< January 7 January 9 >

Purge server cache

January 8[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 speedied. r3m0t talk 00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adherin[edit]

From speedy: "csd-g3, this page was created by an account with nothing but vandalism edits in his history. The original text of the page was changed into something completely different by him after the first 15 minutes of its existence. See talk page for a longer explanation by User:BorisTM about the subject." (I have no idea what is going on) r3m0t talk 00:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Not even a stub, few hits on google, delete until people actually write an article for it --Joewithajay 00:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 00:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Worlds Most Evil[edit]

POV list. Punkmorten 00:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Capitalism Magazine. - ulayiti (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Da Cunha[edit]

600+ Google But notice almost every page is a Wikipedia mirror. Unverifiable, maybe vanity. delete

Lotsofissues 00:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, Merge&Redirect sounds like a plan. - Haukur 19:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. NSLE (T+C) 01:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen party[edit]

370 Google, most have nothing to do with this band. delete

Lotsofissues 00:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three cards and a top hat[edit]

I couldn't decide whether to categorize this or nominate it for deletion, so I've done both. I guess it's, what... original research? Melchoir 00:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Great improvement. Well done Heraclesprogeny! Though the prose may be original, neither the question, nor the logic meet the meaning of original research. Obina 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. If the host offers the bet only when one color shows, then it's 50/50, but if the host offers the bet always, then you should bet the other side is the same color. The situation is ambiguous precisely because we are not told the host's intentions. And the intentions do make a big difference. If for some reason, you don't believe me, you can try repeated trials yourself and see: draw a card out and then guess the opposite color shown. Do this, say, 25 times. Now try this again (same number of times) but always guess the same color as shown. Now finally, start over again but every time you draw a card and see purple, put it back in the hat, shake it up, and try it again until you see green. Then guess your color (it doesn't matter, since now it is even odds). --C S (Talk) 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you weren't a mathematician I would just give up right now, but perhaps there is hope. Forget about the host. We draw from the hat a large number of times. True or false: of the draws when we see red, 2/3 of the time, the other side is red. Melchoir 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, you mean green or purple, right? Your true false question shows that you're not getting the point of my comments - that it's important to state the host's intentions. This is quite standard fare. --C S (Talk) 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am intentionally asking a different question. Melchoir 21:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. In my previous response, I somehow assumed that when drawing a green/purple card, you would draaw it showing green. So your point is that when the host only offers the bet when green is shown, 2/3 of the time the other side is green. Well, ok. I withdraw my previous responses. --C S (Talk) 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um... something like that, yes. Sure! Melchoir 22:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete NSLE (T+C) 01:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cuntonovich[edit]

neologism which even the profanaty-mad web only has eight times accrding to google. and seven of them are on the same webforum. BL kiss the lizard 00:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete

Deals on Wheels[edit]

not what you think it is. no, this is a used car lot. does that make it notable, hmm? BL kiss the lizard 00:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --JoanneB 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Podfomercial[edit]

Spammy neologism. Look it up and you'll know what I mean. -- Perfecto 01:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever[edit]

Delete - Possible hoax. No pages link to it, and a Google search for "Inspector Gadget's Biggest Treasure Hunt Ever" yields three results, all related to this Wikipedia article. Pagrashtak 01:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. "Winona Ryder as Tails", "Freddie Prinze Jr. as Heathcliff", and "Jean Claude Van Damme as Captain Planet"? Obvious hoax. Wisco 04:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natch[edit]

This is just a dictionary definition, and the word "natch" already has a Wiktionary entry. The article previously came up on Articles for deletion and was speedily deleted, although apparently not with the same content. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article should be deleted. --Metropolitan90 01:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

REMAGINE[edit]

In my opinion this Company Article does NOT meet the standards of the WP:CORP and therefore should be deleted. Onthost 01:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, be nice to newcomers, and, please, no personal attacks --Perfecto

  • Update on issue The problem with the links was corrected, thanks for the feedback info. Looks like some of the site updates didn't process. Kenpo0110 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as full citations weren't given before the creator was chased away thereby eliminating any hope of getting the full citations. Yes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, even though I don't think it would have met notability guidelines. Of course, we'll never know now, will we?

User:Remagine and User:Kenpo0110 have just left the project. One more newbie chased away. Kenpo was even a CVU member. Nice job. While it is possible that no one here violated policy or guidelines in their dealings with this issue, the combined effect was one that created a "hostile environment" so strong as to make him leave. He was excited about how Wikipedia worked. He had wanted to understand more about the project but got pulled into this ugly business about his adverticle. (Huh, I kinda like that neologism.) Back on point, it is instances like this where we need to step back and think about the public perception that we are giving. I was told a number of times to chill out, that no abuse or biting was occurring, and that I was overreacting. I guess I shouldn't have backed down so easily. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 10:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a constant problem. A lot of people start by creating articles on themselves or their companies; AfDing them is the correct thing to do in terms of policy, but still looks like biting the newbies. This is sad. I have recently started to userfy such things and leave a nice note ont he user page, but even this is taken amiss by some. You can't win. In the end, my delete vote stands, and I support the statements of others even if they could have been more tactfully put. Lesson to learn: explain in detail on the Userpage of a new user who creates an article on themselevs, their firm, their club, whatever, why this is a bad idea. All of which takes time. Does anyone know of a nice tactful template? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A template would be extremely helpful IMO, I will voulanteer to start one if there isn't one already. Mike 15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Responding at User Talk:Onthost - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia talk:Please do not bite the newcomers#Template Proposal. Melchoir 20:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to add here that I agree with JzG. I just get really pissed off when people leave the project over disputes and hostility, be it Essjay or a newbie. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 22:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kenpo0110 may have put a CVU template on his user page, but his user contributions page shows no evidence of him ever reverting a single instance of vandalism. Indeed, it shows no evidence of him ever showing any concern about any article whatsoever except for REMAGINE. --Aaron 22:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I wasn't going to say it, but it's true! Melchoir 22:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasen't going to mention it either, plus Kenpo and Remagine were the same person. Mike 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note "One more newbie..." Also note that said person was busy trying to defend himself and this article and didn't really have a bunch of time to work on other things. The inlcusion of that on his userpage shows an interest in the project. I feel that the particulars of this case are not really the issue here anyway. I think that we should stop discussing this article or its contributors as it is going to be deleted and the user has left. What's more important is looking more broadly at what first impressions we give to new users. There is a very relevant story on the talk page of WP:BITE. WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Micropatrology[edit]

I believe this is a neologism based on the lack of Google hits it gets. The society which is mentioned in the article gets even fewer Google hits, many of which are from Wikipedia mirrors. While this is probably because the society became dormant in the 1980s, I don't think this is that notable. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malos Cantores[edit]

Its hard for me to determine the notability of this group because I don't speak italian, but it looks like they don't meet WP:MUSIC. They have only one release, and only get 900 google hits. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dominguez[edit]

Delete. Non-notable. Searching for subject in Google didn't bring up a hit in the first 50 entries at least. His iMDB entry is also largely self-created, and does not list any of the movies or television appearances mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The movies listed on iMDB are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. The two entries on iMDB list are suspect, as it lists him as a writer at age 2 (of a small film) and a director at age 10 (of a film with no votes). In addition, birth year is different on iMDB. - Dharmabum420 02:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of North Korean websites[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. -- Perfecto 02:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

North Korean websites banned in South Korea[edit]

Wikipedia is not a web directory. The list of URLs is a direct copy from another site. -- Perfecto 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, because merging requires keeping and the consensus is to merge this someplace. Merging isn't the job of AFD, though, so any interested party can feel free. —Cleared as filed. 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque metal[edit]

This article repeats both Power Metal and Symphonic Metal. It is well worded as such, but essentially is still a stub repeating a full length article. It also focuses on only certain bands of the form, coming across highly as somoene advertising their favourite bands. This article as such doesnt warrent an article, and a redirect should be left to the Power Metal article. Leyasu 00:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the same way that classical music and baroque music are "pretty much the same thing"??? :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.166.164 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment How on Earth does this warrent being merged into Symphonic Metal when, A) Symphonic Metal is nothing alike this, and B)The article nominated for deletion repeats Power Metal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leyasu (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: As a grammar nazi, I have to note that Stratovarius is probably what Leyasu was meaning to link to... - CorbinSimpson 20:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC) All fixed now!!! - CorbinSimpson 07:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still expect a reason as to why merge into Symphonic Metal and not Power Metal, when the article being merged repeats power metal and is completely unrelated to Symphonic Metal's article. Leyasu 15:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is a derivative of Symphonic Metal, IIRC. Merge WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take from the Baroque Metal article:
Power metal totally differs from 1970s metal styles, since it adds important elements of depth, classical arrangements, complex scores and intrincated melodies. Whereas most genres of metal focus largely on personal experience, historical incidents, social commentary, or other aspects of "real life", baroque metal always treats fantasy, aristocratic, castles, battles and kings themes.
It actually calls itself Power Metal, which shows it is not a form of Symphonic Metal, it is a repeat of the Power Metal article. At best, part of it could be conisdered to reference Symphonic Power Metal. Leyasu 23:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interwise[edit]

Was tagged for speedy as "non-notable company" (and actually deleted, then listed at WP:DRV), but it's not a candidate. No opinion from me. —Cryptic (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was MERGE to Bliss Blood. Ichiro's relisting is not quite right, since we don't relist until consensus or we'd never get anywhere. -Splashtalk 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Dreambox[edit]

Non-notable band with 0 allmusic entries and 55 unique google hits (including many yahoo directory hits). Unverifiable other than the author(subject)'s personal website. Possible redeeming factor is one of the member Bliss Blood had been accepted as "notable" per AfD vote (see Talk:Bliss Blood/delete) Hurricane111 06:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the word extremely. That would surely mean a Bono, a John Lydon or a Paul McCartney. --kingboyk 16:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 02:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tanandaria[edit]

Delete - Article deals with a non-notable series of Daria fanfiction. Grimm 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete, due to more deletes than keeps, and I'm not going to count them all Sceptre (Talk) 20:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Tendler[edit]

A woman who "marries" a dolphin doesn't meet WP:BIO. Rob 03:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TechPhile[edit]

non-notable podcast self promotion; Alexa traffic ranking of 1,788,717; 15.7k Google hits (none in Google news) Hosterweis 03:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DeleteSceptre (Talk) 20:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punn[edit]

Hoax/nn slang term. Probably someone who invented a word, and tries to establish it. Search on google for punn greekfest returns one unrelated result with a typo. Bjelleklang - talk 03:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

crude humor cartoon[edit]

Neologism, only 100 google quote search hits TxRx 03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fairtunes[edit]

Nn website. No alexa data. 439 "link:" results. Apart from PCWorld "review", fails WP:WEB. No incoming wikilinks as of yesterday. neglected article since July 2005. -- Perfecto 03:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete Sceptre (Talk) 20:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elc(chat)[edit]

Non-notable unreleased software program

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 was painfully obvious. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Warnock[edit]

non-notable Kingturtle 03:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 05:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jam Creative Productions[edit]

Was tagged for speedy deletion, but companies aren't speediable. Bringing it to AfD to respect the wishes of the anon user who tagged it for deletion. No vote. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[talk] 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Once an article has been nominated for deletion, I don't think there's any procedure to just de-nominate it. If there's an overwhelming consensus in one way or the other, the discussion can be declared over, but we don't have a clear consensus here, if for no other reason than not that many people have voted at all. Hopefully once the latest five-day voting period is up, an admin will declare the vote as "keep but cleanup" and I and others can work on rewriting it. I'd start rewriting it now, but I'm not going to waste my time as long as there's even a 1% chance that it's going to get deleted. --Aaron 00:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shoulder Thrust[edit]

Non-notable topic, a single move in a video game. —ERcheck @ 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Gunn[edit]

Seems to be a fictional character, but no context is given. Probaly some obscure fancruft. jmd 04:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY NONSENSE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diogradroalisis[edit]

Hoax. "...THIS HAS BEEN TESTED MULTIPLE TIMES other than this site and my laptop computer are the only things that hold this data and a few other things that the military would have a feild day with..." Prashanthns 04:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. -- RHaworth 07:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surplus at a URIE[edit]

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subscriber Savings Account[edit]

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to unincorporated reciprocal inter-insurance exchange. -- RHaworth 07:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Board of Directors at a URIE[edit]

Dictionary definition with no obvious place to redirect. --Carnildo 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chickenatarian[edit]

Neologism - a dozen hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer park trash[edit]

Delete Why do we have an article on a slangword that is commonly known and used? This is an encyclopedia, not a slang dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DotShell (talk • contribs) -- Longhair 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledgment_(social)[edit]

I'm skeptical that this article can be expanded beyond the rather dicdeffy stub that currently exists. Opinions? Psychonaut 05:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dewarneb[edit]

Delete. This is a neologism that gets no Google hits outside of Wikipedia articles and copies thereof. N Shar 05:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Moving it to Actinomorphous flower. Rx StrangeLove 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actinomorphous[edit]

This is nothing more than an attempt to define the word Actinomorphous. It is not a candidate to be included at Wiktionary, however, because the definition is, in fact, incorrect.

Re-listing to generate more discussion. Please add new comments below this message. Mindmatrix 19:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 05:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SmartServ Solutions[edit]

WP:NOT the Yellow Pages, not a business directory. As usual, I highly doubt the notability of any company that does this. Daniel Case 05:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 08:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Symposium Plato[edit]

The complete text. It is a public domain version, so I went ahead and (clumsily) transwiki'd it to Wikisource--I hope they're not mad at me over there. But it shouldn't be here. Chick Bowen 05:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied. – ugen64 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willomy[edit]

Delete - created months ago by anonymous editor; links to nothing and from nothing and possibly may violate copyright. ddlamb 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Long Vo[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 merged into Strapping Young Lad. jnothman talk 07:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tenet (band)[edit]

Delete Non-notable Canadian music group. Hasn't released any music. No record of having played as a group. Atrian 06:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Strobe[edit]

Only one EP album and not really notable Eeee 06:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arnaud Rebotini[edit]

Non-notable music artist, does not need own page. Eeee 06:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mesa: Source[edit]

Yet another non-notable, non-released, Half-Life 2 mod. Could be vaporware. Cyde Weys votetalk 06:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the site is currently down but the mod is moving along quite nicly....they wont be releasing a beta because it would be crappy and unfinished so....there you go.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 into United States Marine Corps. - ulayiti (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Former Marine[edit]

Unencyclopedic; transferred here after another editor marked it as a CSD. – ugen64 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vifican[edit]

Vanity, made-up word methinks. Previously listed as a CSD. – ugen64 06:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fads[edit]

Anglocentric and pointless, but of course that's not a reason to delete. "Fad" being POV (see talk page where "grunge" is considered a fad) so any element indluded here will involve a value judgment is a reason to delete. brenneman(t)(c) 06:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not POV. It might have systemic bias; if so, please encourage readers with knowledge of other cultures to add information about fads in those cultures. But systemic bias is different from POV. Systemic bias is not reason to delete one article; it's reason to add to it or to create balancing articles. Fg2 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye, that could have been phrased better, so how about this: We require that items in this encyclopedia meet certain requirements, chief among them being WP:NPOV which has its foundation in WP:V and WP:CITE. The very nature of lists means that it is frightfully easy to add items, the sheer number of which makes it difficult to ensure that they are all correct. Additionally, systemic bias means that, for a given population, we'll have a number of entries proportional to that population, making a list violate NPOV. Thus, if we moved this list to List of fads in the United States and were scrupulous about our definition of "fad" and removing things that could not be verifired as fad per Wikipedia:Reliable sources than there would be no problem. But let us make some small concession to pragmatism, that is not going to happen. Thus I re-iterate: why is it much more difficult to delete an NPOV, uncited list than it would be a prose article with the same problem? - brenneman(t)(c) 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glideway[edit]

Totally unreadable. MIT Press apparently published a book about the concept/system/whatever the hell it is in 1996, but it was authored by "MIT Students," so who knows. It might be article-worthy, I don't know, but it can't be kept like this. --zenohockey 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as copyvio. - ulayiti (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research[edit]

Uninformative, speculative and full of loose talk. Does not even specify where this 'office' which conducts "..research on physics, zoology.." and whole lot of other subjects is situated. Finally ties it to Men in Black. Delete as fictitious and hoasx Prashanthns 06:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Akiyama International[edit]

Blatant advertising. Questionable notability Prashanthns 07:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge to 2005 trial of Michael Jackson. - ulayiti (talk) 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus juice[edit]

Jesus Juice was nominated for deletion on 2005-07-13. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus Juice.

Michael Jackson trial-cruft - apparently there is such a thing. This is a non-notable neologism with no encyclopedic value, IMO. This could possibly be mentioned in 2005 trial of Michael Jackson, but if not, no loss. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to The Office of Scientific Investigation and Research (see above). CorbinSimpson could have done this himself. -- RHaworth 18:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(OSIR)[edit]

This appears to be original research or possibly fancruft. OSIR is completely fictional according to List of fictional institutions, which certainly looks accurate. There is a UN OSIR, but the article's context appears to be implying OSIR is a US Government office or NGO, of which I cannot find any evidence. On top of that, there is absolutely no NPOV. Delete, unless someone has a better idea. - CorbinSimpson 07:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Maori Civilisations[edit]

This article is nonsense. All archaeological evidence is against any European settlement of New Zealand prior to Polynesian settlement 1000-800 years ago. See any peer-reviewed literature. My source is K. R. Howe, The Quest for Origins, and I've attended a meeting of NZ Society of Archaeology discussing this question. There are people who put forward this theory, but it is completely discredited. Delete. -gadfium 08:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archeologists don't take your source seriously. What makes something serious is that it's published in peer-reviewed journals. In answer to your suggestion below that the government is suppressing these theories, such journals are not controlled by the New Zealand government.-gadfium 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredible claims require credible references. Similarly poor grammar in article and the balls-to-the-wall-insane website it links to suggests same individual behind both. Sources also demonstrate ignorance of archaeological method on the part of the author(s). adamsan 10:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm… there’s already a paragraph at Moriori#The_debunked_myth_of_Moriori_in_New_Zealand Barefootguru 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's about the Moriori, surely - not about early Indo-European explorers. The theories mentioned on this page are unconnected with the Moriori (or the Waitaha, for that matter). Grutness...wha? 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I considered nominating this for speedy deletion on the grounds of patent nonsense, looking into this further I don't think it's quite that bad, but it does look like extremely dubious pseudoarchaeology. He baldly uses terms like Indo-European and Celtic to describe the alleged pre-Maori inhabitants, as these are linguistic terms we could not jump to this conclusion even if there was significant archaelogical evidence of pre-Maori inhabitants in New Zealand. PatGallacher 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly heavily edit to remove POV. This theory has been debunked though still persists as an urban legend (along the lines of ‘What are Maori complaining about, they wiped out the Moriori’.) Barefootguru 18:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone can find a credible reference and completely rewrite the article to remove the anti-Maori POV. Rhion 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Edit This article is not anti-Maori, it is simply trying to inform people of the previous history of New Zealand before the Maori arrived. It is unfair to suppress NZ's Pre-Maori history, labeling it racism. The New Zealand government has banned carbon dating on any artefacts found, and I thought that wikipedia would be a safe haven away from any cover ups or embargo's for all to find the truth. Although I am not the author of the site, I have contacted the author for help editing the wiki - though have had no reply. I agree that my grammar and wording is not so good - I should have planned it better, and will re-write asap, although I am not sure which parts are POV. Is there any external archaeologists that could comment on this? IE, scientists that have not studied the history of NZ? Because half the problem is that the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision and simple cannot accept any different theories. The other half is probly that all the Maori activism in NZ's history may become void or hypocritical. --Nzhamstar 20:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the improved rewrite, this is non verified speculation and original research. Obina 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't vote twice. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article consists of original research. It is still NPOV, although less so than before. The article itself notes that it is NPOV and contains unverified information. N Shar 23:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean POV… Barefootguru 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Encyclopedia articles should represent some kind of scholarly consensus, which is not the same thing as "tunnel vision." The claims here are deeply implausible on their face, and would need extraordinarily strong support to be encyclopedic. rodii 23:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsensical woo woo-ism at its finest. Don't you just love Nzhamstar's claim that "the scientists of NZ are set in such a deep mindset that they have tunnel vision"! Note that I have combined Nzhamstar's comments above to delete his second vote. Moriori 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as random POV, and implausible. Stifle 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Claims on the page are not backed by any evidence apart from a couple of websites. Also problems with the actual name of the page (should have a Macro in Maori etc). I don't think it can really be saved - SimonLyall 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly some evidence that there was human contact with New Zealand before the permanent settlement by Maori. The kiore (rat) appears to have been here longer than permanant settlement, and could only have arrived with humans. This indicates that Polynesians arrived at New Zealand earlier than the accepted dates for Maori settlement, but did not stay (or did not survive). This is a very different hypothesis from suggesting Celtic peoples settled New Zealand.
By the way, you fail to quote any evidence of said "Maori tradition". You need to quote peer reviewed journals, not wild speculation. You say that scientists suppress the evidence, but scientists have no motive to suppress such items, and every motive to publish any evidence that would show such a radically different version of prehistory. If you could provide proof, you'd win the archeological equivalent of the Nobel Prize. In practice, archeologists don't pursue such theories for the same reasons as physicists don't pursue perpetual motion machines.-gadfium 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. Lukas 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, I think you've made your point and everyone here knows where you stand. Simply reiterating it over and over again does not make you any more persuasive. rodii 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources from other Authors.

What do you closed minded people say to that?

I see that Gary Cook has an honorary doctorate from Open International University of Complementary Medicine. I understand the going price for such a doctorate is US$850.-gadfium 03:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What was I saying about personal attacks?


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 02:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thayir sadam[edit]

Made me hungry, yes, but not encyclopedic per WP:NOT. Send to wikibooks. brenneman(t)(c) 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do the same for French fries, Fried chicken and the 100s of other articles that have preparation sections, which seems to be standard practice for American food articles. -- JJay 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Penney[edit]

Very misleading assertion of notability in the article (based on list of credits). As IMDb indicates, most of the "credits" were actually as trainees and interns, and most were uncredited on screen. The assertions of upcoming films unconfirmed. Delete as insufficiently notable. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Film by Julian Thome[edit]

Hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julian Thome for background - he wants to make movies, I gather, or at least be credited in Wikipedia with having made movies. Delete. GTBacchus(talk) 08:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.a. hatfield[edit]

Does not appear to qualify per WP:BIO. Very low Google, no news. Although the article is not about his blog, I note that it is Unalexa-able. Unless evidence of notability is provided, I recomend deletion. brenneman(t)(c) 08:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Zoe as nn-bio (A7). Stifle 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Louis Bolomey[edit]

almost no information here, and why is the creator of a blog notable if we do not even have an article about the blog itself? Austrian 08:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic_selection[edit]

Completely pointless; borderline incoherent Hbk314 09:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchist Skins and Punks[edit]

Does not appear to be notable. Low Google, no News. Delete unless evidence of notability provided per WP:V and WP:CITE. brenneman(t)(c) 09:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sav-way[edit]

Speedy deleted, reposted, retagged by me as repost, but really does deserve a wider audience as we shouldn't speedy companies. Abstain for this moment. brenneman(t)(c) 09:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't find one Google hit for the store. Looks like a vanity page to me. If it is kept, needs to be flagged for NPOV and needs a considerable re-write. - Dharmabum420 09:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yeah, I speedied this, it popped up for the nth time and I was about to AfD it unitl Aaron beat me to it. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro 02:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Lefler[edit]

Delete It's an article about a minor fictional character. It would be suited for Memory Alpha or a list of minor Star Trek characters Centaurus 10:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Robin Lefler is a main character in the New Frontier novel series and a main character in the TNG episode "The Game."


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mochasuperman[edit]

Non-notable webcomic - less than a dozen unigue google hits. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kangeiko[edit]

Googling this pulls a ton of hits, as this seems to be a rather well known form of martial art. But the article is about Yoga practiced at a university, so it seems unrelated and not notable. Delete. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teheranization[edit]

NN neologism - google pulls 16 unique hits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus default to keep. You don't have to start an AFD if you just want to merge an article into another one. - ulayiti (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Braidfute[edit]

She is an unhistorical character, there is not enough to say about her to justify her own article rather than mentioning her in either William Wallace or Blind Harry PatGallacher 10:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hymn of creation[edit]

This article contains the literal translation of a hymn. Transwiki to Wikisource Delete per below comment by UncleG.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Necrololimechacon[edit]

This article contains some sort of text which I was not able to understand. Can somebody please enlighten me? Seems to be nonsense. Definitely out of context. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 11:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think I listed enough links for people to know what the hell is going on.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urusai (talk • contribs)

Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. You guys do not think that wanting to have sex with dead, underage, robot girls count as newsworthy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urusai (talk • contribs)

I speedied this once as nonsense already - it is quite clear I was justified in doing so, and am doing so again. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot 100 No. 1 Hits of 2005 (USA)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nganga[edit]

This one's a little odd - I was notified about it by User:Kahuroa, who (as his username suggests) knows a few details about Māori culture. There seems to be no such god as Nganga, and no Māori god of sleet... googling on nganga + Māori leads to about 350 hits. take out Bible translations (in which it means "hailstorm"), and you're left with about 175. Only about 1/3 of these refer to Maori mythology, so we're down to only about 60 hits. Several - all identical to a stub on Encyclopedia Mythica - refer to Nganga being the Māori god of sleet. The rest all talk about Ua, the Māori god of rain, who is known by variants of that name depending on what type of rain is involved: Ua-Roa for long rain, Uanui for heavy rain, and Ua-Nganga for rainstorms. It looks like somewhere along the line some lines of communication have got crossed, and a new, fictional god may have been created... Grutness...wha? 12:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ua is just the word for rain. These 'gods' (seems to me) reflect the kind of expansions on a theme that you get in chants or songs in oral cultures - such repetitions are part of the structure of almost any oral traditional composition. Rhythm helps recall and transmission, and so a word in a chant, like ua, rain, might be followed by expanded variants, ua, ua roa, ua nui, ua nganga (rain, long rain, heavy rain, storming rain) etc. - it's a bit like deciding that la la la is the European god of rhythm and song. Please no list unless evidence of actual worship/ritual exists, not just a line in a song somewhere that has been misinterpreted. Kahuroa 19:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've since noticed that the Ua variants are listed on the article for Ua. I've modified the text of that article a little to reflect the comments above. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted by Mike Rosoft 15:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Mermelstein[edit]

non-notable — J3ff 12:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 03:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello My Future Girlfriend[edit]

Non-notable. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/싱하형 get's about 75,000 hits in Korea (about half-of what this gets in Google without Wikipedia (137,000)), and is voted delete for being non-notable, this should be as well. The only incoming link is from Internet phenomenon. By the way, past nomination is here. WB 12:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • True: I also read Something Awful (and b3ta and others) and I readily agree that nione-tenths of the things which obsess Geekdom for a week or a month are totally forgotten within a short space of time. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your issue is really about an entirely different article, see WP:POINT. rodii 13:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, maybe I was off-base there. But I don't understand what the connection is between these two articles. rodii 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that person is far more popular (known by actual people in the streets, t-shirts, etc.) in Korea than this website, but that is voted for deletion, while this one is far less notable; nonetheless voted kept by many. -- WB 01:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attorney in fact for a URIE[edit]

Too narrow a scope regarding a specific occupation working at a specific organisation. I mean, we don't write something like programmers for Microsoft. And it seems to have neutrality problems and was created purely to attack the people in question. Delete. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 13:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing List of Accidents[edit]

Per WP:ISNOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The definition of what constitutes an accident is so elastic as to encompass certainly millions and quite likely billions of events every single day. Notable accidents will already have articles; this is a job for CategoryMan! Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing fancruft with listcruft. For my personal view on listcruft see User:JzG/AfD - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because the events regarding the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ongoing List of Accidents and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of disasters deletion debates are seriously looking to be intertwined. I will be depositing this serious chunk of text in both deletion debates.

I have struck all my previous comments and opinions from both debates, and have attempted to reconsider the two nominations (List of disasters - referred to as Disasters, and Ongoing List of Accidents - referred to as Accidents) and my reasons for deletion, in as unbiased a way as possible. Having attempted to do so, I have come to the following conclusions:

  1. Ongoing List of Accidents is an almost complete duplicate of List of disasters, and as such, warrants either a merger or deletion per the Wikipedia Deletion Policy.
    • However, while the two articles have very similar content, the definitions for inclusion are different. The Disasters article gives its definition (and inclusion criteria) as "a natural or man-made event that negatively affects life, property, livelihood or industry, often resulting in permanent changes to human societies, ecosystems and environment." Therfore, in my personal opinion, you need a lot of bang to get your disaster-rated buck.
    • The Accidents article gives it's definition (and inclusion criteria) as "is a mishap that happens unexpectedly, that results in damage or injury, up to and including death." I believe the point made by User:Atrian in the Accidents debate applies here - "I stubbed my toe this morning, can I get listed here too?". While defining an event as a disaster is 'structured' by the scope necessary to be considered by the media and public opinion as a disaster, any "undesirable or unfortunate happening" (the definition of accident I pulled from my hardcopy dictionary) could technically be included on this list; billions of entries per calender day.

However, looking at detail at the two lists, I would like to offer the following recommendations.

  1. The list of aviation disasters/accidents doesn't belong in either article. These should be split off into a List of aviation accidents, where the criteria for inclusion is set at a certain amount of fatalities, per the introduction for the sublist in the Disasters
    • As a subset of this suggestion , the lists of "accidents/disasters involving foo-vehicle" should also be split out into "Lists of foo-vehicle accidents", again, with a set fatality criteria, or at least some kind of inclusion criteria.
  2. Mining accidents/disasters, now thats a section in serious need of overhaul. Mining is a dangerous industry, and while every fatality may not be a 'disaster', there would be too many events to comprehensively list in an 'accidents' list/article. A criteria for remaining within the Disasters article would have to be developed and enforced - my personal suggestion would be to set a casualty limit, but also include those that caused significant rethinks in the mining industry.
  3. Fire accidents/disasters appears to be better served by the already-existing List of historic fires. Some merging to this article from these two articles would be appropriate.

Everything else in the List of disasters article is suitable (in my personal opinion), and as such should be kept.

However, if my suggested changes go ahead or don't, it appears to me that the Accidents article is always going to be the poor little brother to the Disasters article. Points to the creator for his/her effort, and if there is consensus towards my suggestions, I believe the user could best assist Wikipedia by helping to implement those. Unfortunately, the Accidents article should still be deleted, as there is no way (in my personal opinion) to produce a meaningful list/article under the current article name and definition of inclusion, without it spiralling out of control.

Here's hoping this makes sense, and that people read the whole thing. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 12:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responding at Disasters, since I think that is the place with the contentthat needs adressing. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 13:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Foster[edit]

Vanity. Staecker 14:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neohorizon[edit]

This page was previously set up as a redirect to another AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/REMAGINE. Listing properly now. Owen× ☎ 14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Commodore DOS, has already been merged. - ulayiti (talk) 12:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOAD "*",8,1[edit]

This article is about a specific BASIC language command on the Commodore 64. While the article contents are correct, I think the subject is far too narrowly defined to warrant a Wikipedia article. Delete. — JIP | Talk 14:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Local churches. - ulayiti (talk) 12:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Local Church controversy[edit]

Important disclaimer: This AfD isn't intended to imply, that no criticism of Lord's recovery should be in Wikipedia.

This is obviously a POV-fork. This seems to be the lamentable stale-mate found in many of articles about so called sects: The main articles Lord's recovery, Witness Lee, Recovery Version of the Bible are in gloomy colors, not even mentioning the critical POV. The POV-fork is only critcism, and needs better sourcing. NPOV policy strongly discourages separate pro and con articles.

Pjacobi 15:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete cannot be verified MAZO 15:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS THIS PAGE NOT DELETED YET? Why is a page in such dispute allowed to exist. The idea of linking an offensive page with opinions masquerading as facts ... this list of controversial opinions (unproven, unsubstantiated, not referenced, and not verifiable), it would seem that some have a sheer glee in paralysis through analysis, they want this debate to drag on as long as they can hang their dirty laundry out each day to dry! Well I for one think integrity is not up for debate and think that this so-called debate is a strategy to let cheap shots masquerade as fact. It seems this page violates the basic tenant of posting in wikopedia, in that most of the controversy are opinions and not verifiable or certainly not unobjective view point. (RS)

I think that the controversy article is worth keeping as a subset of the main article, the Lord's Recovery, as there is information included in it that is not found in the main article. It might get pretty cumbersome to try to integrate it into the main article so keeping it separate is useful. However, there may be a few places where a NPOV approach is needed to clean it up, although I thought most sections did aim for a NPOV. 

  (colinlavergne)

For my two cents, please note that the Local_Church article has had a long history of being blanked, vandalized, and contested in attempts to - in the words of sysop DJ Clayworth - canonize the movement. The forked article, Local Church controversy, was originally created by ongoing efforts to present the article on the Local_Church in the most positive possible light while only grudgingly admitting that concerns existed by people outside the movement - the same sorts of concerns that have arisen with articles on Scientology or the Jehovah's Witnesses for instance.

Personally, I feel that this fork was created under false pretenses and against the spirit of Wikipedia, and didn't want to put too much effort into editing a page that I had hoped would simply be deleted. If this article is to be deleted, I wouldn't mind taking the effort to clean up the mess in the controversy article so that it can be folded into another article that meets the standards desired by the Wikipedia community.

I propose that the existing article be significantly revised and folded back into the article on the Local_Church as a section of the article. I also propose that this discussion be posted in the Talk:Local_Church article, with a notice that this section was intentionally folded back into the original article and should remain there rather than being forked again into a new article. TheLocalChurch 21:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As asked by Pjakobi, here some critical sources on the local church which I consider as reliable (though, of course, not neutral) - not complete, I'm in vacation away from my library. --Irmgard 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Aagaard, Neil Duddy and The Peculiar Teachings of The Local Church Aagaard is Professor for NRMs in Aarhus.
Local Church Fights for Evangelical ID Card Not neutral, but tells clearly who says what
ApologeticsIndex: The Local Church While Hein sure is not neutral, he presents lots of sources, usually on both sides.
Bautz on Watchman Nee German, neutral, reliable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and redirect to bubblegum pop. - Mailer Diablo 03:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheesy music[edit]

DELETE not an actual genre of music; it is just your opinion. WillC 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It may or may not be an actual genre, but many people will instantly know what is meant by 'cheesy music' and indeed many nightclubs, pubs and bars market themselves using the phrase to describe their music policy. Also, many articles refer to cheesy music, and so an article to explain what it is is entirely appropriate. eg Klute (Nightclub), Top Banana, Un Pingüino en mi Ascensor, 1449AM URB
Also, before being deleted, at least give someone the chance to expand the article - hence the stub tag.DMB 16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to bubblegum pop as per Dragonfiend. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 14:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folica[edit]

DELETEif not fleshed out, just a shill page. WillC 16:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge into Blind Melon. Deleting and merging is not a valid procedure in most cases, especially in that order. - ulayiti (talk) 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jena Kraus[edit]

I vote that this page be deleted and merged with the band page- maybe under a trivia section

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Frogs[edit]

DELETE....shilling a business, not notable. WillC 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political cleavage[edit]

DELETE prove its use/notability. WillC 16:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Nerf, since someone has already been bold and merged the important content into that article. —Cleared as filed. 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Darts[edit]

Delete. The topic is entirely non-notable, to the point of seeming more akin to a vanity page for the creator than an encyclopedic entry. Google found less than ten relevant hit. It already has it's own listing in the main nerf page, which seems indulgent enough. Noah Smith 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cape May Gazette[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. - Mailer Diablo 03:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hon. Justice Carmen Vassallo[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was This article is a fiction - there is no such Judge. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Localdataplace[edit]

Not an encyclopedia article, but appears to be a Freecycle-like project attempting to use wikipedia to create a homepage for themselves quercus robur 15:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not even advertising as there's no external link- they are actually trying to create a homepage for this project within the wikipedia as far as I can see quercus robur 16:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to Keep This Page

Addressing the comments above, one at a time:

  1. Per the wikipedia defintion, an encyclopedia is a written compendium of knowledge. This page is an attempt to give people knowledge, including the existance of the site, how it fits in with Freecycle (during its conflicts), etc. In this case, it is the same as linking to other commercial sources that serve the local areas, such as the television stations, radio stations and newspapers; they have the same local purpose.
  2. "... a Freecycle-like project...". As we wrote, Freecycle is a collection of Yahoo Groups. We have many important differentiators, which are listed on our own site. We specifically didn't list them on the wiki page so that it wouldn't look like an ad.
  3. "use wikipedia to create a homepage". We already have a homepage. We're attempting to tell people about a resource that other people in their communities are using.
  4. "just trying to advertise". Look at the links on the page for Charlotte, North Carolina. I see links to companies, which certainly help to reinforce their brand. I see links to other community services, like churches, newspapers, television and radio stations. Please explain why it's ok for someone interested in Charlotte to know about only one of the town's newspapers, but not to know about another place where they can interact with other locals?
  5. "...there's no external link..." The introduction gives the URL, which has now been made into a link.
  6. "...certainly isn't notable..." To try and keep the page from looking like an advertisement, we didn't list all the things that make the site different from other sites; these are listed on our home page(s). The vanity page lists several reasons why this page could exist, including: 'An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.' Please explain how we can show the importance without coming across as an advertisement in your minds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LocalDataPlace (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad[edit]

This is another attempt (see Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Johnubiprasad) to sing the praises of this scientist/doctor. Please see Talk:Ashoka Jahnavi-Prasad where I've attempted to discover the facts and uncovered a tale of fraud and wild exaggeration. The user 202.138.112.252 (Contributions, talk) has made many related contributions that are probably similarly suspect (no citations). If I have a doubt over deleting it is that the article could be rewritten to contain the information currently on the talk page (in an encyclopedic form). That would serve two purposes:

  1. If this guy's name reappears alongside some boast, then it can be corrected with reference to the page.
  2. The presense of accurate information on the web about this person's history may be beneficial – see Saskatchewan Party Caucus News Release May 19, 2005.

If the page is deleted, then the various links should be deleted/ammended too. Colin 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

  • Thanks for your comment and time taken to consider. I'm really looking for advice from more experienced folk than me. Without the scandal, he's not notable enough IMO. If we delete then I think it is quite likely that the (mis)information will reappear, given Prasad's history. If we keep but with all the facts exposed then perhaps we will just end up with an edit war? --Colin 20:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a different person.There are several people with this name.I think we should clarify.I looked up the scholar google and fouund him having conducted the research.(A.J.Prasad).There are several people with this name.The one you hav in mind is a psychiatrist from Ranchi.who is different from A.J.Prasad.Kedar Agarawal.(Psychiatrist,Delhi)

Indeed it is a different person.The one in Ranchi is Ashoka Prasad practicing in Bariatu Colony.This man A.J.Prasad has been in UP for over 15 years..Kedar Agarwal

I have been able to look up.The book is there in the NIMHANS,Bangalore Libraray(Boloical Basis of Neuroses0.I think it is a case of mistaken identity. Kedar Agarwal I deed AJ Prasad is am member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences. it appears. Kedar Agarwal

Reading the ABC program transcript and the BMJ news report, you get a picture of someone who likes to have others think he is more important than he really is (Anna Monika Medal, Nobel Prize) and this fits with the exaggerated importance given to him re: sodium valproate and the biological basis of neuroses. Correcting this misinformation is one reason why I think it might be useful to keep this article but totally rewritten with the (unpleasant) facts.
If you still think we've got two people confused, can you cite some sources and full names saying exactly who is who. --Colin 10:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I shall try and contact Dr.Radhakrishnan (his emial by the way is venkatradhakrishanan2000@yahoo.com)and write back.Kedar Mal Agarwal. -- 59.94.115.5 (talk · contribs) 11th Jan.2006
My colleaugu looked at your comments and was interested to note the term Johnubiprasad.He pointed out that anyone ith any understanding of the Indian names would recognise this name to be phony.Jahnavi is a Sanskrit term meaning the Holy Ganges.It amy be spelt Janhavi but is never spelt Johnubi.On using the scholar google,I noticed a few articles by Ashoka Jahanavi Prasad but none by Johnubiprasad.The book(Biological Basis) is incidentally also in the All India Institute oif Medical Sciences Library just across the road and it is by Ashok Jahanavi Prasad and is dated 1988,much before the article on the ABC..The American Academy of Arts and Sciences also has a Foreign Honorary Member Ashoka Jahnavi Prasad.The article on the valproate appeared in Pharmatherepeutica as scholar google suggests and was by A.J.Prasad.I would tend to agree that it is an advance.All of us clinical psychiatrists had nothinmg but lithium for manic depression before that and it is toxic.We all use valproate now as a first choice.It may be worthwhile ascertaining from the Medical Council of England whteher there are two doctors with this name with these qualifications as they both worked in England.Also I have serious doubts about the charlaton's links with Dr.Rajendra.He in India is known as a thorough gentleman universally respected and next to Mahtma's family his is the family which has never to my knowledge abused their position,rare in India.It may be that someone is misusing the name. -- KMA -- 59.94.112.34 (talk · contribs) 12th January 2006.
  • Robert Evan Kendell:whose book Companion to Psychiatric Studies helped me enormously during my training
  • Ian Brockington: whose book Motherhood and Mental illness I had consulted
  • Ian Oswald:whose book Sleep I had again consulted during my training years.
  • Sula Wolff: again whose book I had consulted(Children under stress)
  • Solomon Halbert Snyder:whose work on endorp[hins formed the basis of mmy doctoral thesis.
Also your records would probably show that I had requested articles on Max Hamilton(whose scales are known to every psychiatric researcher),Sir Aubrey Lewis(doyen of British Psychiatry),Martin Roth and Felix Post(both eminent psychogeriatricians),Michael Rutter(father of child psychiatry) and Eliott Slater(father of psychiatric genetics)I believe that introduction of sodium valproate is a major advance as lithium was the only drug available for over twenty years.
I am certainly unaware oF Jounubbiprasad or whoever he is and apart from major chages in the Kendell artcle am unaware of any major corrections that have been instituted by your team.
Being a clinician of five years duration,I had included the entries of only those whose work I had relied upon in my research.I that makes me a "vanitarian",I am afraid my concept of vanity is slightly different.It may be prudent to suspend the right of people to write articles.But what I find hurtful is the sneering remark. -- Anil Kumar 202.138.112.252 (talk · contribs) 13th January,2006

I have just signed in. -- Anilkumar2006 (talk · contribs) 13th January,2006

According to the The History of Valproate in Clinical Neuroscience, PA Lambert is the first to use valproate to treat mania and had done so for a decade before publishing a paper in 1975. The papers PMID 5128637, PMID 1132367, PMID 6778456, PMID 6779508 all predate the one by A.J. Prasad:
  • Prasad AJ (1984). "The role of sodium valproate as an anti-manic agent". Pharmatherapeutica. 4 (1): 6–8. PMID 6438650.
Prasad's article discusses just seven patients who were treated with sodium valproate and notes that five got better. This is not some large scale study, double-blind trial or even highly-cited paper. It is merely one of many small studies perfomed in the early 1980s (see "Psychiatry Update: Annual Review" by the American Psychiatric Association (ISBN 0880482427) page 138. This lists five other studies including another by Lambert in 1984 of 108 patients) Similarly, the comments regarding biological basis of neuroses are unsubstantiated. --Colin 09:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed you are right.This was not the first study.But let me take you back to lithium.JohnCade is credited with the discovery and it is known that he got himself unsuccessfully nominated for a knighthood(once by himself!).He did the study on the flimsiest of evidence and the inferences he drew were not supported by his results(frogs not dying on consuming urine of manics having taken lithium!).The adulation showered on him obscures the important fact-that it was Mogens Schou who conducted the first real trial using tested psychometric scales.Schou was a very unassuming man (he does not even have an article in the Wikipedia-I could not find enough details on the google as I did for all others including this)who was not given his due- and he never complained.I would advise you to look at the Emrich and lambert studies and note the psychometric tests employed.While Ashok Sir(he was with our medical college until his retirement in June 2005) has fully acknowledged in his paper that lambert and Emrich should be credited with the discovery(in the paper itself),all of this medical school believed he underplayed his role given that his was the first supported and sponsored clinical trial(by Sanofi).As far as the book goes,one has to read the preface by Professor Merton ,the then President of British Association of Psychopharmacology-"This is the first known effort to weave all the existing evidence of biological origins of neuroses and draw a meningful conclusion."As I have written the article,my vote would naturally be to retain it.RetainAnilkumar


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-band. enochlau (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Monet Bandits[edit]

Not notable band. Few web references, no critical reviews, not at AllMusic, one album that is not in print. Mikeblas 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agrexophilia[edit]

Dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Nick Boalch 17:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autagonistophilia[edit]

Dictionary definition, already in Wiktionary. Nick Boalch 17:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gabacho[edit]

Dict def that has already been transwiki-ed (also, CV concerns, heavily exceprted from etymology dict.) RJFJR 17:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

De-Evolution[edit]

Original research. Suspect Steven Dubis is also the person who uploaded this information. Francs2000 17:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was redirect; nothing to be merged that would be relevant. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hewish[edit]

Non-notable vanity. 31 Google hits, only one that seems to be him is first one - which is his own website. Ifnord 18:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of these were created today by the same person. I don't think any of them is notable, even together. Ifnord 22:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep, but merge/redirect to Free Republic. —Cleared as filed. 12:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ping list[edit]

Minor technical term used on one forum only; can never be a perfect article; delete. The Land 18:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as recreation of article deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker blog -- Francs2000 18:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Blog[edit]

"A poker blog is a blog about poker" - content-free dicdef. I don't see any evidence that this is a truly distinct genre that in itself merits an separate article. CDC (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Men From Maine[edit]

not-notable comedy song from local radio morning show. Mikeblas 18:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom's Townie Tunes[edit]

Non-notable skit on local radio show. Mikeblas 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Zoe. Stifle 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil kelly[edit]

Delete. I placed a speedy tag on this article but a claim of notability was later added. Google did not help me in my attempt to verify notability of this 14 year old novelist and champion speller ! No Guru 18:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"whilst on potrol in the town on the 7th of december 1998 he was brutally set upon by a gang of antelopes." ?!?!?!? They dont have Antelopes in Bedford (unless theres been an escape from the local zoo) Complete Bollocks by the sound of it! Delete Jcuk 23:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kim Possible video games[edit]

Crufty list that won't likely grow. Already exists in Kim Possible article, so no need to merge. Mikeblas 19:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - no delete votes, nomination withdrawn by User:JzG. -- Francs2000 22:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wembley F.C.[edit]

Stub article on non-league football team. No known connection with Wembley Stadium. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • For values of "good" which may include footiecruft :-) But OK, I am happy to put my hands up to a bad call. If any passing admin wants to close this early I'd not argue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 03:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Butt[edit]

Relisting; not enough discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Butt. Mt personal view is delete. The Land 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discoverity[edit]

Protologism with 13 google hits, some of which appear to be typos for 'discovery.' [15] Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's speedyable - sorry for the waste of time if it is. Vary | Talk 19:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Produced DC and Lord of the Rings MiniMates List of Produced Street Fighter and Battlestar Gallactica MiniMates[edit]

A list of commercial products (which WP:ISNOT); invites one to see the main MiniMates article which is where these also should not be as that should not be a directory of commercial products either. I think we can leave it to the manufacturers to do the online catalog. They will probably spell the franchise correctly, for a start. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Produced DC and Lord of the Rings MiniMates List of Produced Street Fighter and Battlestar Gallactica MiniMates[edit]

A list of commercial products (which WP:ISNOT); invites one to see the main MiniMates article which is where these also should not be as that should not be a directory of commercial products either. I think we can leave it to the manufacturers to do the online catalog. They will probably spell the franchise correctly, for a start. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 19:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prefactor[edit]

This started as original research ("A prefactor is a process that involves reworking or rewriting, oftentimes code for a computer program, where the solution ends up being the original, and oftentimes more elegant solution"), but Vegalabs replaced it with the meaning in mathematics. Now it is just a dictionary definition and I do not see any scope for expansion. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LX/LuelinX[edit]

Relisting for AfD, too few votes last time at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LX/LuelinX. No vote. The Land 19:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - provides useful links and is informative about the project. Keep - it is not affiliated with "LUElinks" at all. -Matt 20:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This entire discussion is pointless. The entire point of this AfD discussion is for people from LUElinks to come and troll (i.e. whine). Should be invalidated as biased. -Matt 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to add on to the "not notable" argument: it is consistently at above the 97 percentile mark in SF.net activity, and a couple months ago reached the top 200 projects. -Matt 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Hill[edit]

Non-notable subject in article with barely any (so to speak) information Madman 20:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link is cached because wikipedia, despite non-censorship, blocks links to certain sites. Otherwise the link is live. -- JJay 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MyLovingMemory.com[edit]

Vanispamcruftisement of the first water. Starts with the site name intercapped as a web link (sets the old spam radar off straight away!) and finishes by asserting copyright incompatible with GFDL. What is between the link and the copyrigth statement is advertorial. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of that article and I don't know what the problem is. You don't like that I've introduced the site and what its trying to do? Would you like 3 paragaphs of garbage explanation? I am only quoting my source of those slogans by providing the link to the page I got them from.

As for the copyright of the slogans I was with the understanding that by sharing that I was allowed to share them here provided I credited the author?

If you dont like the article I would welcome any suggestions on how to improve it. But I do wonder if I'll actually get any.

EDIT: I have looked at a few other articles and I think I see what you guys want it to be more like. I will rewrite it this evening. BUT DONT YOU DARE DELETE IT! Xanthor 22:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]

A special thank you to --Bachrach44 for sharing with me the guidelines found at [WP:WEB]

Given these guidelines it would seem that any webpage that has not already achieved fame would not meet the criteria for inclusion.

My only problem with this, and I understand its about keeping the Wiki up to quality standards, is that in fact the mylovingmemory.com website is the first to allow the general public to upload photos to create a digital collage. Although it does share a similarity to the milliondollarhomepage in the way it offers pixels for photos - the two sites are nothing alike. The milliondollarhomepage does not offer any content, only links. The Mylovingmemory website is the first to approach digital art collages in this manner and in fact their efforts are a historic moment and should be recognized.

Addditionally, the guidelines do not speak to uniqueness of content or public interactivity. Most "collage art" is done by a single artist on a static canvas. This site is creating digital collages by allowing public interaction on a changing canvas.

In short, I did not come here to post about "yet another nuke site" and attempt to include something as common as that. This website is unique. It is the only one I know of that does it and it is doing it as a project in philanthrophy. Exceptions should be made. Xanthor 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]


Comment. I have reviewed the new page. The basis for my delete is unchanged. The issue is not the text. The Web site is not notable, and Wikipedia is not for promoting new things. I, too, wish this web site success so it may be here in several years time.Obina 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As per Obina the page is still largely advertising. Delete Atrian 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP it is not advertising. I sell advertising for a living - thats not it. Obina said its not the text .. so to point to advertising and then refer to what Obina said makes no sense. You are all very discouraging and I will spend no more time about this except to send an email to this websites founder.

The internets version of a time capsule wants accepted by the internets version of an encylopeida. Its that simple. Xanthor 20:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]

It's not "The internets version of a time capsule". It's your version of a time capsule. It would have to be pretty noteworthy indeed to be the internet's version of anything. May sites over the years have offered people a place to put images, reflections, confessions...all kinds of things. I think you overestimate the uniqueness and the novelty of your project, but even if you are right, it has to make some kind of impact before it is notable enough to be treated here. Your site hasn't even launched yet. There are thousands and thousands of projects out there that are just getting started and looking for recognition. Wikipedia is not here to help you promote your project. People have tried to explain this to you and point you toward Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion of websites, but for some reason you don't want to listen. This isn't personal--several people have gone out of their way to wish you and your project well--but the fact is, you're trying to use this place as something it's not. There are all kinds of ways to promote a new site; Wikipedia is something else. Best of luck with your project; may it prosper and evolve into something worthy of inclusion. rodii 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rodii for taking the time to do more than vote. I do understand what people are saying and I freely admit that I dont like it :-) On that note I do want to say that _I HAVE_ noticed all the well wishes that I have recieved and I thank you all very much for them. I don't want to appear ungrateful. They were noticed.. and even encouraging! :-)

I do want to say that I have scoured the net to purposly try and find someone who is taking photos from real lives and making collages and neo-impressionistic art out of them ... and they're just arent any sites that I have found. Yes there are memorial sites and yes there are many many photo galleries... but they arent "creating" any new works from the photos that are shared. This is the uniqueness that I think I have with the site. I would love for anyone to show me a site that is already doing something similar... but only because I have spent a good amount of time trying to find one myself. It's a true internet first... and .... as time progresses it is getting harder and harder to be able to make that claim.

Thanks again to all my well wishers. Truth be told I realized yesterday after reading the guidelines that I probably wouldent change your policy and I accepted it then... but I had to try. I too wish everyone well even though I did not get the reception I had hoped for. Xanthor 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Xanthor[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete; article not rewritten. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emotional development[edit]

Original research. Or something. Either that or I want some of what this guy's been smoking... - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garment industry[edit]

Dictdef. Or simply so blindingly obvious that there is nothing much to add. We have articles on textiles and the like, after all. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPLS Myths[edit]

This isn't an article but an essay, a polemic arguing a particular POV about a data protocol. It's way out on neutrality and tone, and skates on the edge of original research ("'Because of the marketing push there are many popular untruths about MPLS, this paper is here to show some of them"). Despite tagging since December 8th 2005, no-one has seemed inclined to mend it, so maybe deletion is more appropriate Tearlach 20:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Mo0[talk] 03:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Angry.net[edit]

NN website. alexa rank is over 2 million Bachrach44 20:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like angry.net. Leave the article in place!


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mo0[talk] 03:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rendezvous with Death[edit]

Even two whole days after the first broadcast of this film it is still not possible for me to verify its importance from reliabel sources. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was content already at the band's article, so just redirect, methinks. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phlogiston Verdigris[edit]

Extreme case of anoraksia nervosa. I had to read it twice before I could make any sense of it at all! I'd say delete it as a non-notable meme from a barely-notable band, but maybe merge with the band or somehting I guess. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I found it useful. But, yes, it may do better merged with the band's page. MCS 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cryptic (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noobing[edit]

isn't nonsense, but never heard of Sceptre (Talk) 21:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Audit[edit]

NN blog run by NN person; approx. 300 google hits, many of which are unrelated Paul 21:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophase[edit]

This page seems to be written almost entirely as an advertisement. Alexa tells us the website itself isn't notable enough, but Google tells a slightly different story. However, since I'm guessing a lot of those Google hits are forum-related to try to ask for the server address (or something..), I'm voting to delete this page. JHMM13 (T | C) 21:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-club/group. enochlau (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D-Day (group)[edit]

This page is not encyclopedic, just a bunch of people from a group trying to make a name for themselves. I frequent 4chan and even participated in "The Raid", yet I didn't even know this group existed until I saw this page. richjkl 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not touching my post. And sure, give them to me. And it's been over an hour since you first learned of this, according to you. I even have the exact time you were BANNED form the mIRC chat. IM me, ChrisDark008, on AIM.--ChrisDark 22:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loungevania[edit]

Article about a non-existent repubic. Not qualifed as Micronation - with 16 unique google hits. Only posting is from some web forums. Hurricane111 21:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llama brew[edit]

An alcoholic beverage that is most likely hoax - as it is manufactured from a non-existent country (see Loungevania). Hurricane111 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Rap Albums[edit]

listcruft/crystal balling Sceptre (Talk) 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply] 

dont delete it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crotman (talk • contribs) .
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chettinad cuisine[edit]

The contents of this article have been moved to Wikibooks. This article is now redundant. Tim Pierce 21:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was deleted as non-notable, even for fancruft.DS 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compound 18[edit]

Delete Not a real compound. (Try googling and excluding any of the following: Jagged Alliance 2 Arulco, and forcing inclusion of 'armor') Also, non notable as a fictional compound. Fangz 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is a good solution. The item in the game itself is completely unimportant to the plot, and included simply as an item to duplicate a sort of 'enchant armour' effect. It is completely unmentioned by outside media, and indeed barely mentioned within the fan network.--Fangz 20:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hankwitz[edit]

Vanity article for a CA congressional candidate. Google=129. Also appears to be autobiographical by proxy (probably PR firm or agent) as the author has created only three other articles, also orphans with no links to them, and also borderline (or less) notable. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by Brendanconway. Stifle 01:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St Petersburg2[edit]

I do not think this suite of pornoimages is particulary notable, it is an OR and if it is true, the article would promote child pornography. Delete abakharev 22:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Saavedra[edit]

Vanity - at best borderline notable, with no inbound links, but also appears to be autobiographical by proxy as it was created by a user who only a handful of other similar articles (probably agent or PR firm). Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin Sedillo[edit]

Vanity article, also appears to be autobiography by proxy as original author has created only a handful of other, also vanity/orphan, articles. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Saavedra[edit]

Vanity page, no inbound links. Autobiographical by proxy - one of a handful created by what seems obviously a publicist. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Saavedra[edit]

Vanity page, no inbound links. Autobiographical by proxy - one of a handful created by what seems obviously a publicist. Delete AUTiger ʃ talk/work 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 12:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Chang[edit]

Looks like a Vanity page. Non-notable ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give details?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.156.96.247 (talk • contribs)
Please see Wikipedia:Notability ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have you checked the refs? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is Artingrid a friend of Rodney Chang? .Also, regarding your own article at [[Ingrid Kamerbeek also in WP:AfD, I would suggest that you read Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is considered inappropriate to write your own article. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit borderline whether User:Artingrid should be considered a sockpuppet. I think probably not, but this vote should not be fully counted either. The entire edit history of this user is the creation of the articles Ingrid Kamerbeek and Rodney Chang (who are profesessionally or personally acquainted/colleagues IRL), and voting on the subseqent AfD's. The former article is apparently the same person as the WP user. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be that you are either friends or associates. See [24]. That is wonderful, but please note that wikipedia is not free web hosting or a place to promote your art or your business. Third party confirmations is just a small portion of what is needed. I would suggest you read Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines and Wikipedia:Notability so that you can be informed about Wikipedia content policies. I have also placed a Welcome message in your talk page with further pointers about Wikipedia and how it all works. Hope you find these helpful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pygoya and myself founded the Webism Group of Worldwide Artists after our 1st real life European art tour in 2003. Of course we work together. We work together for global culture, peace and understanding. We have reached quite notable results as you surely found out. We are more than 50 worldwide artists, some of them at Wikipedia already. I put the article "Pygoya" to Wikipedia because he simply should be in with his 10 degrees, including 2 doctorates, honorary professor, NBC Real People Show, inclusion in Ripley's, Who's Who, his art on show around the globe in museums and galleries, etc. etc. He's also a digital art pioneer, ask Laurence Gartel who's in Wikipedia. Everybody could have put him in with his acknowledged merits. So why not me. I just point to the facts. What about a broader audience for this entry so I do not need to give further explanations. To me it would be in no way understandable if you wouldn't let him in. And this not because we work together but because the facts speak its own language.Artingrid 17:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this is not about "letting him in". Please read the guidelines provided. The article as it stands will either be deleted, or it will need to be cleaned up as per Wikipedia guidelines. The article of Laurence Gartel id a good example of a simple and straight-forward biography, although it lacks references for some of the assertions made. Nevertheless, you can compare it with the article in question Rodney Chang. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ok. You know I am a newbie here. So please be of help with the clean-up to make "Rodney Chang" fitting to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Artingrid 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives the Votes for deletion, I will lend you a hand. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @
Again added more links to valid sources outside Pygoya's website Artingrid 16:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Please note that anyone can sell their art online at artmajeur.com (your 1st source) [27] and hundreds of other on-line art communities and websites. Also note that any artist (notable or not) can post their bios at americanartists.org (your second source) [28]. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Like I say, it's a pretty weak keep. But the several stated showings at known brick-and-morter museums and galleries seem to give Chang the nudge. Not to slam-dunk notability (a group show isn't that hard to get), but to the minimual standards I have in mind. But if his works really did appear at "Bronx Museum of Arts in New York (1987), Shanghai Art Museum (1988), Holter Museum of Art (1990), Tartu Art Museum in Estonia (1990), the Las Vegas Art Museum (1990), and the Vienna Museum Complex (2003)." that seems notable to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am really trying hard, to see if indeed Mr. rtChang passes the notability test.... but the more I research these exibitions the ony thing I encounter are self-published accounts of these. I have yet to find a mention of this artist in any of the museums listed. All I find is self-published stuff at, his personal site, free art sites, friends and associates sites, or link farms. Just search on Google, for example: "Holter Museum of Art" "Rodney Chang"[29] or "Shanghai Art Museum" "Rodney Chang"[30] or "Tartu Art Museum" "Rodney Chang"[31] Very, very strange stuff, indeed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for now giving your identity after you have been asked. Artingrid 20:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I did so initially too, but you separated the portion of my comment with the signature from the initial part. However, I'm sure that was an innocent editing error. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Read Wikipedia welcomes unsigned comments too if in good faith.
To make it totally clear who Artingrid is:
Ingrid Kamerbeek, Bahnhofstr. 7, D-87527 Sonthofen/Bavaria/Germany, artist.
Want to know more? Ok, look up my website.
Just search for Ingrid Kamerbeek in Google.
Pygoya lives on the other side of the world: Honolulu, Hawaii.
Working together on a worldwide scale with and for artists has nothing to do with the fact that Pygoya with his acknowledged merits belongs to Wikipedia.
Neutrality of the admin is a main question here. Jossi is a digital artist himself.
I thought of Wikipedia as a good idea. Thank you for giving me a better insight. Artingrid 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon "votes"[edit]

Wrong: Below comments are not anon but with full name. Artingrid 20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anon refers to contributors that do not have a Wikipedia user name. Jossi 21:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if they let us know their names by writing it down after their comments they are nevertheless not anonymous. Artingrid 22:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever they might state their names to be in the outside world, if they do not have WP usernames, they do not have an established WP reputation. Specifically, such anon IPs are often used by "meatpuppets"... people recruited by interested parties solely for the purpose of a particular vote; and as such are not counted as votes among the Wikipedia community. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enormously risen prices for participation in art fairs and exhibitions is doubtlessly one aspect of Pygoya's efforts to establish art soleyly created by changing pixels to art. This way global culture and exchange is made possible for any artist around the globe at low cost. Press reports give evidence of high interest in digital art. Pygoya on his website presents a great resource of third-party confirmation of his achievements and activities. Digital art is a medium which without the internet wouldn't have come true. And it might be destiny that this is a fact also with Wikipedia. arno signarowski 13.01.2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.253.170.158 (talk • contribs)

With all due respect to the above anons, obviously friends and/or associates of Mr. Chang, and non-withstanding the fact that Mr. Chang is an artist, please note that the criteria for notability of a person for their inclusion in Wikipedia is quite specific. Please read Please read Wikipedia:Notability (people). Concerning absoluteart.com, that in itself is not a mark of notability, as there are hundreds of artists in this and many other art websites. There are hundreds of thousands of digital artists that may consider themselves pioneers, but that is not sufficient, I am afraid. Jossi 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So - if one of the largest, oldest online portals for fine art is not a creditable source to vouch for a computer artists notibility, who is? "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field". Rodney Chang "Pygoya" falls in this catagory, in my opinion. ALSO - I think you may find that he also could be considered as one who has "A large fan base, fan listing or 'cult' following". Jodi Melfi166.102.8.185 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jodi for your comment. Our opinions are our opinions, but Wikipedia articles are not based on Wikipedia editors' opinions but in reporting the opinions and points of view of reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines. Read: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Jossi 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi: All you state above is before your very eyes: Opinions and points of view of reputable sources as defined by Wikipedia guidelines.

Sorry, Ingrid. I have yet to come across one such reputable source. All what I have seen so far is seems very much like self-promotion. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, this self-published book Jossi 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the ISBN No. of this a. m. book:(ISBN 1-4196-2168-8). It is not to be seen at booksurge website right now due to changes Dr. Chang did. It will be online again asap.

According to Wikipedia guidelines the admin who votes for deletion of an entry should not be the same who decides. And especially not in your case because you do not look at this article from a neutral point of view. Artingrid 22:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fear no more ... as the nominator of the AfD, I will not close it. Another admin will. And BTW, I am as neutral as it can be... I never heard of Mr. Chang until a few days ago when came across this article while doing RC patrol (recent changes patrol against vandalism of Wikipedia). Jossi 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just for clarification of the above said: it gives a false impression. Of course unintentionally, right? Artingrid 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The admin who closes this AfD will be someone uninvolved with the voting. That's how these things are done. Some neutral admin will look through AfD votes that are a week or so old, count up the votes (including discounting anons or brand new accounts), and decide what action is appropriate. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you both, Jossi and Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters for your explanations. I am totally sure that nobody who does research work on the internet as you surely do and moreover somebody who calls himself a digital artist who comes across digital artists and art sites all the time can "avoid" to know Dr. Rodney Chang (Pygoya) because he is everywhere on the web. There are also links to his website from the articles Jossi initiated at Wikipedia and carefully watches. Just some thoughts... I have many more...Artingrid 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of something? That is indeed preposterous. I have never heard of Mr Chang, Webism or Artingrid until a few days ago when someone added a long piece of material to this article and it lit up on my RC patrol console as possible giberish addition by an anon IP. Now, you can believe that or, not. That is your prerrogative, of course. In Wikipedia we ask contributors to assume good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, during my attempt to verify some of the achievements awards listed d on Mr. Chang's website http://www.lastplace.com/page36.htm I found these:

... but then found scam reports about this "award": [32], [33], [34]
.. but then read similar scam reports about this "registry": [35]
... but could not find any such thing anywhere, besides mentions alongside of one of the scams above.

I stopped checking after these three. Jossi 06:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was if we follow the merge proposal by Mrsteviec, this article should be kept and the others merged into it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Recent Drawing[edit]

Non-notable organization (club?) with a total of two Google hits. First being the auther's website. Author's bio (Andrew Hewish) is also up for deletion as non-notable. Ifnord 22:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of these were created today by the same person. I don't think any of them is notable, even together. Ifnord 22:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a new user, you may be unfamiliar with sockpuppets. I would advise reading it and pointing out that sockpuppet votes are discounted. Ifnord 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the clumsiness of a new user! please see above for independent referees.
  • Every one is welcome and everyone was a new user once. Ifnord 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wrote the original article. All vanity reference has been edited out and the offending articles edited out and merged. The entry has now been expanded and will expand, on what is an important informational source and developing discussion in drawing in current art practice. Hopefully the article now is a valuable contribution to the Wiki ethos and respects the five plliars.Controller 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arachnophobia (web design)[edit]

not-notable web design technique. I can't find any references to it (that aren't about a web design company with the same name; or in Wiki mirror sites.) The reference identifies a site that exemplifies this design type, but that site is down. Mikeblas 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 00:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baish[edit]

I can find no reference to Baish as a dip on Google [36]. The remainder of the article is an unverifiable slang dictionary definition; appears to be a neologism coined by the editor. Muchness 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blair wilson[edit]

As a candidate for a parliamentary seat, this is not enough of a reason to be included in Wikipedia. In addition, the article reads like an advert. File Éireann 23:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Zoe as copyvio (CSD: A8). Stifle 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Steady State Galaxy Theory[edit]

Original Research. Mostly copied/slightly adapted from this website Batmanand 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[talk] 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlesir[edit]

nn, probably vanity, Google Test hits 327, most are mis-spellings of "gentle sir". Certainly neologism - even acknowledged in article itself Batmanand 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete - Izehar 23:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perpendicular Universe[edit]

This smacks of WP:OR to me. The relationship to Everett is weak and a search turns up 1600 results. None of the early results lend support. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted by Brendanconway as nn-bio. Stifle 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalkerhub[edit]

a creative idea, but still a nn website. Bachrach44 23:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Lagniappe/ Potpourri[edit]

nn high school production. I know that several famous actors went to New Trier High School, if the article should indicate that some of them participated in this event, I would retract my nomination. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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