my aim (hence the suggestion for removal of all external hyperlinks). My 2 cents...:) Pick of India 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Stifle 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I was going to vote transwiki to Yellowikis, but I see it's already there. D-Rock 13:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

G. W. Adams Educational Center, Inc.

edit

A non-profit organization that runs a historical house. House might be significant, but the "Adams Educational Center" gets 57 google hits. Renata3 20:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nonsense. Enochlau 01:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rusting rabbit

edit

Nonsense? Web site ad? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mada mada dane

edit

A catchphrase from an obscure character isn't encyclopedic material Mecanismo 20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thru-hiker

edit

Dicdef. I propose a move to Wiktionary, then delete. Klaw Talk 20:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's a lot to say about thru-hikers and thru-hiking, and in the backpacking world this is a huge topic. The article doesn't start to address it, but an article on the subject is a great idea. Although thru-hiking is probably most closely associated with the Appalachian Trail, it's relevant to other long trails, so I think it deserves a standalone article. (I may try to work on it but will be out of town for a few days.) Bikeable 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and redirect to Thru-hiking and expand. Pburka 22:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As it stands, the article is nothing more than a dictionary definition and is also defined in Appalachian Trail#Hiking. This could possibly be expanded into an actual article but I would suggest to Bikeable (comment above) that the scope of the article be expanded to include such terms as "section-hikers," "north-bounders", "south-bounders," trail names adopted by the hikers, and other things involved in hiking the long trails. In that case, the article name and concept could be expanded to something like Hiking the North American crest trails or something similiar. Be sure to include Canada and Mexico if they have such trails. I could provide some photographs from a friend who has done extensive hiking on the Pacific Crest Trail in Washington and Oregon. •DanMS 22:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into something that gives some context, and is less geo-limited, like Long-distance trail. 24.17.48.241 01:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I (re)wrote the article, and while a lot more can be said, I think it is a decent start. I would support moving to Thru-hiking and redirecting the existing page per Pburka, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate during AfD, so I'll wait till this closes. Bikeable 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good question, but I don't have any knowledge of this outside the US, nor am I able to find any equivalent terms in a quick scan through UK/Australia trail info. It may be that this is predominantly a US phenomenon. Bikeable 05:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's applicable to hiking throughout the U.S., I think that's broad enough for Wikipedia. I got the impression from an earlier comment that it might be a regional U.S. thing. Needless to say, I think any distance long enough to require the verb "hike" is best traversed in a car. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Gravy Train

edit

Advertising. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maniyka

edit

Non-notable. Google search [33] returns 642 results. worthawholebean talkcontribs 21:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Long history, help to counter systemic bias, would once have been the dominant force in its market niche. Dlyons493 Talk 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The authors of the article think it is suitable for an Internet encyclopedia such as Wikipedia and it does not contradict to the terms of activity it has adopted. Maniyka is indeed a commercial company, but we think we fully followed the NPOV concept to form this short content. Moreover, Maniyka is a current leader in its filed in Bulgaria and according to us a short historical preview of it is needed for Wikipedia readers.
  • Delete, though I have wikified the article, it fails WP:CORP by virtue of having been written by its owners. --YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No Consensus(see talk page) karmafist 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Van Dam

edit

Delete Yet another tragic tale of death, but one that is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is a not a place for memorials. Caerwine 17:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. -- Dalbury(Talk) 03:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then delete the Samantha Runnion article as well. Tell me what is encyclopedic about that one? Both got them same amount of coverage in their respective California areas. Preceding was an unsigned comment by TripleH1976
    • Comment In general, if this article is deleted you ought to delete this other one is not an argument for keeping the first, but deeting the latter. However, in Samantha's case, her tragic death led to the creation of a continuing non-profit foundation dealing with the art of and the proetection of children. Danielle's death only led to a lawsuit against the killer by her parents. Caerwine 04:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • yeah, and that's unprecedented too. It's not all the time a victims family sues the killer. Plus the MO of the crime parallels the abduction of Polly Klaas in 1993. Furthermore, the case is unique because Westerfield doesn't fit the typical mold of a pedophile. He wasn't a dirty man with a history of child molestation. He was a successful guy, an engineer, self-employed was living a good life at the time. Sure Samantha's mom made a foundation in her memory but it's not the first. It doesn't promise anything differently then the Jacob Wetterling Foundation or Klass for kids. Preceding was another unsigned comment by TripleH1976
        • The foundation may not be particularly unique, but it does make a continuing impact on the surrounding community. Wrongful death suits are hardly novel. The main reason they aren't pursued all the time is that often the killer has no assets worth recovering. At most your arguments would mean that the article should be merged into that of David Westerfield, but the relevant details seem to already be there. A redirect might be worthwhile tho. Caerwine 17:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok do a redirect then. I think the article is worth keeping. In no way do I see it as a memorial, I simply gave a brief introduction to the girls life and then went into describing the events of her murder. TripleH1976 9:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (Sorry,Caerwine! Cover your eyes if you don't want to read it again. 1. This article should not be candidates for deletion per policy since it has encyclopedic information in it. Merger should be discussed on the talk page of the article. 2. We're not writing for the future, we're writing for today. Today a large segment of the U.S. population wants to read about child murder victims not just the killer. Let's make this article an example of how to do it right. Please, think this through. This isn’t a smart move. Picture this: Someone writes a nice article about a child murder victim. They proudly announces it to people that care. It's deleted for lack of notability. Someone looks for the article, can’t find it, reads the deletion page, and notifies high profile child victim advocates. John Walsh, Marc Klaas, Nancy Grace, Dan Abrams, Greta Van Suteren, and more. Now picture this: Newspaper articles. Talk radio. Jimbo paired off against one of these advocates on cable news explaining why we delete well written articles about child murder victims, but keep thousands of dreadful articles. A foolish way to discover notability. 3. This is a famous case. In modern society we remember people and events by writing the facts down. If we don't put the information in encyclopedias and textbooks, she will be forgotten. I suggest we close this deletion case ASAP and move the discussion to the talk page.--FloNight 04:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Thank You FloNight."' I also do not understand why this article, is being considered for deletion. This case got more coverage then the Samantha Runnion case(referring to CourtTV coverage), yet that is not being considered for deletion because her mother dedicated a non-profit organization in her memory. --TripleH1976 12:01 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This article should not be deleted. If you feel the information and the way it's presented has too much of the tone of a memorial, edit it. But victims of notorious crimes are, like it or not, figures in history and should be discussed in a comprehensive encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.119.135 (talk • contribs)

This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 21:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Slaven

edit

Outside guidelines for WP:BIO. Link provided does not even verify the weak claim to notability stated. TimPope 21:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ethnic group. Owen× ☎ 02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnick

edit

Dicdef; no potential for expansion. Should be deleted, Wiktionaried, or merged into ethnic. This article was created as part of a vandalism/trolling/POV campaign — see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Chooserr_again]. Psychonaut 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RadicalZero

edit

Article about a personal homepage. Alexa has no traffic rating and shows no sites linking to the site.[34] Delete as per WP:WEB. --Allen3 talk 21:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ameritania Hotel

edit

Spam. Main claims to notability feeling of perpetual nighttime and the prices - insufficient in my estimation.

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

The result of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 10:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sapiosexual

edit

This was speedy deleted under the vandalism criteria, with the deletion summary indicating something about a personal attack. The current content is identical to previous, and I don't believe that it meets the criteria. No vote. Sean|Black 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for info ... I just copyedit the page; I think it is an improvement ... Vamp:Willow 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm the newbie who wrote the article. Sorry it's kinda weak (I'm new here - first post :). Anyway, I heard the term today, and came to wikipedia for a definition, none found, so did some research in to where it got started, and posted the artcle based on what I saw here about "Metrosexual". Rock808 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a personal attack, but a neologism created by a non-notable blogger. One of the top google hits (out of only 47 unique hits) is unwords.com and most of the rest seem to be blogs. Pburka 22:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neologism. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, in defense of my article, "Metrosexual" is also listed in "unwords.com" and IS listed here in Wikipedia as well. "Ubersexual" is also listed on Wikipedia and is called a "neologism" even in it's definition here!! Other wikipedia entries include pomosexual and pansexuality Also, everyone is "unknown" until they become known, so that point seems rather invalid. It seems that if people are using the word as much as they are, they should be able to look it up here. Rock808 22:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is true that metrosexual[ity] is also a neologism. However it's a neologism which has achieved widespread use (over 1600 unique google hits and another 150 google news hits). It's also true that everyone is unknown until they become known (in fact, it's a tautology), but Wikipedia's goal is to document notability, not establish it. If you can find some instances of sapiosexuality used in print or the media I will reconsider my vote. Pburka 22:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, after reading the policy of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", then I see how it's possible there is not enough data on this yet to get an ENCYCLOPEDIA entry, but it bothers me that no admin here suggested moving it to the Wiktionary (which I knew nothing about). Rock808 02:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Same deal there are here. Wiktionary isn't there to popularize new words, but to report on already widespread usages, which this doesn't seem to be. FreplySpang (talk) 02:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Sapiosexual seems to be used more commonly than other similar terms which HAVE been accepted in Wikipedia. If a word is being used and I don't know what it is, then where DO you suggest I go to look if not here?? 70.112.22.25 03:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Google? Or ask the person you saw using it? There are plenty of communities (Internet and otherwise) that have internal jargon/slang that doesn't appear in general references. FreplySpang (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. If someone used the word "love" and I did a google on that I'd have millions of links to pages where people use the word, but that does not DEFINE it. How many hours of looking at how people use it would it take to get just an "idea" of it's many possible meanings. That's why we have a dictionary or encyclopedia. A single source to directly get an answer as to the meaning and enfluence of a word or topic, it's history, evolution, and references.
  • Weak keep. I considered speedying this last night, but there were enough Google hits to suggest to me that a worthy article could be written with just a little more than would be proper for a dictionary entry. Most of the hits, though, were other people using it on their blogs. Daniel Case 02:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki, if Wiktionary wants it. Non-notable neologism. android79 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep probably better to Transwiktionary. Its just another neologism... but its certainly got a few people using it... more so than some of the stuff on the Simpsons Neologism list.  ALKIVAR™  07:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wiktionary's popularity has made it a launching pad for meme wannabes; it takes no time whatsoever any more for a new word to appear on some blogs/sites. This is a term that somebody made up within the last few weeks/months. If his/her sexuality was dependent on blogs about podcasts, we could create blogcast-o-sexual and jump on three bandwagons at once! - DavidWBrooks 13:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blogs ARE the new media. More paper news print will be replaced with news blogs and RSS. Just because you see something on a blog doesn't mean it should be discounted. The validity should be based on amount of use/acceptance. Rock808 13:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - were this a neologism used solely by one person I might agree with the call for a deletion, however this is a word that has spread widely in the 'blogosphere' outside its original source. Unlike some neologisms it also fulfills a need for such a word-expression and, I note, pre-dates blogosphere, etc. Additionally, re DavidWBrooks's comment above, there appears to be no intent to use WP as a 'launch pad' as this is a term with pre-existing widespread usage on multiple continents. --Vamp:Willow 16:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - it's an important word who's popularity is growing, there are around 600 users on livejournal who list sapiosexual/sapiosexuality as an interest, and another 30 or so communities who do the same Baerana 22:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism used by a small group of navel-gazers. Come back when it shows up in the real world, like (shudder) "metrosexual". --Calton | Talk 01:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here is a substantial list of people who list sapiosexuality as an interest. Even if it is only beginning to be used off Livejournal, is almost 500 people still not notable enough to merit an entry? Wikipedia is not paper, and once a word has this kind of following it deserves a write-up. Yes, it is not as big as metrosexual but Britannica will probably have a metrosexual article if it doesn't already. Including emerging words like 'sapiosexual' makes wikipedia better than britannica. If the word falls out of use what's the harm -- we can revisit this in a years time and discuss it again then. There seems to be substantial support for keeping this article as well as substantial support for deleting it -- I certainly see no consensus at this time. Kit 05:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Livejournal-created neologism with 49 unique Google hits. Sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlton and others --rogerd 04:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's borderline, but I think the author of the article has made a strong case for keeping it. I also think if it's deleted, it's just going to reappear again given growing usage. --Jakob Huneycutt 06:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete bloggercruft.  Grue  17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not seem to have made it out of the blogs. -- JJay 18:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I have finally found a term that describes me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.150.98.18 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 14 December 2005
  • Strong Keep I first heard the word two years ago at a party (in real life). I have since heard it often (in real life). I know people who own the T-shirt (though I wish I knew where they got it). I've used the word to describe myself to other human beings (in real life). I would estimate that of the people I know (in real life), aproximately 300 of them would know exactly what I'm talking about when I say "sapiosexual", because they've heard and used the term before. I know this mainly because they attend the same parties where I hear and use the term.  :) Maybe it's just a Seattle thing, but the word seems like it's here to stay. lunaverse 06:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a comment to my comment: I was flipping through the replies to the original "sapiosexual" LJ post, and saw that someone there stated, "I've had similar success spreading the fabulous word infornography". This is a word I have not heard in real life or general usage at all (outside of the anime show Lain), yet obviously there is a Wikipedia article devoted to that particular neologism. Granted there are more Google hits for "infornography", but seriously... how many have ever actually used or heard this word IRL? Remember that once upon a time, words were created and spread into common usage long before Google or the internet were developed. People still speak to each other face to face, and this should be as much (if not more) of a yardstick than number of Google hits. lunaverse 06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention if we can have an article on the O RLY? meme, I see no reason this cant stay.  ALKIVAR™  09:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with both Alkivar and Lunaverse. Like Lunaverse I first heard this term in real life. Kit 09:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Open snipe

edit

Non-notable neologism - at best a dictdef

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete (A7). Physchim62 (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Night-Warriors.com

edit

As determined on its translation request entry, it's an nn-spam group. YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 22:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Jamie 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cognitive Dissonance Carnalitas

edit

original research File Éireann 22:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes if it isn't accepted as anything other than original research perhaps it should be tagged on somewhere else or deleted...--Aoclery 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)Tony.[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). --howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 17:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scottrade

edit

Advertising - doesn't meet WP:CORP

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

The result of the debate was IDelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IDoFind

edit

Not notable search engine. You can buy the site for $12000 but it's cheaper to ...

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Architecture

edit

Advertising for non-notable company.

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

The result of the debate was delete. RobertG ♬ talk 13:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The big ventus

edit

Was marked with a speedy delete tag but it's not. But it still fails WP:MUSIC big time so Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Idelete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ibox

edit

An advertisement File Éireann 22:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. – Robert 16:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poppermost

edit

notabilityMelaen 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Charismatic Church

edit

Unimportant church, and a poorly written stub unlikely to improve. Not really a speedy delete. Harro5 22:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Independent Catholic Churches or probably (if it fits those descriptions) into Catholic Charismatic Renewal or Neo-charismatic churches --Ezeu 23:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Paw Print

edit

Contentless article about a high school newspaper whose originating high school lacks an article YixilTesiphon Say hello Consider my Wikiproject idea 23:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 06:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Her words kill

edit

Band vanity. Google results are mainly self-promo, plus a BBC local article about their participation in a 2004 Battle of the Bands. FreplySpang (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Charts

edit

Seems to be a minor local band. Hard to do a websearch for because "The Charts" and "Time is up" turn up thousands of matches. Richfife 23:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 18:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Form of Preaching

edit

Previous AfD here was sort-of set aside by Deletion Review in light of the recreation we now have. The people there expressed some concern that it may still be original research. Reading the article, it doesn't appear to offer external sources for its claims about the various things it talks about, unless that one reference at the bottom says all this. AfD should consider carefully whether this is still original research: and delete it if it is. -Splashtalk 23:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination seconded. Original research. Delete it. I may be inclined to strike my vote later. Xoloz 06:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, the subject of the article looks like a real book. The work used as the only reference looks like it's real. Looking at the article, yeah, a lot of the content should probably be removed or fixed. But I don't see a reason to delete, unless the argument is that what's there is unsalvagable and we're better off not having it as a starting point. I don't see a reason why that's true, so I say keep and clean up for now. I'll take a few whacks at the article over the next few days. Friday (talk) 23:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep/clean-up I'm one of the two people who voted to delete the first time this was AfD, I also voted to undelete on deletion review (are the voting comments there not archived, they would be relevant to this vote also). The article was contributed by a graduate student as part of classwork (University of Waterloo) on the history of rhetoric. It's encyclopedic material, I'd say the problem is more verifiability than OR. It really needs the student to come back and add references of some sort. It's my understanding that this will most likely happen sometime early next term. Pete.Hurd 01:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are two cited sources, and I don't see how this qualifies as "novel narrative or historical interpretation". I'm interested because I've been mulling over the idea of asigning WP work to graduate students as part of their course work. While I would not have done it in the way that the prof associated with this article did, I am mindful of some of the problems they might run across. I'm trying to understand how you think this qualifies as OR, Splash, Xolos, can you explain your reasoning? It just doesn't make sense to me. Pete.Hurd 07:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This should not have been listed; it's a manifestly encyclopedic topic, a seminal work on medieval rhetoric. If there are too few citations then more should be added. Deletion is not an acceptable alternative to editing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup. A google on Form of Preaching Robert of Basevorn shows plenty of references to the book. Given that it's a 14th century text, it's had enough longitivity to make it worth keeping. -- JLaTondre 00:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Thompson

edit

no reference found Melaen 23:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm convinced it's all nonsense (eg. she lived in butt, she managed a brothel etc.) --Melaen 00:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 19:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tsunami rangers

edit

notability Melaen 23:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 02:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Import classic

edit

Not a commonly used phrase; appears to have been created to list Japanese games, anime, etc., that Americans like. tregoweth 23:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_10&oldid=1234126752"