The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Dinner Party[edit]

Non-notable, stub, apparent vanity. Bladeswin 00:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The New ARA[edit]

Blatant copy-paste, vanity, not NPOV, and "lol" doesn't seem very encyclopedic. Bladeswin 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okey dokie, I'm going to read up on the Speedy delete criteria. I'm just perusing the newest articles. Will read up before posting more. - Bladeswin 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've speedied this, too. New Page Patrol rocks, by the way, so keep up the good work! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination withdrawn and no delete votes. -- JLaTondre 01:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Joaquín, Carabobo[edit]

This is apparently about a place, though the only thing in the article is about a footballer... and the facts there are, to say the least, dubious, and more likely than no0t somewhat exaggerated. A soccer player scoring 10,000 goals? Even the great Pele only got about 1200. And playing 10,000 matches, even at one a day, every day, 365 days per year would still take over 25 years. Pure unadulterated dingoes in the current form then. Even if this is turned into a proper article what's currently there needs removing Grutness...wha? 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the rewrite - good work Carioca. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if some will completely rewrite it. Otherwise, delete. Royboycrashfan 02:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real places are notable. I completely rewrote the article. Carioca 03:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Carioca's rewrite. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well done, Carioca. -- Krash (Talk) 05:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all real places are notable. --Terence Ong 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please these real places are notable Yuckfoo 00:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic symbol[edit]

Seems that this is just a discrete example of the definition of "idiosyncratic". Recommend that this article be merged or deleted, since you could theoretically create a host of redundant articles explaining how virtually any noun may be represented idiosyncratically. Apologies to the author. Gregwmay 01:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nothing more than a dicdef. Royboycrashfan 02:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Somewhere between original research and dicdef. -- Krash (Talk) 05:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Krash. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Krash. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Krash. --Terence Ong 10:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Krash. Entirely subjective dictdef.  (aeropagitica)  11:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dictionary. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:39Z
• Delete per Krash. *waves* --Krashlandon (e) 21:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Vote count is something like 17d-6k. The best argument for inclusion was VegaDark's evidence, but it appears to have been adequately addressed by Kinu. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary M. Seward[edit]

non-notable biography Grocer 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Notable college journalist. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete writer for college newspaper. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: College newspapers with circulations of 5000+ are still notable publications. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Starblind. Royboycrashfan 02:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notableWickethewok 05:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The average reporter in your local daily paper (which most likely has a circulation greater than 5,000) is non-notable, even though the newspaper is, and the same goes for college paper journalists, even if they did manage to get lucky and score a byline in the WSJ. (IIRC, the Summers resignation wasn't really a shock as of the date of the article, anyway.) --Kinu ^t/_c 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. dbtfz^talk 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If we have issues with the 5000+ circulation guideline for writers, we should reconsider it. I've always thought it's a bit low, but it's purportedly consensus. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - 528 google hits, even including his middle initial. That's a lot more than the average college journalist is going to get. Some fairly interesting claims to notability, and Wikipedia policy says 5000+ whether we like it or not. Also written several articles for forbes.com. I don't particularly agree with the 5000+ guideline either but until we change that policy we should probably adhere to it. VegaDark 07:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the Forbes articles were from the online edition of forbes.com only, not the print magazine. Also, they were written in June to August 2005, which leads me to believe that it was a part of their summer internship program, the duties of which would include writing a few articles for web release anyway. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu. I can't find evidence that the subject's college newspaper has a circulation over 5,000. (It claims a readership in excess of that, but roommates would share a copy.) --Metropolitan90 08:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 10:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Metropolitan90 Cursive 13:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Notable college journalist" is an oxymoron. GWO
• Delete as non-notable. -- Kjkolb 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adrian. The Harvard Crimson's coverage of the Summers controversies played a significant role in Summers' resignation; therefore, subject of article is also clearly notable as participant in newsworthy event. Monicasdude 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu.--Isotope23 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adrian Lamo Jcuk 20:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No doubt, he is a talented young journalist and may well merit an article one day. However, for mine he isn't notable enough to warrant an article as yet. Delete.
• Delete He was the writer of a major event but I think it would be best to mention his name in the Summers controveries rather than give him a seperate article. Delete as NN. --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Most college-paper reporters -- indeed, most newspaper reporters -- are not notable, if they have no prominence or recognition other than the fact that they report on notable stories. However, in Seward's case, his reporting was in itself part of the Summers story, which I think raises his profile above the usual. MCB 02:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hear what y'all are saying, but I don't see individual reporters at this level of notability as warranting separate articles. Give him a couple years to get some real bylines. Herostratus 06:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. He's a college journalist, nowhere near notable, and I refuse to let blind adherence to a guideline trump common sense. --Calton | Talk 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Calton, Avalon 23:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Steadman[edit]

vanity article Crusading composer 01:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. A search for "Robert Steadman" yields 234 unique hits, but the article suggests he's sufficiently notable. Royboycrashfan 02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable enough, considering that the BBC covers his work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong and Speedy Keep. This article was nominated for AfD in October 2005 and easily survived. This nomination, like that one, is made in bad faith. The nominator has engaged in a series of POV edits on the article, has relentlessly attacked and criticized the subject, and in fact, his user name itself -- Crusading composer -- is a direct reference to Steadman (who has been called that due to his political activism). Take a look at his contributions, and the vast majority are to this article, its talk page and related pages. I don't know if he and Bakewell Tart (the user who made the original nomination) are sockpuppets of each other or not, but the nomination and comments are pretty much congruent. As for the substantive matter, please see the original AfD; there is no question at all of Steadman's notability and the encyclopedic nature of the article. It has been edited by many editors; it is clearly not authored by the subject or on his behalf. This AfD, like the last one, is simply the escalation of an edit war by one of Steadman's dedicated wiki-enemies. This is a repeated waste of our time and I think an RfC against Crusading composer for edit warring and abuse of AfD is appropriate here. MCB 03:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-autobio assertion is very questionable: two of the protagonists on this article's talk page have lately been established as R. Steadman sockpuppets by checkuser, and indefinitely blocked as such (despite their denials at the time of any personal involvement). So let's keep speculation as to whether BT and CC are the same person in perspective. (My personal guess is not -- as CC implied, if s/he's made two AFD nominations, s/he's getting worse with practice at the technical details; Though equally that they have similar TES-messageboard-inspired motivations.) Most of the article itself was written from anon IP addresses. (My personal guess is, belonging to one Robert Steadman, or some closely involved person.) Actual notability seems to me marginal, but not non-existent, though hardly as clearly established as the above claims. Alai 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you going to be WP:BOLD re WP:RFC or are you just expressing an opinion? Garglebutt / (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Well known in musical circles especially for his choral work; first AfD bore this out. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur the nomination appears to be in bad faith; prompted by edit warring with the associated WP editor. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems notable enough for me. VegaDark 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, as noted above there are enough "non wikipedia echo" hits from google to justify an article. SOPHIA 08:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination.  (aeropagitica)  11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep; bad-faith/vandalous nomination. Monicasdude 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, as per above - bad-faith nomination, like the first time. (Though I personally do agree with Alai's suspicions above that much of the article was written by Mr. Steadman himself, the article shouldn't be deleted.) --Oscillate 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Robert Steadman is notable, therefore this is not a vanity article. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete

I cannot see how this can be classed as a bad faith nomination and I am amazed that someone has asked for me to be blocked because I have attempted to draw attention to a blatant abuse of Wiki's policies. I also find it surprising that I have been accused of edit wars. If the editor who thinks that was to actually look at the history of the Robert Steadman website, they'd find that I have been accomodating to others’ views, have compromised and have refrained from reverting the same points. Some editors have referred to the previous attempt to delete this article. This was nothing to do with me. I voted to delete it but so what? That attempt failed. Yes Mr Steadman has a presence on the internet, most of it self initiated. Regardless of whether Mr Steadman is notable or not, that is NOT the issue here. This deletion is not about notability but about Wiki policies.

• • Reasons for deletion:

If (and I mean IF) Mr Steadman has beenn guilty of using sock puppets and multiple identities – particularly vhjh then there is good reason for deleting this article: 1. This is clearly a vanity article. It was created mainly by the subject. Two of the contributors have been revealed as sock puppets and have been permanently blocked. At least 2 more have made enough mistakes to be suspected of having clear links to the subject. This article was created for one purpose only - shameless self publicity and perhaps even as a way of increasing the subject's business. 2. The truthfulness of the article is in doubt. Much of the material comes from the subject's own website. The subject himself has shown himself to be less than honest over the last few months and this casts a strong doubt over whether the content can be trusted. 3. The subject clearly feels that he has ownership of the article. Attempts to edit the article have been constantly reverted. Sock puppets have been used to bully other editors, to smear and insult them. The subject's behaviour on the Jesus article shows that he is inflexible and totally unwilling to compromise. It is obvious that there can be no neutral POV when the subject himself takes such a strong interest in his own article and will use deceit to ensure that it remains a shrine to his own ego. If indeed these editors are sock puppets of Mr Steadman (and the administrators are the ones who have decided that – I have not seen the evidence) there can be no real doubt as to whether this article has to be deleted. It is not a case of NOTABILITY. It is a matter of a breakdown of trust and good faith and repeated abuses of Wiki guidelines and p;oicies. This article, regardless of content, cannot be allowed to remain. I suggest that this article be deleted and if any of the editors who voted to keep this article really feel that the subject warrants an article then THEY could create one that does not breach wiki guidelines. It seems fair to me.Crusading composer 19:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep... if indeed this is a WP:AUTO, Mr. Steadman deserves a smack upside the head for being a jackass, but it doesn't make him less notable as a subject. Meets WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not mentioned in the New Grove, but does seem sufficiently notable. AnnH ♫ 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep this article please Yuckfoo 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sockpuppeting oneself's article, no matter how much of a rulebreaking endeavor that may be, does not automatically warrent page deletion. Homestarmy 00:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is kept, we may need a disambiguation page as there is a notable composer of the same name. [8]. The BBC material is verifiable evidence that he is an active British composer whose music is being performed so I will vote Keep. It doesn't meet the criterion for a speedy keep in my book. Capitalistroadster 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah... you mean a "notable cinematographer of the same name", yes? :-) MCB 02:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Yes this article violates WP:AUTO as much of the content has been added by confirmed sockpuppets of Mr. Steadman himself, but the article is on a reasonably known British composer whom readers may want to read about. —Aiden 02:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable enough. If there's a POV issue in here, be bold and fix it. 23skidoo 15:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per previous AfD. This is a grudge thing. AndyJones 21:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or speedy keep, the nominator's edits are solely related to Robert Steadman and are sure to raise some eyebrows. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete*. Robert Steadman is not notable. The verifiable performances are unexceptional. More evidence is needed of his work. The is a lack of secondary source - reviews etc Kotuku. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotuku (talk • contribs) User's only two contributions have been to this deletion discussion — _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 13:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject of article is of the minimal range of notability.--MONGO 11:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. According to Evelyn Glennie (Order of the British Empire)'s web page she commissioned three pieces by this composer in 1989-90. [9]

His publisher listed on that page, Vanderbeek & Imrie Ltd, is listed as a member of the Music Publishers Association of the UK [http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/dist/v.html. There's an email there to verify what else is in their catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Wellington (talk • contribs) 2006-03-07 09:35:53

Thanks for adding the signature, was about to do so, as I omitted it in my hurry to save the page before the library computer logged off.--Beth Wellington 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong and Speedy Delete. Robert Steadman is not notable. This fact is irrefutable --User:Njd123 22:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has 13 total edits, 2 to the Article namespace — _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Sex Acts[edit]

Nonencyclopedic, addmittedly unverifiable. Nominated for prod then removed. Thatcher131 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. This article is the wikipedia equivilant to smearing poo on the walls. The tone and expalanotory thesis are very unencyclopedianc and downright atrocious.-Zero^Talk 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Collection of slang terms for various sex acts. The title and choice is inherently POV (what makes a certain sex act "unusual"?). Plus, I am pretty sure this was deleted before, because it is contained in BJAODN: Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense/Sexual Slang. Therefore delete. Kusma (討論) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unusual place names couldn't get a consensus to delete, and this isn't all that different. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not sourced. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, but that can be fixed. My vote stands. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your analogy doesn't, though.  :) -ikkyu2 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless referenced to show some of these things are (1) actually discussed by notable people, and (2) considered "unusual". Otherwise inherently POV. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 01:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This Article might be ok if it was Cleaned Up, and had the Slang Cut out.--Z.Spy 02:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic, unverifiable and pointless. Fan1967 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no sources, low encyclopedical value except as honeypot for high school vandals. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Speedy delete CSD G4 if proven to be a recreation. Schizombie 02:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the editor already has given the reason in his own (poor) defense against speedy deletion-- this isn't a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia, and there's nothing that ties these "defintions" (as poorly worded as they are) together into anything that approaches being an "article" about unusual sex acts, their history, their development in world or western culture, or how these terms came to be, or where they came from (i.e., there are no citations). It's a matter of being offended by the poor quality of the material and its presentation, not the subject matter. Blondlieut 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Blondlieut
• Merge verifiable content into the appropriate sections of Sexual Slang (where other sex acts lists have gone). Some of these terms are already there. However, I do not oppose plain deletion here. PJM 03:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE. Reasons already stated. This article has no redeemable value and whoever actually took the time to write it should be in therapy.Misunderestimated 03:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Came from nowhere, no real edits, possible sock puppet?? Oarias 21:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Blondlieut and CanadianCaesar Tom Harrison ^Talk 04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's conceivable that this could be turned into a decent (perhaps that's not the right word!) encyclopedia article, but right now it's garbage, and it's not the sort of thing that should be given the benefit of the doubt. dbtfz^talk 05:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencylopedic. Phoenix2 05:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, unverifiable, indiscriminate. Wikipedia:Listcruft. -- Krash (Talk) 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Largely unencylopedic; perhaps a few verifiable entries could be merged into Sexual slang per PJM. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. No sources, fails WP:V, no way to prove it's not original research. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. So, why is the asian fetish article allowed to stay but this is going to get deleted? Apparently Asian fetishism is "encyclopedic" since it documents a real Western phenomenon, yet unusual sex acts are not real Western phenomenon. That article also has neither sources nor scientific evidence. Double standard, anyone? 70.106.143.128
  • If you think asian fetish should be deleted then you are as entitled to anyone to list it for deletion --PopUpPirate 09:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this article and a list of unusal place names is that the names can be verified by looking at a map. How is one to tell from this article which terms have independent existence in the culture (if any) and which were made up in high school (if any).Thatcher131 14:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable. --Terence Ong 10:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This most important article alive! There are many LIST categories on Wikipedia, why not this one? Oarias 12:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, likely unverifiable. MLA 13:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NPOV violation - by what criteria is a sexual act deemed unusual? Reading through the list, it is impossible to distinguish between those in which people do participate and those that are merely dreamed up and written about as sexual folklore. WP:NFT refers. In addition, no citations or references make this list useless for research in to cultural practises.  (aeropagitica)  18:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and condemn author(s) to the sixth circle of Wiki-Hell. —Charles P._(Mirv) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this rambling list of musings on sexual torture and assault. This is one of the most worthless and offensive articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I suspect that anyone voting to keep it is either casting his vote as an ironic statement or is completely oblivious to what good content is. Harry Bagatestes 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for pretty much every reason that makes up "unencyclopedic": listcruft, Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary, original research, unverifiablility... MCB 02:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per PJM. Who's to say what's unusual, I don't know, but there are may lists like this on Wikipedia. How is this one any different? (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fork or something. Golfcam 03:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. --Fire Star 04:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Quick before my girlfriend reads it - I've been telling her that this stuff is not unusual. Seriously.... Feeding The Elephant? Alabama Pillow? Donkey Punch Balcony Throw? Trolling. Herostratus 04:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable weirdness-cruft. --InShaneee 04:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Angry Pirate: When one is about to ejaculate during a blowjob, shoots semen in one of the female's eyes, kicking one of her legs, and running away. The result is an angry girl who cannot see out of one eye (the eyepatch) and has trouble walking on one of her legs (the pegleg)." Please - Wikipedia is not for things you make up whilst drunk. Strong delete. Tito

xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or whilst mentally 12 years old. PJM 14:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Tito. Jude(talk,contribs) 05:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Titoxd. Wikipedia is only for things I make up while drunk! -- SCZenz 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sheesh you people are such prudes! Anyhow.... Oarias 07:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly made up during a slow day at school--Porturology 12:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The title of the article is arbitrary, since "unusual" is not defined. A small (I believe) portion of the material describes genuine practices, urban legends, or slang, but none of the material is referenced. A substantial (I believe) portion of the material was obviously made up as a lark by illiterate buffoons. In summary, the small amount of material covering genuine practices, urban legends, slang terms, etc. belongs elsewhere, properly referenced. However, the generally poor quality of the entire page would make a merge impractical. --D.L. Hughes 15:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Guess this article is going down in flames... Oh well... I'll make major changes to it off-line (fix grammar/spelling/remove slang/etc) and resubmit with a different/more appropriate title. Any suggestions? Oarias 18:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Cite your sources, and review Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Manual of style, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You might note in particular that Unusual place names now only has place names referred to as "unusual" in other sources, since Wikipedia is not a primary source or a place for original research. -- SCZenz 19:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very sound advice above. I really think, however, it'd be better if you added such items to Sexual Slang than trying the make a new article. PJM 20:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Most of this is clearly fictional, not to mention stupid. Mwongozi 18:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to severe lack of verifiability. -- Mithent 00:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I must apologise for listing it for Speedy deletion, which was harsh, but nonetheless, it should go. I'm no prude, but if you want muck, read Viz or Razzle ffs! --PopUpPirate 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Keep There is no need to delete this, if it offends you then don't look at it. It's a bunch of urban deffinitons that have been mentioned on shows such as Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, and many other movies/shows. I strongly am against deleting this because someone is too simple minded just to turn away from it.

alexblainlater 14:17, 5 March 2006 (EST) User's first edit. Kusma (討論) 17:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it for sure. If you don't like this stuff...Just don't look at it. Its very funny to some people and it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.126.203 (talk • contribs)

• Keep Clearly the list needs to be cut down to remove uncited or possibly original material, but there is no reason why it should not continue to exist as a list of known outlandish sex acts described in popular culture; at a minimum, of those that already have their own wikipedia articles. Sammy1339 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has only 40 edits. -Zero^Talk 04:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as per nom. 71.244.86.178 18:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, as per nomination. --Puzzlet Chung 09:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary list of obscenitites, most of them bound to be completely bogus and non-notable unless we waste precious manhours patrolling it. / Peter ^Isotalo 12:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apart from its slang and uncited content, this article contains in the definiton of "Combat Jack" the words "The poor bastards in Iraq", referrng to the tortured and sexually harassed Iraqi prisoners.
• Delete with maximum prejudice. This is a compendium of all the ludicrous made-up "sex acts" which have ever been deleted or BJAODNed from Wikipedia, with some more made up just to pad it out. This is like Beavis and Butthead without the subtlety, humour, charm or dialogue. Just zis Guy you know? 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but delete the made up ones --Sweetie Petie 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturist Christians[edit]

OM(We shalt not use the lord's name in vain, especially during Lent :) delete! -a helpful pre-summary suggested by Adrian. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is n to the fourth: non-neutral, non-notable. I ((prod))ded this earlier, but an IP, possibly the creator (I haven't checked), removed the tag. The article currently doesn't prove notability under the guidelines at WP:WEB. Even if the membership claim is true, I'm not sure that that makes it "one of the largest." WP:WEB requires proof through inlined links, reference, or EL section. I looked over their site and could find no mention of membership numbers and no awards, just that I would have to pay money to see all of their pictures of naked people. So that was a rather long and comprehensive nomination but it should allow for "per nom" to work rather well. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think your dedication to detail scared all the readers away :x "omg delete!" might have been better received ... ever so slightly sarcastic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Vary | Talk 05:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OM(WSNUTLNIVEDL) delete! per nomination  ; ). — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless cleaned up. [10] -- Krash (Talk) 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. 362,593 traffic ranking on Alexa. "Naturist Christians" (Christians advocating nudism generally, not the website specifically) are mentioned in Body Freedom Day: When a Clothed-Minded World Unraveled (2004) by Stuart Ward, per amazon.com search. News coverage of the website and Xtian nudism generally at http://www.azcentral.com/ent/pop/articles/1207nudists1207-CR.html There's also a video of Fox News coverage here http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:gx3JOa_KmZgJ:www.isabelifontana.com/ though it looks like maybe a local affiliate. The article could possibly be generalized so it is not specifically about the website. Schizombie 07:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup per Schizombie. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Alexa ranking too low -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep maybe rewrite to talk about the general concept rather than one website Jcuk 21:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and please this up like jcuk says Yuckfoo 00:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not meeting either WP:WEB or common-sense notability. MCB 02:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gil-e-Firdaws[edit]

It's a recipe...Wikipedia is not a recipe book methinks... Bladeswin 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Although there's nothing saying Wikipedia can't include recipes, there is no reason to have one for such an obscure dish, because there are millions of recipes out there and where do we draw the line. Edrigu 01:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete possible typo of Gil-e-Firdaus, and still unencyclopedic. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: wow, Gil-e-Firdaus wasn't redlinked. figured it would be. It's a duplicate of this article, and up for transwiki to wikibooks, so there's no reason not to delete this one. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT 1.7.8 (Wikipedia is not an instruction manual) Royboycrashfan 02:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a cookbook (or any other subset of instruction manual). OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ohnoitsjamie. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, try Wikibooks cooking instead. --Terence Ong 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 02:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert_Jovicic[edit]

This person has been making the news in Australia for the past few weeks because of a deportation dispute. That hardly makes him worthy of his own article in Wikipedia. A year from now no one will remember him. Edrigu 01:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is an important political issue in Australia. If it truly is forgotten in a year, we can delete it then. --Bduke 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is that accepted practice, to delete an article when the subject is no longer making news? Schizombie 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ideally, an article should not be created in the first place unless there is reason to believe that the news event is significant enough to be notable even in the future when it's no longer a news event. At least that's my understanding of it, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Edrigu 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Of course no-one will remember him if there is no written record. - Borofkin 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable controversy . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bduke. -- Vary | Talk 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bduke. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as of WP:BIO, "People still alive", "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". --Royal Blue 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Royal Blue. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm sure there are some people who would like us to forget about him. Cnwb 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A search of an Australian and New Zealand shows 149 newspaper and magazine articles mentioning this case. There has been a great deal of publicity about this and similar cases placing pressure on the minister Amanda Vanstone and her department. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may be very convienient for one politician if everyone were to forget about him. And, if you delete it, they may just. But Wikipedia is not here to do Amanda Vanstone's dirty work. This is an encyclopedia, not a political organ. Other persons who have been mishandled by politicians in the past have not been forgotten (Sacco and Vanzetti, Willy Horton, Stanley "Tookie" Williams). They are still listed with their own pages, despite the acute embarrassment felt by those who have been embarrassed by them. These articles have historical and social value, and they should not be erased just because someone realised too late that they live in the public eye, and are accountable to the public they serve. Wandering Star 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I fear that the majority of people voting here are Australians, specifically Australians with the same POV about Australian immigration politics, and therefore the vote result will not be an accurate reflection of all of Wikipedia but rather just a certain Australian POV. I would like to see more non-Australians vote, because they can look at it from an unbiased perspective. Edrigu 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I fear that you have mistaken me for an Australian. May I suggest that you look at the user profile, where you will find it plainly stated that I am American. Perhaps you could do the same for the other users as well, and thus become better able to formulate a theory on what the origin of the opinions posted here may be. Perhaps it has nothing at all to do with a national bias. Perhaps you simply hold the minority opinion. Wandering Star 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • My comment wasn't directed at you, but was just a general observation, so I haven't mistaken you for anything. Also, I couldn't check your user profile as you suggest because your username isn't a link. And a brief check through the profiles of other voters confirms that most of them are Australians. In any case, I would still be happier if more non-Australians voted. If most Wikipedians (not just Australians with a specific POV about immigration politics) do think that this article shouldn't be deleted, then that's fine with me. Edrigu 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Comment. I am Australian and I do have a POV about immigration politics, but I keep it out of Wikipedia. Whatever your POV the politics around the subject is important. I agree it is more important in Australia than elsewhere, but so what. There are thousands of articles that are important in the USA but are not really that important elsewhere. I therefore respect the judgement of Australian wikipedians on this article more than I do that of non-Australians. I think they are making a judgement to keep it because it is important. To suggest it arises from their POV is close to insulting. --Bduke 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete notable now (for media, but not for WP), but in a few months (or a month) definitely not notable for media also (references will blow into the wind). We should omit political opinions in WP. I'm not Australian, look what we did in WP (Slovenia - The erased), that's the thema for media and the article in WP will be the target for different opinions day by day. This should also be protected against recreation. --Mane 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scheels All Sports[edit]

non-notable Grocer 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a prominent chain in the Midwest. The store that is being built in Fargo, North Dakota will be the largest sporting goods store in the country when completed. Also, the company is expanding to Sparks, Nevada with an even larger store than the Fargo one coming in a couple of years. --MatthewUND^(talk) 02:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable store chain with over 100 years of history. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Matthew. Royboycrashfan 02:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. PJM 02:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable sports chain. --Terence Ong 10:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a great sports chain based in the Midwest, the company keeps expanding. It could even use more information if anyone has it. If the Midwest convenience store Kum & Go has an article, why can't Scheels? --Leopold Samsonite
• Strong Keep per above. --Krashlandon (e) 21:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A well-established household name in the American midwest. Bjsiders 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. Dwain 21:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Trippe[edit]

a nobody Grocer 02:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no real assertion of notability. Royboycrashfan 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Although I think the nom's assertion that this is "a nobody" is pretty harsh, I grudgingly agree that the subject doesn't seem to meet our biography guidelines at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Although I might be predisposed for this as one of the page's authors, it fulfills the biography guidelines for being published in a book in excess of 5000 copies. ChrisArrant 09:59, 2 March 2006 (CST)

Which book? (I didn't find either on Amazon). 5000 printed or 5000 sold? OhNoitsJamie^Talk 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• technical keep per User:ChrisArrant. If we have issues with the 5000+ distro guideline, we should reconsider it. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Please provide evidence of notability.[11] Then I'll reconsider. -- Krash (Talk) 06:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Adrian Lamo. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Adrian. --Terence Ong 10:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment No claims as to notability in article. Can a notable achievement be added in order to vote keep?  (aeropagitica)  11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, viewed as notable in field. Recent feature interview at Newsarama.com (already linked in article), which might not sound like much, but that site is pretty much the newssite of record in its field, regularly given access by major publishers and for some years sponsored/hosted by Kevin Smith. Monicasdude 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above. If someone can give me a source for the book sales, I'd be more inclined to change my mind. For example, the article mentions "You Ain't No Dancer" published by the New Reliable Press. What it doesn't mention, is that the You Ain't No Dancer, is a collection of a lot of different works, Dean Trippe is just one of the many contributors. I doubt many people bought the book due to Dean Trippe's contribution. The New Reliable website [12] describes it as a collection of stories from established an up and coming (which I'm translating as unknown) artists. I'm putting Dean Trippe into the latter category. - Hahnchen 15:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can someone enlighten me to what the Fluke Anthology is? The only relevent thing I seem to find is a reference to the FLUKE mini-comics festival, a collection of small indie comic book artists? Is this correct? - Hahnchen 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your comment. I believe the relevant part of the guidelines here to be "... or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" -- one writer doesn't prop up a good magazine, but the guidelines recognize their involvement just the same. Since your point isn't otherwise directly addressed in WP:BIO, as WP:BIO apparently didn't anticipate this particular scenario for books, I believe this to be a reasonable reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Personal feelings aside on Dean (i'm familiar with his work and I like it), he's not notable enough.  RasputinAXP  c 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please as lamo says Yuckfoo 00:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hahnchen and RasputinAXP. MCB 02:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable. I think there is some jealousy going on here by User:Grocer! Dwain 21:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This user has been trolling my nominations, because I nominated Sideshow Cinema. --Grocer 18:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - No, this is a user who thinks you have a lousy idea of what is notable and what isn't. Dwain 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hahnchen and RasputinAXP. WP:BIO is a guideline and as such I feel that a technical keep goes against the spirit of it. Regardless, there's still no reliable sources (unless I'm blind) regarding the book sales. I might be inclined to think again if those turn up. Cursive 22:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as above. -R. fiend 22:50, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough for me FloNight 13:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crumber[edit]

By the same people that brought you the Chimney starter and the Beurre mixer here is the Crumber. I just don't believe these common "appliances/tools" deserve their own articles. James084 02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unencyclopedic. Royboycrashfan 02:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the article right now is terrible, but it has some potential. Somewhere. joturner 03:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per joturner. (Shouldn't it be called a de-crumber?) dbtfz^talk 05:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joturner. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joturner. --Terence Ong 10:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep this is important in the restaurant business really erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 00:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've never heard this called a "crumber"; around here it's universally a "crumb rake". I suppose if we keep it I can propose a page move. MCB 02:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Common tool. Just because an article will never be lengthy doesn't mean that it should be a dictionary definition. But I admit that with this article it is hard to tell which it will wind up. Crypticfirefly 06:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Wiktionary then delete. Unencyclopedic dicdef. -ikkyu2 (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep - see below. — sjorford (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 1, 2003, January 2, 2003, et al.[edit]

This information is already covered in January 2003. There are presumably hundreds of other articles that fall under this rationale for deletion since there are many days between 2003 and 2005 that have separate articles. joturner 03:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator. joturner 03:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• When Joturner nominated these articles for deletion, the AfD notice showed up on January 2003. Somehow (I don't know how), these pages are interconnected. If the day articles can be deleted without interfering with the month article, then delete them. Otherwise, keep them. -- Grev 03:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan 03:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Keep per Lightdarkness. Royboycrashfan 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Recently, an admin created all of the individual pages, for upkeep on the page linked to by Grev, there was recently another afd regarding this, and IIRC, it's result was Keep. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Here is a link to the previous discussion regarding February 12, 2003. The closing admin decided no concensus, however the admin who created the pages states that deletion of them would cause errors in the current month pages. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 04:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm closing this as a speedy keep, as there is obviously some confusion about these pages. They are not duplicates of the month pages, they are the month pages. Several months (although not yet all) from the last few years have been split up into separate pages for each day, which are now included as templates on the month pages - see the source code for January 2003 for example. So this is not a deletion issue - possibly there could be a debate about whether the month pages should be constructed in this way, but that's a matter for general discussion on talk pages, not AFD. — sjorford (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I discounted 6 keep votes and 1 delete vote. In the interests of civility, I won't explicitly mention who they are, but they're all fairly new editors whose edits were restricted to their user pages, Thardferr, or AfDs. This leaves 8 deletes and 2 keeps (one of the keep votes being weak). Deathphoenix ʕ 14:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thardferr[edit]

• Keep This wasnt even created a month time (no reason for speedydeletion), if you use Google/Alexia search for MMORPG you will get mainly FFXI, Warcraft,Lineage, Everquest mainly... all pay games with very very high player base due to you pay for it.. a free game which does almost zero advertising will not be able to compete... which is most games btw. As for Non-Notable comments note why its NN at least say why its Non-Notable, aside from the google/alexia all of the article is revelant and much played then some games listing on the Wikipedia MMORPG Category:Massively multiplayer online games and a more constant player base then most games.. dont know about the player ammount.. but im shure you guys are wrong, its more then 1000-2000 players (cant check due to round restart) Eijun

• Delete Fancruft. Non-notable. Misunderestimated 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The Alexa rank is 802,300, and it has 173 unique Google hits. Very poor indeed for an online web-based game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Royboycrashfan 03:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 09:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete due to Alexa and Google stats.  (aeropagitica)  11:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-03 13:41Z
• Keep A 3 month long game of Thardferr attracts over 1000 active players--which is larger than the active players of some corporate games that are listed in Wikipedia. It is a non-profit game and has been around for years. It obviously has its own well-established community. Wikipedia readers would benefit from the ability to know about the possibility for a non-profit game such as this to succeed. It is not nationally famous, but as the Vanity Page says, "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia." However I would also say that Thardferr is part of a larger subculture of online fantasy gaming in the D&D tradition. Perhaps a larger article dealing with this gaming subculture would be more appropriate. Mango Smoothy 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• There seems to be precedence for pages like this in Category:Massively multiplayer online games. Perhaps there needs to be a general summary page on non-profit MMOGs? Weak keep — RJH 18:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A major reason this game currently is not as popular as many other famous MMORPG's is simply because unlike other games it does not Advertise in any way. The only way new players come to this game is by random chance or word of mouth by other users. That stated, the fact that between 1 and 2 thousand players from all over the globe (USA, Canada, Mexico, England, Turkey,Pakistan, Netherlands, India, Portugal, Philippines, and i am sure countless more) come to this game based on word of mouth advertising is quite impressive. Not only that but it continues to draw back the players round after round, as some people who originally found it when it started in 1999 are still among the current players base. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jrb225 (talk • contribs) . Only edits are here and Thardferr Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same as above. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.123.54.217 (talk • contribs) . 4 edits, one here, two at Thardferr Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated above games with a more narrow player base are sustained, and simply because the game does not advertise it comes up with fewer hits. While using a wiki for this information is perhaps not the most preferable way, displaying it as such should not be something that is any less worth of display than something else. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand the possible topics people can search for, then by keeping it it has just done so by one more topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.217.250.109 (talk • contribs) . 2 edits, one here, one at Thardferr Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. MCB 02:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Same as above. Andymc 18:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Added unsigned templates here as I was bored and to help closing admin. Cursive 22:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]