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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any record of a "Hugclub" real estate group anywhere Metros232 00:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, blatant advertisment. Hugclub gets 806 hits, two deleted hits for the president's name. Utterly fails WP:CORP. -- ReyBrujo 00:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete advertisment and non notable. IrishGuy 00:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as vanity —Mets501^talk 01:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete When it comes down to it, it's spam. KP 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 04:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advertisment and non notable. --Bet 0 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. ProhibitOnions 11:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, ad. --Terence Ong 13:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising --Matterbug 14:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's eaither spam, a joke, or NN. --Bachrach44 15:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete randomcrapcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete garbage Newyorktimescrossword 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising, does not meet WP:CORP. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 15:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 per A7 Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was prodded by Anon 66.167.136.142 with the comment "His notability is unclear." - which isn't the same as "non notable", and google suggests that he may be borderline enough for those in the know to suggest saving. I'm moving it here with no vote. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete A7. Whether he's notable may be questionable. However, clearly the article does not assert any notability. I'm unable to google anything that really seems to point to the right person. Fan1967 01:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No To Speedy Delete, A Qualified Yes to Delete If the author can be contacted to ask about what makes Norman Shapiro notable, he ought to be. At the least, the "considered for deletion" should be there long enough that if someone knows what makes him notable he has time to explain. If we still don't know a week from now anything notable about him, then...yes, delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K13060 (talk • contribs) .
• Speedy delete, no prejudice towards recreation. Currently asserts no notability, so it can be speedied, but if he really is notable, a new article can be created. --Rory096 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — It looks like there is more than one Norman Shapiro of note, so there is some ambiguity here. I favor converting this into a disambiguation page. — RJH 03:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Ezeu 19:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested a merge to Hopes and Fears for this, but I really think it should just be deleted, merging it will add little to nothing to the main article Metros232 00:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per WP:MUSIC/SONG —Mets501^talk 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Mets501. DarthVader 07:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Terence Ong 08:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge as above. No need for separate article as it presently is. ProhibitOnions 11:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough to warrant its own page. --Matterbug 14:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete forkcruft M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I do not see any point in deleting it. Merge it with a page about Keane or something. [[User:Fiwtart|Fiwtart)) 14:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete trash it. Newyorktimescrossword 01:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect to Keane, much as I've done to the rest of the stuff. Redirects are cheap.  RasputinAXP  c 14:29, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was prodded but im contesting it. if its a real place theyre normally kept. needs cleaning up not deleting. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep no messier than a lot of other Indian village stubs. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Agree with User:BL Lacertae It is probably as notable as Ridgecrest, Florida or some other census-designated place in the US, for instance. User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. I have cleaned up and referenced using what sources were available which wasn't a lot. Hopefully, a user more knowledgeable than I am about India will expand this in the fullness of time. I have removed sentences using Hindi phrases as I didn't understand what they meant. Capitalistroadster 01:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand —Mets501^talk 02:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For future reference, if an article needs cleanup instead of deletion, tags like ((unreferenced)) or ((expansion)) are useful. Ziggurat 03:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • normaly id have done that but i was disputing a Prod so had to bring it here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 09:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's a real village. JIP | Talk 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please keep, Wikipedia still at its early stage, i am sure many articles will soon get developed and expanded. Indrajitneogi 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a real place is notable enough and encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 08:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's got a good list of schools, which indicates a reasonable sized population. Tyrenius 09:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - real place, and we have articles on real places of all sizes. Metamagician3000 11:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While it needs to be expanded, there is no need for it to be deleted. --Matterbug 14:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak delete. Sorry to break up the unanimous consensus here, but I can't find proof that this place exists. Google yields 5 hits, of which most are referring to a road, not a town. It is interesting to note that Pattukottai mentioned Vendakottai as one of it's suburbs until May 4 when someone removed it. I think that someone more knowledgeable in Indian geography than me is needed, but I'm leaning to possibly being either NN or hoax from the google test. --Bachrach44 15:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete bachrach. 01:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 06:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prodded but i think a redirect may be better. it may even be able to get enough for its own article? BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is definitely a term which has has entered our culture and consciousness and become more than just a Shakespearean character name. I get 93,800 Google hits. Could be expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'd be tempted to say that just about any figure from MacBeth would be notable. --Allen 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was going to say use as a redirect, but I think there's enough material out there to expand the stub. Tyrenius 09:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand, notable term. --Terence Ong 12:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep expand tho. Newyorktimescrossword 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 redirect doesn't really help since 'What links here' is rather empty. Mailer Diablo 06:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strange fork of newspeak; should probably be a redir to english as nobody will ever search for this anyway M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Suggest merge to Newspeak Metros232 00:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Newspeak sounds good. I had forgotten the term, if I ever new it.User:Mikereichold | User_talk:Mikereichold 01:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yeah, it took me a minute or two to realize that it was referring to Nineteen Eighty-Four Metros232 01:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Newspeak ha! the word does exist somewhere on the internet! Whether you know it or not, check out the new updated site for Oldspeak! --Lord X 20:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]
  • Comment huh? you hath confuseth me. What exists on the internet? and Oldspeak is still a redir to newspeak. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant the Oldspeak article called Oldspeak (Traditional English)--Lord X 00:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)User:Xinyu[reply]

• Delete pure Original Research, useless as a redirect. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this article belongs on Uncyclopedia. -- Tangotango 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The article actually criticises wikipedia for not allowing original thought.. clearly encyclopedias are not meant to provide original thought but rather facts.. -- javsav
• Delete per CrazyRussian. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CrazyRussian. ProhibitOnions 11:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NOR. --Terence Ong 13:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I haven't read Nineteen Eighty-Four in a few years, so I don't remember for sure whether this term was in there. I don't believe it was. If not, a redirect is not appropriate. Delete unless it happens that the word does appear in the original work. Joyous | Talk 13:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Crzrussian.--blue520 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not sure Oldspeak is even in 1984. It seems more like something the writer made up on their own? --Matterbug 14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not merge due to original research and duplication. Oldspeak is in 1984, and the article Oldspeak is a redirect to Newspeak, which already includes all of the useful information from this article. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whiteblack. NatusRoma | Talk 18:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete toss it Newyorktimescrossword 01:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another prod candidate (by User:Howdybob) - also marked as a merge candidate, but it's a real place and could be expanded quite reasonably IMO. keep Grutness...wha? 00:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a stub for future expansion. Zaxem 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. The original reason for pording was given as "article isn't substantial". Well, mark it as a stub and use the ((expand)) template if you feel necesarry. All articles started out as small once. --Bachrach44 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above. I've seen many articles on towns smaller than this - the article could be expanded, obviously. Kuru ^talk 04:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I've expanded a bit. Interesting little place, it's seen sex, war and cosmic events. And it has a school! Dlyons493 Talk 11:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep expansion was good but needs more. Newyorktimescrossword 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like advertising; no assertion of notability for the product. ➨ ≡ЯΞDVΞRS≡ 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to create a link from RED Digital Camera Company to Kinetta Camera filed under competition rather than just give an external link. How do I flag a page as a stub? User:Xyke

• Weak Delete. Google for Kinetta gives around 67,000 hits. Google for Kinetta camera around 24,700. Google for Kinetta camera -forum gives 762 hits only. I tend to agree that it is a kind of advertisment. -- ReyBrujo 05:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, camera prototype is well known in the indy movies scene. Peter S. 14:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup Has potential, could become very important in the future. —Mets501^talk 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. Newyorktimescrossword 01:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a vanity page or a promo page for a for-profit company. There is only one edit of this page, by User:Darciro whose user page also reads like marketing copy. Also, there are no pages that link to this. Clubmarx | Talk 01:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - article creator's User page was created as an article, Browster (now on AfD). —ERcheck @ 10:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Commercial promo/advertising. —ERcheck @ 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable/advertising. Zaxem 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete as spam. TheProject 05:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or charge them ad rates for keeping it. Tyrenius 09:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, vanity. --Terence Ong 13:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per tyrenius M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PROD disputed by article author. Appears to be non-notable and unencyclopedic. Alexa rank of over one million. Delete. kingboyk 01:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom —Mets501^talk 02:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 02:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam --Bachrach44 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 04:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article does not provide proof that it meets one of the WP:WEB criteria. - Politepunk 10:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- if the website itself isn't notable enough to have an article, its mascot certainly isn't notable enough to have an article. TheProject 21:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 01:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Mailer Diablo 06:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neologism that is intended to be a sort of inverse of the concept of blackwhite as expressed in George Orwell's 1984. The creator removed the ((prod)) tag, so I am nominating it here. NatusRoma | Talk 01:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For similar reasons, I have also nominated feelthink for deletion. NatusRoma | Talk 02:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like the author is trying to use these articles to create and promote new words. Wikipedia should be about giving information on things that are already notable, and should not be used to try and create notability. Zaxem 02:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blatant example of neologisms made up in school one day. --Nydas 08:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOR. Clever though. Tyrenius 09:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom and previous comments - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. - Politepunk 10:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both interesting but WP:NOR & WP:V. --blue520 14:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism, doesn't appear in book. User:Xinyu has been all over Wikipedia creating his own POV Newspeak words. Should probably bundle with Oldspeak (Traditional English), but it's already AfD. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete look up. Newyorktimescrossword 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; plausible claims made that this is a legitimate genre of music that gets over the notability threshhold. This does not prejudice any future merges. Metamagician3000 09:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly an advertisement for a tiny record label, vanity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Superbeatles (talk • contribs) .

• Delete as per my nom Superbeatles 18:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Digital Hardcore Recordings. Wickethewok 00:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Digital Hardcore Recordings Darquis 01:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Article is not about the record label. It's about the genre, though there's a one-line reference to the label. Fan1967 01:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hm. Yeah, I see that now. In that case, is this a notable sub-genre? Darquis 01:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the question. Based on an edit on the article, nominator doesn't think so. I'm not much on music since Clapton passed 50, so I have no idea. Fan1967 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the article has 9 external links to, supposedly, 9 record labels that work with this genre, which weakens my original merging opinion. -- ReyBrujo 04:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Leave it up!! I just used this page for research. It's a genre, (although an obscure one), not an ad for Alec Empire's record label. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.32.47.80 (talk • contribs) .

• Keep Perfectly valid. Tyrenius 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-known and well-documented genre. Jdcooper 10:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Digital Hardcore Recordings - the genre took its name from the label rather than vice versa. If any of the other labels in the links section are notable enough to have their own article, I could sway to a keep.Ac@osr 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. Newyorktimescrossword 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Digital hardcore is a notable subgenre, and it is ridiculous to suggest that this is an advert. Dwdmang 16:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not an advert. The DHR label did originally influence the name of the genre, but the genre includes more than just DHR's output nowadays. Davelong 16:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per my nom, long ago. Superbeatles 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. BD2412 T 03:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

no chance in hell of this being reality, POV fork, delete as WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:BEANS, and finally WP:NOR violations--Ham and jelly butter 02:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Admins? does anybody around here know how to spot an ad hominem? Really, one should think that a VFD started via an ad hominem should be closed on the grounds of that reason alone. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I second User:Prometheuspan. The drivers of the nom for deletion have demonstrated NPOV support for Bush as their motivation, indistinguishable from pulling a Coleman - anyone check for an IP matching whitehouse.gov? I'd dismiss the idea out of hand, if several Republicans hadn't already done it. - Reaverdrop 00:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as wishful thinking. Bucketsofg✐ 02:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentAnother ad hominem, however, since it didn't start the vfd, it shouldn't be grounds to close the vfd. This is not wishful thinking, you haven't read the article or you are not paying attention to reality. By the way, 3 different states put forth an effort to impeach. Wishful thinking is actually you, wishfully thinking that this is wishful thinking. Its not. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How on earth do Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Don't stuff beans up your nose apply to whether this article should be in Wikipedia or not? NatusRoma | Talk 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Survived AfD before. Where else on Wikipedia do we report on impeachment movement activities? That some people are trying to censor this information from being on Wikipedia through the AfD process is sad. --Stbalbach 02:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not sure we can really say, in encyclopaedic terms, that there is a properly-formed "movement" for this. Zaxem 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take the time to read the first sentence of the article. It says "for the purposes of this article". Please continue reading the article. A lot (a LOT) of time and effort has been put into this article by many many people to conform to Wikipedia standards. -- Stbalbach 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If an encyclopedia is going to report on a "movement", it should be a proper movement, not one that requires a "for the purposes of this article..." clarification. Otherwise any disparate belief held a by a few random people can be called a "movement". Zaxem 03:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment However, any of those alleged movements would lack millions of participants as compared to this movement, so your logic is rendered invalid. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • What do you mean "held a by a few random people". Polls have shown that a large portion of the U.S. population supports impeachment. Falphin 03:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • But does that mean they're involved in a "movement"? Zaxem 03:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Look here. Falphin 03:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There a few separate movements noted here. But the title of this article implies that there's one, reasonably unified movement. Which (depite the opening paragraph blurb about "for the purposes of this article...") gives a false impression that I don't think a good encyclopedia should be giving. Maybe the different individuals and groups will become more unified at some point, and at that point an article with this title would be fair. But right now this article, through its title, gives an impression which does not reflect reality. In my view, it's wrong for an encyclopedia to do that. Perhaps my objection is only with the title rather than the info outlined in the article. But I still think that's a reasonable objection for me to raise. Zaxem 03:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • There are extensive discussions in the archives about the article title and attempts to rename it. Article titles are place-holders, matters of convenience. They do not specify that something "exists". For example you will find encyclopedia articles called medieval science in many encyclopedias, but science did not even exist until the modern era - but we call it that because people know what it means (it was actually called "natural philosophy"). The text of the article is what is most important. Many professional encyclopedias use the phrase "for the purposes of this article" in the first paragraph, commonly done, it is a useful tool. The article really goes out of its way to define exactly what is meant and makes no claim what so ever of a "unified" movement. -- Stbalbach 04:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Nevertheless this article's title gives a false impression about something very current. I still think that's wrong for an encyclopedia of the quality that Wikipedia aspires to be. Zaxem 04:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes it's a reasonable objection that the title should perhaps be "Movements to impeach..." or something else. Not really a good reason to delete. Rich Farmbrough 13:26 7 May 2006 (UTC).
• Super-strong Keep. Just because there's no chance in hell of it happening doesn't mean the movement ain't present. And reading through this article, it's pretty plain that it IS NPOV, quite civil, has no personal attacks, no beans, and no original research. -- Grev 02:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-strong Keep There very much is a movement, I believe there was in fact a few towns somewhere in the general New England area that petitioned their senators and congressman to push for the impeachment of bush. Multiple organizations support this. Falphin 02:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be speedy kept. I know some articles go through multiple vfd's, but the last one was a long debate which was overwhelmingly keep with only a few deletes and a couple merges I believe. Falphin 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First AfD Nomination discussion and results.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs)
  • that was a long time ago and it looks like it was kept on basis of being cleaned up for POV and soapboxing, from the looks of it, no such cleanup ever took place--Ham and jelly butter 03:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every POV argument that comes up gets addressed and resolved by people who work hard to make it a NPOV article. Just look at the talk page and edit history. This AfD is bogus, you have provided no specifics. -- Stbalbach 03:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Über-strong Keep This article has already survived VfD. Articles cannot violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA. (Nor do they personally attack Bush in an uncivil manner, but instead cite people and articles who dispute his policies' legality.) WP:BEANS is just an essay, not a guideline nor policy. Furthermore, WP:BEANS only advises us, in a somewhat humorous way, not to do give ideas out on how to disrupt Wikipedia. (I guess, though, we are giving ideas on how to disrupt the govt of the US, but that's not the issue here.) "No chance in hell of this being reality" is wrong. Perhaps you are disputing the chances of impeachment, but that is not what this article is about. This article is about people who called for Bush to be impeached. There are some people calling for impeachment, thus the reality of the movement's existence is at 100%. If the article were titled "Impeachment of Bush", then you would have a point. Now to attack the contentions of WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. A read of the article reveals many sources, from which information has been taken and collected in this article. There are some 65 external links in the article text. Clearly, original research just isn't here. There are no personal interviews, personal polls conducted, nor uncited lawyerly thinkings. As for WP:NPOV, this article is as detached from the issue and neutral as I have seen. I believe it provides a third party accounting of the issue at hand. The article has not made assertions that were found elsewhere from reliable sources, but instead simply reports on what other people say. The only possible problem that I see, would be the lack of discussion about the people who are against this movement, however, as some have pointed on the article's Talk page, it is nonexistent, and the article does mention a little bit about a possible response from the Administration. (Sorry for the mini-essay) Copysan 02:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — AfD extensively discussed already. — RJH 03:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I'm not usually the sort to automatically adopt the conclusions of previous AfDs, but this was discussed extensively very recently. Reyk _YO! 03:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grev. -Objectivist-C 04:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:NOR. Morton devonshire 04:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How, specifically? -Objectivist-C 05:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This "movement" does not yet exist. The current wording the page reads more like an attempt to stir up a movement than an honest attempt to report about one. Rossami (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This movement DOES exist. And this article IS an honest atttempt to report about it.

Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Read the first sentence of the article. Also, provide specific examples of where it tries to incite a movement. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did read the attempted disclaimer. I find it non-credible. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The nominator has been spamming the AfD on talk pages (only on one so far, my mistake). He was also blocked for putting up the George Bush article for AfD. -Objectivist-C 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grev, but this article should be cut down. In particular, many of the individuals and groups listed under "Endorsements of impeachment" could just be named with citations provided, rather than devoting a separate paragraph to the fact that each supports impeachment and the reasons cited by each. --Metropolitan90 05:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. When the "Rationales for impeachment ..." came up on AfD last week, the Deleters claimed that it was unnecessary because this article existed. Fair enough; now this one's up for AfD? Sorry, but AfD shouldn't be a stalking horse for blatant partisan nonsense -- although a glance at the nom's user page is illuminating -- nor for people who have a hard time wrapping their heads around the difference between an article which is written in violation of NPOV and one reporting the publicized viewpoints of others. That WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA have been inexplicably cited leads me (for the very first time) to question the good faith of an AfD nomination. RGTraynor 05:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep per Grev and Copysan, fixable problems with NPOV and NOR are not grounds for deletion, and I dont see any strong NPOV/NOR issues here anyways. However, it may be irredeemably NPOV to call it a "movement" so only weak, rather than full keep. (Also, I'd like to strongly echo Copysan's point that the idea that an article can violate WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, or WP:BEANS(which is a frackin' essay) is simply ridiculous. JoshuaZ 05:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Smerus 08:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Copysan. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 09:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but move to Moves to impeach George W. Bush. Tyrenius 09:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the mere fact that there appears to be a concerted effort (three AfD's on the Rationales in one month, and now here) to cleans Wikipedia of even the suggestion there are people interested in impeachment, and what they think constitutes an impeachable offense, is disconcerting. Claiming wikipedia policy, so frequently and on such a massive scale, for what evidently is not grounds for any AfD, shows the lack of understanding of current policy, or it might indicate abusing the AfD-proces as form of censorship. Nomen Nescio 10:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I agree nescio, this is just gaming the system to censor. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge to the ever-changing other article. The "movement" is defined by the article, and OR. We don't need multiple articles about this subject under hair-splittingly different titles. ProhibitOnions 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Just because (you think) there is "no chance in hell of this being reality" does not mean this article should be deleted; I think there is "no chance in hell of" Ragnarök being reality but that doesn't mean we should delete the article. As for your other reasons for deletion could you explain why you think this article violates the NPOV or any of the other charges? Again, just saying it does doesn't make it so. I could say the Groucho Marx article violated WP:CIVIL but without any explanation or rationale as to why I thought that, then there would still be no grounds for deletion. --Stenun 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. That article presents the efforts of politicians, members of the US Congress or of state legislatures and other people to obtain an impeachment of George W. Bush. These efforts are facts and not just words and are verifiable. So there is no bases for deletion of the article. But, calling these separate efforts a "movement" implies that they are concerted, and that is NOT a fact. Maybe the previous editors of the article can rewrite it, erasing any references to a "movement" if they can't provide verifiable source of its existence. --Sam67fr 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. No valid reasons given for deletion, anyone thinking this is not a notable issue should consider the image at the top of the article. This AfD can only cause further problems and will not resolve any issues. Please vote Speedy rather than Strong keep. EricR 13:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • please ignore this comment, it has no grounding in wiki policies--Ham and jelly butter 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, more than reasonable in theory even if it has a small chance in hell of happening in reality. Also, WP:BEANS isn't policy, so does that mean we can ignore your comment? --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 13:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • no--Ham and jelly butter 13:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "KEEP PLEASE" My son is studying about the US Constitution in school and has gotten very interested in the impeachment process so this site has been very useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.136.237.92 (talk • contribs)
  • then your son should try reading the actual constituion, not some wiki article pretnding that a state can magically impeach the president--Ham and jelly butter 13:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, why are you rude? Let's not forget civility, even if an anon user appears magically in this AfD. And you're right, a state can't impeach POTUS. But a State legislature can advise the House of information which can lead to an impeachment procedure. That's what Impeachment in the United States says... Or is this article wrong? --Sam67fr 13:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment no, and in fact, wikinews has an article up now about how in fact, the states have just forced the conversation of impeachment. What we run into here are republican psychological warfare

talking points, not fact or truth. The idea here is to make us believe that impeachment isn't possible. Prometheuspan 00:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve, documents a real and notable phenomenon. Rich Farmbrough 13:32 7 May 2006 (UTC).
• Keep. The article, in my opinion, has accuracy and obvious non-NPOV problems, but it's a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Deli nk 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep (was strong keep, but looking at the "reasons", none are actual policy reasons for deletion; at most for article improvement). This nomination is solely to "punish" keep voters in the child article that has a somewhat more POV-prone title (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (3rd nomination), if you'd like to opine there). Utterly bad faith AfD. LotLE×talk 14:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable movement. --Eivind^t@c 14:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I dislike him as much as the next guy, but until articles of impeachment are being considered by a House committee, this "movement" is non-notable Sumergocognito 15:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently bills in the Illinois, California and Vermont State Legislatures, and at least the Illinois bill has 25 co-sponsors. I think that makes it a notable movement. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 15:32 UTC
    • I saw that in the article, but since U.S. state legislatures have no role in the impeachment process I didn't think them particularly significant. In my above comment, I was referring to the United States House of Representatives. Sumergocognito 16:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As was discovered by Illinois State Rep. Karen Yarbrough, there is a (never-used) clause allowing state legislatures to call on the House to begin impeachment proceedings. —Cuiviénen (talk•contribs), Sunday, 7 May 2006 @ 21:03 UTC
• Merge. It shouldn't be ignored, but it's not worth much more than a stub on another page unless legitimate organization occurs. possible mergers with either george W. or the presidency of george W. --preschooler@heart my talk - contribs 16:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As long as it is NPOV keep it.Bill shannon 16:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe it needs cleanup, but there is a "movement" of sorts and deserves documentation.--MONGO 17:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is certainly an issue being discussed in grassroots circles, and might become an issue nationally if the Democrats win a house in congress this fall. --Tjss 17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and this is even though I'm voting delete on "Rationales". There clearly is a notable movement. I'd like to assume good faith, but this looks a lot like a POV nomination. Tsk, tsk. AnonEMouse 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I did not read through the entire article, but I have found that a lot of articles that I need information on have been deleted, and I believe they probably would have had the information I needed. This may come in use to someone and so I believe it should be kept but fixed up.

Fiwtart 13:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per AnonEMouse and LotXE. Amcfreely 18:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nominator has also listed for AfD Bush family conspiracy theory, List of Republican sex scandals , etc. Amcfreely 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Bletch 18:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Is this a joke? This article has survived AfD before and the timing, with the Rationales controversy, is highly suspect. Notable political discussion. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 19:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep This article has already survived AfD. A host of notable people have whined and complained about impeachment. I would prefer a more NPOV name for the article. --RWR8189 21:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete or Rename since article title is POV. Should be called more nuetral 'Arguments for the Impeachment...' since title implies more organization between individuals than proven --MarsRover 21:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You are totally missing the point in such a silly way i am inclined to ask you if you actually read the article? There is a movement to impeach. Collusion between literally millions of people. Those collusions are admitedly weak, but this only strengthens the overall movement. There are literally hundreds of specific efforts any one of which is indvidually trying to to obtain impeachment. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without considering current content, which may well be biased, the topic is realistic, and verifiable, as Democratic congressional candidates have chosen to highlight this possibility in Campaign '06. Certainly, a stub could exist here, or -- at worst -- a merge to George W. Bush is reasonable. Xoloz 21:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable movement, possibly a 2006 campaign issue, and has survived AfD before. BryanG 23:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete overbloated, cruft-filled POV fork of Bush. I hate Bush just as much as the next Democrat, but this is really unencyclopedic. Just add a note in Bush's main article until this becomes reality. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This IS a reality. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely INCREDIBLY strong keep I'm fed up to the eye teeth of the "Well we didnt get it through AfD last week we'll try again this week....and next.....and the next after that" mentality that appears to be pervading Wiki at the moment. Jcuk 22:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - article is not POV it is an article about a "movement" (you try and find a better term) that has a POV. It is well written, well referenced and definitely worthy of an article. How many times does it need to be nominated? - Glen ^T_C (Stollery) 01:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but a move to "Movements ..." would be fine. This article appears to have enough good editors keeping it well-documented. When I looked at it Sunday night, I saw very little that was even close to crossing WP:NPOV or WP:NOR policies. Topic and content are clearly encyclopedic, though I wish consensus could be reached for any better title and first paragraph. Survived past AfD and deserves to be kept this time. Appears as if partisans would like to simply purge all undesired articles. Barno 01:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Real and significant topic in American politics. Several books published on this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep as bad faith nomination. Don't violate WP:POINT. - Corbin ∫ 1 ɱ p s ɔ ♫ ^{Rock on, dude!} 12:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and NPOV Check I don't like this article but however this one is encyclopedic. I voted delete on the other because of it soapboxing and similar nature to this article. This one could stand a NPOV once over just to be safe, so all concerns can be laid to rest. Aeon 12:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not an encyclopedic topic.--Tbeatty 15:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Bad-faith nomination. — goethean ॐ 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with morton.--Capsela 18:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename is probably in order. --Mmx1 18:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-strong Keep - the info speaks for itself; a censure resolution has been introduced in the senate and the republican chair of the senate judiciary committee has dropped the "I" word. Deleting this would be a whopping pro-Bush NPOV violation. - Reaverdrop 20:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Odd that both this article and Rationales provided by advocates of the impeachment of George W. Bush have been nominated for deletion at the same time... -- Mr. Tibbs 21:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This articles has facts; I actually didn't know about it much. A great amount of research seems to have been done to create it. Patchouli 23:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep So, the con serving game playing process manipulating denizens have yet again decided to list an article for deletion based really only on their own pov pushing. This article is factual, it covers a noteworthy topic, millions of people are part of this movement, and no WP rules are factually violated. Prometheuspan 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment this movement does exist in that millions of people are involved in a movement to impeach. Further, 3 states have now forced the issue to be discussed at least by our representatives. So it is factual, it is currrent, and thats that. Prometheuspan 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Super-Strong Nuclear Keep. I voted to delete Rationales to impeach, but this is an outrageous bad-faith nomination. The article is full of well-sourced statements by non-fringe politicians and opinion-makers either supporting impeachment outright or advocating investigations to determine if grounds for impeachment exist. If we're deleting articles now because they make Republican presidents look bad, we'd better go after the Watergate scandal article next. —phh (^t/_c) 00:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - And don't they wish, too. Par for the course from a bunch who cheered when a president was impeached for not a shred more than cheating on his wife and lying about it. RGTraynor 01:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unsupported attacks on the good faith of other participants in the discussion are not particularly helpful. Please try to assume good faith. Rossami (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only thing "unsupported" in this discussion are the grounds upon which the article was nominated in the first place. RGTraynor 14:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Justforasecond 04:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article as it stands is POV and oversells the evidence it has, but those problems are fixable. The info is certainly encyclopedic. TheronJ 13:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• transwiki to wikinews. Seems to be a topic that is changing rather frequently. Seems more appropriate there.... Roodog2k 14:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename is probably in order. — CJewell (talk to me) 16:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Change the words to improve on NPOV (when saying movement you object to opinion). How about "Calls For Impeachment for George W. Bush"? LILVOKA. 17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If people have NPOV problems with this, then they should work on it step-by-step rather than trying to delete it. Boud 00:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Definitely. There are articles from sources like Harper's Magazine & Salon.com, and a set of researched & vetted articles of impeachment published by the Center for Constitutional Rights. The movement exists, demonstrably. The article could use NPOV polishing & some trimming, to be sure, but this public issue is as real as other movements Wikipedia includes. This article is an example of what Wikipedia can do that Brittanica can't: provide information about a wide range of topics within public life without waiting for them to become extinct before studied. --Ssbohio 01:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More rounded evidence could be provided, but other than that, a very thorough collection of information pertaining to this topic found nowhere else in one place.--Zacharias 02:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Kevin Baas^talk 12:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've read most of the current article and see a neutral reporting of why some people think the President should be impeached. I think this conflict is good for ensuring the thoroughness and accuracy of the article, but the efforts of contributors and editors should not be wasted by deletion. This article is becoming quite comprehensive and has several pages of citations for it to just be a soapbox for the mythological liberal bias. If certain contributors want to impose a FNC style fair and balanced approach, then perhaps they should create an article on the reasons not to impeach Bush. Cfpresley 12:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. –Shoaler (talk) 13:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As long as the language remains NPOV, I have no problem with this article being here (that being said, there are portions, at first blush, that come close to violating that, but those can be rectified through more thorough editing). --Mhking 15:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Clean Up - I agree with Nescio (gasp!) in that this looks like an abuse of the AfD system. I do have problems with this article but they are problems that can be remedied through constructive editing by level-headed editors from both points of view (ideally, from editors neutral on the topic). I've always had a vague discomfort with the title (mostly with the connotations of "movement") as well as the fact that all the examples given are far-left objections. The article should also mention that at 31% approval rating, there are some Conservatives that are calling for investigations on issues like failing to secure the borders, uncontrolled spending, etc. There are a few noteworthy people calling for impeachment and a few in Congress that are willing to listen...and if the Dems win a majority in November, hearings could become a reality. I think it's worthy of an article here, but as presently written, needs to be cleaned up, NPOV-ized, and de-soapboxed.--WilliamThweatt 16:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - POV article about a non-notable movement making this unencyclopaedic. Once there are articles of impeachment being considered in the HoR then recreate. Right now, this is just political talk by opponents. And in case it will be asked of me, I came to vote the way I did after reading the first sentence and lead paragraphs where the article disqualifies itself.--Kalsermar 18:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per obvious majority to prevent Rationales for not voting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 from being recreated. Keeping one and prohibiting the other is blatant POV. 1652186 19:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment sockpuppet *cough* *cough* Rex, *cough* *cough* it's one thing to flaunt the fact that you're unblockable, but it's another entirely to use said socks to vote multiple times in one AFD--172.156.202.208 23:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Here too? Same outrageous accusation, same answer: I've been a user for over six months, I have almost 400 edits, most of them in the last month, and all of a sudden you accuse me of being someone else? Nice thing for a person without a name, talk page or history. If I ever find out who you are, I'm going to use all of Wikipedia's measures against you for spreading false accusations.1652186 18:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You make a good point, I mean supposing for a second that someone were among the privileged few with checkuser ability, and at the same time, suppose that person had the ability to browse wikipedia logged out in complete anonymity, such a person, could checkuser whoever the hell they wanted to, then log out and point fingers at the guilty party, without having to get invloved in the whole probable cause business. You're absolutely right, doing such a thing would be unforgivable, and certianly worthy of having "all of Wikipedia's measures" used against them, good thing that's all hypothetical--172.165.245.94 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unlike the "rationales" blah blah blah, this is a possible NPOV article, and it could be a very informative one too. Ashibaka tock 22:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WilliamThweatt, some votes seem to be on the current state of the article, not its possible encyclopedic value. Ansell 22:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup, useful article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! With all of the spiteful acts Bush has done as president, it isn't a hot debate but nontheless notable. It also is quite a controversial debate over his liklihood of being impeached. I am determined to make this second nomination the last. --NicAgent 01:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as nominator has been banned. --Sneftel 02:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe this article is important to keep. Fighting a costly war in Iraq under false grounds should be reason enough, and it's only the tip of the iceberg! --Jaycorrales 06:48, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep There are many articles concerning various different "movements", why are they not up for deletion? I think that some people are trying to put forth their own POV by deleting this article. VinnyCee 10:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This movement is notable enough that Kent Kanoy ran for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives in my district’s Democratic primary. However, he lost. Jesse Viviano 13:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see this article as being viable and worth reading. I do NOT agree with deleting it.

• - Phoenix7477

• Reality can not be deleted. There is a movement in this country to impeach a president that has deeply divided the nation at this point in time. To "Delete" does not make it not happening and not current news. It only means that less people will be informed. If there are no factual errors opinions should be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mad Independant (talk • contribs)
• Keep. This is a real movement, whether or not in the end it is successful. I came to this article specifically to find out what efforts had been done to impeach the president, and the article informed me. To delete it would be irresponsible. Safay 00:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bad Faith nomination by a (now) indefinitely blocked user, also tried to AfD the George W. Bush article. 84.145.241.165 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As this movement, has clear basis (see Illinois State Senate Article)Cpeter9 May 11 9:34 CST

• Keep. Wow, a president can be impeached on the spot for fellatio, yet an internet article is likely to be censored for PROVIDING INFORMATION about a movement to impeach a tyrannous terrorist, what a GREAT country you live in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.234.49.207 (talk • contribs) .
• Keep, but I think the article should be moved, 'movement' in the article title seems to be on the edge of POV. —Jnk^[talk] 03:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as recreation of material previously deleted per AFD. --Ezeu 20:05, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1st AFD

Fancruft and unencyclopedic. Has already been speedied before. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Ajith--blue520 15:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is if verification can be provided for this "nickname", if none can be found then Delete.--blue520 15:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as repost of previously deleted material M1ss1ontomars2k4 15:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 clear consensus to delete. Merged as suggested.--Ezeu 20:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article is an exact duplicate of the pakhtunkhwa thread..and adds little to the debate.. --Zak 13:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've comibined these two nominations as User:Zakksez didn't create a discussion page for Nuristan (Pakistan), but it looks like he had the same rationale in mind. Abasin, Nuristan (Pakistan), and Pakhtunkhwa are duplicate articles. They need to be cleaned up, but I don't have a clue which should be the proper title. -- JLaTondre 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If all three are, according to the articles themselves, alternative proposed names for North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan, shouldn't they all three be merged and redirected into that article? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 01:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge either into the article about the NWFP, or into an article about the proposed fate of the NWFP (including possible names). —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 17:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are already far too many redirects to the NWFP. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probable hoax. Non-notable at a minimum. No google results except Wikipedia. Had been prod'd. -- JLaTondre 02:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Even if it's true (which is doubtful), it's not of encyclopaedic notability. Zaxem 02:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- very dubious. I doubt it would be worth an article even if it could be verified. Reyk _YO! 03:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because it can't be verified. Otherwise I would say weak keep. Tyrenius 10:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unverifiable, and sounds suspiciously like something made up in school. - Fan1967 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if it could be verified, it really is made up in school. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete garbage. Newyorktimescrossword 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "At the current time there are three known wikikiosks in operation." Says it all.--Nydas 11:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate wasSpeedy deleted as band with no assertion of notability. Capitalistroadster 06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct Band, very little information. Nothing notable. Sirveaux 02:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A few Google hits [1], but nothing suggests it was a particularly notable band. Zaxem 03:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and tagged per A7 (band) with no assertion of notability whatsoever. TheProject 04:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:55, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online football site founded in 2004. Alexa rank of 87,374. No evidence of meeting WP:WEB. No independent/reliable sources provided. --Hetar 03:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't deserve it's own article. Doesn't meet the WP:WEB, jsut like Hetar said. Plasma Twa 2 03:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. TheProject 03:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Zaxem 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable enought --Bet 0 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Carroll. Kusma (討論) 22:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. argghh. Newyorktimescrossword 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert, and crappy one at that.  RasputinAXP  c 14:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mailer Diablo 06:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just transwikied this, and I'd like to get an opinion on whether this should be kept, deleted, or redirected to the album of the same name listed on the page. TheProject 03:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the NIN album. Brian G. Crawford 03:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the NIN album Jdcooper 09:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Tyrenius 10:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect --BillC 00:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Newyorktimescrossword 01:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Metamagician3000 10:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition, and from what I can find, there isn't much more that can be added. If not delete, either merge with voir dire or move to Wiktionary. Jesuschex 03:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I just discovered a copyvio with [2]. Jesuschex 03:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That source is The Nuttall Encyclopaedia as stated in the article. It's no longer under copyright protection. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. Jesuschex 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Yes, it's only a definition at the moment, but it's tagged as a stub and it definitely has the potential to grow beyond just a definition. -- JLaTondre 03:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been tagged as a stub for almost nine months and nothing has changed. If you think it can be expanded, please, do so. Prove me wrong. Jesuschex 04:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. Not only is this a dicdef, it's one that's not remotely close to being in current use in the legal field. Delete per nom. RGTraynor 05:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When and where did the struck jury system start? How does it normally work? What juristictions used and still use it? What are the pros and cons? Here's a link that shows current usage of the term and dicusses some issues with it. As a stub, we should be discussing it's potential and not it's current state. Applying arbitrary timeline requirements for turning a stub into a real article seems a bad idea to me. -- JLaTondre 12:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is a dictionary definition. Ted 07:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat 08:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this appears to be an outdated legal concept. It's useful to noone. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - better to have a stub than nothing. Google Scholar gives 40 hits, most under JSTOR which I can't access. Appears to possibly have another meaning in current usage based on Google Book results. It was in 1902 important enough to be covered in text books for the New York City schoolchildren. Term appears in records of U.S. appellate courts from as recently as the 1990s. Has appeared as a term of importance in U.S. Supreme court cases. Appears in course curriculum descriptions for some U.S. law school courses. "sofixit" appears to apply to those who feel it has been a stub for too long. GRBerry 02:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "sofixit" applies even more to those who feel it should be kept. I'm not going to fix it, unless you believe that nominating it for AfD is fixing it. I think those who believe that it could turn into a good article ought to prove this and do it yourself. Jesuschex 12:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You could write an encyclopedia article on it. In theory. Myciconia 08:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment I had the time tonight, and did a major expansion that de-stubbed the article. It certainly is not a dictionary definition any more. GRBerry 02:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing my nomination ... I believe it's surpassed a dicdef. Jesuschex 16:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, It is more than just a dictionary definition, and I think this article could be made into something good. --Eastlaw 05:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was transwiki and delete. --Ezeu 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a translation of a native american word. This is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk _YO! 03:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki and delete as a dicdef. TheProject 03:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki and delete as above.Tyrenius 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Transwiki Newyorktimescrossword 02:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete Fifi, rename Fifi (disambiguation) to Fifi. --Ezeu 20:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever this is, it isn't an encyclopedia article. It looks like a definition with exactly two literary references. Also nominating Fifi (disambiguation). Fifi (masturbation aid), which has a slight chance of becoming an article should be moved to Fifi. Brian G. Crawford 03:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fifi and Fifi (disambiguation) but keep Fifi (masturbation aid) and move it to Fifi if it can be verified. Having never been to prison, I can't say for myself. JIP | Talk 04:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rearrange per Brian and JIP. (Meanwhile, I have to go stab out my mind's eye.) Bucketsofg✐ 05:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and rearrange as above. DarthVader 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the text, turn Fifi into a disambiguation to Mademoiselle Fifi and Fifi (masturbation aid). Keep the latter article. - Richardcavell 23:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, but the disambig page should also link to "Fat Is A Feminist Issue" (about which I'm amazed we don't have an article). -- GWO

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE as a copyvio and blatant advertising. JIP | Talk 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement, I think. Do a google on Diaka AND vodka. The exact same material shows up on various "financial" websites (of dubious merit, I'm sure) Bayyoc 03:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, complete adcopy and puffery. They lost me at "represents the ultimate expression of luxury". Kuru ^talk 04:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 06:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can run for congress. Winning (or even winning the nomination) is far more impressive, and he'll be notable if he ever does either of those two. Until then, he's another wannabe with a webpage. Bachrach44 03:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben is a viable candidate who has raised a lot of money and won a lot of support. Why delete this? - Scott Davidson

• Delete --Bayyoc 04:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Allen 04:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom phrased it more piquantly than I could. Delete this wannabe pol hard, fast and furiously. RGTraynor 05:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I have edited some pieces of the article and removed some unverifiable assertions. The article contains factual information that wiki users of New York's 19th congressional district may find useful. --SethF 18:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bachrach - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article appears to supply no information beyond what is on his own campaign webpage. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 04:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already a page of the same event that has more, and better, information Cdlw93 03:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy redirect to whatever that other page is called. --Allen 04:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I have done exactly that -- speedy redirect to Beaconsfield mine collapse, as this article adds nothing. TheProject 04:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. TheProject 21:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an autobiography written by User:Cris Forster Rainwarrior 04:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, autobiography, it has already been userfied. JIP | Talk 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vanity IrishGuy 06:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as A7. -- Tangotango 08:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily deleted as A7 by me. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vanity page. Shyland 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious vanity page. Notability question as well; NPOV; Reads like an advertisement; etc. etc. If somehow it doesn't get deleted, it needs a ton of work. To the author(s): No offense, best of luck in your musical career but this article's got to go! The creator's ID seems to no longer exist so I couldn't notify them.Shyland 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as NN and probable vanity. Only six unique hits on UK Google, no evidence of any albums in release on Amazon, and the website given is no longer in operation. RGTraynor 05:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and suggest to nominator that similar article Dealer inc also be included in this AfD (and vote delete on that in advance). TheProject 06:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minimal googles, most likely vanity.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Tagged the merged section as ((Disputed-section)) per Andrew Lenahan --Ezeu 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no proof of this. This is the author's first post. If nothing else, it should be merged with GAMES Magazine Bayyoc 04:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. DVD+ R/W 04:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've put the contents of this on Talk:GAMES Magazine so the proof can be hashed out there. It doesn't deserve its own article, but it's a good story and if true might belong on GAMES Magazine. - Rainwarrior 04:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge pending verification per nom: be careful about copy and pasting contents, as failure to copy over the edit history, IIRC, violates the terms of the GFDL. TheProject 04:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - CNichols 05:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If verifiable, merge per nom, but if it can't be verified, delete it. I have been reading GAMES Magazine on and off for over 20 years, and this is the first I ever heard about this story. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge per WP:V and Metropolitan90. --Slgrandson 06:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verification is provided. I have been a Games reader since the magazine started, and I have never seen this mentioned anywhere. — Michael J 14:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this is merged or kept, it will have to be a total rewrite, as this version of events is totally wrong. Here's an article with the real story, if anyone is curious. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• merge pn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Newyorktimescrossword 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge otherwise delete--Nick Y. 21:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was wp:prodded by User:Friday, then de-prodded by User:81.155.200.168 with no edit summary, and no mention on the talk page. The reason given for prod was "full of original research and bias, but I'm not sure it can/should be fixed. No sources, no indication of significance for this bar." Neutral SeventyThree^(Talk) 04:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Non-notable pub. Bucketsofg✐ 04:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nonsense. Moriori 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN, turgid mess. Bottoms up! RGTraynor 05:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. DarthVader 07:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of above. -- Tangotango 08:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not of encyclopdaedic notability, and much of it is probably nonsense. Zaxem 11:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn, unencyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 14:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete randomcrapcruft. a bit pov too. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Some people are of such low status they are barred from the bottom of the bar." -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 02:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete CSD A7. kingboyk 05:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable band. Formed in 2005, this two-member band has only two demos available, they have never been signed, and they don't even have a website, relying instead on a MySpace page. Delete. Will Beback 05:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was originally created on April 13 by Angelstorm and was not listed. I am listing this now without a vote. -- Grev 05:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't really see the point in this article, basics of this are covered elsewhere. Writing style not in line with typical wikipedia quality. Contains unverified facts, and some non-npov comments. Angelstorm

Shimabuku's vertical punch was actually designed to hit at about three quarters of an arm's length's extension. It can be delivered at any range within this point, but it requires that the body-tensing be performed earlier, upon impact wherever it occurs. Timing is critical, unlike with the twisting punch, which thrusts through whatever it hits, if it is not jammed early. In either case the punch is not rising but horizontal. This article does make some unsubstantiated generalizations. I agree with some of them, others don't make much sense. Ultimaely, I have to agree with above. I'm not even sure why the entry for Karate punch should exist. In Karate, there are a number of punches, including straight punches, jabs, crossing punches, uppercusts, hooks, and descending punches. Perhaps there could be a section under punch in general, but I don't think there's such a thing as a Karate punch. It kind of reminds me of the Austin Powers Judo Chop. Erich1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.28.202 (talk • contribs)

• Delete - per Erich1. Article is virtually unchanged since original, which smacks of WP:OR. I'm not even sure which of the many punch techniques this article is discussiong. Looking at Karate, it seems this was originally a section there that was disputed and then removed, so the author took it here. Jamoche 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bucketsofg✐ 12:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete come on, what will we have next? Tae kwon do punch? M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR —Mets501^talk 17:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above IrishGuy 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ˑˑˑ日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoε} 23:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No idea why I didn't actually list article in the first place :P --Angelstorm 08:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertisement for a zip line-like building escape system.

I'd like to see an article on these systems in general, though (including escape slides or escape chutes). I've added a mention to chute. — Omegatron 05:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertisement, merge useful information into chute per Omegatron ~Kylu (u|t) 06:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a chute, though; more of a zipline. Probably all such systems could be covered in a single article, though. — Omegatron 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete what a tasteless ad! Shorten, Rewrite and Merge if there's an article regarding similiar items. --eivind^t@c 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can provide verification that this device is actually in use somewhere. Until then it's just a neat-looking invention with potential (i.e. crystal ball). Fan1967 15:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, they've got similar devices actually in use (remember the movie Panic Room?) I don't know I'd say crystal ball, but it's definately an ad. I'd move the link to one of the escape devices article. 207.145.133.34 18:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean actually used in a movie. I meant in real life. Are there high-rise buildings where this is actually available for an evacuation? Fan1967 19:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unencyclopedic article/advertisement —Mets501^talk 17:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. yuck. Newyorktimescrossword 02:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an extremely POV ramble, not an article. It contains numerous inaccuracies and statements without verification. There is a need for comment, within the article NHS for example, on the use of overseas staff (and not only doctors) but this is no contribution to the discussion, and has no place in WP--Smerus 05:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR/POV without stated sources. --Eivind^t@c 15:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR/POV uncited. The bigotry is palpable. Fan1967 15:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not very nice to the doctors, who are only trying to help :(. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR/POV —Mets501^talk 17:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is not original research. I'm one of the principal authors. Everything in this article is known to members of the first-world medical professions. The phrase "OTD" is standard medical jargon, and it has precisely the meaning given in the text. - Richardcavell 23:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'd be more inclined to keep this if there was a source saying that this is a major issue of contention in the UK. The article would then need to be rewritten to conform to a more worldwide view, as we are an international encyclopedia... And then, it would certainly have to be renamed. Or, it could just be deleted. Grandmasterka 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Weak Keep, upon further review. It would have to be heavily rewritten, though. Maybe it would be easier to start from scratch, under a different name. This isn't too long. Grandmasterka 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be happy to source it - I have a medical library right here at work - but it's going to end up deleted so I won't bother. This is a major source of contention, trust me. Have a look at http://www.qphci.qld.gov.au/ and you will see this is a big political issue here in Australia. Also look at R v Mulhem, in which an OTD in Britain killed a guy and the fact that he was an OTD became a big deal (there is a presumption that a doctor from Syria just ain't as good as a British one). - Richardcavell 01:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which section of that do I look at? Any news sources you can think of/dig up? Grandmasterka 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This demonstrates that in Australia, OTDs are restricted from obtaining full registration and a provider number unless they're from Britain, Canada or New Zealand. This is one politician's solution - send them to the country. See Peter McCutcheon's first question here, about the regulation of OTDs. It's too much to go through for an AfD, but the Davies Commission of Inquiry Report that I linked above goes on for hundreds of pages about OTDs. - Richardcavell 02:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the content of the article could be cleaned up, but unfortunately any article with this title is probably just going to become a "term" article. Could the stuff be merged with Brain drain or another article? I'd encourage all participants to recheck the deletion guidelines. I'm not sure "This is an extremely POV ramble, not an article. It contains numerous inaccuracies and statements without verification. There is a need for comment, within the article NHS for example, on the use of overseas staff (and not only doctors) but this is no contribution to the discussion, and has no place in WP" is a valid reason for deletion. - FrancisTyers 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'delete Use? --Mario todte 19:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article appears to be an advertisement, does not establish the notability of the subject company, which appears to be a standard web hosting company. Original speedy (db-bio) was removed without notice. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: nothing more than ugly spamvertisement for a company that fails WP:CORP. Their website has an Alexa rank of 2,623,279. --Hetar 07:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 07:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not notable. Zaxem 11:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing to assert notability. Looks more of a cut and paste job off a paper brochure. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's also an ad (it is now possible for any business to benefit from our solutions) —Mets501^talk 17:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: nn spam -- getcrunkjuice^contribs 19:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete advert. Newyorktimescrossword 02:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable. advertisement : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 00:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable company. Beno1000 14:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced, unverifiable neologism. Tangotango 08:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  09:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not even a dicdef since it doesn't explain what it means. --Eivind^t@c 15:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Kicking222 17:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not verifiable. Newyorktimescrossword 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what's here, and use the title as a redirect to Caribou. Just because what's here is noty really encyclopedic (to be kind to it), doesn't mean it isn't a viable mis-spelling. Grutness...wha? 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable political staffer of not many years' experience. Mtiedemann 09:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• userfy and delete - article created by subject, fails WP:BIO - Politepunk 10:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Works for someone notable, but not notable himself. Zaxem 11:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable —Mets501^talk 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree. - Richardcavell 23:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. maybe vanity. Newyorktimescrossword 02:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and delete from article-space. No indication of being cited in reliable sources. I'm not persuaded that the political-staffer job nor being an officer of the groups listed are enough to get past WP:BIO. Article creator's only contributions Special:Contributions/Gregorystafford have been to his own bio, that of another political flack, and a group of which both are officers. WP:VAIN. Barno 02:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page consists of 1) a vague and POV paragraph that doesn't contain any useful or relevant information, 2) a list of arbitrarily selected historical figures considered important, together with a possible copyvio from VH1 of dubious importance and notability. why should we be especially interested in VH1's opinions, as opposed to any other source? I can see no way this article can be usefully rewritten, page should be deleted as inherent POV and a redirect created to another page which probably covers what this article is trying to get at in a more sustainable way (please suggest) Jdcooper 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Jdcooper 09:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, furthermore, pretty much anybody you can name is some kind of cultural icon to someone, as shown by some of the figures that people have added which have been removed (arbitrarily). This is unsalvageably subjective. Jdcooper 11:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Shanes 23:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 00:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable band, doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria and a possible hoax as it appears to be entirely a puff piece about the band. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 09:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Definitely not a hoax - the CD exists and releasing label appears to be a fairly large independent with a decent catalogue. That said, the copyright notice at the end indicates a possible copyvio and there is no citation for claims of their influence. Ac@osr 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:MUSIC. --Eivind^t@c 15:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Heavily POV, no assertion of notability, no reason to keep the article. -- Kicking222 15:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Newyorktimescrossword 02:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no googles. vanity.  : ( Lonesomedovechocolate 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -Obli (Talk)^? 13:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Random Chess was found to be non-notable two months ago, and nothing has changed to make it notable since then. --McGeddon 10:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete The only sentence in this article is deliberate nonsense ("...apparently predates regular chess..."). David Sneek 10:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Already deleted once just two months ago, and claiming this variant is older than normal chess sounds pretty nonsensical. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, per starblind. --soUmyaSch 11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nonsense and quite possible hoax. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a previously deleted article that is also nonsense, original research, and/or hoax. Bucketsofg✐ 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deleting: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Random Chess; conclusion was delete, and nothing has changed since then. -- Karada 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Dancing with the Stars. --Ezeu 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable; rather that being Europe's most popular "dace" contest, it appears to be pretty obscure and has only taken place once. DWaterson 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Appears notable, I get 53,500 Google hits for the title (in quotes), and plenty of verifiable info, including video of some of the show itself. It makes me feel like "dacing". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge appears notable from google search. I'm guessing here but I believe it is the Romanian version of Dancing with the Stars, if so merge. --Eivind^t@c 15:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dancing with the Stars, my guess was right. --Eivind^t@c 15:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, good idea. In that case, I'll support a redirect, in preference to the nomination. DWaterson 21:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete should every contest get a page? Newyorktimescrossword 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sarcastic redirect—if left as its own article, this would merely be a "red dace" (as it were). Ardric47 03:30, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 00:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Original research and personal opinion. The list given is hardly verifiable. soUmyaSch 10:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'This dude is smart.-Raju— Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.199.146 (talk • contribs)
• Personal opinion, unverifiable, etc, etc. Delete. Palfrey 10:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 11:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - just plain wrong, might even be WP:BALLS. Ac@osr 11:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an encyclopaedic article. Zaxem 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, WP:NOR and possibly WP:NPOV too. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wow, in all of music history, 9 of the best 10 singers are alive right now. Delete. ProhibitOnions 12:00, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic, plus the author of the article can't count Metros232 12:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, or spell. Who is Roger Dalfrey? Kotepho 12:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all. Bucketsofg✐ 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, patent nonsense. "Ummm... dunno who else". Jdcooper 13:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, nonsense. —Mets501^talk 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete title is inherently POV. --Bachrach44 15:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inherently POV and, as it stands, garbage. No Sinatra, no Billie Holiday, no Nat King Cole, but it includes Eminem? Fan1967 16:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is all opinion Fiwtart 14:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Per W:NOT. --Lee Bailey 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Grafkim, and, well, everyone else. Likely could be speedied as patent nonsense, but some define that term very narrowly. Joe 19:05, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research and inherently POV title. TheProject 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - to me, this qualifies as ((nocontext)). Grandmasterka 00:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Product advertising. —ERcheck @ 10:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - no encyclopedic value. Rifleman 82 11:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Zaxem 11:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly speedy, as it is a blatant ad. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --MaNeMeBasat 14:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as ad —Mets501^talk 15:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Henrik 18:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. TheProject 21:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I HATE SPAM. Newyorktimescrossword 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -Obli (Talk)^? 13:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Probable attack page (Flask Face).(This can only be accessed from history now) Speedy tag removed by editors of the article. soUmyaSch 11:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. New version is a hoax. Second person to land on moon??? --soUmyaSch 13:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. 5 Google hits [3] for participating in Fantasy Sports. Article is clearly nonsense. Zaxem 11:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as clear nonsense, completely unsalvageable. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 11:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Fails WP:BIO and appears to be some kids fooling around. Metros232 12:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Patent nonsense; possible attack or hoax. Bucketsofg✐ 12:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Keane song that fails WP:MUSIC/SONG. I suggest a merge to the album but I don't think it'd add anything of value to that article. Metros232 12:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keane - that would help enormously. Failing that just delete this. Ac@osr 14:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, article even suggests that it's less notable than the other songs on the album. --Eivind^t@c 15:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. I would also delete the band (and, I guess, their WP article) if I could. -- Kicking222 15:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Why do some of you advocate deleting Keane? They are obviously a notable band that passes WP:MUSIC standards. Is this just personal vendettas against the band's music? Metros232 16:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, I'm not actually saying their article should be deleted. I'm just saying that I think their music is crap. They're obviously highly notable. -- Kicking222 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just because a band passes WP:MUSIC doesn't mean every song they've ever done should have its own article. I happen to think the reverse is also true, actually...Ac@osr 18:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trash it quickly. Newyorktimescrossword 02:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is poorly written, and reads like advertisement. The contents are already covered in the Indiana Jones article.--PatCheng 12:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Indiana Jones. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy redirect to Indiana Jones —Mets501^talk 15:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Redundant. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect. Falphin 23:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Newyorktimescrossword 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect Subwayguy 02:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 17:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated as misinformation. There are no Google hits for this organisation other than its being listed here as a fake bank set up by 419 fraudsters. The "bank" has no website and I've found no evidence via Google that the named organisation even exists. The article is unreferenced and orphaned. This appears to be an effort at astroturfing and I'm inclined to be very suspicious about the article's creator's motives. -- ChrisO 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added: There's an alternate version of the same article by the same user at Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited (CCB). -- ChrisO 14:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - as with the other version of the article, if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.
• Speedy del, as per nom. --soUmyaSch 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as a regular hoax. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam. Executor-usa

I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: OITC did not initiate the original article about it. It is a victim of a misinformation campaign. Replies were written to present accurate facts that will stand up as truthful evidence, and historical facts. You suggest that a pr campaign is being undertaken by OITC. Nonsense. The replies and writings are facts in response to anothers' misinformation and defamation. My comments are mine alone. On my talk page I have stated that factual documents were sent to the parent of Wikipedia, and am sure that the same are available to Wikipedia's parent corporate lawyers and Board of Trustees. I support the writing of a factual, accurate article as a historical necessity. However, if such is to be written, its tenure would be the opposite of the current ideas being espoused that it is either a fraud or a hoax. It is a very important organization, and is quite real. signed Executor-usa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Executor-usa (talk • contribs)

• delete as above. Thryduulf 14:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per above. The article is rubbish, and its creator's WP track record is... spotty, at best. -- Kicking222 15:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

\ Reply: Most of the people voicing their beliefs here are very young. Please be aware that the people who are knowledgable about OITC and CCB are very senior people in governments, central banks, and major banks.The degree of experience to make such judgements by the majority of the commentors is just deficient. I suggest that you refrain from calling something a hoax, a fraud, or not real, when you have no basis, or knowledge, to make such pronouncements. In the end the facts support OITC and CCB whether you like it or not. Executor-usa

Uh huh. From this post and looking at your talk page, if I weren't convinced already that it's a hoax, I'm convinced now. Hint #1 for creating a hoax: don't name drop - it's a dead giveaway. If the facts don't speak for themselves and if you have to name drop, there's a problem somewhere along the line. Accoring to just about every google result, this is a fake bank that is used for scams. This article should be speedied fast. BigDT 17:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete it's a hoax about a hoax! yay! M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: The intentional disregard of facts and documents sent to Wikimedia and Wikipedia is not a virtue. Perhaps your self description on your talk page as being insane is accurate. Further, if you think Google results will provide you the truth you are very mistaken.Labelling an institution a fake bank and a scam is very defamatory and is unsupported by fact or truth.

Admins? WP:NPA? WP:NLT? Can someone speedy the article? It obviously needs it.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 07:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable, vanity. Delete __earth ^(Talk) 12:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --soUmyaSch 12:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, long article but non-notable —Mets501^talk 15:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as either nn-bio or attack page. (There are some sentences which the opening para which look like an attack). --Bachrach44 15:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete nn. M1ss1ontomars2k4 17:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable. Newyorktimescrossword 02:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Royboycrashfan 17:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated as misinformation. An alternate version of Consolidated Credit Bank Limited, created by the same user, and equally dubious (and orphaned and unreferenced). See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consolidated Credit Bank Limited. -- ChrisO 12:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - if you google, it's a fake bank / hoax.

KEEP- This bank is very real and the Chairman or Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve are its confirming bank officers to other banks for instruments written by CCB. The information written by Waffelknocker is real, truthful, and accurate. It has nothing to do with any fake bank or scam in London, nor is it a scam, or part of a scam, nor a hoax. Executor-usa

I believe this user may be a sockpuppet of or otherwise connected with the article's creator and have asked for a check on his/her IP address. The whole thing reeks of an astroturfing operation. -- ChrisO 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]