Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by JPxG (talk | contribs) at 20:21, 18 October 2022 (Sweep through AfD logpages to remove duplicated empty lines from repair of orphaned AfDs via evil substituted transclusion hacking. (via WP:JWB)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< January 21 January 23 >

Purge server cache

January 22[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 KEEP Babajobu 18:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James Vincenzo Capone[edit]

non notable Al Capone brother Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 18:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard documentary evidence[edit]

dicdef Melaen 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE Babajobu 20:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mariah Carey remixes[edit]

An article on this topic was originally created at Remixography of Mariah Carey, and was subsequently deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remixography of Mariah Carey). The content of this new article is different enough from the earlier article that it does not qualify for speedy deletion, but the reasons for why it was deleted still stand. All of the articles on Carey's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, however, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Carey's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as patent nonsense. FCYTravis 01:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The artist Steven Friedland formerly os Apple Records. Hit single banned in the world....King of Fuh.[edit]

I'm not sure I even can decipher what the page says, but it seems to be about a non-notable musical group. See WP:Music Liamdaly620 00:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cartridge Comics[edit]

Delete this article on a non-notable webcomic which fails WP:WEB. There is no claim to notability in the article and my attempts to find any verifiable reliable sources (through google, nexis, etc.) for this article have all failed. Has no Alexa rank and a forum with only 20 members. -- Dragonfiend 00:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erhard D. Hahn[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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:49, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dogfish Productions[edit]

Does not meet WP:WEB, per article it is a place for 'people who are bored' to come and 'hang out'. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per CSD G4: repost. --M@thwiz2020 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Dogfish Productions[edit]

Previously deleted, and remade. Tokakeke 00:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedied, G4. If it comes back again it might need protecting. Grutness...wha? 00:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In-Depth Battlepedia[edit]

Totally Non-notable web page. A small webpage, with less hits and members than PinkPT, which got deleted for non-Notability MatthewF 00:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CDRL[edit]

dicdef Melaen 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 20:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brodequin[edit]

band un-notability Melaen 00:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo Jackson[edit]

DELETE - No record of album having ever been bought or sold- JM Band does not actually exist. Unverifiable. Lostcruft. — TheKMantalk 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above Liamdaly620 00:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. [4] PJM 01:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There appears to be a debate at the Lost television series forums and blogs (where its current claim of notability is allegedly asserted) whether or not this band ever existed. Nearly all online sources appear to agree that it actually never did, and that in fact the production mistook a certain band named Geronimo Black for some reason. Thus there is no real reason to keep an article that seems to assume otherwise. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Terence Ong 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Hurricanehink 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --NaconKantari (話)|(郵便) 18:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Latinus 18:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-verifiable fancruft. Rillian 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Sunray 01:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The Lost cruft battle continues. Baryonyx 07:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, I agree, not verifiable. 209.177.232.139 almabes
  • Strong keep As article says, mentioned in an episode of the television show Lost -- & information about this band (even verification whether it existed or was invented by the show's writers) is badly desired by every viewer of Lost. Sheesh, take a peak at any Lost discussion site on the Internet. (Want examples? I can furnish examples.) I believe so firmly that we should keep this article that I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it, but am quite willing to discuss the matter first. -- llywrch 16:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC) After a discussion with LeFlyman yesterday, I still say Keep, but will accept the determination of the Admin who closes this discussion. -- llywrch 17:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise an interesting point. I was considering changing my vote until I read your last sentence. What do you mean "I am willing to take extreme measures to keep it"? Are you saying you would not abide by the consensus decision made here? Sunray 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am saying that to delete this article would be a grave mistake, & am emphasing just how fiercely I believe this. Part of my zeal for this article is out of surprise that no one else until this moment has spoken up in defense of it -- even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence. (However, this morning I discovered a web page about this group & added it to the article, so I'd say that either it did exist or is a noteable hoax by the creators of Lost.) In short, had I a "save this article" chit as a long-time contributor to Wikipedia (or any credibility), I would spend it on this article. -- llywrch 16:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • even an article that said it was a fictional band & never existed outside of Lost would justify the article's existence -- that's where you and most everyone else here disagrees. As for that link you added, there's no there there. As I noted on the article's talk page, domain registrant information suggests that this is just another hoax website set up by ABC or some enterprising fan. If that's what it is, it deserves a brief mention in a couple of the Lost articles, just like the rest of the hoax sites. android79 16:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Not every Lost fan wants this page up on Wikipedia. I sure don't, because that's not what Wikipedia is for. Go hog wild about this on The Fuselage or some other fan forum, but Wikipedia is not a fansite, not a place for OR, unverifiable content, or speculation. As someone who's both a dedicated fan of Lost and someone who's worked very hard to get and keep the Lost articles in encyclopedic shape, I find your assertions inaccurate distortions of the truth and potentially harmful to the work so many others have dedicated their time to. Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baronyx, I assume you'd rather delete this article instead of trying to rewrite it into acceptible form? If this article is deleted, & later events prove that either the group did exist, or it was important to the plot of Lost, it will be more difficult to recreate this article than you may think. According to current practice, deleting this article means it goes away with little or no chance of recreation. -- llywrch 22:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also incorrect. If this band suddenly becomes an important plot point in the show or otherwise notable, there's nothing stopping anyone from recreating it. If it's deleted, you can even request that someone undelete the old content through deletion review. android79 22:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's no acceptable form for an article like this, with virtually no verifiable content and non-notability besides a less than 20s scene on Lost. What can it be reduced to? One unexpandable line. That's like saying we should have left the page 540 when its sole contents were (4+8+15+16+23+42)*5. It won't be difficult to recreate the article... notice the page 4 8 15 16 23 42 which was resurrected recently, and instead of being deleted this time, is headed to a redirect. I'm most certainly not opposed to having this page resurrected should the band one day prove pivotal. But, the situation with Lost cruft has gotten beyond reasonable limits, and I'm of the opinion that these types of pages are an embarrassment and discouragement to those who diligently work on the Lost articles. As editors, it is our responsibility to hold Wikipedia to a higher standard of quality in the information we present. We've just deleted the article on the "security system", for example, because of its hefty OR and unverifiability. Will there possibly be a page on the "security system" when the show is done? Sure thing. But just because the "security system" may one day have its own page does not mean that we have to have any old poor quality page that gets made now. There's just not enough on the "security system" to merit an encyclopedic article under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The same applies to this "band": it may very well be that this is critical to the future of the show (which, note is speculation)... but what may one day be is not an excuse for retaining a substandard article that lowers the quality of Wikipedia. Baryonyx 06:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article isn't being advocated for deletion merely because its a fictional band. It is advocated for deletion as non-notable, unverifiable, originally researched cruft material, mentioned for a few seconds in a single episode. There's a rather obvious difference between being a factual, accurate article on a recurring fictional character and a made-up article of a very minor fictional reference, IMHO. As for DriveShaft, I don't think it should be an article, either, even if it is Charlie's band. However, it has more accurate content derived from the show itself, and a more central role to a main character, so the argument for that band's inclusion has stronger footing than this one's.Baryonyx 18:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worthy of maybe a passing mention in the Lost episode summary, if that, not of its own page. ddevlin

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bozo sort[edit]

non encyclopedic algorithm Melaen 00:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Welmet[edit]

non notable camp Melaen 00:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted as patent nonsense by Curps. — TheKMantalk 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Father mcginnisburg[edit]

Nonsensical ramblings about a non-existant personage. Have listed for speedy delete twice but original (and only) contributer keeps removing tag. He has also now removed the afd tag twice and vandalised my user page. Liamdaly620 00:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L'Auberge de Bugnaux[edit]

not encyclopedic, may-be worth for wikitravel. Melaen 00:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2sec[edit]

google returns way to many results to check for relevance, although filmmaking style is not in the first 100 results, "2 second movie" returns no relevant hits, delete as neologism MNewnham 01:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Rebuttle 2sec films - are a ligitimate style of filming, and has and is growing in various areas of the Southern United States of America, such as LSU Baton Rouge, University of Birmingham and the University of Alabama. There is also a film festival located in Shreveport, Louisiana that supports and encourages the 2 second film style. [MovieSauce.org] (Which has recieved entries from the entire world, and other festivals such as Slamdance, which is held in Park City, Utah during the Sundance Film Festival.) Also, the term 2 second Movie is not ligitimate because there are no "movies" that are 2 second style - only shorts.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ktulu's Kingdom[edit]

Vanity article. Content (e.g. Members list) mostly nonsense. Zen611 01:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery Profiling[edit]

Not nonsense, but no context to explain what it is or what its for. Even following the link provides no help MNewnham 01:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – ABCDe✉ 07:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erythuria[edit]

Reason why the page should be deleted Dangherous 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) erythuria have only played one show, and haven't released any songs yet. This, for me, warrants deletion. --Dangherous 01:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorgo[edit]

Originally created as autobiography, woefully misses the benchmarks of WP:BIO. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Death[edit]

Goth singer,pin-up < 250 relevant google hits, discography not on major label, not on amazon MNewnham 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Mendelsohn[edit]

This is not a useful page about an interesting person. The authors are mainly noted for efforts to present poorly reasoned attacks on vaccination in a wide and inappropriate variety of articles. The Quackwatch commentary linked from the page is informative.--Midgley 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change my vote to Keep. He appears to have been a notable critic upon further research, but the article needs to be greatly expanded, especially regarding his criticisms. Liamdaly620 08:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Just another dubious attempt at suppression, and clearly at odds with the Wiki's policies on articles regarding published authors. The quackpot site epitomizes the undercurrents of abysmal attacks on informed consent prevalent in Western medicine. This AfD appears to reveal a degree of contempt towards informed medical debate, a sentiment evidently embraced unabashedly by those editors who have proposed, in recent months, the several AfDs on articles about critics of medical orthodoxy. Ombudsman 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Note above 'keep' vote was by a POV-pusher and is POV in itself. This person is not notable. Tokakeke 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at least it's not a vanity article (quite the opposite in fact). Ruby 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Multiple issues here about Mendelsohn's credibility, credentials, and whether he was responsible & authoritative, but notable he is. His name gets 11,500 Google hits and he's the author of multiple published books. I think we should keep the page at least as a guide to the debate. --Lockley 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Every quack needs to have written a couple of books to achieve sufficient notoriety. No specific indication that this man has made an impact within or outside the alternative medicine or criticism of medicine community. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per AdelaMay. The Dr. might or might not be bonkers, but is borderline notable just for publications and chair/president of this and that. The controversy around him tips him into the clearly notable category, IMHO. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep i can't say it any better, so i'll just iterate: Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. --jfg284 you were saying? 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per AndelaMae. --Terence Ong 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Due to the fact that the google hits exceed 10,000, he has authored several books and has other various credentials; this decision should not even spark a contention. -- Salluste|talk 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC-5)
  • Comment: Looking at the first couple of pages of Google hits, he is mentioned quite a lot (perhaps because there are few MDs who provide similar quotes) but there isn't much substance to the actual mentions. Some of what there is is rather odd - a claim that Aspirin alters blood clotting factors for instance - that would be Warfarin, Aspirin alters platelet adhesion - and reduces vitamin C on a "nutritional" site.
I'm not American, and it is hard to judge what the National Health Federation is about. Is it more like the BMA than the National Front, to use an English example?
if kept, this article needs to be written, and shuold be written about the man, rather to multiply copies of ideas already covering elsewhere.Midgley 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he was the most notable anti-vaccine medical man of the last century, and allopathic critic. Very obvious suppression of that as we can see every day here for vaccine critics-- eg Midgleys other attempts over the last day or so: Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, Charles Creighton. Lily Loat (deleted), and attempted deletions by other allopaths like CDN 99--Charles Pearce, Neil Miller, Martin Walker for vaccine critics etc. This is what they want to suppress [[deprecated source?] Quackwatch is a well known pharma shill. Midgley is an allopath/vaccinator, bit obvious I would have thought. The wonder is how they can get away with it under everyones noses. Not to mention the deletion of links and text by them [7]. john 20:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Durd[edit]

Dicdef and unsourced slang term. Andrew Levine 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silver City Video Productions[edit]

Non-notable company/wedding videos, etc. Advertisement. —ERcheck @ 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sponged[edit]

Dicdef slang. Andrew Levine 01:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc D'Onofrio and Marc D. Onofrio[edit]

Very few Google hits and this is not him. Curiously, scrape sites Answers.com and freedictionary.com have the same text. Is this something that was once here but deleted? No old AfD comes up. Daniel Case 02:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Karmafist 05:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Smith[edit]

Possible hoax. Has enough information that if true this is a notable person, but a series of web searches failed to find any hits for things such as his appointment to the Congressional Committees Business Advisory Council. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the information in this article. --Allen3 talk 02:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - probably a hoax -- getcrunkjuicecontribs 02:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bollocks, asserts he won the 2002 Republican of the Year award, but in 2002, the National Republican Congress Committee, or NRCC, awarded a “Republican of the Year Award” to Florida businessman Chris Hill. This failed fact-check, plus those of the nom, means that the odds are good it is all lies, the whole thing. Ruby 02:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, if not outright lies. Liamdaly620 08:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete Not a Hoax. Contact the National Republican Congressional Committee and talk to Congressman Tom Davis's office and ask about Mr. Ronald A. Smith's Republican of the Year Award For Virginia for the Year 2001-2002. This was publicized by the NRCC with a press release in March of 2002. Mr. Chris Hill was the Republican of the year for Florida for 2002. I'm sorry but you apparently do not realize that they gave this award to one businessman from every state. Every item can be backed up in this listing or otherwise it would not have been put up. Also it has been listed on the internet at a separate site for several years with the exception of a few minor changes made to this update. Also this webpage was edited before and someone keeps changing it back to what it was before we had finished perfecting it. Please do not do that to our work again. If you take exeption to anything in it then please just contact us directly. We will be glad to back up whatever should be backed up with proof over any detail. \Wikistatman 09:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right that you attack the credibility of Mr. Smith. We have removed the article and will be working on a version that includes whatever the reliable resources require as by way of info or formatting. Mr. Smith did not put this article up but it was put up by employees. There are numerous articles written in Newspapers including USA Today as well as his appearing on CNN, MSNBC and Dateline NBC and as well as a number of books that outline his family and his life available at bookstores as well as Walmart. Also his appointment as Chairman of the Business Advisory Counsel and as Republican of the Year for Virginia in 2001 (awarded in march of 2002) was announced by the NRCC (National Republican Congressional Committe) in a Press Release in March of 2002. We will prep the required reliable source list as soon as that is prepared and then put it back up again. Wikistatman 12:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veggiefest[edit]

Delete non-notable event, with about the import of a company picnic. Link points to ESPN. Google indicates there are many veggiefests for all kinds of small towns. Ruby 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtua[edit]

Deleate: This has no substance, Appears to be an advertisment rather than a real article. Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scanlon juice[edit]

No relevant Google hits, doesn't seem like it's notable even if there were any. At the very least, articles about things that might have been, several different times, are not encyclopedic. Daniel Case 02:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the last sentence in BJAODN. Thanks for the idea! Daniel Case 03:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FCYTravis 04:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PLOrk[edit]

nn student group, no content Savidan 02:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting way to put it, and I agree.--BUF4Life 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 creator has withdrawn support, so article will not be expanded (changing the one weak keep to a delete). = Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theron Pummer[edit]

nn vanity. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 02:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saison dupont[edit]

DELEATE this article is an ad, No infomation is told about it. Eagle (talk) (desk) 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 01:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Bent Spoon[edit]

Non-notable business. Daniel Case 02:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Not notable - at all. Maybe even not to the community in Princeton! Tokakeke 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. A place of business is not speediable. PJM 03:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertisement. Ruby 03:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is the kind of stuff you would find on a poster tacked on a disheveled notice board down an arbitrary street. SycthosTalk 04:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Liamdaly620 08:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete although I think places with great significance within a large local area should be kept (if it has that. Any Princetonites care to comment?) Also, 300 flavors is damn impressive. Weak keep as a significant venue within a large locale. Grandmasterka 10:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advert. Latinus 18:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 05:44Z
  • Keep - As the author of this article, and as a Princetonite, Bent Spoon supporter and friend of the owners, I assert that the Bent Spoon is significant both locally and nationally. Many may be familiar with the slow food movement, where food is treated as a culturally significant and socially encompassing process, not simply an act of consumption. Whereas many ice cream shops claim to make their own ice cream, it simply means that they buy a premade base (eggs, cream, sugar, etc.), add their own flavors and then sell it as 'homemade'. In contrast, the Bent Spoon buys local products and starts absolutely from scratch, which is incredibly rare (ask your local ice cream shop if they crack their own eggs). This is significant because modern agricultural and consumption practices are potentially not sustainable, and any business that embodies at the heart of its mission a commitment to the sustainable development of its community is certainly notable. Also notice that I added a link to a New Jersey Monthly article profiling the Bent Spoon from January 2006, which potentially lends credibility to its status as 'notable'. Perhaps the entry does need to be edited to sound less like an advertisement. Any suggestions? Dzaback 02:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nn business. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; enough content in the AFL article to not warrant a merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Rejects[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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnostic Pagan Tradition[edit]

Appears to be original research/advertising/vanity/linkspamming for the poorly designed and completely unreferenced website http://www.gnostics.com, which has an Alexa ranking of 1,379,820. Pretty much all other references to the "Gnostic Pagan Tradition" on the web appear to be links to this page. Article created by Jason Farrow, whose only other Contributions to Wikipedia are links to gnostics.com added to various unrelated articles (like Wicca). It should be noted that Jason Farrow is also the webmaster of gnostics.com ([12] - see page footer). The "pagan school" this website advertises is a $120 online course. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 02:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to do an article on Pagan Gnosticism or Gnostic Paganism? "The Gnostic Pagan Tradition" certainly seems to refer to this particular group and would imply that there is only one such tradition. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 04:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it might be better to delete this article and start over with a new article that uses a more generic name for the subject.Nortonew 15:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 userfied. FCYTravis 03:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey nye[edit]

May be speedyable for nn-bio, but the claim of being a college athlete (though at a non-D1 institution) is probably enough of a claim of notability to list it here. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 01:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LearnNet[edit]

A non-notable distance education program offered by a school. LearnNet yields many google hits, but only a handful of them refer to the program offered by Argyll Centre in Edmonton. Ezeu 03:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seymour Duncan SH-5[edit]

Individual guitar pickups are probably not noteworthy unless they're otherwise famous (e.g. Gibson's P-90). This is not one of those pickups, though the SH-4 might be (world's best selling pickup, as I recall) - the creator of this page appears to be confusing this with its more famous cousin. -- Grunt 03:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 20:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farrell Till[edit]

Farrell Till simply isn't notable. He was an editor of a publication with a very small audience. He has written a few articles and debated a few people. These things certainly don't make him notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 03:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Horn (WarriorScribe)[14] cannot follow Wikipedia's rules or stay on task without personal attacks. Nonetheless, I'll correct his lie by omission. Several years ago, Farrell Till was suspended for 1 week from posting on my internet forum for being abusive. During the suspension, he broke the rules by registering with a fake name and it was banned. Next, he registered a different, fake name, and it was also banned. Incidentally, both aliases spoke very highly of him. Consequently, I played a bad joke on him by posting that letter, but I did apologize, afterwards. Dave Horn's selective memory and unforgiveness just goes to show why many people don't feel the need to apologize for things and act in a Christian manner on the internet. Detestable people like Dave Horn will hold it against them until the day they die. Fortunately, since I've repented and sought God's forgiveness, I've been forgiven by Christ and that's what really matters.--Jason Gastrich 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh, just do whatever you like to your fellow man and then ask for forgiveness - "Christianity Nouveau". Obviously this is a personal vendetta, so KEEP. --Censorwolf 21:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, Gastrich sneaks in his stolen-name-domain group, which contains significant lies that have been rebutted and refuted. Of course, those things aren't allowed on Gastrich's group, so it had to be done elsewhere. Here are some specific rebuttals, all of which have sent Gastrich fleeing, and most of which expose his intent and, to put it politely, "imagination:"
  • Having established himself in many venues as disingenuous, at least, there's really not much point in going into whatever details might have occurred before Gastrich's "joke." The fact is that there was noting to omit because it was not relevant to the point. Whateveer might have happened before Gastrich's fraudulent email is entirely irrelevant to the fact that he did issue the fraudulent email. His apology only occurred after he was outed as the forger, and he had no choice. There was no "selective memory" on my part. Whatever excuse that Gastrich might have had for the behavior are entirely irrelevant. It was a juvenile, mean-spirited, hateful thing to do, but it's par for the course for Jason Gastrich, and it helps to establish and affirm a pattern. Gastrich attempts to justify bad behavior by two criteria. First, he will shift the burden of responsibility by blaming another person for "making" him do what he did. Then he'll excuse the whole thing by claiming that God forgives him for it.
  • Gastrich believes in "once-saved, always-saved," which means that he can pretty much do anything he wants, regardless of what anyone else thinks of it, and he's "forgiven," so it's all good. What Gastrich almost always forgets is that he's also supposed to be a witness for the Gospel and for Jesus Christ, and so his character and actions must be above reproach. An occasional lapse can be forgiven by others, but when one demonstrates a pattern of false identities, forged emails (we know about one, which means that there may be more), and sock puppets, as well as hostile behavior and sensitivity to criticism, then there is good cause to view anything and everything that he does with suspicion. - WarriorScribe 20:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More spamming of your hate group and more avoiding responsibility for your heinous behavior. I can't say I'm surprised. --Jason Gastrich 21:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone is too concerned about what surprises (or does not surprise) Gastrich. His is the response of a hypocrite and doesn't concern me. He's rebutted, refuted, and exposed as a liar in the specific articles I cite above. 'Tis enough...t'will serve. The only hate that is occurring here is that of Gastrich for those that expose him to the light of day. - WarriorScribe 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Karmafist 06:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reggie Finley[edit]

Reggie Finley simply is very notable. he's an internet radio host.

Comment: So, you read the entry and believed in your heart the entry wasn't notable. Then, you assumed that I nominated in bad faith and changed your vote to spite me? Please keep Wikipedia's best interests in mind. --Jason Gastrich 04:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a one line stub about an atheist talking parrot, and I will vote to keep it rather than allow my name to be part of a series of what are clearly retaliatory AfD actions. Think about the backlash you are generating and the way it is making our Lord appear to those who do not know Him.Ruby 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Considering other AfD's you do I think you are engaging in bad faith and that is undermining the credibility of all AfD's you do. I think this one is valid so voted delete, but I understand the reaction to anything you AfD as I think you are overreacting to something. That "something" is not clear to me, but the alternative is that you aren't too bright and equate leaders of large nations with minor atheist nobodies.--T. Anthony 06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and agree -- nomination for deletion was made in bad faith. Gastrich is clearly retaliating for AfDs on "Christian" articles, which is well within his character. The funny thing is that most of those "Christian" articles were nominated by a professing Christian (and another professing Christian is taking him to task for it on his "talk" page...hurry to read it before he deletes it). Finley's activities as a pioneering Internet radio talk show host, among other things, make him notable. - WarriorScribe 04:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are obvious WP:POINT issues here but let's try to deal with each article on its own merits. In this case, there are about 100 Ghits and internet radio doesn't impress. Dlyons493 Talk 04:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Infidel Guy" has 237,000 google hits. His show is well-known in critical thinking circles. Arbustoo 02:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Search for his guy under his radio host name. "Infidel Guy" has 237,000 google hits. Arbustoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well known radio host many thousands of google hits (237,000 ). Try "Infidel Guy" at google. Arbustoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The article has been improved some to justify notability. However I'm still not convinced, but I'll weaken my delete to recognize some doubt.--T. Anthony 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He is well known in scientific circles for his promotion of critical thinking. You can download many of his programs. Try searching for "Infidel Guy" Arbustoo 02:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Search under radio host name ""Infidel Guy." By and far meets wiki crieria. Arbustoo 02:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My theory is that there's not many butts in the pews of any church outside of the US. Ruby 00:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
US church attendance is higher than other nations with high Internet user per capita. It's a good deal lower than most of Africa, the South Pacific, or much of Latin America. Still let's not get too perjorative as there likely are things in the Evangelical world that should be covered, but aren't.--T. Anthony 01:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark K. Bilbo[edit]

Mark Bilbo simply isn't notable. There are a total of 4 sentences about him in this entry. Amazon.com shows his books to be very infrequently purchased. Furthermore, Bilbo's only notability comes from the way he swears and curses at Christians on Usenet, while mocking God and Jesus (see Talk:Mark K. Bilbo#Controversy for more) --Jason Gastrich 03:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I know this guy on alt.atheism, it would just break my heart to see his Wiki bio go bye bye. Ruby 03:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) As much as it pains me, I am changing my vote to Keep because it was nominated in bad faith as retaliation for a series of AfDs against Christian leader bios yesterday. Ruby 04:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion, Dlyons493, but a person making a series of bad-faith nominations may be counting on the good nature of Wikipedians participating in AfD to carry what would otherwise be weak keepers over the top and delete them. It is more important when that happens to stop the process and deal with the disruption rather than carry on business as usual. Ruby 04:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't meant in any personal way - my vote just happened to follow yours and was responding to the general situation rather than what you said. Your point is a valid one. Dlyons493 Talk 04:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You sure about that? I thought Que Pub was a vanity press. --Jason Gastrich 05:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Que does those big fat overpriced computer books. Ruby 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, it's certainly not a vanity press, and seeing that from Gastrich is especially entertaining. - WarriorScribe 16:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, bad faith nomination almost certainly driven by personal animosity for the subject (evidenced by the comments about the "only notability"). Bilbo has a significant publication record from one of the oldest technical publishing houses in the country. Additional notability was explained by me in the debate over Gastrich's previous attempts to vandalize this article - WarriorScribe 05:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Yet another bad faith nomination/WP:POINT violation from Gastrich. Guettarda 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep On the talk page he says "Okay, this is too weird: Are you folks sure I'm notable enough to have an article?" and his books are lower than Kenneth Eng at Amazon. There's also too much of a systemic bias in favor of every minor computer writer. Still there are enough books listed that he isn't some fly-by-night character it seems.--T. Anthony 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On consideration I realized I can't justify this considering I've voted to delete authors this minor. Taking out of consideration the fact he might show up and be offended his books seem to be pretty minor and he apparently isn't the leader or inventor of anything much except some website. So switch to delete.--T. Anthony 07:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I count less than 1k google hits. Am I searching correctly? Perhaps I ought to include the middle name (which I do not know?) I must presume that anyone with this few google hits is not very notable. As for being a published author, WP:BIO makes clear that he needs to have two books with an audience of 5,000 or more. Can anyone cite verifiable (read: non self-reported) figures for book sales on this person? If so, and if these figures meet WP:BIO, I will change my vote to keep. Based on the information currently available, however, I must vote to delete. --Pierremenard 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael S. Berliner[edit]

Berliner simply isn't notable. Unless there is far more information about him, being on the board of an organization and someone who compiles information, like he does, isn't worthy of an entry. --Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong delete. Per nom. --Jason Gastrich 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

    • as nominator, your 'delete' vote is assumed.
  • Keep notable objectivist. I went along with Bilbo and the other guy because those really were vanity bios, but you have to stop nominating atheists just to make a WP:POINT to JustzisGuy. Ruby 04:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Completely notable. The article needs expansion and references, but that's no reason to delete it. Looks like we're getting into some sort of Christians vs. Atheists debate here and I'd suggest that people evaluate the articles based on their merits not on personal prejudices. Crunch 04:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it is more important to STOP the tit-for-tat AfD war by discouraging them, never mind the merits of the articles at this time. Ruby 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant -- not directed at you... Crunch 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and expand. Grandmasterka 10:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only 14k google hits. Perhaps he has made important contributions to objectivism? Then the article should mention what they are. Yes, some of the Gastrich nomination are ridiculous, but this should not stop us from keeping an article that does not belong. --Pierremenard 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is 14k worth of hits make this article deletable? Arbustoo 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Binswanger[edit]

There is nothing notable in this entry. Binswanger is an editor and compiles information; certainly not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 04:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Karmafist 06:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Brook[edit]

Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself isn't necessarily notable, there is nothing else even remotely notable about Brook. --Jason Gastrich 04:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Arbustoo 01:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How does 20k worth of hits make him unnotable? LBU has 300+ hits and it was kept. Arbustoo 01:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Karmafist 06:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Caplan[edit]

Caplan is an associate professor, who wrote a few articles, and has a number of opinions. He certainly isn't notable. --Jason Gastrich 04:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uplinkearth[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 Keep Karmafist 06:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goparaju_Ramachandra_Rao[edit]

Rao doesn't have any books listed on Amazon.com. The name brings only 218 hits on Google.com [19]. He simply isn't notable. --Jason Gastrich 04:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Clearly, a bad faith nomination. Arbustoo 02:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment expanding a bit: it does strike me as rather ethno-centric to claim this person isn't "notable" based on the information generally available in the English Google, Amazon, and such. I, honestly, don't know how to proceed in gathering more info given it would likely be in Hindi or another of the many languages of India (18 official if I recall correctly). But I'll hazard that anybody who went against the majority culture in his time frame is notable. For example, going against the caste system early as he did was quite a stance. That system is still a major issue in India and it's interesting to note that there is a reactionary Hindu nationalist party that was only just recently voted out of power. I can't help but feeling that to ignore him is to say that prominence and/or significance in a non-Western country is inherently "not notable." Mark K. Bilbo 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Bad faith nom.--a.n.o.n.y.m t 19:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Johnson[edit]

Besides being the leader of an organization, which, in and of itself doesn't make someone notable, she isn't notable at all. --Jason Gastrich 04:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article expanded to show mainstream press appearances and TV appearances. Arbustoo 04:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see whats notable about her. What has she done to deserve a wikipedia article? Are we going to have an article on every president of a notable organization, even if the person has done nothing notable? --Pierremenard 12:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep per T. Anthony's comment below. --Pierremenard 23:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She gets about 50,000 hits.[21] And that's in quotes plus subtracting Liberia.(The president of Liberia being named Ellen Johnson Sirle(i)(a)f) She isn't as public as the previous head, but she's been in national news I believe. There was some march they did[22] and the Political Action Committee--T. Anthony 14:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50,000 Google hits is nothing in the context of a worldwide movement like atheism. I just might accept this as indicative of notability in relatively small contexts/movements/etc.
Well, you know, if you take too "broad" a view of things, what's the point of the Wiki itself? Humans are just a minor species on a trivial planet in a galaxy of billions. In terms of the US American atheist "movement" (so far as the term applies) Johnson is the president of one of the more (if not most) known organizations American Atheists, Inc. Which derives most of its notability from being the organization founded by O'Hair in the wake of the (in)famous prayer in schools suit. Johnson is the first president of the organization after the disappearance and death of O'Hair. She's also the president that got the organization through the period of confusion when O'Hair disappeared. She also appears on national talk shows, is quoted by national publications, and AA, Inc. has lobbiest in D.C. She may not warrant a big bio at this point but I can't see deleting her entirely. Mark K. Bilbo 17:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relax! I find it very easy to see why this article should stay, or that it should never have been AfD'd in the first place. Especially not to make a point. But sometimes wikipedians need to convince not by stating what they know to to be true, but by showing why it is true. Cite external sources, etc. - and then 50,000 Google hits (or 30,000, or 25,000) are not going to cut it. Or shouldn't be. AvB ÷ talk 20:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relax? Oh no, I'm not upset or worked up or anything like that. Just commenting on the issue of notability. I'm actually agreeing with you in a sense (the comment of "notability in a smaller context" that is). She's notable in a local context (US American atheists and organizations) even if that's a "drop in a bucket" from a broader, worldwide point of view. I'm not married to AA, Inc. I'm not even a member. Mark K. Bilbo 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I think about it, I could see a merge with an article on AA, Inc. Maybe it's too soon for her to have a separate article? I'm not sure really. Mark K. Bilbo 20:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's difficult to say. It may even be the other way around - notable now, no longer notable when she steps down. Time will tell. I'm in favor of a separate article now because I have the feeling (due to what is basically my own definition of notability) that many users will start a WP search with Ellen's name as the entry point. It would be nice to have some sort of feedback system regarding actual use. AvB ÷ talk 21:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Like I wrote elsewhere, mm: Actually, anyone with some knowledge of atheism and eyes in his head (or fingers on his hand) can see that Ellen Johnson is notable, both positively and negatively, to millions of people. OK, where notability is disputed, references can clinch it, but really, in this case it's like trying to prove apples taste good (218 Google hits). AvB ÷ talk 16:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A few more complete references: -- Dragonfiend 18:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • HEAVEN; DOES IT EXIST?, ABC News Transcripts, SHOW: Good Morning America 8:06 AM EST ABC, December 19, 2005
      • Dear God: Dee-Fense!, The New York Times, December 11, 2005 Sunday, Late Edition - Final, Section 14NJ; Column 2; New Jersey Weekly Desk; Pg. 6
      • The Nation; COLUMN ONE; A Time of Doubt for Atheists ; With the religious making inroads in popular culture and politics, nonbelievers yearn for higher power in Washington., Los Angeles Times, July 18, 2005 Monday, Home Edition, MAIN NEWS; National Desk; Part A; Pg. 1
      • Atheists reach out in S.F.; Conclave designed to turn nonbelievers into activists, The San Francisco Chronicle, MAY 20, 2005, FRIDAY,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. A1,
      • Encore Presentation: What Happens After We Die?, CNN, SHOW: CNN LARRY KING LIVE 9:00 PM EST, April 24, 2005
      • True Non-Believers; In California, One Convention So Over God, The Washington Post, April 12, 2004 Monday, Final Edition, Style; C01,
  • Keep, notable --kingboyk 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly notable Jim62sch 17:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, As a subscriber to the NYT, I get archive access. NYT has written 9 articles on Ms. Johnson since 1997. By the same token, both Thomas Ice and Jason Gastrich have had zero articles written about them in the NYT. Jim62sch 17:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True (completely forgotten I have access too). May well say more about the NYT than about the people you've mentioned though - and, as far as I can tell from the other Keep voters' comments, Ellen Johnson has written zero books, which is not a reason to delete her article. AvB ÷ talk 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone post the titles and dates of those articles on the page? 207.200.116.139 05:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This link brings up a list. AvB ÷ talk 18:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about her being an author? Only two (I think) Amazon.com hits (both e-reprints of short articles from the magazine)].AvB ÷ talk 19:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Lewis[edit]

Even as an author, Lewis isn't notable. Zero books on Amazon.com. --Jason Gastrich 04:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic, as Spock would say, is impeccable. Ruby 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep, president of a country (nothing borderline about this and no reason to waste people's time on this anymore). u p p l a n d 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

António Agostinho Neto[edit]

Neto simply isn't notable. Nothing in the entry stands out as encyclopedic. --Jason Gastrich 04:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ifnord 20:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Prescott[edit]

Prescott isn't notable. Nothing in this entry is remarkable or encyclopedic. --Jason Gastrich 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see also that his work is repeatedly cited by academics. --Pierremenard 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Reisman[edit]

Reisman is a professor and wrote a book, but this certainly doesn't fulfill Wikipedia's notability requirements. --Jason Gastrich 04:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At this point Jesus would probably be ashamed to have a bio on Wikipedia, the way his purported followers are making vindictive nominations on AfD these days. Ruby 05:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
People of many groups have done these vindictive AfD's. In a few weeks will likely have someone of a very different group acting out after some article they cherish is erased. On the other thing I think Jesus has greater things to think about then what Wikipedia does or does not cover.--T. Anthony 12:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly Out of Order[edit]

Article about a website/webcomic, makes no assertion of meeting WP:WEB. W.marsh 04:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'restating'lemme restate everything to make more sense, its a place for Webcomic artists to show off their work and get good creative input. Over the past year it has grown more popular amoung the webcomic community. However if it isn't good enough to be put on Wikipedia then delete.User: NicholasTreat

This really isn't a slight against your website, it's just that Wikipedia has inclusion guidelines because this is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, etc. Some of my favorite sites don't meet WP:WEB either. --W.marsh 05:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Yoshi. – Robert 00:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshee[edit]

Yoshee means beautiful one born in the summer time in Japanese. It's a rare name and very nice. There are only so many with that name. 1% of the world, maybe not even. "Yo, she is cool." That is a common sentence for hippy people, that's what some people reffer to. There's a game, "Yoshi and Mario." Complete nomination for original nominator TheRingess 04:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Rovics[edit]

Rovics isn't notable. He's a singer with free music on the web. Plus, this entry reads like an advertisement. --Jason Gastrich 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by Zoe by CSD:A7. Stifle 16:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Dodge[edit]

I would've speedied but article claims notability. Even if this is a real person, the claims seem so outrageous as to be a hoax, plus no references cited. Delete TheRingess 05:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, no. But it still needs to go. Ruby 05:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted, nn-bio User:Zoe|(talk) 19:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Punkmorten 11:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centering Prayer[edit]

Instructions to do a nn neologism Wikipedia is WP:NOT an instruction manual. Unverifiable term from a nn website that has stayed too long as a link in the article Pray.-- Perfecto 05:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - bad faith nomination. FCYTravis 04:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Schwartz[edit]

Schwartz isn't notable. He's a journalist and on a board and those things certainly aren't worthy of a Wikipedia entry. --Jason Gastrich 05:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 01:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Seaborg[edit]

Seaborg isn't notable in the slightest. Not sure why this article was ever created. There are tens of thousands of biologists and activists and nothing makes this one stand out or worthy of an entry in Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guettarda has been anti-Gastrich since he first heard my name and religion. Now, I see he cares little about the validity of the entry and thinks veto when he sees my name. I apologize to Wikipedia on his behalf. --Jason Gastrich 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gastrich appears to be systematically nominating bios of evolutiionary biologists, atheists and LBTG subjects in relatiation for AFD nominations of several of "his" bios. These are by their very nature bad faith and POINT violations. Guettarda 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but now Jason is nominating people who really are not notable, and we can accord him the dignity owed to any other person who devotes their time to Wikipedia. Ruby 06:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my main reason for voting keep here is that I trust that the original author of this article is unlikely to write an article about a non-notable person. I'm more than willing to give hm the benefit of the doubt, especially when the nom in part of Gastrich's POINT violation (which has now degerated into personal attacks against me). Guettarda 17:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disregarding from the schism between two wikipedians and voting on the subject matter instead. David Seaborg is most notable for founding World Rainforest Fund, an organisation which is even less notable than he is--Ezeu 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be much except someone's kid. I found an article mentioning a David Seaborg at Google News, but I think it was a different guy. (All it said was that David Seaborg was a "man on the street" who uses the Nordic Track to lose weight, nothing notable there even if it is this David Seaborg)--T. Anthony 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The San Francisco Chronicle seesm to turn to him for such quotes every few months. See "TWO CENTS; How do you keep fit at home?" (December 31, 2005), "TWO CENTS; The luckiest person you know?" (OCTOBER 28, 2005), "TWO CENTS; A case of perfect timing?" (MAY 20, 2005), "TWO CENTS; A sight you'll never forget?" (JANUARY 14, 2005), "TWO CENTS; What's the sweetest thing your mama ever did for you?" (MAY 7, 2004), "TWO CENTS; How did you meet your sweetie?" (FEBRUARY 13, 2004), etc. For what it's worth, Seaborg's mom helped him get a snake out of a radio, and he met his sweetie on a train. -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then it is the same guy. So he's a human interest figure in San Francisco then. Human interest figures in LA have been deleted and that's a bigger town. Most of the other stuff cited on him is just that he's in a list of protesters. As his name his famous they might have just noted he was in the group due to that. At best he's of local northern California interest. If he gets elected to something in San Francisco maybe he'll merit an article.--T. Anthony 00:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added to that there is so little here you can copy it and add it to the article on his father. I considered adding to the Telly Savalas article the information that his son Nick voiced "Stavros" in the Batman: The Animated Series episode "Fire from Olympus", but I'm not sure Nick Savalas warrants an article of his own.--T. Anthony 00:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to merger.--T. Anthony 14:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article fails to demonstrate this person's significance/notability. Sliggy 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge/redirect to his father per above --kingboyk 17:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable. — Dunc|☺ 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is notable enough, though barely.--ragesoss 17:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be stepping out of his father's shadow and gaining notability as a peace activist. For example, four California newspapers (The Alameda Times-Star, The Daily Review, The Oakland Tribune, and Tri-Valley Herald) carried a story that "More than 1,200 people protesting President George W. Bush's nuclear weapons policy held a rally and peaceful demonstration at William Paine Park and the Lawrence Livermore Lab Sunday afternoon. The rally -- emceed by Miguel Molina of KPFA radio of Berkeley -- featured dozens of guest speakers, including David Seaborg, Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley Cares and William Underbaggage, a Native American peace activist." -- Dragonfiend 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bad faith nom, WP:POINT. After a dozen or more of these it is time to block nominator for disruption of Wikipedia. MCB 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as blatant violation of WP:POINT. Also, the nominator of this article has a currently ongoing RFC and his motives are clearly suspect. Cyde Weys 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jason decided to make this us vs. them, and I choose them. --StuffOfInterest 01:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Son of famous scholar [23][24] and famous scientist in his own right.[25][26][27] Nominator is a fundamentalist Christian and has nominated a string of atheists out of vengence. Arbustoo 01:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has actual accomplishments. --Calton | Talk 02:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POINT. Harvestdancer 02:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Do not just vote auto-keep because of WP:POINT. So the nomination may have been made in bad faith, I do not endorse his actions or beliefs, but I really don't think this guy is notable enough. - Hahnchen 03:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand with more information. Calwatch 05:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can someone please include in the article itself the information that is causing all these keep votes? Thanks. Sliggy 12:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All votes referencing the nominator rather than the merits of the article should be discounted. Logophile 14:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. The alternative is to close this AfD and renominate it so we can vote on the merits of the wiki article, not the nominator. Some of us don't care for the ongoing schisms vis-à-vis the nominator. A bad article cannot be kept merely because the nominator has (or is perceived to have) a problem. --Ezeu 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this is actually a delete. The nomination may or may not have been bad faith, and I don't actually care, but there's no evidence of WP:BIO being hit here. Stifle 16:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If I (the article's author, from some time back) were to try and defend this as notable (and I am not necessarily doing that), I would say something like: "A child of a notable person is obviously not, for that reason, notable. However, it could plausibly be argued that if the otherwise possibly unnotable child has done something relating to the notability of the parent which is in some way quite interesting, it could make it notable. In this instance, it is somewhat interesting that the son of the discoverer of plutonium, and head of the AEC, became an anti-nuclear activist." But that would probably be a stretch. Anyway, it is just a little stub, Wikipedia will be no better or worse off no matter what happens to it, in my opinion; I have really no investment either way, and I am not writing this in any sort of remorseful tone. In all reality I'm not sure why I wrote the article in the first place -- I must have been making some edit's to his father's article and thought, "Oh, I'll throw the son in too." Not much of a reason, in retrospect! --Fastfission 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think he can merit a mention in an article about his dad. This seems acceptable and has precedent.--T. Anthony 11:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let's keep to a single set of standards for believers and unbelievers alike. Uncle Davey 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment: This is user's 4th edit. --Pierremenard 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Weren't you new once? Did people give you a hard time so now you have to like pass it on? Uncle Davey 09:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Votes from new users are generally discounted, especially if they're invited from outside as you were. Please see WP:SOCK under 'meatpuppetry'. --Malthusian (talk) 09:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I rather doubt that he was active in AfD when he first started. For someone to be active this soon in AfD they are either a regular using a pseudonym or a friend who has be recruited for the specific purpose of voting. I can vouch you are not a pseudonym of Jason Gastrich, so were you asked to come? Or did you just happen to stumble on the AfD page in your first few edits? David D. (Talk) 09:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never made any secret that I was asked, because I really cannot see what the problem is with that. Any other site would be happy to make new recruits. If you compare and contrast this to something like Reggie Finley's site, I have to say that there I was never treated as less than equal because I was new. The fact that that has happened here I find disgusting. I don't treat people like that who turn up on my groups and sites. And another thing, David, as you, being a co-moderator of that group are very well aware, the Google2 Beta group called maleboge.org also has been recruiting people into Wikipedia to beef up your side. So if you think that this "meatpuppetry" - a phrase I never heard anywhere but on this particular site - is so wrong in your view (remember, it isn't in my opinion) then aren't you the more to be blamed for being implicated in it than I am? You are in my experience one of the more fair-minded people on your side, so I hope you'll take due account of that point. Uncle Davey 10:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do you insist on polarising this as sides. I don't know what you mean about recruiting. Possibly there was commentary but since all involved had been active in wikipedia for a while (except WarriorScribe) i don't see whom was recruited to where. You'll have to be more specific. In some cases i was recruited to articles by Jason Gastrich himself. You can see that on my talk page. Ironic isn't it. More often than not newbies are helped a lot by the community. Your appearance in less than neutral territory, with a metaphorical gun, no less, meant you lost your honeymoon period. I am certain that if you leave Gastrichs shadow you will get the welcome you deserve. David D. (Talk) 10:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle Davey:I have to say that there I was never treated as less than equal because I was new. The fact that that has happened here I find disgusting. I'm sorry to hear that you are disgusted. However, wikipedia has policies, and one of these is that votes of new users are usually discounted in controversial or close votes for deletion. Hopefully, you can understand why the policy is here: if it wasn't: (a) votes for deletion would be vulnerable to sockpuppets (b) votes for deletion would turn into campaigning contests, testing which side can garner more personal friends to go and vote. Anyway, I'm afraid the policy is not up for vote or for a debate here. If you are interested in debating the policy, please go to Wikipedia_talk:Guide_to_deletion --Pierremenard 14:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Please note that this user (User:Usenetpostsdotcom) is a suspected sockpuppet of Jason Gastrich, the same user who started this AFD. Mr. Gastrich was the one who created "Uncle Davey"'s User Page, and that page consists of the same text as that of another of Mr. Gastrich's suspected sockpuppets (User:Wiggins2). -Colin Kimbrell 14:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mr Kimbrell, this is demonstrably not the case. Please withdraw your comment. If you actually go to the website whose name is not so subtly encoded in my nym, you will see that I don't look at all like him, and you will also find ways to e-mail me. If you or any nominee of yours wishes to e-mail me with their telephone number, then I will ring them up and you can decide for yourselves whether I can even talk like a Californian, or whether I am the limey living in Poland that I claim to be. If you are so poor at checking your assertions as you have been in my case, then may I ask what business you have editing an encyclopedia? Uncle Davey 18:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep, this nomination is too soon after the last one. --Deathphoenix 01:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Sinjin (2nd nomination)[edit]

Sinjin isn't notable. He has only 428 Google hits[28]. He's the author of one book and certainly not notable enough for an entry on Wikipedia. --Jason Gastrich 05:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Arbustoo 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talzhemir[edit]

She isn't notable. Nothing here stands out. It's a vanity piece. --Jason Gastrich 05:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neat trick, looks like two votes that way. Ruby 06:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, using the adjective "strong" is neither necessary nor useful when nominating. Sliggy 17:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, we don't count it twice. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's making sure to minus anything with the word "wikipedia" in it. I think if this is deleted there should be consideration of deleting the things that link here or articles on games she created. Because if she's non-notable than presumably it means those are also non-notable.--T. Anthony 12:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. A game may be notable, without its designer being notable. --Pierremenard 13:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How would you feel about merging some of this with Dragon's Eye Productions as the article is quite small so adding information on leading figures won't make it huge or anything.--T. Anthony 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would probable be a good idea. --Pierremenard 23:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Calvin and Hobbes. I am redirecting there because the content from this article was merged into Calvin and Hobbes. It needs to be redirected there to preserve GFDL (well, that's what I think, anyway). --Deathphoenix 01:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicator[edit]

It was agreed to merge the information on this page with the Cardboard Boxes section of the Calvin and Hobbes page. The information on the page is now redundant and since the strip is no longer active, there is no potential for expansion. Delete. —simpatico hi 05:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Redirect and suggest nom take a look at Wikipedia:Redirect. Nifboy 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree that redirecting the word "duplicator" to a Calvin and Hobbes page would be a very good idea. Whoever's searching for it may not be looking for something Calvin and Hobbes related, and if they aren't familiar with the strip, it'd be very confusing for them to be sent to the C&H page after searching for, say, a machine that duplicates things (or whatever, I don't know). This is especially so since the information on Calvin's Duplicator is quite far down the C&H page. However, more experienced Wikipedians may disagree. —simpatico hi 06:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the Calvin and Hobbes duplicator is so not-notable it's better to use the article as a redirect in case someone is looking for the star trek replicator but types duplicator by mistake. Ruby 06:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard of the Star Trek replicator, but nevertheless feel the Duplicator would kick its ass. :) Obviously, people's awareness of these fictional objects varies, but since "Duplicator" and "Replicator" are not the same word and do not refer to the same, or even related, things, it doesn't make sense for the former to redirect to the latter. If any redirect is done, it should be to the C&H page. —simpatico hi 08:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete all. Mailer Diablo 06:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Mackay, Nadia Tan, Chuck Taylor (filmmaker)[edit]

Appears to be hoax. Part of a series by Sassaffraz (talk · contribs), also including Maya Bankovic. Fan1967 02:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to seem ignorant, but how do you do that? Fan1967 02:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all the discussions into one and redirect them to the page chosen for discussion. Royboycrashfan 02:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese current events[edit]

The last time anyone actually added something to this page was on September 30, 2005. Almost two months have passed. The fact of the matter is, no one uses this page, either by viewing it since you'd have to click on various links to ever arrive here, or editing it. Any current events in China should simply be added to the world current events page. KI 05:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indian current events[edit]

This page was last edited on November 30, 2005. November 30. Thats over two months ago! No one edits nor views this page. Please also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese current events. KI 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Harro5 05:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina costi[edit]

Non-notable biography. Nonsense article. Zero Google hits. Zen611 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. Harro5 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gary[edit]

As we know, Wikipedia is not a memorial. While his death is sad, this guy isn't notable enough for a bio entry. Harro5 05:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Memes and Design[edit]

While the guy has a PhD, this is original research, and we don't accept that. It's really just to plug the website down the bottom. Sorry. Harro5 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Infinity[edit]

Delete. No useful content beyond the definition of the term. Not viable other than as a dictionary definition. Srleffler 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalefish Board Shop[edit]

Subject is a defunct snowboard/skateboard shop in Illinois that gets 16 hits on google. No claim to notability in sophomoric text of article. I also checked the notability of the proprietor, thinking she could be a famous skate/snow boarder, with her name in quotes and skateboard, zero google hits; same with snowboard. Delete as non-notable. Fuhghettaboutit 05:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Fuhghettaboutit 06:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 The Virgin Suicides (film). There is nohing extra to merge to that article. --Deathphoenix 02:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Hayman[edit]

Non-notable actress. Has appeared in only one movie "The Virgin Suicides" in 1999 and nothing since then. Delete Atrian 06:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 General aviation. – Robert 00:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private aviation[edit]

This page is pointless, it has the same meaning as General Aviation Change1211 06:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 02:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ships of Homeworld[edit]

proposed delete: Total and utter gamecruft. I love Homeworld, but no one coming here would ever want (or need) to see this level of detail on the game's spacecraft. True, the previous host of this information, the Homeworld Shipyards, has temporarily closed, but (to quote Peter Parker and with full knowledge of what it cost him), "I missed the part where that's my problem." Marblespire 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[EDIT] Forgot to mention that would want to delete all attached articles as well (which obviously is a huge lot). Not opposed to recreating (or merging existing articles into) a much smaller sort list, but the articles that exist now are basically copied straight out of the games' manuals, which is excessive to say the least. ~Mbsp
I say save. I personally have plans to go through and fill out a lot of the information here, taking screenshots and looking up information, writing articles for the various ships and such. I can't speak for what other people do on Wikipedia, but I come here to read about things that interest me with a level of depth and detail I can't get other places--plus guaranteed-to-work links to relevant articles, right in the article text. When reading about a movie, I like to have links to all the actors. When reading about a game, I like to have links to the weapons, items, etc. If you propose the removal of this information, then you have to do the same thing for lots of other articles--Star Fox being one I read recently. What, are you going to go through and eliminate information and screenshots about the ships and such just because nobody's ever going to use it? If this information was here already, I would've already read through it all. That alone is an indicator that it's interesting and relevant to someone. I have no idea what the Peter Parker quotes have to do with this. Twile 09:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  DON'T BURN THE LIBRARY OF ALEXANDRIA ON PURPOSE.
         NEB


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep (and list for cleanup). --Deathphoenix 02:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whisky Bar[edit]

Very poorly written advertisement. No way to verify that list of celebrities actually frequent the bar.Delete TheRingess 07:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)}[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Davidson-Lee[edit]

Delete. This appears to be the biography from the back of a theatre programme for a minor actor. 1 clear hit on Google that's not Wikipedia. JGF Wilks 07:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Stifle 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator failed to subst the afd2 template here, with the result that anyone trying to vote from the section link on the AFD page got a strange protected page (they were in effect trying to edit the afd2 template, which is protected). I have fixed it. Stifle 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nbio. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:14Z
  • No IMDB listing. Seems to be of at best marginal notability. If anyone can cite a printed or otherwise published article discussing this actor or his carrer in a reasonably reliable source -- would not need to be online, just give bibliographic details -- this might be worth keeping. Weak delete unless sources cited. DES (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The subject wrote a comment here. I'm not sure if this is the same person as who started the article ( User:Jcstuntboy ), but that person also uploaded a picture of Andy which he seems to have taken himself (at least it still has the camera metadata). Tinus 01:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Davidson-Lee, the issue is not about cleaning up the HTML or Wiki markup, but about notability. There are millions of actors in the world, so we it is infeasible to have an article about each one in Wikipedia. Please read WP:BIO and then list some reasons that you are notable as an actor. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-27 20:09Z
  • Delete non-notable bio, feels too much like an advertisement (especially with contact info) --Allan McInnes 20:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:22, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karachayevsky District[edit]

This article was created on June 9 04, and was marked as disambiguation from the start. The second, and only other edit was made on december 30th of 2005, and was only edited to sort the disambig as a geographical one. Neither of the items listed on the disambig page have articles. --Lightdarkness 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria High School[edit]

Non-notable online "game" run from LiveJournal, actually seems to be a web forum with approx 100 members. Article was tagged as disputed, but tag was removed by one of the main editors of the page. There is a real Alexandria High School here. Canley 07:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angie Boynton[edit]

Delete, as a vanity page probably created by the person herself. JGF Wilks 07:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 02:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heiwa-Dori[edit]

Looks and reads like a travel guide for a nn-road, not a article Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 07:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeds of the colossal berries[edit]

Delete. Not verifible, no Google hits nor hits from Google book search, and even if verifiable NN. This looks completely fabricated to me. Lockley 08:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J-Wall[edit]

Non-notable. Jogloran 08:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Connexity[edit]

Unreferenced, google isn't very helpful, has inadequate context. Kappa 09:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karri o.[edit]

Seems like musician vanity. The text seems to be a direct copy of one of the external links provided but as this seems to be written by Karri Ojanen himself I don't think it's a copyvio. Delete. JIP | Talk 09:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Commodore 64 software. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uifli[edit]

Non notable tool with little use and little notoriety.SoothingR 11:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep (and cleanup). I am giving this article a chance to be cleaned up, but I have no objections to this article being AfDed at a later date if it doesn't get a better assertion of notability. --Deathphoenix 02:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brian M. Palmer[edit]

Possible vanity. Very little mention of notability. So he interviewed a few famous people? Almost every link from other articles consists of "Interview at Brian M. Palmer", in the external links, which makes it smell even more like vanity. Drat (Talk) 11:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no outstanding contribution to the field of interviewing famous people. Ruby 14:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as much personal respect as he might deserve, he doesn't appear to have achieved a sufficient level of notability at the profession. - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 17:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - certainly not notable enough for an encyclopaedia article, possible vanity article. Latinus 18:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clear Mr. Palmer's name, it's not vanity. I posted it, since several of my friends were discussing his interviews and someone wondered who he was. As long as there's a plethora of information on furries and Transformers on Wikipedia, I'd say keep it. Folks interested in how Onstad connects to other modern "offbeat" pop culture icons may be interested to see an online writer connecting them. [[User:Aristagoras|Aristagoras]
  • Comment Fair enough. But add some more info, make it more interesting and useful as a resource. And I agree, there is a lot of less relevant stuff (to the point of utter bullshit) on Wikipedia.--Drat (Talk) 04:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Is A Problem[edit]

Non-notable vanity spam for a bootleg album which hasn't been released yet, and which nets zero Google hits. chocolateboy 13:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Community Challenge[edit]

Likely a vanity article for his project. Project website has no Alexa ranking. [40]

delete

Lotsofissues 12:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of SWIFT codes[edit]

Previously kept here, but since then some addtional information has been garnered, to wit: the full list of SWIFT codes is between 17,000 and 20,000 entries; the active list (those available for electronic transfers) is over 7,500 and the balance are still valid, they just require a manual completion of the process by the parties involved; assuming these codes listed are all on the "active" list, this is about 4.5% of the total codes. The comment "this list is incomplete, you can help by expanding it" looks, in that context, like a rather lame joke. The December and January updates are both pdfs of over 20 pages, indicating that the list is highly dynamic. Under the circumstances I really cannot see any value in mainatianing a partial mirror of an arbitrary subset of codes when a free web-based authoritative lookup tool is available. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal Pet Rescue[edit]

Not a terribly written page, but the content just strikes me as unencyclopedic. There are, however, claims to notability, so its not CSD7. --jfg284 you were saying? 12:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sayes2poetry[edit]

"the first community poetry program that embraces the creative art of spoken word/slam poetry in Waterloo, Iowa" = not notable. 79 Google hits. Punkmorten 12:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Antoine[edit]

bio/ad for nn artist, "Is millennium mainstream ready for the first openly gay, black male pop artist?", IDK but wikipedia isn't Savidan 13:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. This is a non-notable vanity page if I ever saw one. JIP | Talk 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Emmanuel A. Aguilar[edit]

Delete; Vanity page Tinus 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Sabia[edit]

The article fails to establish the notability of the subject. It appears to me that he is a con artist like many others. Google only returns ~1200 hits for "Mark Sabia". Dismas|(talk) 14:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 04:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comcast (religion)[edit]

"With an estimated 3 followers, Comcast is arguably the smallest religion with more than one follower in the world." It was also (by the article's claims) created yesterday. Delete as vanity/hoax. Kusma (討論) 15:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Can we speedy as a organisation/group with no claim of notability?15:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete This is a creative hoax. Lots of wang grease went into this one. Ruby 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-voting after vandalism by User:207.200.116.70

  • Delete This is a creative hoax. Lots of elbow grease went into this one. Ruby 15:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as attack page. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lauren Foust[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's rationale was "not notable, but even the information given is unlikely." Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 15:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolph Wolfeschlegelsteinhausenberdorf[edit]

Delete - Not verifiable Tschild 15:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Bucky --Deathphoenix 02:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bucky Clause[edit]

I can't find a reference to this term outside Wikipedia. I'm not certain it exists - Rorschach567


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Sleep Police[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Exiles (comics). --Deathphoenix 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panoptichron[edit]

THis article is complete gobbledegook. Not worth the diskspace its written in


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Redirect, Werdna648T/C\@ 23:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly[edit]

This article has a really screwed up history. I say either Cleanup or Delete to wipe history and recreate majorly. Most of the edits to this article are just vandalism and reversion, and when I went to revert some vandalism, I was unable to find a useful version to revert to. As it stands, the article consists of one sentence. And somebody needs to give this some major cleanup Werdna648T/C\@ 02:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can see this turning into a decent article if someone decides to give it some time. I agree with the sentiment that we leave it as a stub and see what happens, while keeping an eye on ot to prevent vandalism. Beniceplease
  • Delete this version with no prejudice against recreating a legitimate article on the subject. As it stands, it's transparently obvious that the creator meant this to be an attack page, from the image. Daniel Case 20:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use Template:Wi. -- Astrokey44|talk 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- could be useful article -- ugly (or ugliness) is a well known concept that seems distinct enough from beauty to require its own article. As for the assertion that this is an attack page, it may be as it stands but if you look at the history you'll see that this was once a legitimite article. Also, perhaps would be a good idea to add some of the old text / gargoyle image from the old (pre-redirect) ugliness article (see history) to beef this up a little bit and hopefully get the ball rolling on some worthwhile edits. Cooldude02
  • keep and cleanup as above Jcuk 22:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ugliness has been recreated and is quite a good stub, so delete ugly. --Bduke 02:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been WP:BOLD and redirected Ugly to Ugliness. Is this now acceptable, and do we need to continue the debate. With no objections, I will close the debate tomorrow at 11:00 AM UTC (approx. 24 hours from now) Werdna648T/C\@ 11:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good on you, mate. That's the way to go. Hope you understand the Aussie! (Translated: A well thought out redirect. Please close this debate.). --Bduke 12:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 02:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phytofruit[edit]

This seems to be the ingredient list / explanation for some fruit-based anti-constipation product. I did find 226 English Google hits for PhytoFruit, but couldn't find anything that was not advertising. Delete. Kusma (討論) 15:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an alternative food that helps on the functioning of the intestine. Is an invention, an inovation and an insdustrial possibility not available in Europe, USA, Africa, Asia or Latin America - just in 2 States of Brazil - but must of all is a alternative for many peolpe that can not take medicine and that could have the oportunity of knowing this solution. It is not a medicine, it should be eaten like a "compote" or a sauce. The use of fruits is a knowledge of public dominium, the inovation is that was found a mixture that has this value. The other alternatives, the medicines, natural or not, might bring many problems for the ones who takes them. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sandrahans (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Does this mean this is supposed to be advertising for a non-notable product? Can you provide evidence that it is in wide use and important (and has been written about) in these states of Brazil? Kusma (討論) 18:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Unlcear -- is it advertising for one specific product or is it a category of fruit? Give it a chance for clarification. Crunch 20:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a wikified advertising leaflet about a dietary supplement. Phytofruit is a company, founded by Sandra Hanszmann, whose name bears striking similarity to the sole editor of this article, that might warrant an article if it is notable as in WP:CORP (which I think it is not). Tinus 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It must be understood of the point of view of science. There are many articles written about it in Brazil. The only one written out of Brazil was written in Austria where it was classified as an invention. The article that we are discussing about in Wikipedia can help many people, but as any invention is associated to an inventor and to a company. It has to be decided if the article related to an invention, that can bring health, not using medicine, using fruits, is important enough or not. Tinus doesn't need to think that the name of the inventor is a secret, because it is not. It is just not the foccus of the subject. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Sandrahans (talk • contribs) 19:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenixsong.net[edit]

Non-notable fan fiction website. Less than 700 search engine hits [42], Alexa ranking in the 200,000's [43]. No claim of notability (or any other details, for that matter) in the article. Mikeblas 15:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Ate My Homework[edit]

Possible non-notable band. Not a speedy delete candidate because article asserts notability, but a Google search for "God Ate My Homework" band only produces 376 hits. Nothing at Allmusic. Page hasn't been modified since June 2004. -- MisterHand 16:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Dimensional lumber. – Robert 00:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two by four[edit]

slang Melaen 16:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pypo[edit]

neologism? non -notable term Melaen 16:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conjecturising[edit]

Neologism. Claims that the word was "officially" introduced into the English language, but this is unverifiable... and I don't believe there exists any officiating body who could do such a thing. Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FFOF[edit]

nn website, does not meet web notability criteria Savidan 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catahya[edit]

Delete this page because: the artickle won't be kept up to date and is about a Swedish NGO, for which the Swedish article will suffice. Also it won't be written in a manner that correctly explains Catahya, when written in English. Wille Raab 17:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on above: "The foreign-language article is enough" is exactly the wrong reason to delete this. The whole point of having Wikipedias in every language imaginable, even constructed and fictional ones, is to make information and knowledge available to everyone. I don't mean to sound like an overbearing American or anything, but frankly how many people speak Swedish compared to English? If the subject of the article is notable (and I am not totally convinced that it is for the English-speaking community). How can you be sure it won't be kept up to date? And how can you be so sure it can't be written well in English, especially given that the English version is longer than the Swedish version? Daniel Case 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

::Addendum to above: My position should be taken as Abstain because while the nominator gave reasons that, as I explained, are not good reasons for deletion, it does not necessarily follow that it should be kept as a demonstration of notability has not been made. Daniel Case 20:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies on above comment: maybe you are right in that it should not be deleted. However, the point in deleting it is that it isn't a good and valid English explanation on the subject; and the reasons that I'm sure it won't be kept up to date is is 1) that it isn't now, even 2) that certain members of the NGO's board have told me they are having trouble with the article not being correct nor updated as it should, when it should. However, the main reason would be that it simply isn't of that much interest for and English-speaking community, as You say. That was my intention, even though I didn't realize how it would be lacking on this discussion page (haven't suggested deletions before... :) ). Don't know if that 'straightens out some questionmarks', it's how I see it at least. :) Wille Raab 20:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple members of the NGO's board found inaccuracies, they could have fixed them :) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:25Z
OK, that clarification tips it for me. Weak delete. Daniel Case 22:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: Auto-translated version of sole comment on Swedish article's Talk page ("Had that community encyclopaedia interest? Shaft and Krigsforum had ju erased olds") suggests there's a question about it being encyclopedic over there, too. Yet the article has been there for a year as well. Still no conclusive evidence either way for me. Daniel Case 20:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete, discounting IPs and anons. --Deathphoenix 03:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Cornell du Houx[edit]

This was originally AFD'd mid december, but the tag was removed. There is no information about reasons for tagging apart from info below. While this young person is cleary a good role model, the hindsight of the 8 weeks since the story appeared gives a clearer view on him. The claim that the story received national attention is clear hyperbole, it appeared briefly on NBC, did the blogs for a week and was then forgotten. The man is now one of many who serve his country, and he may have a bright political future ahead of him, and if so deserves a wiki spot, but at the moment, he is simply an student leader who signed up. MNewnham 17:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

British 1st Division[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 Keep, withdrawn by the nominator. --Deathphoenix 03:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LegalMatch[edit]

The page itself is clearly an ad. The subject company are vigorously linkspamming on wikipedia (See here). Voting delete but will in principle change that vote if someone can establish that the company fits WP:CORP or WP:WEB. AndyJones 17:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if 'the press' is talking about them, that does make them notable. Not sure how that applies to blogs though. I filed a spam complaint to google anyway for the results for link:www.legalmatch.com, if you browse through them almost all the results are on two sites participating in some kind of ad scheme. BTW on google.com I get 862,000 results for linkmatch, but still only 6 result pages, so a lot of them already have been trashed. Perhaps in a short while we can add them to SEO as an example of 'optimizing gone wrong'. Tinus 01:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Deathphoenix 03:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten kingdoms[edit]

This article is about a MUD based on Forgotten Realms. While the latter is definitely notable, I'm not so sure this one is, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If it was the largest MUD or the first MUD or a MUD documented in a film, then it would be keepable. Ruby 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revise Needs work But a keeper - Mike Beckham 18:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Revise Forgotten Kingdoms mud is a very well known mud, it has a dedicated player base of over 600+ players and offers a unique gaming experience. It is similiare in name to Forgotten Realms, but has evolved beyond the current tabletop setting. On wikipedia, there are many muds listed extensively like the Disworld mud which is based on discworld. Forgotten Kingdoms is an article just beginign to take shape, please allow a dedicated fanbase the chance to enhance and make it great. - Greylamb18:35, 22 January 2006
  • Weak keep as it appears to be notable enough for inclusion. Move to Forgotten Kingdoms, obviously. Stifle 00:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 15:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, so keep. --Deathphoenix 03:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition Forces[edit]

Dictionary definition. ThreeAnswers 18:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge into Multinational force in Iraq which already redirects from Coalition forces. Crunch 19:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mackensen (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johns House[edit]

Nonsense and/or completely non-notable. It was created with a {{hangon}} tag on it, so I suspect it may be a re-creation of deleted material, but I couldn't find it in the deletion log. —David Johnson [T|C] 18:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 00:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton Siple[edit]

This poets proper name gets no hits on Google related to writing or poetry, but there are a very small number returned for the pseudonym "Charley Sierra". This subject might be notable, but I just can't find anything which would indicate that so I'm bringing it here for discussion on whether or not this article should be deleted. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Christmas is a-comin' soon!
Pardner, ain't ya seen?
The decorations showed up
In the stores on Halloween!

Dlyons493 Talk 19:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altsounds[edit]

A different revision of this article, on a non-notable website with a current Alexa ranking of 335,134, was deleted last year. This article doesn't qualify for WP:CSD since it is not a reposting of deleted content. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altsounds for the previous nomination, which closed with unanimous consensus to delete. Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofi Collis[edit]

Delete as subject is not notable. The only somewhat notable fact is winning the "Name the Mars Rovers" contest and this is already covered on the Mars Rover page Rillian 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Relevant points already on Mars Rover Rillian 20:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps one of the pictures could be added to Mars Rover and then delete Tinus 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Her notability comes from winning a contest - this is fully covered in the Mars Rover article - we don't need to know if she wants to become an astronaut or how many cats she has. Non-notable information about a vaguely notable individual. Budgiekiller 18:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xerraire[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. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someplace Else[edit]

Non-notable, vanity Nv8200p talk 19:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This defaults to keep; do not cite it as a reason to support or oppose a merge/redirect/whatever. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EMS Dispatch (medical)[edit]

Dicdef. See Dispatching (logistics), and also take note of Ems dispatch (something completely different). --Smack (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quagga, the band[edit]

Nn band. Not in discogs, not in allmusic. Fails WP:MUSIC. The {notability} tag had given em enough time.-- Perfecto 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Deathphoenix 03:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three Teens Kill 4- No Motive[edit]

Redundant with 3 Teens Kill 4 Nv8200p talk 20:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate article --Ac1983fan 20:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TuBsEy DoGg ReCoRdS[edit]

Non-notable record company. LordViD 20:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check the new addition by User:TUBSEY, it's interesting. 68.39.174.238 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shrimp pasta[edit]

unexpandable dicdef; shrimp pasta is pasta with shrimp... (ESkog)(Talk) 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 repost per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.B.O.S.P.. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HBOSP[edit]

Delete Non-notable internet forum, already was deleted in December Wyoskier 21:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ed g2s —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:33Z

Hive Mind[edit]

Article is about a band, but it fails to assert any of the WP:MUSIC notability criteria --Pak21 21:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Candy (radio show)[edit]

Article is about a non-notable college radio program which broadcasts on a station (KTSW) which itself does not have an entry. If Hillbilly at Harvard doesn't have an article, the bar for college radio shows must be high indeed. - squibix 21:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the station has an article does not affect my position. If there were an article, however, this show could be worth a brief mention. I am guessing that the nominator mentioned it only to point-out that there's currently no destination for a merge. ×Meegs 02:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poetry.com[edit]

Delete. Attack page on not particularly noteworthy website. Lukas 21:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing it some more... I've removed all attacks on the site and instead placed links. I've also added more information about the site itself. Electricbassguy


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

The result of the debate was delete both. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SargeK, Debtism[edit]

This SargeK article by SargeK himself seems to be a vanity piece about a non-notable individual Oscarthecat 21:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not about vanity. It is about spreading the word on Social Security Reforms. Since its inception last year, my domain debtism.com has received tens of thousands of visitors, that is PROVABLE. Visit the site and see for yourself. + - + - SargeK
  • Delete This is definetely a pointless webpage someone wrote about themselves. I would advise Wikipedia to delete it right now. Electricbassguy
    • You don't have a clew what is on the website. Since I posted SargeK on Wikipedia, you or no one else would have had time to read the articles (FIFTEEN of THEM) http://www.debtism.com/ SargeK
  • Delete both. John Koraska has written an article titled "Debtism - The Legacy of Perpetual Debt". Searching his name and that article ([46]) gives 493 links on google, mostly on free-hosted websites (many of which contain little but poker site ads) and blogs. Searching his name excluding the article title ([47]) returns 19 links. This is a man on a mission. However, wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Ezeu 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added Debtism to this afd bikeable (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Both articles appear to be specifically designed for promotion of the debtism.com website: SargeK is a non-notable person, and Debtism is an advertisement and possibly original research. WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising.
  • Delete both. bikeable (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From SargeK, Do a search on the following titles on: MSN

Debtism #1 of 76 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Debtism+&FORM=QBHP Social Security Articles Directory – Result: Debtism.com places 3 and 4 among 817,833 entries. http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Social+Security+Articles+Directory+&FORM=QBHP

Strategy for Tax and Welfare Reform – #1 of 423,572 entries http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Strategy+for+Tax+and+Welfare+Reform+&FORM=QBHP

The Legacy of Perpetual Debt http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=The+Legacy+of+Perpetual+Debt+&FORM=QBRE

Social Security Tax Reform OR Perpetual Debt #17 of 2,271,576 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=Social+Security+Tax+Reform+OR+Perpetual+Debt+&first=11&FORM=PORE

US Economy Articles Directory - #1 of 268,006 http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=US+Economy+Articles+Directory+&FORM=QBRE

Google: Debtism #1 of 813 http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Debtism+&btnG=Search Yahoo:

Debtism #1 of 115 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Debtism+&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt 

Social Security Tax Reform OR Perpetual Debt  #1 of  11,200,000 http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=Social%20Security%20Tax%20Reform%20OR%20Perpetual%20Debt

The Legacy of Perpetual Debt #2 of 184,000 http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=The+Legacy+of+Perpetual+Debt&prssweb=Search&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&x=wrt

Comment: The above is a sampling of articles on my debtism.com website. Tens of thousands of have read my articles since I started last year. No advertisements, Just an attempt to get to the truth about tax and welfare programs and sharing it with the widest audience possible. Since all I get is “delete” response from wikipedia, I’ll not waste any more of your time NOR mine. I'm neither notable, not do I care to be. I am doing my best to bring attention to significant Social Security, tax and welfare problems that have little effect on me; but may impact my sons and grand-son in a manner they cannot yet conceive. Sorry about posting here. I should have done more research before wasting a lot of time. Thanks anyway SargeK


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Source[edit]

Delete. It is not notable, having <1000 members, and not mentioned in any media. It has also been deleted before under the title The Source (forum) 66.82.9.41 22:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rada cutlery[edit]

Non-notable and a blatant advertisement. Delete. –Sommers (Talk) 21:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. --Oscarthecat 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Advertising, in a really poorly-written style too.  (aeropagitica)  22:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't tell me "BUT WAIT THERE'S MORE!" Ruby 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- rewritten completely. If it survives AfD it should be moved to Rada Manufacturing, though, with Rada cutlery as a redirect. BTW, my own personal testimonial: I've seen these things at church fundraisers, and they are elegant and seem to be reasonably high quality for what they are. But I personally use a big German kitchen knife the size of my arm and would probably find a Rada knife to be uncomfortably light and whippy, so so far I've resisted buying them. Haikupoet 04:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there anything notable about Rada Manufacturing or their knives? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:36Z
      • Well, there aren't that many cutlery makers based in the US, and Rada seems to be very commonly sold for fundraising purposes. I'm told they have a rather high "oh, my grandmother had that knife" factor, for whatever that's worth. As I said, though, they aren't particularly high profile, though there seems to be a good number of google hits (raw number, around 200K for "rada knives"). On the other hand, Google Groups only comes up with a couple of hundred references, with seemingly none past 2004. Make of that what you will. I would say they are within certain circles, but a little research is called for. (And the knife design itself is very notable -- all-metal construction like Global, but very, very different in overall design.) Haikupoet 06:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as rewritten, advertisement claim no longer holds.  Grue  14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Ed g2s, who forgot to close —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-24 06:37Z

Project_26[edit]

Non notable vanity. Band does not appear to have released any albums/singles. Oscarthecat 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the attack and more[edit]

A non-notable album from a band, 20 Fingers, that fails WP:MUSIC (which I've already tagged for speedy deletion). Note that the article only says that the album was "released" but never necessarily published. –Sommers (Talk) 22:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: It is being sold. [48] This means it has been published? --Easyas12c 22:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: See also Talk:20 Fingers, for discussion about the group. --Easyas12c 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have three singles from this album, from different dance collection CD's. This was 90's novelty dance group with moderate sales. "Mr Personality", "Short Short Man" and "Lick It" were released as singles. USA 1995 year-end chart was #76 for "Short Dick Man" and "Short Short Man" hit #6 in Australia, I'm sure the other singles have similar sales but that's a quick look. Ruby 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I guess it sounds good to me then -- I nominated the article because it none of this was asserted in the article and it looked like a notability problem. If you can add some factual material to both 20 Fingers and On the attack and more that will satisfy WP:MUSIC, please do so. I'd hate to see articles get deleted because they appeared non-notable simply because they were incomplete. (Incidentally, if you feel that I made an error in judgment in nominating this article or in tagging 20 Fingers, please tell me and explain. I'd like to learn not to make such mistakes.) Thanks for your attention to this. –Sommers (Talk) 01:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability question seems to have been answered. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio. Mushroom 07:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miquel Serra[edit]

Delete. This article has no sense. No references found anywhere else for Miquel Serra. John C PI 22:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rimnor[edit]

Non-notable character from an EQOA guild. Jogloran 22:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha-Redeye[edit]

Non-notable Avi 22:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page revised per standards to include broader scope.

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bartopian Theory[edit]

"A hoax. Neither book nor author show up on Amazon. 5 hits on Google, all referencing this article.Delete TheRingess 22:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lowell Mathwich[edit]

Non-notable costume designer with 30 Google hits, "reviewed favorably in local newspapers and Pointe magazine" is used as assertion of notability. Delete Kusma (討論) 22:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 all; merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking vine[edit]

Also proposed for merge and delete, +5 other related articles: Cutting a shoelace, Passing under blackberry, Showing to the moon, Tying someone, Worship of trees.

Although I don't doubt that this and the 5 other related articles above are genuine-enough traditions in Pontic/Turkish folklore (original creator has used the same reference work for each), having them as individual articles under generic phrases doesn't make much sense. Several of these entries are rather confusingly written, and what's more appear to be direct translations of the cited Turkish reference work. Any encyclopaedic material which can be salvaged from these ought to be merged into the Turkish folklore article (currently only a list of these articles), and the articles deleted. The reason I'm not simply carrying out the merge myself is that I don't really see any value in maintaining the article titles as redirects. cjllw | TALK 22:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 03:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(OD) OverDose[edit]

Unreal tournament clan, 5 members MNewnham 23:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 01:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Across the Way[edit]

Not quite speediable, I think. Band with 300 relevant Ghits, self-published albums MNewnham

  • Delete That's more Ghits than CD sales. ("Surprisingly ATW sold over 200 copies of the Fallen Flags CD during 2000."). If a band consider moving 200 units of a CD to be good, then it's not notable. Ruby 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' Also, that's one huge picture. Tokakeke 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems as though the pic was downsized, and the long history deleted. I have always thought wikipedia was a good source for history, and I don't think it should matter whether something was self-published. If the AMG thinks the band is worth at least noting it existed in their catalog then why not the wikipedia? Popularthinks 21:35, 22 January 2006
  • Delete as non-notable band, per Ruby. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 18:31Z
  • Delete, not notable garage band incog 01:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of free Mahjong programs[edit]

Listcruft/spam Take your pick Delete --Jaranda wat's sup 23:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 nn-bio. Mushroom 12:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wieviele[edit]

Biographical details of a family that owns a couple of coffee shops. Good content for a genealogy website, but not for Wikipedia. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amc framingham 15[edit]

A movie theater MNewnham 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rakeshprasadji Maharaj[edit]

Non-notable - need more proof of notability. Avi 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - He is the Guru of the Swaminarayan Vadtal Temple so why is their the need to delete this page and there is not much info on the Swaminarayan page because that page is about Swaminarayan bhagwan mainly. Also I think you will find he is verified in the Vadtal.com website and many other swaminarayan website.
  • Keep. Seems verifiable enough, though I'm not going to wade through the Hindu sources mysef. Come back if you're unable to do so. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 00:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanton LaVey[edit]

Being related to someone notable does not confer notability. This is the grandson of someone famous, who does not have any apparent notability himself. Denni ☯ 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also his fiancee, Szandora (AfD discussion) —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-23 18:28Z


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 08:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akira class starship[edit]

As per administrator AllistairMcMillan's admonishments on the Akira talk page, I hereby nominate the Akira Class Starship for deletion because the article is entirely original research. Neocapitalist 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose I never said the page should be deleted. I just said that, after he blanked the page, that blanking is considered vandalism and if Neocapitalist wants to delete the page this is way to do it. See the talk page. This is really a dispute about content with a friend of his. PS I never said the entire article is original research either, just to be clear. AlistairMcMillan 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm confused; I thought you said screen evidence was original research. BTW -- where do you get that I am Alyeska's friend? Neocapitalist 20:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I have no idea whether you are a friend of his or not. I do know that you are a member of the same forum though. AlistairMcMillan 21:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's on another wikistyle site, and apart from conducting original research, going by AM's definition, how do they get their information there? Another wikistyle site does not constitute a reliable source for a fact --Fearghul 00:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Fearghul is one of Alyeska's friends from the stardestroyer.net forums. AlistairMcMillan 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that has a bearing on anything? You are aware of the logical fallacy known as an ad hominem aren't you? I'm sure there's a page on it kicking about here somewhere. Fearghul 03:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah yes, but the other wikistyle site is not involved in the pissing contest on this site, so it can be used to verify the existence of the ship alleged to be O.R. The individual specifications are a content issue. All we're concerned with is whether to keep or delete the article. Ruby 01:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does raise the question though of why this is a pissing contest at all? I wonder what the reaction would be if the information was cited not as examining the visuals of the show, but instead as coming from a website examining the visuals of the show? Where would the original research axe fall then? Just something to consider. Fearghul 03:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Evidence this whole exercise is being done to make a WP:POINT because an admin hurt your feelings over a content issue. Ruby 00:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Psycho Smiley is one of Alyeska's friends from the stardestroyer.net forums. AlistairMcMillan 01:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that posting on a forum that deals with common interests does not have anything to do with the issue at hand. If you are referring to meat-puppetry, kindly come out and make the accusation. Psycho Smiley 04:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A Wiki admin violating Wiki rules (article is POV because of refusal to accept information), quoting rules which do not support his position, and abusing his authority by threatening to block users. Alyeska 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Look, uh, the Wikipedians who do AfD to keep the encyclopedia from filling up with 40 feet of compressed crap don't want to be babysitters. Ruby 00:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. To my knowledge the Akira class was never actually mentioned on screen by this name. Consequently, is it even canonical to use this name? Yes, the vessels based upon it have been shown (fleetingly), but has often been noted there are enough similarities with the Enterprise NX-01 that NX-class might be a more appropriate name. I can't put a vote one way or the other yet. 23skidoo 01:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Production staff, including the designer Alex Jaeger, use "Akira class" to describe this type of ship. AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Canon by your own reasoning. Not said onscreen thus non-canon. Alyeska 01:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said everything is non-canon unless it appeared in dialogue on screen. Please stop mis-representing what I say. AlistairMcMillan 01:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You stated that only information in the series is canon. Furthermore you do not support visual evidence. The class name is from a source you do not support, TMs. If you accept backstage information, then you have to accept in the very least TMs as well. This just shows your inconsistencies and terrible logic. Alyeska 04:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that I don't support visual evidence. I said I don't support your analysis of visual evidence. Because your analysis is your original research. I don't support the Technical Manuals, because (a) they are considered non-canon, (b) they are not consistent with the series itself and (c) the two manuals aren't even consistent with each other (even though one of the authors worked on both). I've explained this all clearly a number of times now. Please stop misrepresenting my words. AlistairMcMillan 17:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop repeating the Original Research argument. It is clear you do not understand what you are talking about. I've read the rule and it does not cover what I am doing at all. I am taking data straight from a canon source. So it can't be original research. BTW, the TNG TM doesn't have any information on the Akira. It only has inconsistencies between the GCS class, and thats explained away in the DS9 TM by changes in the design. And once again you've not actualy stated the rule which the DS9 TM violates. You would write off the entire TM because it contradicts SOME information. Stop cherry picking the rules AM. If the TMs are inadmissable, then all non-canon information is inadmissable. If visual analysis is original research, then dialogue analysis is original research and the entire article violates the rule. Its a very simple concept of reality. Pull your head out of your ass for once and try looking at reality. Alyeska 18:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to keep a civil tone. AlistairMcMillan 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop repeating the same disproven arguments over and over again. You can take issue with the numbers I've given, with the way I've presented them. But the very method I am using violates no Wikipedia rules. You constantly claim they do, but refuse to actualy go into detail how it violates the rules. I've actualy quoted the rules themselves showing quite clearly that my methods do not violate any of these rules. Alyeska 18:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let me say again, this is simply a content dispute with another editor. I oppose his addition of his own original research to this and other articles, so his friend blanked it. I pointed out that blanking pages is considered vandalism and likely to get him banned and the proper way to delete pages is to AFD them. Which brings us to this page. AlistairMcMillan 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I thank you for pointing that out; I was being unbelievably stupid yesterday.  :) Neocapitalist 20:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another friend of Alyeskas from the stardestroyer.net forums. AlistairMcMillan 17:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are such a happy person always trying to jab people who disagree with you. Where he comes from is irrelevent. Look as his history. He is a valid Wiki member and your snarky comments are unwelcome. As I'e said many times now. Your attitude is very unbecoming for an admin. Alyeska 18:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Four people support your point of view. All four are regulars on the same forum as you. I'm sure that is just coincidence. AlistairMcMillan 18:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not being counted in that number, since I'm just opposed to Trekcruft (and starwarscruft, and all forms of fanboycruft for that matter). -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. I was just meaning the four people who are more interested in mis-interpreting what I said on the Akira Talk page that voting on this bogus deletion. AlistairMcMillan 21:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you have something meaningful that you're getting at, say it. Otherwise, don't waste time with irrelevancies. While I do post on SD.net, I'm not a Trekkie and don't particularly care about Trek in general. This article means very little to me, but improper admin actions do interest me a great deal. Simple observation does not constitute original research; as far as sources go, counting the weapons on a ship is no different in that regard than listening to Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech or looking up the text of Washington's first inaugural address; it's there for everyone to see. The original research rule doesn't apply here, and I think you know that, because if it really did, you'd have shown how by now instead of simply repeating yourself. As it stands, your definition of original research covers almost everything on Wikipedia, to say nothing of this article. Or it would if you were even halfway consistent. Rogue 9 18:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't have a particular interest in Star Trek then you may be unaware that there are no consist figures for weapon counts. Everyone looks at starships like the Akira class or the Nebula class and comes up with different numbers. Alyeska has studied screenshots and come up with his own numbers. That makes it original research. And please remember, people who disagree with Alyeska's analysis are "stupid".[49] The idea with the rules about verifiability and original research is that we can point to our sources to back up our edits. Alyeska can't do that because when he actually lists his sources, people look at them and come up with different numbers.[50] AlistairMcMillan 21:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I can look at the Enterprise and declare it is black too - not that this will be true, but the point is that opposition does not mean the death of an analysis. As long as Alyeska could justify his decisions for inclusion/exclusion of a suspected TT/phaser point, it is still valid. So put it up, along with any rebuttals, and let other people decide. That's what NPOV is - the explanation of various points of view. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But it is not meant to be our own points of view. This is not a discussion board, it is an encyclopedia. The information we add to the encyclopedia is supposed to information that has been published elsewhere. Wikipedia should never be a primary or secondary source. AlistairMcMillan 18:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You must think people are stupid AM. I've PROVEN that what I have done violates neither verifiability or original research rules. I've asked you to prove your case that they are and explain how it violates the rules and you have thus far refused EVERY SINGLE REQUEST. I have gone out of my way to explain myself and give you a chance to prove your point. You on the other hand repeat the same incorrect claims like a broken record and refuse to actualy defend your position with logical reasoning when challenged. Alyeska 22:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: I have no big interest in Star Trek, but I do have a interest in Visual Analysis of Sci-Fi, so here I am. Here is the crux of the issue, no? For some reason, people have a wierd and arbitrary Macro/Micro divide when it comes to visual analysis. For "macro" things (generally meaning entire ships or their general shapes), they tend to accept it. But for "small" things (even as big as the relative size of ships, let alone tiny torpedo launchers), they call it Speculation, Original Research...etc - all of which involve the base point of ignoring it. This is even though both involve looking at the screen and taking down what one sees. Why is one guy Original Researching because he looks more closely and sees more details than the other? Is it his fault that you aren't paying enough attention? Aren't the sources for both people the same, so in principle equally verifiable? As for detail disputes, as a Star Wars guy I can tell you sadly that even purported official sources can't find their butts with both hands and a flashlight. There are at least three "official" lengths in circulation about Executor. Does that mean no conclusion can be made? Of course not - all the lengths are simply written in some context on the page. I suggest Involved Parties do the same here - put up some Big Pictures of Akira, and circle all the points that are definitely torp tubes/phasers/whatever in red and the disputed ones in yellow, followed by a explanation of the disputed areas. That would provide the needed verifiability - everyone can check out the same picture and decide for themselves. IMO, either taking down what's shown in the film is Original Research, or it isn't. From the number of movie and anime descriptions I see on Wiki, most would consider this action Valid rather than Original Research. Imposing arbitrary Macro/Micro limits is IMO hypocritical and arbitrary. As for TMs, AFAIK they are not canon, so let's not include them - but the films and TV episodes are, so they can be looked at more closely. In any case, what's left of this page after so called "Original Research" is removed is so little that it might as well be combined into some other page. Kazuaki Shimazaki 05:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no original research in the article. Although under the AMs definition of original research the entire article is OR and thus should be deleted. People are cherry picking here. Alyeska 16:47, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone that cares at this point, please go and read the Talk page for yourself. Alyeska is plain and simple about what I have said. AlistairMcMillan 17:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Jakus[edit]

Bio of co-captain of Harvard fencing team. 188 Google hits. Was first tagged as {{db-attack}}, but on the talk page, the author says the attack was done by his roommates. Still vanity failing to meet WP:BIO. Delete. Kusma (討論) 23:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not so sure about that any more, since it says on WP:BIO college sportspeople playing "at the highest level" could be included. I have no idea how to rank this person, and would like comments. Kusma (討論) 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable. Tokakeke 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete nn student, no major contributions to any field. Ruby 00:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Qualifies as all-American captain of an Ivy League fencing team. Harvard is a power in the sport-- JJay 00:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Harvard fences in NCAA competition, however David only placed 12th in individual sabre at last year's nationals [51]. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 02:18, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is a well-known celebrity at Harvard and the greater Boston area. He is also involved in the development of a groundbreaking heart monitor, and will escort the Hungarian ambassador's daughter to her coming of age celebration. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 140.247.154.205 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hundreds of thousands of people play sports at university. Inevitably some of them become captains of the team - someone's got to do it. Where we set the bar for notability of people who play sports against each other is vague, but it isn't here. If kept, there's not one but two sets of POV we have to defend it against - the author's and his roommates'. --Malthusian (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mushroom 02:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sahan[edit]

WP:Vain, nn, about 240 googs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's patent nonsense. Delete. Tokakeke 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Hash out the preferred article title on the talk. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Southeast Asian Capitals[edit]

unremarkable unwikied list. just not needed. delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_22&oldid=1116878951"