Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 3

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< March 2 March 4 >

Purge server cache

March 3

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dasound

edit

From Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, untranslated. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese (from CAT:PNT); about a Brasilian band. - Introvert ~? 06:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Michael Plumb

edit

Confirmed hoax. See message board discussion of the "hilarious wikipedia article about my friend mike" --CoolArrow, 01:14, 4 March 2006

Possible hoax. Article is about a set of phrases or sayings that have reached the point of being "folkloric" in nature. The article goes on to explain that this folklore "begin around late 2002" and provides the primary source of the folklore as a single student at Washington and Jefferson College. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the claims of the article. --Allen3 talk 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No concensus (defaults to Keep). There was some talk of merge/redirect/move, those issues can be thrashed out on the talk page or by applying WP:BOLD. kingboyk 03:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HTML Comic

edit

slang entry Grocer 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Larry Allen Williamson

edit

Delete - no reason given for subject noteworthiness, rank not even listed, awards not listed Nobunaga24 00:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Whalallapa

edit

Probable hoax with only 80 google hits which are largely wikipedia and mirrors or other sites that are open to public editing. Cool3 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al Shemonia

edit

Clear political soapboxing of questionably notable activist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson -' 'Shazaam! - <*> 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavachon

edit

Repeat of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Yorkiepoo, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maltipoo and, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schnoodle, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boggle (dog), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borderjack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puggle (dog). Might be just another one of the mixed breed. From the first set of RfD -

There are 500 breeds of dogs. Any of them can be mixed and anyone can name the mixes anything they want. (E.g., see American hybrid "registry" and Poodle hybrid and Dog hybrids and crossbreeds#Casual crossbreeds.) I realize that WP is not paper, but mostly what can be said about mixed-breed dogs is that they might have some characteristics of either parent, or not (if you also look at Maltipoo and Schnoodle you'll see what I mean). We've discussed this within the dog breed project before and feel that all these do is create multiple mixed-breed-dog articles. We're leaving in Cockapoo because it's been around long enough to be the only mixed-breed name to make it into the dictionary, and Labradoodles are so common as to be found in just about every puppies-for-sale list everywhere, with Goldendoodles getting pretty close, but I'm hesitant to open the floodgates for articles about everyone's mixed-breed dog with an invented name (written by Elf)

I am having more concerns over time as some of these articles keep reappearing (as did Puggle (dog)). This article is a stub but a google search shows it to be used all over the place. It seems to me that we might be better off leaving some of the more common ones, which this seems to be, with all the warnings inherent that you don't really know what you're going to get. The other issue is that it's going to keep reappearing because the names ARE being used and the dogs ARE being sold and people WILL come looking for the name.

So if this seems inside out, I'm listing it because we've been trying to keep these invented combined-breed-name mixed breed dogs out, and I think this will come up for deletion eventually if I don't nom it.

- Elf | Talk 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myson of Chen

edit

non-notable substiturion in the list of the Seven Sages. [6]. (The OCD calls him, even in antiquity "famous for his obscurity"; and that's from their article on the Sages; he doesn't have one of his own. ) If this is rewritten, it should be done from standard sources, and without reference to Wikinfo; WP and Wikinfo are happiest apart.

  • Comment: Shouldn't we at least keep him as a search term? And I really do like the detailed list of actual classical attestations, which is one piece of info that's not in the other article now. So, I think a merge and redirect (from the correct title, of course) is the least we should do, if not a keep and move. Lukas (T.|@) 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes my Karen Importance Test. There is a lot of information that can be added to this article. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-3 19:29
  • Comment: The Oracle of Delphi called Myson of Chen the wisest of all men. Now isn't that enough of your subjective quantity of "notability" to warrant its own article? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-03-3 20:49
  • Keep per LukasPietsch.--Andrew c 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe this. The article is good and informative. Our purpose is to educate. The "voting" is B.S.WHEELER 14:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article Seven Sages of Greece is already very long. It doesn't have space to talk specifically about one person. There is already seperate articles on the seven sages, Myson of Chen deserves one by itself and a description of his philosophy. I have already learned much about Myson of Chen and I commend the person who improved the article greatly. Thanks a billion. WHEELER 14:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough here to warrant inclusion. However, WikiInfo is unnacceptable as a reference. older ≠ wiser
  • Keep: Not all characters named in Plato deserve names, but being part of a named set makes deletion particularly questionable. It's difficult to see how to merge all of the Sages into the Seven Sages article. --Nema Fakei 22:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Canid hybrid. Mailer Diablo 01:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huskal

edit

Looks bogus to me. Elf | Talk 00:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process drama

edit

No references. I'm not sure if it meets Wikipedia:Notability with its lack of information. It is also an awkward topic and the article fails to clearly intrepert its basis, in my opinion. Delete. —Eternal Equinox | talk 00:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy A7 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alien Dinner Party

edit

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


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

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

The New ARA

edit

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

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

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

San Joaquín, Carabobo

edit

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

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


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

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

Idiosyncratic symbol

edit

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


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

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

Zachary M. Seward

edit

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

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

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

Robert Steadman

edit

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

  • Weak keep. A search for "Robert Steadman" yields 234 unique hits, but the article suggests he's sufficiently notable. Royboycrashfan   02:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough, considering that the BBC covers his work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong and Speedy Keep. This article was nominated for AfD in October 2005 and easily survived. This nomination, like that one, is made in bad faith. The nominator has engaged in a series of POV edits on the article, has relentlessly attacked and criticized the subject, and in fact, his user name itself -- Crusading composer -- is a direct reference to Steadman (who has been called that due to his political activism). Take a look at his contributions, and the vast majority are to this article, its talk page and related pages. I don't know if he and Bakewell Tart (the user who made the original nomination) are sockpuppets of each other or not, but the nomination and comments are pretty much congruent. As for the substantive matter, please see the original AfD; there is no question at all of Steadman's notability and the encyclopedic nature of the article. It has been edited by many editors; it is clearly not authored by the subject or on his behalf. This AfD, like the last one, is simply the escalation of an edit war by one of Steadman's dedicated wiki-enemies. This is a repeated waste of our time and I think an RfC against Crusading composer for edit warring and abuse of AfD is appropriate here. MCB 03:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The non-autobio assertion is very questionable: two of the protagonists on this article's talk page have lately been established as R. Steadman sockpuppets by checkuser, and indefinitely blocked as such (despite their denials at the time of any personal involvement). So let's keep speculation as to whether BT and CC are the same person in perspective. (My personal guess is not -- as CC implied, if s/he's made two AFD nominations, s/he's getting worse with practice at the technical details; Though equally that they have similar TES-messageboard-inspired motivations.) Most of the article itself was written from anon IP addresses. (My personal guess is, belonging to one Robert Steadman, or some closely involved person.) Actual notability seems to me marginal, but not non-existent, though hardly as clearly established as the above claims. Alai 03:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you going to be WP:BOLD re WP:RFC or are you just expressing an opinion? Garglebutt / (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Well known in musical circles especially for his choral work; first AfD bore this out. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 03:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur the nomination appears to be in bad faith; prompted by edit warring with the associated WP editor. Garglebutt / (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable enough for me. VegaDark 07:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as noted above there are enough "non wikipedia echo" hits from google to justify an article. SOPHIA 08:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination.  (aeropagitica)  11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as bad-faith nomination. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 13:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep; bad-faith/vandalous nomination. Monicasdude 14:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, as per above - bad-faith nomination, like the first time. (Though I personally do agree with Alai's suspicions above that much of the article was written by Mr. Steadman himself, the article shouldn't be deleted.) --Oscillate 15:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Robert Steadman is notable, therefore this is not a vanity article. His Imposingness, the Grand Moff Deskana (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete

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

    • Reasons for deletion:

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

  • Keep. According to Evelyn Glennie (Order of the British Empire)'s web page she commissioned three pieces by this composer in 1989-90. [9]
His publisher listed on that page, Vanderbeek & Imrie Ltd, is listed as a member of the Music Publishers Association of the UK [http://www.mpaonline.org.uk/dist/v.html. There's an email there to verify what else is in their catalogue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beth Wellington (talk • contribs) 2006-03-07 09:35:53
Thanks for adding the signature, was about to do so, as I omitted it in my hurry to save the page before the library computer logged off.--Beth Wellington 22:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has 13 total edits, 2 to the Article namespace — └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 23:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Unusual Sex Acts

edit

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

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

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

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

Or whilst mentally 12 years old. PJM 14:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must apologise for listing it for Speedy deletion, which was harsh, but nonetheless, it should go. I'm no prude, but if you want muck, read Viz or Razzle ffs! --PopUpPirate 02:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Keep There is no need to delete this, if it offends you then don't look at it. It's a bunch of urban deffinitons that have been mentioned on shows such as Howard Stern, Saturday Night Live, and many other movies/shows. I strongly am against deleting this because someone is too simple minded just to turn away from it.

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

Keep it for sure. If you don't like this stuff...Just don't look at it. Its very funny to some people and it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.126.203 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep Clearly the list needs to be cut down to remove uncited or possibly original material, but there is no reason why it should not continue to exist as a list of known outlandish sex acts described in popular culture; at a minimum, of those that already have their own wikipedia articles. Sammy1339 04:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has only 40 edits. -ZeroTalk 04:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Naturist Christians

edit

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

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


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

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

Gil-e-Firdaws

edit

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


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

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

Robert_Jovicic

edit

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

  • Delete per nom. Royboycrashfan   02:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an important political issue in Australia. If it truly is forgotten in a year, we can delete it then. --Bduke 03:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is that accepted practice, to delete an article when the subject is no longer making news? Schizombie 11:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ideally, an article should not be created in the first place unless there is reason to believe that the news event is significant enough to be notable even in the future when it's no longer a news event. At least that's my understanding of it, someone correct me if I'm wrong. Edrigu 02:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Of course no-one will remember him if there is no written record. - Borofkin 03:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable controversy . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bduke. -- Vary | Talk 05:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bduke. OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as of WP:BIO, "People still alive", "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events". --Royal Blue 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Royal Blue. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable. --Terence Ong 10:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sure there are some people who would like us to forget about him. Cnwb 00:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A search of an Australian and New Zealand shows 149 newspaper and magazine articles mentioning this case. There has been a great deal of publicity about this and similar cases placing pressure on the minister Amanda Vanstone and her department. Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be very convienient for one politician if everyone were to forget about him. And, if you delete it, they may just. But Wikipedia is not here to do Amanda Vanstone's dirty work. This is an encyclopedia, not a political organ. Other persons who have been mishandled by politicians in the past have not been forgotten (Sacco and Vanzetti, Willy Horton, Stanley "Tookie" Williams). They are still listed with their own pages, despite the acute embarrassment felt by those who have been embarrassed by them. These articles have historical and social value, and they should not be erased just because someone realised too late that they live in the public eye, and are accountable to the public they serve. Wandering Star 20:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I fear that the majority of people voting here are Australians, specifically Australians with the same POV about Australian immigration politics, and therefore the vote result will not be an accurate reflection of all of Wikipedia but rather just a certain Australian POV. I would like to see more non-Australians vote, because they can look at it from an unbiased perspective. Edrigu 21:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fear that you have mistaken me for an Australian. May I suggest that you look at the user profile, where you will find it plainly stated that I am American. Perhaps you could do the same for the other users as well, and thus become better able to formulate a theory on what the origin of the opinions posted here may be. Perhaps it has nothing at all to do with a national bias. Perhaps you simply hold the minority opinion. Wandering Star 23:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
    • My comment wasn't directed at you, but was just a general observation, so I haven't mistaken you for anything. Also, I couldn't check your user profile as you suggest because your username isn't a link. And a brief check through the profiles of other voters confirms that most of them are Australians. In any case, I would still be happier if more non-Australians voted. If most Wikipedians (not just Australians with a specific POV about immigration politics) do think that this article shouldn't be deleted, then that's fine with me. Edrigu 02:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 00:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
  • Comment. I am Australian and I do have a POV about immigration politics, but I keep it out of Wikipedia. Whatever your POV the politics around the subject is important. I agree it is more important in Australia than elsewhere, but so what. There are thousands of articles that are important in the USA but are not really that important elsewhere. I therefore respect the judgement of Australian wikipedians on this article more than I do that of non-Australians. I think they are making a judgement to keep it because it is important. To suggest it arises from their POV is close to insulting. --Bduke 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable now (for media, but not for WP), but in a few months (or a month) definitely not notable for media also (references will blow into the wind). We should omit political opinions in WP. I'm not Australian, look what we did in WP (Slovenia - The erased), that's the thema for media and the article in WP will be the target for different opinions day by day. This should also be protected against recreation. --Mane 15:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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


Scheels All Sports

edit

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

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


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

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

Dean Trippe

edit

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

Which book? (I didn't find either on Amazon). 5000 printed or 5000 sold? OhNoitsJamieTalk 06:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • technical keep per User:ChrisArrant. If we have issues with the 5000+ distro guideline, we should reconsider it. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Please provide evidence of notability.[11] Then I'll reconsider. -- Krash (Talk) 06:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Adrian Lamo. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Adrian. --Terence Ong 10:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No claims as to notability in article. Can a notable achievement be added in order to vote keep?  (aeropagitica)  11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, viewed as notable in field. Recent feature interview at Newsarama.com (already linked in article), which might not sound like much, but that site is pretty much the newssite of record in its field, regularly given access by major publishers and for some years sponsored/hosted by Kevin Smith. Monicasdude 14:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as above. If someone can give me a source for the book sales, I'd be more inclined to change my mind. For example, the article mentions "You Ain't No Dancer" published by the New Reliable Press. What it doesn't mention, is that the You Ain't No Dancer, is a collection of a lot of different works, Dean Trippe is just one of the many contributors. I doubt many people bought the book due to Dean Trippe's contribution. The New Reliable website [12] describes it as a collection of stories from established an up and coming (which I'm translating as unknown) artists. I'm putting Dean Trippe into the latter category. - Hahnchen 15:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can someone enlighten me to what the Fluke Anthology is? The only relevent thing I seem to find is a reference to the FLUKE mini-comics festival, a collection of small indie comic book artists? Is this correct? - Hahnchen 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comment. I believe the relevant part of the guidelines here to be "... or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" -- one writer doesn't prop up a good magazine, but the guidelines recognize their involvement just the same. Since your point isn't otherwise directly addressed in WP:BIO, as WP:BIO apparently didn't anticipate this particular scenario for books, I believe this to be a reasonable reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Crumber

edit

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


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

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

January 1, 2003, January 2, 2003, et al.

edit

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


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

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

Thardferr

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


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charity project

edit

As much as I hate to do this.... nn organization, advertising. Granted, it's for a charity, but the charity itself only gains 348 hits on Google. As for its parent organization (which does not have an article), SpookyART only gets 800 hits or so, and an Alexa rating of 1.5M. み使い Mitsukai 03:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Burgess

edit

Seems to be a nn bio created by User:Mrburgess whose other contributions are all vandalism. I prod'd it but the prod was removed by author. Googling Stefan + Burgess + beatbox yields nothing. Nothing on allmusic. Played with Beck, but otherwise fails WP:MUSIC in my opinion. Delete -- Samir ∙ TC   03:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this should be kept. It is quite an addition to the Wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrvonhallberg (talk • contribs) .
Above user has only 5 edits, 4 of which have involved this AfD. Royboycrashfan   04:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 519 Church St. Community Centre - Toronto, Canada

edit

nn organization, advertisement. Based on the wording, I strongly suspect the full text is copyvio'd from somewhere, but have not been able to find the ___location as of yet; there are some sections that are clearly lifted from the organization's website. み使い Mitsukai 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TZ Corporation

edit

Not notable, not a real "corporation". Just looks like some kind of collaborative project, but their software doesn't appear notable. Elkman - (talk) 04:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to List of countries by date of independence. This merge requires a fair bit of work and research, so I'm just going to apply the merge tags instead. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative List of countries by date of independence

edit

We shouldn't have "alternative" articles. Its already covered by List of countries by date of independence. Maybe it could be moved to List of present countries by date of independence or something similar. But bringing it to AfD anyway -- Astrokey44|talk 04:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment. I am new with this. Merging is possible, but then i should join the politics of the other articles. My first remark would be that a country is mentioned only once.
  • Delete we shouldn't be supporting "alternative" versions of articles; there is no stopping the tendency once indulged. Carlossuarez46 18:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you put it this way, then i agree with you. I don't like viewpoints. There is only one reality. It was not my meaning to start a long range of alternative articles.--Daanschr 21:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most Liberal Law School

edit

Delete. Article specifically very POV. Wickethewok 04:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jolt (TV show)

edit

Non-notable, Vanity. A Google search for Jolt and the string "Girard Studios" gets 217 hits. However, only 2 are found when filtering out hits from the official site; both hits are from Wikipedia, and one is a redirect anyway. I prod tagged this about 5 days ago. Back then, there was also the statement "Formed by teenagers this movie studio is very up and coming". Crystal ball, anyone? An IP user recently removed the prod tag, that "up and coming" statement, as well as the following OR statement: " The number of movies that have come form them in the last little while has finally slowed to a halt because most of the cast, being teenagers, have finally gotten jobs.", but has not addressed the point that this does not seem to be known about at all outside the group itself. Drat (Talk) 04:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Above user has only 3 edits, all of which have involved this article. Royboycrashfan   18:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lag breach

edit

This article is senseless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njaard (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 20:38:07


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. KnowledgeOfSelf 14:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Stevens

edit

Delete All material on this page is taken directly from the website www.erickstevens.net. Wickethewok 04:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No shit??? I didn't realize that. we tryin to spread the word thats all. now go back to your cave and jerk it to some more anime porn dorkboy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torque33 (talk • contribs)
While a popular option, personal attacks against AfD participants are an inefficient way of getting your article kept on Wikipedia. Please remember that everyone here is just trying to keep Wikipedia tidy and useful. We don't have anything personal against your article. If you have any questions, please leave me a note in my cave :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 01:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tetka

edit

Flash amination, no evidence for notability. Unencyclopedic, delete--nixie 04:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've seen this animation around the web in many different contexts as an example of ragdoll physics.Wickethewok 05:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Only 711 unique Google hits, but notability established by contents of reskinned version linked to in the EL section (#2 at the time of this posting) —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 05:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McTaggart

edit

lack of notability, imposible to identify using google Eivind 04:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob's Ladder (Huey Lewis

edit

Lyrics. Move them to Wikisource if it's truly notable, but delete from Wikipedia. Draeco 04:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's slightly memorable in a bland sort of way. Thatcher131 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you mean the article. Thatcher131 05:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. This debate isn't conclusive enough in the delete direction for me; the final comment is correct since Alexa headlines 3month moving averages, whilst this site's daily/weekly rank is better 1,000th. Since the debate rests mainly on unexplicated "nn" or "low alexa" I don't think the deletion case is made at present. -Splashtalk 22:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexadex.com

edit

Not notable website abakharev 07:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough votes to interpret; relisting. Chick Bowen 05:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redux (2nd nomination)

edit

Nominated without comment and with accidental transinclusion of first AfD from last month, by User:Elmer Clark. Re-listing, no vote.

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to Imbros and Tenedos. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos

edit

The article was thoroughly edited and re written by me and improved. I also attempted to wikify it. The article is on a separate subject to Imbros and Tenedos and it would be a shame to merge it, or worse, delete, just because it is on a controversial topic.Citations are available at Talk:The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos.Globo 11:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Moved article to The Greeks of Imbros and Tenedos Globo 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be titled to be an inherently POV essay. It is an essay, anyway.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 05:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desk Rabbit

edit

Delete. Non-encyclopedic, just a one-off joke from a TV show. Arteitle 05:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 22:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Space Dogged/Feud for Sale

edit

This strange entry lists two different episodes (or perhaps shorts) from the Ren and Stimpy cartoon. I would say non-notable, I don't think every episode should be kept from every TV show (merge it all together). Ifnord 18:19, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Carlos Campos

edit

Possibly vanity page; in any case, person has no visibility whatsover in English language documents on the Web John Broughton 06:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salty Earth Pictures, Inc.

edit

Delete - not notable, as per WP:CORP Xorkl000 06:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batgirl LiveJournal Meme

edit

Somebody posted a picture in their Livejournal. Then so did some other people. Then someone came to Wikipedia and wrote an article about it. Then I submitted it for deletion because it wasn't encyclopedic. Delete. Gamaliel 07:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, it might be worth a line or two over there. Gamaliel 01:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 00:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Die my darling

edit

Tagged as CSD A7, but contains assertion of notability, listing here for discussion. No vote. Chick Bowen 03:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Pschemp. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to March 3, 2006. Insert new comments below. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:19] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Coast Music Scene

edit

Non-noatable defunct website. I created the article by removing the content from a disambiguation GCMS CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ami Cusack

edit

Relisted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Finta (et. al), no vote. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>

  • Delete as not notable. No context/importance outside Survivor. Spurious factoids about a person do not an article make. -- Krash (Talk) 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This content doesn't even belong in the article for her season of Survivor. -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup for reasons as per previous AfD created by me and cited by freakofnurture -- Arnzy | Talk 16:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO. Involvement in hit national TV show, and substantial media attention, easily qualify this person. There is a regular precedent to keep comparable contestants on national hit reality TV shows (with substubs being merged). Instead of randomly deleting contestants, based on who shows up for AFD, a simpler solution would be to mege/redirect where appropriate. We shouldn't delete articles, because we don't like a particular genre of entertainment. Wikipedia should determine who others have found notable, not decide for ourselves (with our personal bias) who should be notable. --Rob 18:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has said anything about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. I think the concerns of notability and importance that have been raised are quite valid. I certainly don't think the subject of this article would pass the 100 year test from WP:BIO. -- Krash (Talk) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If this was an actor in a TV drama, same air-time, same success of show, same media attention, there would be no AFD. The *only* reason this AFD exists, is because this is reality TV. Normally, whenever a national TV show becomes a hit, all the stars of the show are deemed worth of an article. Also, the 100 year test, was a proposal, not accepted. Also, WP:BIO is a list ways which somebody may qualify. Nobody needs to pass each test, but rather just one. Let's use the non-crystal-ball 100-year rule: if somebody from a hundred years ago was writte about internationally, as much as this person was (on paper), would they qualify for an article today? Obviously, yes. If you can show the same international media coverage from a 100-year old entertainment personality, who had their article deleted, you'll prove your point. Otherwise, you'll prove mine. --Rob 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll prove nothing until I'm good and ready to. But the real issue here is that I don't think being a contestant on a gameshow is tantamount to being a notable actor. You're welcome to disagree. I simply take offense that you assume that this is about not liking a particular genre of entertainment. -- Krash (Talk) 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Maybe "not like" is bad wording. But it does seem you "don't respect" the genre. How do explain not treating a reality contestant the same as an actor, on a show, with comparable success and attention? This seems no different than denying a comedic actor an article, when you'ld let in an equivilent dramatic actor. Also, Survivor is not simply a gameshow. Are you basing your vote on the assumption this is game show like Price is Right, or Jeopardy? The show is about the about contestants personally. Jeopardy is about the questions/answers, not about the contestants. The Price is Right is about the prizes. Actually, contestants on a reality show, are probably more notable than many comparable actors. Often actors on certain shows (especially some daytime soaps) are not considered very important (by fans, the show, or the media). Often little info is available on them, beyond what they or their employers release. Rather the characters they play are what's followed, and written about (of course, this is true, only some of the time). On a reality show like Survivor (or BB) the contestant is the equivilent of the actor and character, combined into one. --Rob 21:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we keep articles on Big Brother contestants, why not this show? Jcuk 21:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now, until a concrete policy is reached about ALL articles of this nature. Deckiller 00:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- first openly lesbian ex-Playboy model with a grudge against men contestant on Survivor. The problem with reality show contestants is that they turn over every season -- only those who achieve significant media notoriety (Omarosa from the Apprentice, for example) or winners are really notable. Ami Cusack is a borderline case. Haikupoet 02:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- She's a contestant of a hit reality tv show and she's one of the stars of Survivor Vanuatu--hottie 15:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only was she a notable villain in her season, she was also (as mentioned above) a Playboy model and one of the first openly lesbian players on Survivor. --JamesB3 16:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my reasoning in the last AFD for this article. -Colin Kimbrell 18:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: unlike, say, Dirk Been, someone has actually taken the time to dig up information. Useful as a guide to the show, eliminates red links in main article. Calwatch 09:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I absolutely think this article should be kept. She is one of the most notorious participants in one of the most popular reality shows out there. Agrippina Minor
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Mullen

edit

Relisted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brady Finta (et. al), no vote. — Mar. 3, '06 [07:56] <freakofnurxture|talk>


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freak Hall

edit

A group of students who hang out in a school corridor does not make encyclopedic material. Delete. enochlau (talk) 09:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:N not notable outside of Hunter College High School and unverifiable WP:V. Schizombie 11:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable student dorm.  (aeropagitica)  11:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable college student vanity. It's not just school where things are made up one day. MLA 13:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NFT. -- Krash (Talk) 15:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you freaks. It warms my heart as a Hunter (and freak hall) grad to see the freaks advertising on wiki. Still, vanity is vanity. --Mmx1 18:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic and madeupinschooloneday nonsense. --Kinu t/c 19:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Made up in school... Eivind 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The couple of us that have been editing this page have tried to keep it from being "advertising," or "made up." It's documenting a social group with some (vaguely) notable alumni and a particular culture, one that has been around for 15 years or more. The Stuyvesant High School equivalent has been the subject of a recent New York Magazine article . I'd be glad to change any parts of the page that seem particularly un-encyclopedic, though. Mcfrank 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not yet. It certaintly isn't made up. I went to Hunter years ago and the Freak Hallway was a particularly notable feature of Hunter College High School with a unique culture that it has maintained for quite some time. However, it is not yet worthy of being the subject of its own wikipedia article. If and when the alumni of the freak hallway (including myself) become noteworthy in their own right, the creation of such an article will be more appropriate. Bjoel5785 6 March 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. After this was relisted, a clear majority of contributors wanted this kept. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Marcinkowski

edit

I notice that this has a deletion notice but no comments why. A quick glance at the article doesn't make it clear to me why this article was nominated for deletion; the person seems notable if the information in the article is correct. In the absence of any reason why the delete tag was placed here, my tendency is to remove the delete tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deville (talk • contribs)

I think this article contains valuable information and wikipedia should not allow people to pirate articles by considering them for deletion just because they are envious or because they don't like the nose of the scholar introduced on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adul (talk • contribs)

The nominator was 85.182.15.4, who gave the following justifications in his/her edit summaries:
AfD - Autobiographical articles are against Wikipedia policy. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. [17]
marked article "Christoph Marcinkowski" as blatantly self-advertisingly autobiographical. He even linked his own name to several topics of general interest. [18]
The lack of text here seems to be due to 85.182.15.4 having run into some trouble with AfD, as he/she explains here. --Saforrest 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with revisions to make it less of a vanity article.
First off, autobiographical articles are not forbidden; they are just discouraged. And, unless a great deal of the objective facts on the page are false, this person seems sufficiently important to warrant a Wikipedia article. That said, there are problems with the article:
  • it's is long and excessively detailed. It's densely packed with information, but much of this is not necessary or encyclopaedic.
  • it's too praiseworthy of its subject. For example, regarding his books, it quotes positive reviews of books at great length, and describes them in superlative terms, e.g.
"The magnum opus of Marcinkowski is his award-winning dissertation [...] Dastur al-Muluk (Regulations of the Kings) provides invaluable information on political and religious administration, biographies of eminent personalities, economics, as well as culture and geography, during the early 1720s."
  • It seems that the article has been written almost exclusively by User:Adul, who is Christoph Marcinkowski, its subject. This isn't a problem per se, but it does lead to a general unencyclopaedic tone to the article at times, e.g.
"In March 1995, Marcinkowski left Germany, first for Singapore, a city for which he has since then maintained always the deepest admiration,"
I don't have much experience with how to deal with autobiographical Wikipedia entires. My current, somewhat uninformed, opinion is to keep it, and improve it in the ways described. --Saforrest 10:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suggest that the author set up a homepage for the content of this article. Wikipedia is not a website for posting resume. In addition, publicising the autobiography article by adding links in other articles such as [19] [20] (and dozens other articles) is quite unacceptable, IMO. --Vsion (talk) 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I find the debate around this entry quite surprizing (following the 'nomination' of this article for deletion by someone who does not identify himself for obvious reasons...). Once we start to nominate for deletion articles written by people who we don't like we can close down as well the whole wikipedia project. I can only hope that there is consensus on this... But anyway, lets be less ideological or driven away be personal motivations... I suggest to keep it...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .
The preceding anon user delinked this AFD from the daily log, it has been re-added - cohesion★talk 08:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if an anon has any say in this) or make it look like a real neutral encyclopedia entry and less like a self-advertising homepage. The wikipedian to make the final decision should note that all but one 'keep' votes were unsigned or anonymous. (Quite an irony considering how they (mostly Adul/Mr Marcinkowski himself) rant against the initial proponent's (my) anonymity.)
I first noticed a link to his page in the article about Samarra after the news report about the destroyed Al Askari Mosque, and asked myself why the name of any private person should relate to an Iraqi town. I think that this is something Wikipedia should avoid to become or we would soon have endless lists of remotely relevant consultants in topics of general interest.
If deletion doesn't apply here something should at least be done about his irrelevant linking all over the place. 85.182.13.210 08:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The issue of anonymouy 'requests' applies also to those in favour of deletion. Anyway, I would like to agree with regard to some of the linking but I think some of those in favour of deletion appear to be driven by some rather personal motives (envy among scholars or personal animosities? who the hell knows and why should that play any part here?...). So, do keep it but decide perhaps with regard to the extensive linking. I guess that should do it. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .
  • Delete. Self promotional article. The pictures are nice, however what do many of them even have to do with the article. I also love the contact info included at the bottom. Sheesh, a lot of hard work for nothing. mmeinhart 02:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A word of constructive advise: It could be edited further by a careful hand. But I think deleting it altogether would be an act of vandalism in itself, especially since some of those who are so keen to delete it seem not to be free from selfish motives themselves. Perhaps the linkings could be reduced somehow. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .
  • Question: Exactly who or what do you mean regarding 'selfish motives' of deletion proponents? This has been ominously hinted at several times now. I don't get it.
...and hey! You voted 'keep' three times already, 155.69.4.223, without being a registered Wikipedia member and also attempted to erase this whole AfD process. 85.182.4.113 08:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's that bad (which I don't think it is) or whatever then just delete it for Christ's sake, especially since there seems to be such an "urge" and "serious interest" to do so... Quite tiring all this sissy talk.... I can only hope that wikipedia will be able to deal with this in a professional, less injurious, manner with it. I still think revision would be the best way in dealing with articles which have academic matters as subject. This is just the irrelevant opinion of a non-American. Have a good day. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.69.4.223 (talk • contribs) .

This is a bit difficult. This should probably be relisted; there's a certain shortage of.....(how best to put this)...known users contributing to this discussion. Abstaining from this discussion until someone knowledgable about his field of study could come forward. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to March 3, 2006. Insert new comments below. — Mar. 3, '06 [09:22] <freakofnurxture|talk>
  • Keep by virtue of WP:BIO. To quote from the notability criteria: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more." It seems pretty clear that the subject of this article meets that criteria. If there are POV issues with the article, they ought to be handled on the talk page of that article and not on AfD. NoIdeaNick 11:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nick; trim the crap out of it (especially the really odd pictures) and it could be a halfway decent article.  RasputinAXP  c   15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article for this guy!?! Weak keep pivotal on removing the unremarkable rambling POV praise, the excessive overlinking, and the irrelevant pictures. -- Krash (Talk) 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Krash. I'm not quite sure he meets Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics, but I'll err on the side of letting it stay. The article doesn't need a full bibliography; why not ask [User:Adul|Marcinkowski] to choose the most important works for a selected biblography? - Rynne 18:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per NoIdeaNick. Subject of the article seems to satisfy notability criteria. If he wants to look foolish by creating and editing an article about himself, let him do it. dbtfztalk 23:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please as noideanick says Yuckfoo 00:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep Needs a pretty big rewrite, but seems notable. A second poll after the rewrite is probably a good idea. Eivind 03:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending any evidence of notability. I have serious doubts about these books having sufficient readership to meet out notablility tests for a writer: they are academic texts on rather isoteric topics. I'd be prepared to change this vote if some evidence is available. Even then, the article is very bad (per everybody above) and must be vigorously stripped of unencyclopedic content. AndyJones 22:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Academic texts on esoteric topics are perfectly good content, as titles. Are they something someone might want to refer to? Yes. Charles Matthews 12:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Bestsellers 252

edit

This was a contested {{prod}} (the objection came after the article had been deleted so I reinstated it and I'm bringing it here for consensus). RobertG ♬ talk 09:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to cow dung. Aaron 21:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cow Dung

edit

This should probably redirect somewhere, but I'm not sure. CrypticBacon 10:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikible

edit

Another non notable wikisite. Their About page has logged 114 visits, 2 of which were me. Delete. kingboyk 10:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mate, we have standards of inclusion here based on notability - see WP:WEB. I wish you well with your project, I really do (as a lazy would be Mediawiki developer myself I can see you've done a good job) but the link you've provided only strengthens my case. You have 13 registered users. To get a Wikipedia article you need to have thousands of users, preferably tens of thousands, or be very notable in some other way. You're not. Good luck with your project, but please understand that if we had an article on every web site (all of which are important to their creators) we would have millions of articles to manage. --kingboyk 18:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. There's a place on meta where you can announce new Mediawiki sites. --kingboyk 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Dritter is very new and also Heyjohngreen has a fairly low number of edits. But the arguments presented to keep have not been rebutted and the only argument given to delete is an assertion of non-notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Savvica

edit

does not meet WP:CORP. 500 google hits. Sleepyhead 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Website network management platform

edit

A Website Network Mangement Platform is a new category of software. There are very few listings because it is a new invention. If anyone can think of a better term for a system which manages a large group of websites and concurrently takes care of CMS, analytics, marketing and integration then speak up now. I'm the inventor of this category and its a bit disturbing that after five years of hard work on this new type of system, people are so happy to call it "Close to patent nonsense", without doing accurate research. Global companies have been using this Software as a Service offering for a number of years now. If you don't like the copy in the entry, then edit away. To delete the whole article is what I would call "patent nonsense", and ill-informed. I will be very happy indeed to debate the virtues of this term. Here is my email address: juz@bigfoot.com. Please do not delete my entry!

Unknown term. Close to none google results. Sleepyhead 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, perhaps speedy. Strongly suspect advertising or Google farming. Close to patent nonsense: "A Website Network Management Platform is an on-demand multi-website centric web based application for organizing, analysing, marketing and integrating a series of separate websites, typically for the Multinational corporation." - Smerdis of Tlön 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strong ad/spam suspicions. Cursive 23:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hawkins

edit

A high school football player who has yet to be drafted by a professional team, let alone graduate. Therefore, no notability at this point (similar to the recent Adrian Khoo case), and no need for an article. Once he is playing AFL football, by all means write an article. I propse a redirect to Wanda Tinasky, who used the name as her psuedonym. NB. This article has been subject to a bit of a revert war/argument involving myself, Rogerthat, and Boomtish (the original author). Harro5 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, again there is an American bias with Google results. Try a search for "Kate Fischer", compared with another B-grade actress "Moira Kelly" for example..there'd probably be more results for Kelly because she's American. Also "Robert Walls" gets just 17,000 results - and he is a deadset legend of the AFL. Google results are fairly irrelevant in terms of Australian stuff. See also "Wijnand Ott" who is a legend in Dutch music, gets 50 results. Rogerthat Talk 00:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, Moira Kelly has been working for the last 15 years, stars (as in, gets her name on the poster) in at least one (internationally distributed) movie I can recall, stars in the 1st season of a popular (and internationally distributed) television drama series, and apparently appears in a current TV series. Nope, can't imagine why she gets so many Google hits: must be solely due to her being an American, clearly. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TAC cup is a schoolkid competition, same as the Australian Mathematics Competition.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope I meant delete it is not a notable person which does not warrant an article. Mike Beckham 05:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT Change my vote I meant delete and I still believe delete Mike Beckham 07:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applied_Risk_Management

edit

Delete. This page should be deleted or rewritten, since as it stands, it is clearly an advertisement. Joe Walker 12:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fan translation scene history (video game)

edit

This page seems to be original research, and is unencyclopedic. Srleffler 12:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete as hoax. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Robertson

edit

Appears to be a hoax. This guy is a Chicago investment banker? Check [21] and look at the first result. --CrypticBacon 12:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Profit


ATLANTIC STRATEGIES GROUP, INC.


PRINCIPAL ADDRESS 4521 PGA BLVD. #246 PALM BEACH GARDENS FL 33418


MAILING ADDRESS 2901 CLINT MOORE ROAD SUITE 181 BOCA RATON FL 33496 google hayes robertson, gop or republican or strategist

Changed 04/30/2005


Document Number P04000070523 FEI Number 371494837 Date Filed 04/29/1996 State FL Status ACTIVE Effective Date NONE


Registered Agent Name & Address ROBERTSON, HAYES 2901 CLINT MOORE ROAD SUITE 181 BOCA RATON FL 33496 Address Changed: 04/30/2005


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Integer Research

edit

Doesn't appear to meet WP:CORP; I can't find any nontrivial sources that didn't originate with the company itself or its founders. —Cryptic (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Lex and Terry. No extra content to merge. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lex and terry

edit

Delete: Incorrect title Niels Ø 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Note: Nearly the same article is found here: Lex and Terry. I have copied the contents of Lex and terry to talk:Lex and Terry, so anyone can incorporate missing detail into the correctly named article.--Niels Ø 13:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep and cleanup. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeta Phi Rho

edit

I nominate this article for deletion because I believe it lacks the importance to be a wikipedia article, in any case, if it is rewritten, perhaps it could be kept. Anyway this article has had many POV problems and disputes in its short history and I would like everyone to have an opinion. Francisco Valverde 13:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and Cleanup, as much as I dislike frats they are notable, and this article is more than just a stub, although I don't think the listing of the original members needs to be there. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 14:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per Talk:Zeta Phi Rho, ΣΧ, ΣΝ, ΑΦΑ, etc., all list their founders by name. (This is a big deal to frats apparently.) This page is a good deal shorter and to the point than those are. I don't know what Francisco's problem is. He's not weighed in once on the talk page and the "disputes" basically boil down to his slapping "Totally Disputed" and "Not Verified" templates on it repeatedly when all of this stuff shows up on the various chapter web sites at their respective universities. There's even discussion on POV on the talk page that Fransisco never expressed an opinion on. MARussellPESE 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's been consensus in the past to delete local greek organizations; this one is on the cusp. It's not a national organization, but it's slightly more than a local. All of its chapters are in California, which is a large state. The Loyla Marymount chapter is either underground or inactive and isn't mentioned on the website. I find no mention on the USC student orgs site, UC-Riverside, or UC-Irvine. I'm of the mind that they're making a good attempt at starting a national fraternity but haven't quite reached a state of notability yet. Delete.  RasputinAXP  c   15:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per RasputinAXP. Unless notability can be shown. -- Krash (Talk) 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There is a consensus to delete individual chapters of national organizations but there has never been consensus to delete local organizations. Many local organizations have articles on Wiki (e.g. Alpha Chi Alpha, The William Penn Society, Kappa Kappa Kappa) I actually tried to nominate several of them for deletion but they have all survived AfD therefore the consensus in past AfD noms usually falls on the side of keeping these articles when they are local. Zeta Phi Rho technically isn't local but it is not national either. It is what's called a "regional" fraternity. I personally know members of this organization. MARussellPESE is correct in that Francisco Valverde should've used the talk page and dealt with issues there before putting this article on AfD. I've worked on many fraternity and sorority articles and I honestly can't see how the present article is POV. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: All of the local greek org articles I've seen on AfD the last 4-6 months have been clear deletes. The three you've mentioned are notable for several reasons: Alpha Chi Alpha and Kappa Kappa Kappa are some of the oldest independent fraternities in the country (and AXA's former affiliation with my own organization is interesting, and probably contributed to some of the changes in it in the 60s, but I digress) and The Penn society's age makes it notable as well. I'm not arguing POV on this AfD, just lack of notability.  RasputinAXP  c   18:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree. Perhaps actually the POV is correct, but I do not find the article notable enought and apart of that; what does the article tell us? Not a lot. Philosophy and History section are not saying much...
--Francisco Valverde 19:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Interesting. Thanks for bringing up those past AfDs. At best then it can be said that there is no consensus about whether to keep or delete locals (I wish there was either way). I argue notability because I've known this organization to be well known among the Southern California greek community. Aside from the usual "fraternity stuff" I recall they have initiated several important philanthropies concerning the Asian-American community. I heard of them even before I was even in college. From personal experience, they are a lot more notable and a far more dynamic organization than many locals I've come across. Having several chapters denotes notability IMHO. I'm just having a hard time understanding how a regional fraternity with 8 chapters in some of the most well known schools in California lacks notability. Unfortunately though I can't and will not add info to the article because it would come under the scrutinity of verifiability and original research so take what I said with a grain of salt. --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. There is nothing wrong with articles on frats and other school groups. -- JJay 19:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep please this org is notable Yuckfoo 00:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burikutonu

edit

Article appears to be a hoax or someone's original creation. Nnh (who is Japanese) says that the name doesn't even sound Japanese (see Talk:Burikutonu), and the name gets no hit on Google.ja. BrianSmithson 13:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete (blanked by author). — Mar. 6, '06 [14:02] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Danny!

edit

vanity page, doesn't pass WP:BAND Grocer 14:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum51

edit

This article about a group of gaming clans is full of original research. Normally that's a reason to edit, not delete, but given the nature of the subject matter I doubt there exist any reliable sources covering this topic. I tried making it into a redirect to the Freelancer game article (assuming the folks there would be able to put in as much or as little info about this as is appropriate), but it was reverted. I don't see that this article should exist by itself, since the subject matter is important only to those who play the game. Friday (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if this is not the appropriate place for commentary. The redirect to your Freelancer game article was not deemed appropriate because A51 hosts and participates in more than only Freelancer, as my recent edit attempted to illustrate. In addition to games, members of A51 share tips about many other programs, such as photoshop, milkshape, and lightwave.

I added the web address of A51 for verification, but perhaps I do not understand what you mean by that. Lancer's Reacor (www.lancersreator.com) also has information about A51.

I understand this article may seem self-promotional, but it was added by members not staff. Staff only became involved in an effort to add a complete picture of the community and hopefully save the article from deletion. If I can be of further assistence, please contact me at aurora@asylum51.com. Thank you for your time. ~Aurora

1 peice of information - the current size of the member base is 1257. I know it does not meet the spec of 5000, but its still quite high.


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Burke

edit

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 14:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unverifiable non-notable vanity. Weregerbil 15:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Weregerbil. (I'm awfully suspicious of this one, since there's also a Danny Burke on AfD, also with outrageous and unverifiable (but totally different) claims, though that one's UK, while this one's Canadian. Maybe someone just like seeing his own name in Wiki?) Fan1967 20:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. most likely a hoax. Eivind 23:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's undeniable crap, but there actually is a concert promoter in Toronto named Dan Burke, who has been associated with the El Mocambo. Ref here, frex. (And for what it's worth, he didn't kill the ElMo, either: new owners killed it by booting him.) I'm not convinced that local band bookers really deserve their own articles, but this isn't a hoax — it's just a bad article about a real person who may not make it over the notability line. No vote yet; I gotta think about it for a day or two. But even if I come to the conclusion that he's keepable, this will definitely need cleanup, there's no doubt about that. Bearcat 07:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dating software

edit

Delete the article does nothing more than say what is already stated in the name dating software and has little potential for expansion. Possibly, the article could be merged into something. Also, dating website isn't even an article. Cool3 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't merit a separate article and no material worth merging anywhere. JonHarder 22:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I'm going to apply {{npov}} as well. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic origins of the Kurds

edit

Article does not seem to be of any real use, I think the very few 'nationalist' Kurds contributing to this are carrying out research in a biased way, e.g. User:Heja helweda just mentioned in a dispute here an article of a recent study which claims that Kurds are Iranian people who settled in to the West of Iran, however he has focused on the non-Iranian 'studies' he finds to contribute here, perhaps to continue the Anti-Iranian attacks reported here by 'Kurd nationalists' Kash 10:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Encyclopedia Britannica and other authoritative sources [do not] recognize such a genetic test, in fact, they all state the origins of the Kurds are unkonwn. It's "original reaserach" and can't be backed by any of athoritative, or scholary sources'. I have extensively researched this, and all scholars agree [britannica.com/ebc/article-9369506].Zmmz 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Encyclopedias are LESS authoritative than current research. They are inevitably several years or more out of date -- except WP, of course. Zora 06:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very informative.Diyako Talk + 02:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Appears to be sourced from reliable published material (which I am not competent to evaluate technically). I don't think this is pseudoscience; I do know that similar mDNA studies regarding the historical genetics of the Jewish people have received wide publication and academic and media attention. MCB 03:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per MCB Golfcam 03:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Far from being "original research" by "Kurdish ultra-nationalists", the articles cited are peer-reviewed articles, written by authors from many nations (France, US, UK, and Spain are prominent), and published in prestigious journals. Those trying to suppress this information should be ashamed of themselves. That said, I feel that the article itself is a bit unmoored -- I don't know anything about how "Kurd" was defined by the writers of the WP article OR by the writers of the scientific articles cited. I'd prefer the article to have more context, and in particular have more links to the WP articles on population genetics and on the wider genetic history of the Middle East and Central Asia. Questions of labeling and boundaries are all-important here. Zora 03:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please don't make personal attacks, telling editors opposing your views, to "be ashamed of themselves". --ManiF 18:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete The article is not supported by any legitimate scientic evidence. It is also racist and in violation of Wikepedia's Neutral Point of View policy. --Houshyar 05:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To understand the POV warring going on, it's probably necessary to note that proponents of the Kurdish national cause (see Kurdistan) seek to maximise claims of a distinct Kurdish ethnic/cultural/etc. identity, while opponents of that cause (mostly people describing themselves as patriots or nationalists from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria) seek to minimise such claims. Judging from their userpages, most users seeking to delete the article hail from Iran. In wikipedia terms, we should establish whether this article is sufficiently non-original research to warrant inclusion, in which case it's probably an encyclopaedic topic, as noted above. Right now it's a keep and cleanup per Zora and MCB for me. Sandstein 08:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you are judging our opposition to this unscientific paper, based on our nationality. Please note that it is a Wikipedia guideline to assume good faith and not use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views", my opposition is based on the fact that this article is original research without any credible references. The article is not encyclopedic and does not conform with NPOV. --ManiF 09:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Clean up and merge) Complete rewrite and integrate to Kurdihs people article. Because :

1. It is not supported by any legitimate scientic sources. (Just a handful of external links are not considered to be credible specially in these type of articles) 2. Article is a mere original research rather than being an encyclopedic article. 3. Article may not conform with NPOV. 4. These kind of articles needs an expert in its field. Amir85 08:44, Saturday 4 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Zora. Legitimate topic, and the article references papers in academic journals from reputable publishers. Any NPOVing that may be needed should be done using similar references. u p p l a n d 09:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wikipedia needs credible article.
  • Strong Delete The article is a very interesting example of pseudo-science, research which is done with the sole purpose of finding out what you already had decided was true. Such things should have no place in Wikipedia. Shervink 12:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
Comment The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA is pseudo-science? The American Journal of Human Genetics is pseudo-science? Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza is considered to be the most influential population geneticist working today, and all the articles mentioned are based on his work. See also Human Genome Diversity Project and Genealogical DNA test. Zora 14:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, the articles are scientific peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. But taking selected excerpts out of them to promote anti-Iranian hatred and Kurdish separatism is wrong. Taking scientific articles out of context in order to prove one's prejudice is pseudo-science, or mis-using science, whatever you name it. You can likewise make pages on genetic origins of a lot of people, all of which would result in virtually the same thing: The people over there are mixed beyond recognition, which is what makes the whole point of this article ridiculous. There are artices relating Kurds to most other groups of people in the region. So, what is your conclusion? My conclusion is that the genetics of the people in the region is mixed, and singling out Kurds in such an article is thus irrelevant. Even if this is to be discussed, it does not need a separate page. There are people here who propose deleting every mention of the word Iran from Wikipedia, but those same people go to this extent in describing Kurds. Why?Shervink 16:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
  • Move to wikispecies or delete. --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • What oher ethnic minority/race has genetic origin articles? --Cool CatTalk|@ 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Such articles could be written. Studies on Mongolian and Jewish men, and on Lebanese, have been recently published. Hmm, also a study of genetic differences between Rajputs and Rajasthani tribals. Note that these studies never, EVER, show that some groups have a genetic trait that is not shared by other groups. There is always intermarriage, always a gradual blending of populations, and local populations are best characterized in terms of percentages, not absolutes. This goes for every single human group on the planet. HOWEVER, it is still possible to distinguish some populations as relatively homogenous, and others as relatively mixed. Kurds are genetically heterogeneous, as are most Iranians. A map would show this better than words. Zora 16:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:NOT a place for such material. Treatng ethnicity based on genetics can be viewed as racism. This article establishes who is kurd and who isn't. What percentage of match makes someone a kurd? Who is to question User:Diyako's (assuming he is a kurd) or some other persons ethnicity based on his genes?
        • Historic origins is fine (migration paths from historic documents etc (such as jews migrating to most of the world from middle east) which can be expressed in a sngle line or paragraph on Jewish people), genetic is not. Kurds are an ethnic group that is not "geneticaly distinct" unless we talk about pure races, then it can easily get nasty.
        • --Cool CatTalk|@ 17:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry But as your POV you even do not know the difference between racism and science. Among many Middle Eastern people such as Turks (for ex. Cool cat), Iranians (for ex. Shervinak) every thing is redefined in another way. race, ethnicity, linguistic family, DNA test, Human rights, Wikipedia policies! When I show them by credible sources they reject and reply with nonsense. Currently there is a Turkish-Iranian movement against any Kurdish-related article even if it is well-cited. Diyako Talk + 17:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not a Turk, please be more creative in name calling that one was just boring. There is no Turkish-Iranian movement against any Kurdish-related articles, there is no cabal. I know the difference between racism and science. In the name of science, racism is still racism. Such articles should not be tolerated on wikipedia. --Cool CatTalk|@ 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's Shervink, not Shervinak! And I totally agree that ethnicities should not be categorized by genes. It is simply impossible, and additionally has a racist connotation. Shervink 15:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)shervink[reply]
  • You are a Turk and genetically quite similar to people from Mongolia. It is not a bad thing. But unfortunately many people from Middle East due to their society structure have very strange standpoints to life. I think Everybody from outside of the region can understand the feelings of a Turk or Iranian who exteremely love their country which by itself occupies homlelands of other ethnic groups against Kurdish people who never accepted assimilation. Let's others judge. Thanks.

Diyako Talk + 18:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete: No need for it. We can not categorize people based on genes. It would be impossible. Articles such as these can get extremely confusing and irrelevant.--Gol 05:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge with Kurds and neutralize either way. These studies, as with most genetic samplings of populations, were severely limited in their scope and cannot be used to generalize or make assumptions about an entire ethnic group which numbers in the millions, spread out over a large area. SouthernComfort 07:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But genetic sampling IS used to generalize, and the people doing the generalizing publish in many prestigious journals. Could it perhaps be that the scientists who do peer reviews for PNAS, Human Molecular Genetics, and the British Medical Journal know more about this subject than you do? Zora 14:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Including the scientific POV is one thing, but like everything else in this world, science isn't perfect, and neither are scientists, and their theories don't always prove right in the end. Particularly in the area of genetic analysis, which is still very much a young field and results often remain subjective due to limitations in how broadly they can study populations. And this is to say nothing of the issue of bioethics, which is a strong topic right now in the medical and scientific communities (as well as amongst theologians and thinkers), and the various ethical and moral issues surrounding the studies of genetic relationships and "race." SouthernComfort 15:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the general issue: Coolcat says that "Treatng ethnicity based on genetics can be viewed as racism" and that WP shouldn't discuss this. I don't think that there's anything that WP shouldn't discuss. Genetic differences between local populations are fair game for scientific study, and help us learn about our past.

If science shows that all the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia are genetically all-mixed-up (chop suey, as we say in Hawai'i), then that's a fact. If people have based their beliefs re ethnicity, and who is REALLY an X, or a Y, on supposed descent, and the descent turns out to be a myth, well then, that's a fact. It doesn't mean you can't have a group -- it just means that group membership has to based on criteria other than genetic. Which seems healthier to me. Surely group identity should be based on willingness to take responsibility for each other, to love, and not on "blood".

How about broadening the article and using it to discuss recent linguistic, archaeological, and mDNA research on Middle Eastern/Central Asian population history? Zora 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If science shows that all the peoples of the Middle East and Central Asia are genetically all-mixed-up (chop suey, as we say in Hawai'i), then that's a fact. More racist vitriol. SouthernComfort 07:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does anyone care that there are lots of AfDs of Kurd & Kurdish related articles and categories? Is WP going to take a stand that Kurds and related topics are unworthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia? Carlossuarez46 18:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zing Technologies

edit

About 500 Googles, many referring to something else. No evidence of market significance. A short list of schools using it, no sign of any real significance per WP:SOFTWARE. Just zis Guy you know? 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We use it the classroom. Most of the other bits of commercial software vendors that we use have pages on Wikipedia, dont see why Zing shouldnt or why it is being singled out here. Article reads vendor neutral. I hope that this doesnt mean we start voting Microsoft, Novell, Sun for deletion or worse still, jump all over all the smaller software vendors. From memory, one of the pages that I wrote was about the worlds first online game called Snipes. The company was a small, insignificant startup but in the cool light of history, their contribution is now more significant. I vote for keep. --RolandG 07:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google shows 9k hits. Looks fairly widespread on colleges so it probably has 5000 user requirement per WP:SOFTWARE.  Monkeyman(talk) 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second Google hit is for "Data Zing Technologies" and the third Google hit is for "e-Zing Technologies". '"Zing Technologies" -"data zing" -"e-Zing"' brings back less than 600 hits, most of them redundant. Delete, not notable. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Probably has 5000 users'? Probably means nothing, I'm afraid. Articles must pass WP:V, this does not. Non-notable, delete. Proto||type 11:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Using Google as sole means of verification seems a bit weak. It's an interesting example of group support systems. The article needs more detail, rather than deletion. 59.167.78.4 05:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Stifle 09:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the original author of the article I'm obviously biased, but I would like to try and make it conform to wikipedia's policies than see the article deleted. Zing is about more than either the company that produces it, or the software itself. It is also a process for team meeting and learning that gets a group thinking together in parallel, and allows them to record their contributions in their own words using a keyboard. I propose changing the article title to 'Zing Technology' and putting the focus on the technology, process, and facilitation skills rather than the company or the software and incorporate more academic material from the research that's been done. CatS 21:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 14:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG and Zoe.  RasputinAXP  c   15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JzG. Jabencarsey 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator. MCB 03:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Eivind 03:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment I will rework it to better conform to wikipolicy. Zing is much more widely used than a google search would suggest. A conference on activity theory and action research is being held in Australia in October, and zing is a powerful tool for these areas of research. I feel frustrated by it being marked for deletion and am not clear on how to dispute it. I am possibly the only wikipedian in the zing community, so getting a whole lot of zing people here to defend the page would result in an accusation of sock puppetry, so I really don't know what I should do. I'm happy to work on and improve the article, but I don't feel I can do that while it is marked for deletion. Some constructive criticism has been left on the talk page, and I would like to address and improve the article.--CatS 01:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate "vote", further commentary is of course perfectly acceptable Just zis Guy you know? 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
changed Keep to comment --CatS 02:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:Software requires at least 5k users for general use software. While specialized software may have less then that, best would be if it fulfilled any other criteria. Returning to the numbers of users-issue: According to the publisher, they have the following customers "
  • Universities: Sydney, RMIT, Macquarie, Curtin, Central Queensland, UNSW, Monash for teaching and learning and business studies.
  • Consultants: Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Managed Innovation and BizKit for BPR, quality, strategy and innovation.
  • Government: in Australia: Defence, Queensland Departments of Treasury, Primary Industry and Rail; National Crime Authority, Centrelink for strategy and project teams. Business: Boeing, Pearl, for strategy and innovation.
  • Schools: in 100 schools in Australia and the UK for learning, professional development, community activities and education reform." Although we must asume, that this is probably the very max of possible users, it _does_ substantiate the significance case. If your google for "anyzing pdf -wikipedia" you will stumble across several uses of anyzing during workshops and such, mostly in Australia, from 2001 up to 2005 ([23]). Catscracht supplied some links he found at the talk page that do not clearly match the criteria but come close. I don't know about the journals the publications have been printed, but the Alar Jornal seems to be active with an international conference held every 2-3yrs. [24] To summarize my opinion, it seems that the software's notability is indeed limited, but as far as I can see, rather regionally than anything else. In Australia, there seems to be quite frequent use of the software. Since it is not personal software, but rather software for insitutions, it seems explainable that there are not a huge number of google hits. --Johnnyw 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Zing software system and its associated facilitation processes seem to be a significant instance of group support/team learning. I agree that Google results are unlikely to demonstrate its user base, use or significance. As Zing is specialised software (not personal software) the 5k WP:Software requirement does not apply. The article needs to be cleaned up and I recommend it is re-worked. --Beraht (talk · contribs) 12:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) User's sole edit[reply]
  • Since this is a tough call regarding the criteria, I let my vote be directed by second thoughts. The first one being Ignore all rules, or citing a statement that expresses this guideline: "We have a set of rules and standards and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart those newcomers who take that invitation (be bold!) at face value." CatS may not be a newcomer at all, but a less frequent then well spirited contributor whose one effort at Wikipedia is the Zing article. Rremoving an article that is or at least comes fairly close to being notable which has a good minded editor and maintainer as a patron seems rather destructive to me; in comparison to keeping an ill-maintained uninformational and badly written article which hardly meets the criteria (even after cleanup). The other thought is: "When in doubt, don't delete." Keep it is. --Johnnyw 20:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was DELETE ALL --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sarge (Doom)

edit

Trivia:very little context, very little content, not notable. Tenebrous 15:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages to be deleted, Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia:


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

The result of the debate was Speedy redirect to Protestantism. Aaron 21:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant

edit

The article fails to assert notability; however, the article has been on the site since Feb. 2002. Therefore, I do feel comfortable deleting it without community consent. The only reference for the band is their MySpace account. The only Yahoo hit I found was for a Milwaukee festival which is where the band is based. Psy guy Talk 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the page to its prior state, a redirect to Protestantism. IF the band is worthy of a Wikipedia article, then that article needs to be at Protestant (band) instead. (Also, this is a strong case for prod'ing instead of AFD'ing.) - jredmond 15:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Deathphoenix ʕ 15:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice

edit

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice (second nomination), now re-creatd by Eggen (talk · contribs) with no edit history outside this article save the one null edit required to start the counter for article creation and being edited by Sleepyhead81 (talk · contribs), an employee of the company who made some difficulties last time round and, since deletion, has spent many hours purging redlinks and weblinks from software lists (no bad thing). So: this is almost certainly an example of gaming the system. On the other hand, there is some additional information in the article - it seems they have amassed a little bit of attention in the months since deletion. Much as I hate to reward vanity editors, it is probable that this now rises above the vanispamcruftisement threshold. I am, however, profoundly unhappy about Sleepyhead's apparent deviousness, since not only does he know that it could have been taken to DRV with a reasonable chance of success, but he's also been told that he should not be editing articles on subjects where he has a vested interest. I for one would have been happy to help Sleepyhead to get the article re-created, and so I am sure would Tony Sidaway. Hell, Tony would probably just have undeleted it. I'm bringing it here so we can have a formal endorsement for keep or delete; as it is it could be tagged as a re-creation by any passing editor with a memory. Just zis Guy you know? 15:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have 24SevenOffice on my watch-list here on Wikipedia and was surprised to see the article re-appear today. I have no knowledge of Eggen (talk · contribs) and I have no involvement in re-creating the article. I am an employee of 24SevenOffice and have made edits to the article - mostly to correct mistakes and add information from new events. I understand that JzG (talk · contribs) suspects vanity and advertising given the previous deletion and my involvement in the article. I would like to note that my contributions to Wikipedia continued after the deletion and has been fairly significant. So I am not on Wikipedia to advertise for 24SevenOffice.

I am biased so I wont add my vote but I think 24SevenOffice meets the criteria for notability for software:

- Media coverage. See the references as examples of media coverage in English. I can also provide an extensive list of media coverage in the Norwegian press (including the major financial and IT publications). The Publish.com article lists 24SevenOffice as one of five enterprise-ready web 2.0 apps. In Sydney Morning Herald (the largest newspaper in Australia) mentions 24SevenOffice and NetSuite as succesfull SaaS providers.

- The system have won several awards including 'Seal of Excellence' at CeBIT.

- The system is innovative as it is the first Ajax based ERP/CRM solution. 24SevenOffice used Ajax before the term was coined. NetSuite for example started using Ajax about six months ago.

- There exists wikipedia articles about 24SevenOffice in other languages: Norwegian (bokmål), Norwegian (nynorsk) and Swedish.

--Sleepyhead 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kudos to Sleepyhead for not "voting" (yes, yes, it's not a vote). And I accept of course the assurance that Eggen is not a sock. However this turns out I sincerely hope Sleepyhead will continue the valuable work of pruning cruft from the lists, which is a never-ending task. Just zis Guy you know? 17:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, and after being noted, this is really a No Concensus. Deletion reversed. Apologies. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isidor

edit

Delete nn band. Proposed a delete with {{prod}} but it was objected to. Only released 1 album. A Google on Isidor "Arnar Ingi Viðarson" -wikipedia yields 2 hits. --Bruce1ee 15:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scalix

edit

Software product, scores <400 unique Googles. No evidence of significant user base, innovative features or notable customers. Just zis Guy you know? 22:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Zoe is correct. I checked, there are some forums, a lot of ads and press releases, but not much of substance that I could find. It doesn't seem to be publicly quoted, I coldn't find verifiable detail on the financial size of the company and I didn't see a list of notable customers, or a figure for the number of employees. Obviously I was going through a list, knocking out redlinks and looking for spam. When you look for spam you tend to find it - I am always happy to be proved wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 10:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFTWARE Criteria 1 says, "The software has been verifiably the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the software developer itself." How does this software not meet this criteria? I'm not affiliated with this software in any way whatsoever but I hate to see an article that deserves to be here get deleted.  Monkeyman(talk) 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press releases are generated by the company, therefore do not qualify for your criterion. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because one article does not yet have an article (and OpenMail should) does not mean another article shouldn't. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:20, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Deathphoenix 15:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the edification of voters this time around, the "unique google hits" cited by the nom mean absolutely nothing here. Microsoft only gets about 500-600 on an average day. There is no topic anywhere that would not get three figures of "unique" Google hits, tops, by this reading. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 400 unique hits is plenty. I believe 1,000 unique hits is technically impossible. Kappa
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was: Moved to WP:RFD Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SocialisM

edit

why an article with such a name should exist??? yanis 16:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dark energy resonance

edit

Delete Original hypothetical article SailorfromNH 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TSI Systemgroup

edit

Delete as non notable company. Even the topmost entry on searching for it in Google is this Wikipedia page. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiterios

edit

Vanity page Joey Roe 16:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Garden Soccer

edit

Originally prodded by MNewnham as A non-notable derivative, Forum on external link has 0 active members, in any case, if not deleted, would need to be tagged copyvio. De-prodded by Mike83 without comment so moving here. A note about the alleged copyvio: I could find no evidence that the material was copyrighted. See my comments on the article's talk page. James084 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nightwish fanclubs

edit

This is forked over from Nightwish, one of our featured articles, and makes it clear that this a list of official fanclubs of the band rather than unofficial fanclubs looking for free publicity. I'm not voting, but since this had been a speedy candidate I would like some other opinions on it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's deleted, won't the content wind up right back in the main article? -- Vary | Talk 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not if people watch out for it and remove it when it happens. Undesired links can be removed from the main article without having to have a seperate article for them. Friday (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Pisano

edit

Is he really that famous? I was going to speedy him, but decided not to. If you think it should be, then please do. KILO-LIMA 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sasxsek

edit

Unknown and made-up language. KILO-LIMA 16:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Merge and redirect to The Cosby Show. Deathphoenix ʕ 18:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening credits of The Cosby Show

edit

Original research. FuriousFreddy 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was it never existed. — Mar. 5, '06 [14:59] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Voidism

edit

Non-notable, see Google search for voidism -- infinity0 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. — Mar. 9, '06 [18:08] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Novosoft Handy Backup

edit

I put a prod tag on the article with the following reason:Promotion/advert for a backup utility with no assertion of notability. Prod tag was removed by Novosoft (the author) with no comment, so I'n taking it here. Tonywalton  | Talk 16:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the article stands on its own. See the guidelines on Notability. The question with any commercial product is why would someone go to an encylopedia to look it up, and what would they find that is different than just going to the company's web site. Something like Coca-Cola has been around so long it has cultural significance independent of its commercial value. Microsoft Windows has an interesting history, and the article says more than just where to buy it and how it works (including criticism not found on on official sites). What is the significance of Handy Backup that someone would want to look it up in an authoritative, unbiased encyclopedia? Thatcher131 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just several points. Not many programs appeared on CNN headline news. Position in Google. Many reviews on backup software include HandyBackup. Amount of users. Isn't this enough?Novosoft 15:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find fewer than 10 hits in Lexis/Nexis, dated 2002-2004. I don't know how many computer mags are indexed in Lexis/Nexis so that might be an undercount. It doesn't seem to have been mentioned by the New York Times or Wash Post, which would surely have been picked up in the search. PC magazine reviewed backup programs in 2003 and called it "mediocre." In 2004 a tech columnist in the Bar Association's magazine praised it. It is mentioned in a Ziff-Davis produced segment on PCs that was offered to local TV stations in 2002. That's about the extent of the coverage. Notable? I'll hold my own vote for the moment. Thatcher131 22:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you ask Google about backup, you will find that HandyBackup is on second or third place. It is there for years. Not sure that Google is right source of Notability though. Novosoft 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The company(Novosoft) article is under Category:Protected deleted pages. Eivind 05:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is it related to content of this article? When I wrote those article, I was very new to Wikipedia and made some stupid mistakes. Going to try to recover that article after getting more experience. Novosoft 05:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Handybackup has 2500 downloads at downloads.com. Given that it is available from other sources as well, does it approach the 5000 user mark suggested in WP:SOFTWARE? But it's shareware (or trialware) so how many users are there really? Has it been included in any published magazine reviews of backup software more recently than 2003? Thatcher131 07:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the good linkWP:SOFTWARE. Amount of registered users of HandyBackup exceed 20,000. Download monthly rate is more than 5,000. AFAIK download.com shows amount of downloads for particular version(latest one), there were many previous versions of HandyBackup. Novosoft 08:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wiss

edit

Either non-notable activist or a fake article, see Google search for "Michael Wiss" -- infinity0 17:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Systems

edit

Obvious advertisement.--FelineFanatic13talk 


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1231_property

edit

Delete Serves no useful purpose, does not reference it's sources, unencyclopediac CloudNine 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Echo kitty

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National E-fed Alliance

edit

None notable E-wrestling (fantasy wresting) website. Looks like an advertisement. Englishrose 17:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Jones

edit

Speedy delete. Vanity page, author removed speedy delete tag. Wickethewok 17:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slicktor

edit

Delete Hoax, not notable, probable vanity page, no Google results confirm content SailorfromNH 17:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the nomination has been removed from the article, though it is not otherwise remarkably changed SailorfromNH 02:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was USERFIED. kingboyk 04:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Is known enough

edit

appears to be a guideline for inclusion, but seems more suited for userspace than wikispace. Perhaps userfy to creator.-- Syrthiss 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. kingboyk 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ebil

edit

Delete only definition. Nn also. Wickethewok 17:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was: Speedily deleted - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan oldach

edit

Delete Google search returns no relevant results. Hoax? Wickethewok 17:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nomination moved to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Cuba infobox. -- Krash (Talk) 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cuba infobox

edit

Delete because it is just a copy of the Template:Infobox country but for Cuba MJCdetroit 17:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. Please, AfD is not for moving or renaming articles. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Kurdistan

edit

This should be renamed to Kurds in Syria, as no one beside nationalist Kurds refer to this region as 'Syrian Kurdistan' Kash 18:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grodzki

edit

No real assertion of notablity other than having They Might Be Giants as fans. Esprit15d 19:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not true… the site itself gets multiple questions a day. not every question is posted or responded to. also note that grodzki is not a product or does not sell anything. mgrodzki 2:11, 3 March 2006 (EST)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE and, if I may be so bold, good riddance. kingboyk 04:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meck - Thunder In My Heart Again controversy

edit

Unverifiable, uncertain, but it seems well-written for a stub article Sunfazer (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meatspinning

edit

Delete. Original research and/or a hoax; subject material also appears to be non-notable. Mithrandi 19:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedied └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 20:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlin Gale

edit

Delete. Vanity page, or a joke on a school friend or something of that sort. Stumps 19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:24, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hakem Rustom

edit

I found this by pressing "Random article". I read it and couldn't really figure out who this person is. He's a Ph.D. student. Great! Doesn't strike me as very notable. Google test: 29 for "Hakem Rustom". Tskoge 19:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Lamezor

edit

Yes, The Game (game) has survived two AfDs, and given how many people come to Wikipedia looking for it, it should. But The Lamezor is not nearly as notable. It seems to have been made up at Olin College one day. And basically nothing can be said about it that isn't already at The Game (game). rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco at the 2006 Winter Olympics

edit

Morocco was on the competitors list at the beginning but the athletes didn't compete in the end. So the proposal was to delete this article. And a very similar case is Mexico at the 2006 Winter Olympics. Opened for suggestions. --Tone 19:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also Pakistan and Peru. Is this AFD about all these country pages?--Nitsansh 22:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't noticed these two. The Torino website states that there were some competitors from Peru, not sure about Pakistan. If the outcome will be Keep, I see no problem in keeping all of them. In fact, I am more inclined to keep myself. --Tone 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. — Rebelguys2 talk 00:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austin St. John

edit

nn actor vanity

Delete GruntiIda 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Old School Systems

edit

Obvious advertisement.--FelineFanatic13talk 


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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator. Improvements have been made to article and the notability tag removed. kingboyk 01:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold (band)

edit

Tagged with Template:notability since 20 January. Red link farm. Not much in the way of incoming links. Janitorial action; I saw the notability tag was old whilst I was there to dab. Don't have time to fully check for WP:MUSIC compliance so I'll pass it to you guys. kingboyk 20:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll keep a close watch on this. The notability tag has been removed and the article is getting some attention so it's likely the nom will be withdrawn. --kingboyk 16:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been tagged since January, which suggests nobody cares; this is a legitimate janitorial nomination on that fact alone. Furthermore, AFD is a wonderful way of concrentrating minds and getting an article improved (only this week, two deletion debates I have started have resulted in - the cleaning up of an article like this, again on a subject I know nothing about; a new WikiProject).
It takes about 2 minutes to AFD an article. To properly research is more like half an hour or more. If you're so angry use that energy to improve the article! I don't have time to improve sloppy articles on bands I've never heard of, when I'm going through the site disambiguating links. If you want to get angry I suggest you direct it at the person who tagged it *for notability. I'm just the messenger. --kingboyk 16:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC) *--kingboyk 16:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page history shows that you added the AfD tag. I don't know enough about the band to expand this in any worthwhile way, but notability guidelines are met, and were discovered easily by googling the band. I simply fail to understand the "Don't have time to fully check for WP:MUSIC complaince," yet can find enough time for a "janitorial action" that takes almost four times as long. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 16:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry you feel that way and I shall make a mental note for future nominations. In my defence I can only say yesterday was very hectic (check my contribs!) --kingboyk 16:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platinum Truffles

edit

Textbook vanity article. Sandstein 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep. - Bobet 16:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shakila moved to Shakeela

edit

As the user who originally PRODded this article put it: "A few Shakilas exist on IMDb, but none match. What links here seems to say Shakila is a singer. Either way, a Shakila who has a unique niche in B-grade Indian soft porn either does not exist or is not notable." Sandstein 20:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Retracted, see below. Sandstein 13:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete According to the IMDB, there is a real Indian actress called Shakila, who was active from the 1940s through the 1960s. This is obviously not an article about her, and may even be a subtle attack on her or someone else of the same name. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The correct spelling is Shakeela and she was notable, er, notorious, for her roles from 2001-2003. Later, she shifted to acting in mainstream movies. IMDB entry is available on this name and refers to her movies. A google search gives 192,000 hits - most of the first 100 hits refer to this person, but as is to be expected, contain less of biographical information but more of pics. --Gurubrahma 13:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, she seems to be notable. I retract the nomination, but the article needs cleanup. Sandstein 13:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - she's no less notable than some of the Indian actresses who have articles -- and are famous in large part for their lavish self-exposure (Mallika Sherawat). Zora 14:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as per others.--Dwaipayanc 16:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete both --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critic-at-Arms, Keith R. Wood

edit

Non-notable website (see WP:WEB; probable vanity article by (you guessed it) User:Critic-at-Arms. I also nominate the article on the author of this website, Keith R. Wood, for deletion as non-notable. Sandstein 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was KEEP. kingboyk 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logie Awards of 1972

edit

This page was prodded and then de-proded claiming that it was part of the coverage of the Logie Awards. The Logie awards are already adequately covered in their own article. This article adds nothing significant or notable to that. Delete. --Hetar 20:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The valid reason given was that there was -no- useful information in the article. None. At all. Do we really need to have an article that merely says the Logie awards were held on that day in 1972? --Hetar 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editor who submitted it considers it useful. The people who created the Logie template consider it useful. The users who read the logie articles consider it useful. I think it will be even more useful as more content is added. That you do not consider it useful is your opinion, it is not sufficient for me to want to remove the beginnings of an article on a verifiable subject that gets us that much closer to comprehensive coverage of the Logie awards. -- JJay 23:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. If anyone wants it userfied they can contact me and I will review the request. kingboyk 03:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White race (history)

edit

Currently, this page is just a bunch of white-supremacist propaganda, but it seems unlikely that it could ever be made to fit a NPOV, as the concept of races is scientifically debated, and the term "White race" is extremely vague. Let those who are proud of their race contribute to the history articles of their favorite countries or figures. ThePedanticPrick 21:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete "The history of the white race is the story of the how civilization developed in the West...." *shudder* Personal essay and rather disturbing. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 21:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article name is probably not NPOV, and would serve as a magnet for this kind of garbage no matter what was put there. Thatcher131 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, beyond even the NPOV issues, the minimal content that exists is pseudo-science... not WP:V by a respected source.--Isotope23 21:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NPOV, WP:V. -- Krash (Talk) 21:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT at the very least, this should be caucasoid history 132.205.45.110
  • Delete as inherently racist POV. Sandstein 22:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Impossible to make NPOV. Pretty disturbing stuff. Chairman S. Talk 22:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to White (people). dbtfztalk 23:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already White (people), Caucasian race and Caucasoid, and the various civilizations have their own articles, so this is redundant. Schizombie 23:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe I'm missing something, but I've read the article twice, and the only real problem I can find with this article is the title. "White Race" conjures up images of hate groups and genocide for me, but the information in the article isn't factually incorrect, as far as I know, and I'm a classicist who has taken two university courses on Indo-European linguistics, one at the graduate level. It is true that lingustic reconstruction, archaeological study, and, yes, even DNA studies (more popular in Europe) are done to further understand the Indo-European people. Ultimately, I don't think this is a useful article, because it is an attempt to unequivocally link the biology of all people with light skin color and European ancestry with ideas of Western Civilization. I don't agree, however, that it is "disturbing stuff." There are articles on this very deletion log that are many times worse, especially Unusual Sex Acts (see above), which is at best stuff made up in school one day, and at worst, a how-to manual on sexual torture and assault written by a group of sociopathic children. I've notified the original author of the article about this vote for deletion. If his talk page is any indication, ThePedanticPrick didn't tell him about this. I think hot coals of shame should be heaped upon anyone who nominates an article for deletion without making an honest effort to contact the author. Harry Bagatestes 00:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hey, hang on a moment. This is not actually an article, it is a stub, and no article links to it. I am the author, and have only spent a very short time exploring this topic as a possible article, and was curious how I could shape one up. All of this is very premature. I fail to see how one can judge an article before it is barely even started--it has a total of 6 sentences in it! I can see that none of the voters have given an indication that they have read the "rationale" for the proposed article that is on the talk page. This is not a "personal essay, nor is it garbage, nor is it racist." I am surprised, I must say at the depth of feeling it has engendered. Couldn't some of these thoughts have been put on the talk page first, so I had a chance to say what I hoped to do with it? And this many votes in the space of a few hours? How does that happen? I've created a number of articles for wikipedia with hardly any problems to speak of, and I believe I deserve, as a result, a little common courtesy. DonSiano 02:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I don't think you're a racist. I just think the tone is wrong and the topic is fuzzy. Not everyone who thinks this is "disturbing" or cannot escape POV would necessarily think it reflects on you. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note your edit history and believe you're well-intentioned. That said, I hope you will take what I have to say here as equally sincere; feel free to check my own history before continuing. First, even if the article had no content whatsoever I believe the title alone would be controversial. There is, as far as I know, little consensus that such a thing as a "white race" exists. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but the article doesn't touch the question except for the title, which seems to imply that it does. That alone presents troubling NPOV concerns. Second, when "exploring [a] topic as a possible article," you might want to consider using a user sub-page, especially if the topic is potentially controversial. Third, writing about race for an encyclopedia is going to be controversial. That's not to say that you shouldn't touch the topic, but if it really surprises you that this is controversial you might want to read some of the other stuff that touches on this, particularly the talk pages and edit histories. Writing genuinely NPOV material on controversial topics is in my opinion a good thing but not for the faint of heart! If you'd like to turn this article into something encyclopedic, I'd strongly recommend you move it to a user sub-page for further work and seek peer review before going back into article space. --Craig Stuntz 03:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. Well, I never thought of using a "sub-page" as a way to start an article, and in fact never saw this mentioned in any of the wiki articles aimed at new contributors either. Is this really a standard practice? I haven't seen any examples of handling controversy this way. But, as I say, I am comparatively new to this. Actually, I had hoped in starting the article that it might attract a good writer or two--it is too big a subject for me. I'll look into it. About the controversial nature, I must say I really am surprised. On the title question, there is already a long article on "The White Race" ( I worked on it a little) but it only covers the usage of the term, its history, and is mostly etymological (section headers use "the term". I read the article on "Caucasian" and it was much the same. They weren't very interesting. If there is an article "White Race," an article on "White Race (history)" looked reasonable to me.DonSiano 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy for now per Craing Stuntz. DonSiano, this needs a new title before public unveiling, as "white race" is 1) just going to be a lightning rod for trouble and 2) there is no such "race" as "white", if you mean Caucasians or Indo-Europeans use that. The use of a work by Pat Buchanan as a reference in what is apparently intended to be a scientific (as opposed to a political) article is not a good sign, though. If writing an article about immigration controversies in the USA or whatever then Buchanan might be a perfectly valid source, but for a multi-millenium historical survey his credentials are, how to put this, weak. I'd advise you to check existing articles on the subject to see where yours fits in. Otherwise, good luck with the article, sorry about the piling on but as someone who's been in your position myself, recall that Wikipedia is made up of people, wherever there are people there is politics, and using the term "white race" is guaranteed to raise a ruckus, as you have learned the hard way. But don't let it get you down! I'm sure you'll be able to generate a good and encyclopedia article. Herostratus 05:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • The question of the existence of "race" in man is exhaustively gone into in the article on "Race" ( I worked on it a little), so there is not much need to repeat all of in the proposed article, though I had certainly planned at some point to acknowledge the controversy. If I get a chance...On the references, I think one can see from the few that I included that I had hoped to use only very recent ones, with scholarly articles predominating, and with an emphasis on genetics and migrations, which is mostly pretty new. Actually, I know very little about how this deletion thing works--I put one up for deletion before (a duplicate article) but never really followed how it works. I guess I'm about to learn...DonSiano 10:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the NPOV issue, which I haven't adressed in my comments, I sincerely believe in it for wikipedia, and I believe one can be written on the topic under discussion, with some considerable amount of work. I really don't see where the problem is in what is there now. Each of the six sentences are not only neutral and true, they have references. Actually, it may be that the POV issue is actually some sort of reaction from people who have rather extreme views on the race issue. I note that ThePedanticPrick (does wikipedia permit obscene user names?!) recently modified the article on White Race on Mar 3. to include a picture. His nomination of my nascent article for deletion should be seen in this light. I (DonSiano 11:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)) show this picture in its context here:[reply]

While you're pointing out my posting of pictures, you should mention to everyone that you keep insisting on using a painting of Venus by Botticelli to represent white people. I think your alleged good faith and commitment to NPOV should be seen in this light. ThePedanticPrick 16:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For other uses, see White (disambiguation).

White (collection: White people or White race) is a term used as a form of ethnic or racial classification of people. Though literally implying light-skinned, "White" has been used in different ways at different times and places. Like other common words for the human races, it is somewhat fuzzy.

I've removed the gross image; it is available via the page history. Sandstein 12:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I am restoring the image here, with its context, so that the admin can easily see the point I (DonSiano 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)) was making.[reply]
For other uses, see White (disambiguation).

White (collection: White people or White race) is a term used as a form of ethnic or racial classification of people. Though literally implying light-skinned, "White" has been used in different ways at different times and places. Like other common words for the human races, it is somewhat fuzzy.

File:Nordish03.jpg
A white american male
I did indeed suggest using a picture of the painting by Boticelli to illustrate the article on White Race and I still think it is not a bad suggestion, contrary to the opinion of Pedantic Prick, nor was I the only one to revert to it either. I am proud of my work on this article and think my efforts improved it considerably--essentially none of it was reverted. PedanticPrick's suggested picture was reverted almost at once.

Userfy Don, the user space is a great way to work on complicated articles, whether they are controversial or not. Once an article is in the main space, it gets picked up but mirror sites and other search engines that search wikipedia. If you get distracted or something comes up and don't finish it right away, your half-finished article is perpetuated everywhere (like one of mine; I didn't know about the user space at the time and I need to get back and finish it pdq). Regarding the specific content, I have concerns such as have been expressed elsewhere. It's hard to write a good article; its especially hard to write a good article about a controversial topic. Good luck. Thatcher131 02:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Jayig's suggestion (and the others that back Userfy) amounts to one that I do a lot of work on the article before it is tossed in the trash! That is not fair--I need help with this, and I'll not get it if it is Userfied. Other controversial articles are not developed this way.
I would further note the article by Nicholas Wade on my first ref in the NYT yesterday showed that the NYT is not afraid to publish an article reporting that the genes that differ in the three populations (=races) White, Asian and African, have evolved recently. The very idea that wikipedia is so PC that it would not allow an article on White Race (history) beause it, in its very concept, is not NPOV, is abhorrent, if not laughable.DonSiano 07:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. kingboyk 03:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy Thievin' Bastards

edit

The article is about a band, but fails to make any assertion of WP:MUSIC notability Cynical 21:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Listed in All Music Guide, has released two albums on a notable label, features members from several notable bands (even labelled by AMG as a super group). Punkmorten 22:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:MUSIC says that otherwise non-notable 'side projects' of notable musicians should generally be written about on the page about the notable subject, with the sideproject being a redirect.
Right. Notable side projects, however, should get their own article. This appears to be a notable side project, so I say keep due to albums and membership. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 05:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 23:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jush

edit

Delete Immature, no use whatsoever — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holangisus (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was Delete everything besides BlackMegaGargomon, BlackRapidmon, BlackGargomon, BlackWarGrowlmon, BlackMetalGreymon and BlackGrowlmon. - Bobet 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BlackAgumon and others

edit

Delete, There never was a BlackAgumon, only a BlackWarGreymon.. this is fandom speculation, and a horrible stub. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above:
-- Ned Scott 22:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above: (sorry for the late entry)
these 'mon almost all have description such as "BlackSOMETHINGmon is a Digimon that looks like SOMTHINGmon but it's black and evil". None of the listed 'mon are official digimon, they are speculations from fans, and/or the incorrect way to refer to a "virus version" of a 'mon. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They're just another version of the standard digimon counterparts, except I don't know that they even exist in the Digiworld. Steelix 14:10, 4 March 2006 (EST)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Talarico

edit

--Hi- this is Donna- I didn't know that putting something up would cause so much search for me! I'd like to address that the "seven-year-old" website was a site I made when I was 18- didn't even know it was still ingering around. I am a freelance writer with many publication credits, but if the Wiki community feels my book does not make me worthy yet to have an article, feel free to delete it. I didn't know there'd be so much research done about me! Did you find out yet that I was a TLC reality show last year? Thanks for your interest in me and at least looking into me a little more before deleteing. When my second book comes out, perhaps you can repost something about me. (The sales rank continues to change- it was once in the 70,000s)

Some disputes over whether it should be deleted or not and it has been an awful state for quite a while now. J.J.Sagnella 22:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Just to clarify-- I didn't publish using an ebook- I was hired to write a book in a career ebook series. (donnatalarico)


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priscila sol

edit

Tagged for speedy but notability is asserted. Please, please delete this porncruft. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rye 3d

edit

WP:OR, created by author Naconkantari e|t||c|m 22:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Monty Python. - Bobet 16:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lemon curry

edit

Tagged for speedy as non-notable Python ephemera, which is accurate but not a speedy category. Merge? Delete? Redirect? No idea. Just zis Guy you know? 22:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say it should be changed to a stub on the foodstuff "lemon curry," but having no idea what that would be, and really not wanting to know what it would taste like, I think it should probably redirect to Monty Python.—WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONSTALK• EMAIL• 22:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Lemon curry? Schizombie 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Palatine, Lake Zurich and Wauconda Railroad

edit

Non-notable article about a short stretch of railroad that closed 80 years ago and linked to small places. Cool3 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was:Speedy deleted as a non-notable bio. --InShaneee 01:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle wika

edit

Delete. Vanity page, should be in user's info Wangfoo 00:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay rights in Chad

edit

Absolutely no content whatsoever. KI 00:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see content. I also see Category:Gay rights by country where there are roughly 60 articles on the same topic. Chad is a country and gay rights are as important there as anywhere else. If the nom feels that content is lacking, the proper solution, in my opinion, would be to add content to the site, and to this article in particular. Removing content is the wrong way to address the problem. -- JJay 01:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing content? What's to remove? KI 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You simply aren't looking at any other "Gay rights in [insert African country]" that has the same formatting as Gay rights in Chad. There are no facts in this article. All that it is is formating. KI 02:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is information and could be information someone would want. A + B =/= C here. --DanielCD 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - brenneman{T}{L} 06:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote stacking

edit

possibly meant to be an article, possibly just someone's comment on WP's deletion processes. Either way it doesn't belong here. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_3&oldid=1234127781"