Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

Purge server cache

January 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The article never had any content in its entire lifetime. — JIP | Talk 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Breslin Murphy

It seems to be some kid who has done his own bio for a laugh -- Chazz88 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jesse Hughes

Has this person contributed something of note to the fields of Mathematics or Philosophy? If so, it should be referenced to demonstrate a reason for inclusion on WP. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 23:59, 31 December 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 delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Smash World Forums

Non-notable, self-promotional fancruft Delete Kevin 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Laurance Doyle

From speedy. Some Google and Google News hits. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Google scholar indicates a publications by him. I find some 29 papers on Web of Knowledge by an LR Doyle on astronomical topics, which I believe are by him. Also appears to have been editor of the proceedings of at least one conference. Work is of the sort likely to interest the public, as evidenced by at least one article in Scientific American. So a verifiable scientist with a track record and a position of reasonable authority. Keep. Average Earthman 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Plus his work on animal communications seems interesting. -- JJay 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I created it, but I'm not voting in this case. I was surprised when this was put on speedy as that seemed a bit extreme. That said I mentioned this guy when doing List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) and at the time things I said indicated I didn't think he was noteworthy enough to start an article on him. So that might explain some things. That said I did an article on him because I did find he was in Google News and also figured he might actually be important enough. Oddly I'm still not entirely certain of that, but he has a couple books at Amazon. I'm assuming that is the same guy as it's a Laurance R. Doyle book distributed by SETI, which indicates he probably is LR Doyle. "LR Doyle" gets a good deal more hits at Scholar Google. That said his books at Amazon have a sales rank that is lower than even that Kenneth Eng guy so I'm not sure. I don't know enough on notability for scientists and have said enough as is.-- T. Anthony 03:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think everything gets tagged as a speedy now. There must be a competition going on. You were somewhat lucky since you had a full 11 minutes to edit before the tag. -- JJay 03:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but definitely needs to be expanded. TheRingess 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Average Earthman. Seems to have done some significant work on extrasolar planets and planet systems. (I wonder how many articles on scientists actually get speedied because some anonymous or just lazy and uninterested bypasser has tagged them as nn-bio.) u p p l a n d 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not much. A few end up at Speedy, but those are usually moved to AFD. - Mgm| (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
What qualifier? Do you mean the part that says "religious denomination"? Well no, that qualifier isn't redundant. If you forget capitalization and qualifier you get the List of Christian scientists, then see where that leads. I don't think I put any qualifier in adding him to Christian Science list except to say he works at SETI.-- T. Anthony 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Meunier

Some google hits, came second place in something. From speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Idahowiki, PatheticPocatello.com

Idahowiki is a wiki for Idaho-related information set up only a few days ago. PatheticPocatello is a webforum for citizens of the city of Pocatello, Idaho, with some 600 users and an Alexa rating > 4000000. Both websites fail to meet the criteria put forth in WP:WEB, besides Wikipedia isn't an advertising medium. Pilatus 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Already Speedied under CSD A7. Note that I am not the admin who deleted it, so perhaps the admin who did should sign here Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Gabe Cohen

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Conflict behavior

Tagged as a speedy with the reasoning

"1. "Conflict behavior" does not appear to mean what the editor says it does (e.g. google it w/ and w/o "fidgeting"). 2. The bulk of this page was pasted in from "Psychology". 3. The editor didn't finish: ("I'm amazed if you've read this far.")"

No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The text of the page appears to be cut-and-paste, with large sections having little-or-nothing to do with the subject of the article. If an expert and sift the wheat from the chaff then it may make a legitimate claim to existing on WP. As it stands, delete. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete possible copyvio...no, looks like it is a copyvio...speedy-- MONGO 11:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I nominated this article for deletion, according to the reasons listed above. (Do you need to be an admin to vote? Is it okay to vote on an article that you nominated?) -- Shunpiker 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No, you don't need to be an admin to nominate or vote. I think that a nomination is generally counted as a vote to delete, unless otherwise specified. However, it doesn't hurt to also vote to make it explicit. If you do, it's a good idea to mention that you're the nominator. - Rholton 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Is it really a copyvio? From where? To the above: anyone can vote, though only an admin can close the voting process once some consensus is reached. And yes, unless you say otherwise, it's implied that if you nominate an article for deletion, then you are voting "delete". -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rewrite from scratch - as others have said, this is mostly cobbled together from bits of other Wikipedia articles. A Google shows "conflict behavior" exists as a term, but it does not refer to fidgeting etc. Tearlach 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. From what I can tell, this is a purely descriptive phrase, with no definite meaning beyond "behavior in/during conflict". Therefore, it would be at best a dicdef. - Rholton 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article appears to be a couple of original (?) paragraphs followed by a cut-and-paste of the entire Psychology article. As such, it is too trivial and unencyclopedic to stand on its own. MCB 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

DiggFans

I thought this was afd'd already.... anyway the article says it all "around 250 members and over 1000 posts" (does not meet WP:WEB for the pedantic :))

It's being nominated for not meeting WP:WEB. Not being offended is not a valid reason to keep an article. - Mgm| (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeff Roney

Delete: Not notable. Google has only 200 hits. Probably will never be more than stub. Anonymous contributor indicates possibility of vanity article. — Shadowhillway 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A8 Delete by User:Zoe WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Llafeht Publishing

Non-notable, self promotional. User is making articles about himself and his business set up to promote.. himself. Delete Kevin 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedied as a copyvio from http://www.mp3.com.au/label.asp?id=4000. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Robert Celmer

Non-notable mechanical engineering professor. No books or other works of note. Delete. Neutrality talk 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

WNEP Anchors

Most of the information already listed at WNEP-TV Smerge Tazz765 02:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

True Vine Christian Community

Totally non-notable. Zero Google hits. Only 1000 members at maxmimum. Madman 02:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete I honestly can hardly believe anyone went to the trouble of writing that article. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ross Aubrey

Non-notable, advertising, vanity. User made their own page. Delete Kevin 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 move if appropriate). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Todd River Race

Seemingly non-notable "race" Down Under. Madman 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

GetMADD

A public advocacy group whose stated objective it is to serve as a counterpoint to MADD. Never saw it mentioned in the news anywhere, and Alexa doesn't even give its website a rating although it tells that it has been around since September 2003. Nowhere close to WP:WEB, and Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for any cause, however worthy they may be. Pilatus 04:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Moved to last WP:BJAODN. :) -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Piss cycle

This article doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia in my opinion, also appears to be original research. Delete KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. MCB 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Straight pride

  • Delete this homophobic neologism -- Revolución ( talk) 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is a mess, but I know that certain college groups have been organizing "straight pride" marches and days and I think there have been some lawsuits over this as well. We need an article that explains the issue, homophobic or not. I would also appreciate it if you could make more of an effort with your nom. Delete this is not good enough. -- JJay 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: A check on Newsbank shows hits for straight pride going back to the 1980s in both the US and UK involving high schools, colleges, municipalities, demonstrations, etc. -- JJay 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Simone Salmon

Non-notable teen musician. -- Longhair 04:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Psychic Mad Cow Exorcism Polka’

Non-notable book by an author currently on afd. Although the picture is worth 1000 words, as they say :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Teen Tech Buzz

nn podcast WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Amber-chan

The main character in a forthcoming web-based manga with a free host (geocities). See also Aibyouka-kun on AFD. No evidence that's its important to any existing audience. Kappa 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was - no consensus -- Ichiro 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Gay and lesbian kingdom and Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

nn micronation. Only 70 unique Google hits. Note that there was previously an AfD for Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Having looked more closely at the articles, there's nothing to merge. And although it's not a true micronation, it's a verifiable historical event. -- LesleyW 07:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
File:Legal9.gif
File:Glk.jpg
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Luis Angel

Incomplete nomination (1st and 3rd steps completed, 2nd not) by an anon user. Reason for deletion in edit summary is given as "RECOMMEND FOR DELETION, PERSONAL BIO". After looking at the article, I would hazard an opinion that the article provides no claims of notablilty, but have done no research, do not wish to vote either way, and do not personally care about the outcome of this deletion. I'm just the messenger. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Academic dress of Loughborough University

This is a very college-specific list that is only information for people within the college, not an encyclopedia audience. Comfort 06:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Be it in a much condensed and edited version. - Mgm| (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

L. L. Nunn

Was tagged for speedy deletion by LambaJan but clearly claims importance, so bringing it to AfD instead to respect LambaJan's wishes. Seems rather notable/encyclopedic to me, however. A previous version of this was deleted for being a copyvio from [8]. howch e ng { chat} 06:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  1. stops plagurising sections of that bio.
  2. links to company articles, not just colleges. And,
  3. puts a bit of why he's important in the beginning.

That said, there may be a place for him on the Wiki. LambaJan 07:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) BTW: Thanks for respecting my wishes. reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

German African Party

Possible hoax, or fails WP:V big time, only 10 google hits for the exact phase German African Party, and they lead one way or another back to wiki, and 6 for German African Party Namibia [9] Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You try and Google for it in German? 68.39.174.238 07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6 unique hits there, all wikipedia. -- Jaranda wat's sup 07:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Exactly how is this political party not notable? If you vote to delete, it's useful to give counter arguments to the one made by Grutness. - Mgm| (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Ichiro 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

King Of Pop

My first AFD of 2006. Nonencyclopedic, totally POV ... really could have speedied this somehow but the author would learn better what should go on Wikipedia if I put it here. Daniel Case 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. AT the moment MJ is the King of Pop. Should the need to disambiguate ever arise, the redirect could be easily undone. There could be another King of Rock and Roll, but it is unlikely that someone will ever get the title from Elvis. Movementarian 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

GTC Technical Support

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Lbbzman for nn-bio, but it's a company, so bringing it to AfD instead. The reason given was, "No assertion of notability - does not pass WP:CORP." No vote. howch e ng { chat} 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 06:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Bodybalance (exercise program)

Creating editor has removed speedy and cleanup tags. Google shows little here except a somewhat dubious vitamin/supplement line that shares the name. Earlier vote sounds like same article. Promotional. Daniel Case 07:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Bodybalance is a exercise program it has its based on the principles of Tai Chi - Yoga and Pilates. Bodybalance is internationally known in the world of aerobics. It has certain health and healing aspects to the program. Squiddy do some research on Bodybalance maybe then you will have a different view point of Bodybalance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipera ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 January 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

D. Granosalis

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Heron with the reason "sounds like a fictional character, and does not exist outside Wikipedia/Wikiquote." Since he has a Wikiquote page, I thought it would be best to bring it to AfD instead. Almost all Google hits are wikimirrors, but there were one or two that had quotes from him (in German) [11] [12] that suggest he might be a real person. No vote. howch e ng { chat} 07:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Bodypump

Advertising essentially the same as Bodybalance. Made by the same user, Pipera. jnothman talk 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not advertising it it telling people about Bodypump I have not placed any advertsing on the entry?

There are numerous enteries for pop groups - IBM - Microsoft etc... on this site is that not advertsing?

pipera

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Brigadesoft

Non-notable "up and coming" software company with [poor and] incomplete web site. Given web site is low in search results for entities by this name. jnothman talk 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Richard's Animorphs Forum

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Vary for being a non-notable club, but it's a web site. Claims to be the most popular forum for Animorphs fans, but only has "over 300" members. Already exists as an external link in the Animorphs article. howch e ng { chat} 07:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - this is an author request. -- RHaworth 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lindsey O'keefe

this entry was created on a whim. I am thoroughly smitten with this girl and i did this in an effort to lightly impress her. I apologize for the misuse of this resource. I use Wikipedia all the time and very much appreciate its versatility.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Extremesims

Crufty, and it fails to establish notability. The subject purports to be a splinter of a group which itself does not seem to have a Wikipedia entry. Seancdaug 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

*keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Ichiro 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cemetary Gates

Heavy metal cruft, riddled with POV violations. Seancdaug 08:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kiwitea Street

I hate to do this to a New Zealand article, but it's just a suburban street. There is a soccer ground there, but in New Zealand soccer grounds are hardly major stadia - probably of a similar standard to larger high school sports fields in the US or UK. The details about the soccer ground could easily be merged into the entry on the club, and there's little else to say about the place. Click on the map at [13] to see what I mean. Grutness... wha? 08:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings

Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's called the 9/11 memorial wiki. And since it is a wiki, its name is fine. It is not called Wikipedia to begin with. - Mgm| (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
That's not quite true. The url is sep11.wikipedia.org, and at the upper left corner it has the "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" logo. Blackcats 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looking at it, I'd say it is most definitely a part of Wikipedia. Qarnos 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It's got nothing to do with 9/11 happening in America. It just happened to be a very well-known and larger terrorist attack. If we have a separate wiki for those victims (all 2000-3000 of them), I don't see why we should mention the victims of the Madrid bombings in Wikipedia. - Mgm| (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, as above. Ajwebb 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found it useful when checking to see if any if my Spanish aquaintances had died
  • Keep; I am the person who made this article. I just want to explain why I think the English Wikipedia should have such an article. However, of course, if you think that this page should be deleted, go on. (Interested people can check this information in the Spanish version, if they understand Spanish.)
    • 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.

      I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).

    • 2) Before I made this article, I saw that someone (I don't know who), added in the Madrid bombings article, in the "See also" section, this hidden line:

      <!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->

      (as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article.
    • 3) P.MacUidhir argues that "Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable". I agree, bombings are not notable. But not all bombings are the same! Sadly, ETA is responsible for most bombings in Spain, but the Madrid March 11 bombings were not at all usual. It was the worse Al-Qaida attack in Europe. There died almost four times more people than in the 7 July London bombings. Millions of persons took part in the demonstrations against terrorism the day after (more or less the 28% of the Spanish population). Many poeple think that there was a political change in Spain because of these bombings (they happened three days before the March 14 general elections), and that the authors aimed this change; other people think that the former goverment lied supporting that ETA was the author of the attacks until the last moment, as they could lose the elections because of their support to the Bush' invasion of Iraq (it is still a very hot subject, and I don't want to give my opinion here, I just speak about the opinion of many people). I only want to say that obviously the Madrid bombings are, sadly, once again, a historical event, not only in Spain, but worldwide, such as the London bombings, the 9/11 or the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I am not speaking in this point about the number of persons who died, but just about the importance and consequences of the event.
    • 4) I saw that there was an article about the casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the names of all the victims, and I thought that there should be an equivalent article with the Madrid victims. I don't want to think that nationalism should be so important in Wikipedia (when we speak about worldwide events), and the terrorism victims in England should not be more or less important than those who died in Spain. I saw too that there is an article about the London victims in the Spanish wikipedia, without the names (in my opinion this article lacks those names). Nevertheless, in the 9/11 died thousands of men and women, and I think that it is better there an external link, not because those persons were less important, but just because it would be too large; but maybe some persons who died in the 9/11 should appear in wikipedia (the many firefighters who died there? People who saved other people? For instance, William Rodríguez became famous, but he didn't die there). I think that the queston is not as simple as "there should appear all victims of terrorist attacks or none of them".
    • 5) I made the article, as every article, thinking about it as a starting point. So, it should be extended and improved by other wikipedians. For example (as in the July London attacks), who died in each place (the Atocha Station, or El Pozo, or Santa Eugenia, or the Téllez Street)? How many? Where were first carried? What does Pilar Manjón (president of the Association for the victims of 11-M) think about the political reactions? These questions maybe could be too much for the principal article, but not for an article about victims, and it could contain interesting information for wikipedia. I think that there should be a page of the same quality as that one about the London attacks, and I hope that it will be so. I only contribute with my knowledge. I don't know many things about the London attacks, so I can't speak about them.

Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! -- Ichiro 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Spamfuck

Non-notable slang term- 160 unique Google hits, for something Internet-based- and pretty much a dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Noip

Apparent neologism. Delete.- Mr Adequate 09:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

mappum 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • This is a made up word, but nobody will notice it is there unless they search it. People will only search noip if they know the word. Anyway, it won't use up much space on the wikipedia servers! Keep. mappum 0 10:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) comment really by 24.17.169.93 ( talk · contribs), who has only ever edited the article Noip and this AfD. reply
    • "This is a made up word" pretty much proves our point. Just because someone makes a word up one day doesn't automatically mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. I can make up a word right here. "Splaw" means the same thing as "excellent". But no one else than I is ever going to care a flying toss about that word, even if I were to write a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia should not be used as a medium to gain notability for new concepts, it should only be used to document concepts that already are notable. If we allowed articles about everything just because "it doesn't use up much space on the Wikipedia servers" then we would have tens of millions of poorly written articles about things only their author will ever care about, and the actual real encyclopedia articles would get lost in the background noise. — JIP | Talk 11:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. crap. Incognito 06:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Paula Rizzuto

Previously speedy-deleted. The original article contained non-notable content and included a link to a blog created to discredit the subject. This new re-creation contains poor references. I'm assuming the original contributions were meant as an attack page. -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Please do not feed the troll".
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject is notable, the article as it stands is fuly sourced and hardly constitutes an attack page, quite the reverse. I was confused about which link was which but am happy to leave out the parody website if Longhair prefers. I don't know how to test the prominence of a user but certainly a Google search shows very many references to Rizzuto playing an active role in public life in Melbourne. Seems very notable to me. Have also improved the sources with links to newspaper articles and and other links. Seems to be pretty comprehensively sourced now. Longhair seems determined to delete the article and is now saying the sources are low quality without elaborating. The sources all seem pretty good to me. StephenBengHo 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The original article by User:Stephenho contained reference to this link, which the above author calls parody [14]. Troll alert!-- Longhair 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. She's just an ordinary failed political candidate (to a local council, no less), who seems to have earned the obsession of some random guy (as evidenced by his "parody site"). The "sources" consist of a news story which she is not mentioned in at all, two blog articles, some minutes of a local council, and an alumni association entry which she appears to have written herself. There's practically no relevant Google hits about her, and I can't imagine this being of interest to anyone much else apart from its author. Ambi 09:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Yes as I said I was confused between two similar looking websites, either way I am happy for the parody one to be excluded if that's Wikipedia policy. StephenBengHo 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(Delete. Non-notable would-be local politician. Sling it in the untidyness bin. Anthony Appleyard 18:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Eastern Hill Fire Station

Wait wait... don't tell me! Fire stations getting articles now? Stop the madness. Yeah, it's... you guessed it... Firecruft. FCYTravis 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • weak keep from the article contents this building also has a mueseum in it. Sounds notable enough then. novacatz 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The museum mentioned in the article could be notable, but that would involve writing a completely new article at a new title. Ambi 10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone wants to write an article on the museum, I have no objection - fire museums are probably notable. But a fire station that happens to have a museum next door... isn't. This is how precedents get set, and I really don't think Wikipedia needs articles on every fire station in the world. FCYTravis 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about the fact that the building's historic, not that it's a fire station, per se. Historic buildings are encyclopedic, plain ol' fire stations are not. So I can't see how it's setting a precedence. Cnwb 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So does this set a precedent for a separate article on every single one of the 79,000 places and 1.2 million buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the 1,100 California State Historic Landmark plaques, etc.? FCYTravis 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Where in here does it say 1.2 million? I see 79,000 as the overall total, with buildings being a subset of that. -- Rob 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rebekah Scogin

NN musician/director. Claims to be director of Ciambella Orchestra Internazionale. The subject gathers only a few hits, the orchestra just one. Decidedly non-notable. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm

Delete or Complete previous merge. Article was voted to merge for previous AfD, but the merge was never completed, after six months. This shows a lack of interest in the article and it should possibly be deleted, or the previous merge should be done. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dry Bomber

An extremely minor kart that has only been shown in one game. Better belonged on Wikibooks or at the very least put on a List of Mario Kart karts or something like that Hbdragon88 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Egg 1

Another page about a minor kart that has only been in one game. Belongs on Wikibooks or in a much larger "list of" page Hbdragon88 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Ichiro 20:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yamigo

Bartimaeus marked this for speedy deletion with reason "advertisement" which is not a CSD. While this is certainly an advertisement, I have not researched its notability and am posting on the basis of its marking for deletion otherwise and therefore give no vote atm. jnothman talk 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's advertising because it provides information on how to get it rather than what it does. Also it contains a lot of bad tone ("you" is generally not encyclopedic) and external links should not be embedded in the text. I'm not sure whether we should have a cleaned up version, so I won't vote. - Mgm| (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Standard MR

Another kart page. Minor kart. Belongs on Wikibooks or in a "List of" page Hbdragon88 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD A7). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Tommy Hall Schedule

Non-notable band --  (aeropagitica)  UK 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, appears to be a tribute band. From official site without Alexa rank: The THS studio CD is finished and will be officially released soon! For information on how to obtain it, email Fred at <blanked>. or catch us at a gig. which tells me they aren't signed by a recognized label, nor are they sold by reputable stores. - Mgm| (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; merge impractical. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Poltergust 4000

Another minor kart page that belongs in a larger page or in a Wikibooks article Hbdragon88 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You have Your answer below.  :) -- Eddie 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, between merge and delete. Merge it and its similar articles into Mario Kart DS if there is anything of value. Voice of All T| @| ESP 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

B Dasher

Another minor kart page that belongs in a larger page or in a Wikibooks article Hbdragon88 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (blatant copyright infringement). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Coalition for Healthcare eStandards

It's promotional material and much of the content seems to be ripped from this page. I don't see how this article can be considered encyclopedic. Reyk 10:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was (was a redirect when I looked at it). enochlau ( talk) 06:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Emperor Dale

Non-notable "emperor" of non-notable micro-nation. Likely A7, but claims questionable notability, -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

SheaBaseball

Non-notable fan website. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The site does exist, however a Google search only shows 514 hits for the term "sheabaseball." I note also that someone attempted to avoid detection by not making Sheabaseball.com the title of the article, knowing it would be deleted, instead, they tried to name it to sound like a serious subject. If it is not a criteria for deletion, I think basic dishonesty in any manner weighs in my mind in favor of deletion. Further, the article is poorly written, and contains nothing notable. GestaltG 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and I'm closing this one. For the record, this site's Alexa rank > 1,200,000.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Poseur

This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. -- Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We keep some crap therefore we should keep all crap, is a poor axiom to apply to the VFD process. And we don't need an encyclopedia of all topics talked about in youth culture, lest we become a glorified Urban Dictionary. -- Tothebarricades 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
On the second point, Wikipedia does give a different spin to the topic compared to Urban Dictionary. On the first point, it's nevertheless the axiom I am choosing to use. To be honest, whether or not this article is deleted, I believe a Wikipedia article on posers will exist in a year's time. Cedars 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe so as well. And I also think we should have one. But maybe it is best to start over. Punkmorten 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sagar Sarkar

NN Musician fails WP:MUSIC google 'sagar sakar' +musician returns 10 hits MNewnham 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The name is spelt wrong in the earlier check, it is sarkar google 'sagar sarkar'+ contraband returns several relevant hits. Further verification of sources on the article are also authentic. Google 'Packabelles' returns the band page and there is indeed a vrushali bokil in the band.

  • please check http://m.domaindlx.com/milinddate/Albums-Recordings%201.htm - Milind Date, the famous Indian flautist has recorded several albums on authorised labels, many of these are South Asian labels, but in all fairness would be very discriminatory not to consider. Sagar Sarkar and his band Contraband was the first musician Milind Date played with and even mentions this on the site. This fulfils Wikipedia criterion that the band should have at least one known artiste who has officially released recordings on known labels. In India Sagar Sarkar is well known as a pioneer of the Pune Blues scene. (that was User:Mifern NickelShoe 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)) reply
  • I suggest renaming this page to contraband (band), with a much more prominent link to Milind Date (who clearly does have a verifiable discography and easily qualifies for his own wikipedia article, and appears to be the only qualifier for a contraband entry), and if necessary, adding Sagar Sarkar as a redirect. The assertion that Sagar Sarkar is known as the 'Father of Indian Blues' appears totally unverifible (0 google hits) , and the single reference to Pune Blues in the context of a musical style appears on the band's site, pretty much making it a neologism. with that, I'll change my opinion to very weak keep MNewnham 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Ichiro 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

3DXML

Article on proprietary XML-based language definition which reads like a press release to the company which proposed it Mecanismo | Talk 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Ichiro 08:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Miss Adventure

Using google I have been unable to verify if this comic actaully appears in the Weekly World News - someone in the US could probably verify it more easily. The page has been speedied several times as nonsense. I also don't think that a comic that appears in a spoof newspaper is necessarily encyclopedic - all edits that aren't from the original contributor are fixing disambigs.-- nixie 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep but clean-up. The character is legitimate though I don't recall if it's actually a comic strip. I thought it was a photo feature. Characters like Bat Boy from the WWN get their own articles, so Miss Adventure I guess deserves one, too. 23skidoo 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As 23skiddo already said, Miss Adventure is a legitimate character, but is not a comic strip. More of a fictional story that is continued each week. The article was previously deleted, but brought back for the reason of characters like Bat Boy getting their own articles. DaemonDivinus 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (It appears to be 4 deletes to no keeps). Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

LE3 Multimedia

Little to no hits for this company on Google. Doesn't look notable at all. -- Spring Rubber 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

---

I have the explanation for this vandalism, a user of the following board called "Orcus" (the Chris Mark Johnson character referred to) http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=77704

An idiot who feels that he can create a work of blatant self promotion, or simply for the gas of it, and call it an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages and nor does it offer itself as a free "company" promotion site I'm afraid. -- Ariogasius 22:57, 20 December 2005(UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Softroute

Advertising for NN Corp MNewnham 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. VOIP is something I've researched, and I've never heard of these blokes. Non-notable. Begone with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomlillis ( 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 merge and redirect; merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Stay-Put Socks

One-time cartoon joke

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Billy Cardine

Article on very obscure steel guitar player. Isn't listed in allmusic guide and google test lists 279 hits. Non-notable musician and completely lacking encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as player with the Biscuit Burners, important bluegrass band, cds released and rated one of the best in 2004 by Chicago tribune. -- JJay 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Hmmm, The Biscuit Burners seem to merit an article but don't yet have one. This guy has done one solo album (which, judging by the songs on the Biscuit Burners website, is pretty darn good) but I don't think he's got enough notability on his own account. If the band had an article I'd say merge but they don't. -- Spondoolicks 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Frenulum piercing

I'm moving this page be deleted for two reasons. 1) The information in this article is already at the appropriately named page frenum piercing and 2)There are several different frenulums in the human body which are pierced, making the name of this article misleading. Glowimperial 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Mario References

The information on this page is duplicated at Mario. There is no real reason to even keep it as a redirect. JDoorjam 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge with List of games with Mario and Delete. There are three lists now: this one of Mario cameos, List of Mario games of games starring Mario, and List of games with Mario which seems to be the union of the two. I did a couple of checks, and it seems like all or most of the cameos are already there. Since this is already here on AFD, I suggest deleting rather than redirecting since the title is pretty useless and it has no incoming links × Meegs 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Denplan City Ground

A soccer field with 180 seats.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Eleanor Roosevelt: A Biography

Not only is this 'article' quite badly written, but it also seems to be pointless to have a separate biography of a person, when they already have a (quite sizable) page to themself Eleanor Roosevelt. My gut feeling would be to salvage any relevant points from this which aren't already on the above article, merge them with it and then delete this one. I just thought I'd throw it open for discussion. Dan 13:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, that was me being too lazy, and uninterested, to read "Eleanor Roosevelt" in full. Dan 13:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Francesca Newton

Promotion of a non-notable child singer. Vanity page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Harper (Character)

The one-sentence note on My_Family_(television) is enough for this character. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

John Boland (author)

Unencyclopedic. Apparently somebody has mixed up a politician and an author with the same name. Valentinian 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! -- Ichiro 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Gap State High School

This article is sadly someone showing off about maths comps from eons ago. It is vanity without the name. Dankru 14:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nomination withdrawn. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Golden age hip hop

This can be mentioned in Hip hop culture instead. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I posted the following on aeorpagitica's user page: 

lemme explain why this deserves an article:
1.Allmusic.com recognizes golden age as a genre 
2.Old school hip hop has its own page. 
3.There is plenty to talk about, of encyclopedic significance. 
Please remove the suggestion for deletion, or if you disagree, discuss this with me. Thanks! --  
Urthogie 14:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons, I suggest a speedy keep decision for this article.-- Urthogie 14:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The reason it has no such content is I just started it! And by the way, the mention of it in hip hop music was thanks to my edit.-- Urthogie 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Well then, please add something meaningfull and I may be inclined to change my vote. Karol 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Expansion

I will prove its value as a seperate article. May I request a one week period of expansion before any action is taken as far as its removal? We can continue voting and deciding after that period.-- Urthogie 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Based on the contents of the article as I have reviewed it today, I suggest that this article is now retained rather than deleted. The author has put work in to the contents and acknowledged that more work is to be done in order to make the page a useful resource for research and reference. --  (aeropagitica)  17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Removing this vfd

I am removing this vfd from the page, as the creator has chosen to keep the article now that I have made edits. A new vfd may be placed if you feel that this does not deserve an article.-- Urthogie 17:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks good now. Karol 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted before it could be listed here. Cobra 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Arsim

Dictdef, neologism, and possibly hoax. Karol 15:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: This page was deleted while I was listing it. 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Aaron Swartz

Vanity article about a relative unknown Maxplank 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Well-known in the area of web standards (RSS, RDF). Only 140 unique google hits out of 499,000 total, but I take this as indicative of highly focused activity rather than non-notability. Notable for his work on the RSS 1.0 spec if nothing else. Has written an op-ed for the New York Times, spoken at conferences, etc. The article could use some expansion. rodii 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a kid who spams around the web his own name. The article was created by himself, and if you go visit his homepage he writes "he even appears on Wikipedia". WTF!!! He is a relative unknown, and it's all about vanity. He is just YET ANOTHER loser. 1:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.71.106.95 ( talk •  contribs)
  • Keep, although it could stand to be rounded out and unfortunately does read like a vanity page right now. But he's mentioned several times in the RSS article alone. Totally Noteable. -- Vary | Talk 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've toned down the prose a bit. Better? -- Vary | Talk 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Better, although 83.71.106.95 up there added some condescending stuff that should have been taken out (which I did). I have no involvement with Aaron, never met him or corresponded with him, but I know his work. The comments above and the defacing of the article smell bad to me. The actual edits of the article by Aaron Swartz look pretty minimal to me, unless someone knows that anon 69.181.82.221 is him (not impossible). rodii 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I did not create the article. I believe it was created by Andrew Morrow, who I'd never heard of until he sent me an email saying he'd created a page about me on Wikipedia. He said he created it because I was referred to in a number of other articles on Wikipedia. (There are 4 backlinks: RSS (file format), Paul Graham, Low-power, and Markdown.) And if it's bad form to link to one's wikipedia page from one's website, let me know and I'll take the link down. AaronSw 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The backlinks are very convincing. I've always thought the point of having notability criteria is to avoid cruft and keep only useful material...not to argue about if someone is "famous". Is Swartz notable enough? The answer to that should be related to, are the links to the page currently serving a purpose? I think "yes". -- C S (Talk) 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm a knowledge management research scientist and I've heard of him and his work. (In fact, I'm referencing one of his publications in a paper I'm writing today.) Not sure if that means the average Joe would also be interested in him, but it does show that there is at least some audience for this article. — Psychonaut 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Blackwhork

It's a term used by players of Battlefield 2 to refer to other players who use the helicopter to get points. CDN99 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Foil (band)

Smells Like Band Vanity. → Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - User:Superswade added this page because there were several references to the band FOIL already in the Wikipedia under the Tad and Willard (band) sections so I thought I would elaborate. I was planning on adding more info / other sections on lesser-known Seattle grunge bands in the future (of which I am somewhat of an expert). Bands like, The Derelicts, Coffin Break, Daddy Hate Box, Yeast, Resonator etc.) I guess if they are just going to get deleted I won't bother, since it would be a waste of time... I guess google is a better place to find detailed information that is wikipedia??? I was under the impression that detailed information was the goal of the wikipedia... I await your censure and rebuke. 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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 DELETE. Jinian 19:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Gwen Stefani discography

Gwen Stefani only has one album, and currently has no plans to release other solo albums. Love.Angel.Music.Baby already has its own page, so this is overkill. Unless this article is cleaned up, and expanded to include more information, (work with No Doubt, guest appearances with Eve, Moby, Sublime, etc.,) then this page isn't needed. Josh 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hal Siemer

Delete. The only notability this person has is as editor of Quest Magazine, and the material also seems to be a vanity page. There is nothing notable about either the individual or the magazine. MSJapan 10:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was nothing to merge; redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

List of software for accessing open files

Useless list with nothing but external links Hirudo 08:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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 -- Ichiro 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Muslim scholars

No entries in this page of any substance CltFn 18:27, 31 December 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 delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ottawa Creek B-5

I think this is speediable, but I'm bringing it here for the entertainment value. Extremely complete entry describing a perfectly ordinary (and non-notable) apartment, its perfectly ordinary (and non-notable) undergrad residents, and their lifestyle. Nicely done, but in no way encyclopedic. Nominator votes BJAODN and delete. bikeable (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable hoax page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete I am frequently asked by fellow classmates to give tours of the apartment for possible place to live (they literally ask if they can come over and "check the place out"), and i thought this would be an easier way for them get to know the apartment without having to give tours all the time. This is not advertising in anyway, as i would be doing a favor for my fellow classmates by making this. Also wanted to make my first Wikipedia Article. Besides its obviously not taking up too much space and besides being reffered to the page by me, it will remain unknown to the average Wikipedia User. I know it probably goes against Wikipedia code, but this remaining on here would be a great referance for me to use. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, and this is verifiable useful information that many people will find useful. Please Do not Delete, its not hurting anything. Chrisboven 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • As soon as you find yourself using the "But it's not taking up too much space!" and "It's not hurting anything!" arguments, you know that you are arguing the case for mis-using Wikipedia as a free wiki host. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. It is an encyclopaedia. If you want to advertise your apartment to potential occupants the place to do so is on your own web site. If you want some ideas for your first encyclopaedia article, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Uncle G 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Chrisboven, I removed all the unverifiable info (aka everything beyond existence). As said, we can't advertise an apartment for you. I suggest you put "{{db|mistakenly created}}" at the top of the article, and we'll avoid a pointless 5-day debate here. You're very welcome to edit other articles in Wikipedia, but you won't be able to add any unverfiable information to any article (not even this one, not even for the few days it has left). -- Rob 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rob, i hope you also plan on deleting the thousands of sections on articles without citings here in WIkipedia, not just this one Chrisboven 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I would love to remove thousands of uncited sections from thousands of articles. However, time constraints and popular opinion prevent me from doing that. Instead, whenever I find something with no sources *and* it's not possible to ever find any sources, and it's therefore *inherently* unverifiable, then yes, I do remove the section. I have removed a *lot* of sections, from a lot of articles. Occasionally, those sections are added back when sources are found, but usually they stay gone. -- Rob 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete All the information is true and useful :— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.196.106 ( talk • contribs)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for obvious triviality and unverifiability. Perhaps userify some of it. -- Rob 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • BJAODN :) Reductio ad absurdum of Wikipedia's level of detail. Gave me a good chuckle - please preserve this somewhere. - Haukur 17:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It also tells us the name of the chair in the apartment's living area.

    There is no speedy deletion criterion that covers this article. However, as the nominator explains, and as the article's author indeed confirms, this article is original research and unverifiable. It is a novel description of a place, created by a Wikipedia editor directly in Wikipedia from firsthand knowledge that readers do not have access to from any sources (let alone reliable ones) outside of Wikipedia. It is also an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a free wiki host. Delete. Uncle G 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Reyk 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; this is not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Skeezix1000 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Panic leave

Original research, unverifiable, Zero google hits on subject MNewnham 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Quest Magazine

Delete. This is a non-notable online magazine, with less than 10 relevant Google hits and no reputable citations that are not self-referential. MSJapan 10:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No useful information (only 1 line of content). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sydney University Judo Club

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Zahareh

Zahareh appears to be either non-existent or an implausible misspelling of Zavareh. I can find no town called Zahareh within 120 km of Isfahan on the multimap.com map of Iran. Google suggests it doesn't exist: [18] (compare Zavareh: [19]). -- Muchness 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, unverifiable with the information in the article. I can't find mentions of a town called "Zahareh" anywhere. And Zavareh is indeed around 120km from Isfahan (the city). Redirect if someone thinks it's needed. - Bobet 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Typenex - Transfusion Safety Wristbands

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violation from [20], yet in its latest version the article asserts there is permission to publish the text here. So it goes to AfD.

  • This is a blatant advertisement, and there is really no need to have an entry on a specific brand of transfusion-related equipment. Wikipedia isn't an advertising medium for Baxter Healthcare. Pilatus 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Clean (if possible, see below) The page seems to contain enough generally useful information that it could be salvaged as an article, if the specific references to the "Typenex-Transfusion Safety Wristbands" is removed. Once those are removed, what remains is an article on a notable subject, which is blood tansfusion errors. The page should then be renamed to remove the brand reference, renamed to something like "Blood Transfusion Safety Systems" or "Blood Transfusion Errors" Now as to the copyright issue, that's another story, because we have no way of knowing if such permission was given. Salvaging the article then would require figuring out how much of the text is copied. If that cannot be done, then I am afraid it would have to be deleted and replaced. GestaltG 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as advertisement (the simple solution). Anville 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Anyone can go to the relevant sources and write an article on blood transfusion safety. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Champagne fashion brunch

Doesn't appear to be reference material. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Philip Schonewille

This article is nominated for the sake of completeness. A number of related articles have already been deleted (see AfDs for Support Local Trade, Adam Hayes, Martin Hudson, and Leon armstrong). I abstain on this nomination. Mind matrix 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rent a crowd

This term was not invented in Australia in has existed for decades. Factually incorrect article. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

what a pointless article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.234.60 ( talk • contribs) 23:28 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Obesanes

Non-valid information, unproven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwhick ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete hoax. Zero google hits, not found on any map. David | Talk 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain - check. -- Blackwhick 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax - 0 googles. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain, don't delete - may not be hoax. -- Blackwhickham 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hoax (no Googles, doesn't appear on maps) or at least unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Whether or not it's a hoax or if the place really exists, the article should be deleted because it's only one sentence. As B.Wind said recently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfly Caught page, "One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make." From one sentence, we cannot determine the notability of the place, or the truthfulness or accuracy of any statements. If the writer cannot bother to write more than one sentence, or doesn't have enough knowledge or material to write more than one sentence, it should be deleted. For reference, pick up any bound encyclopedia and look at the entry for any major city near you. GestaltG 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • With respect to you and B.Wind, a tiny village and a major city are hardly the same thing, and similarly Wikipedia and a bound encyclopedia are hardly the same thing. In the former case, a village will almost always have a tiny article compared to a major city; in the latter, bound encyclopedias only ever contain finished articles - Wikipedia always only contains articles in progress. As such, a one sentence stub may be the start of a future featured article and - as long as it contains some information (like a village's location) - should not automatically be considered for deletion on its size alone. In this particular case, however, neither Google nor Ordnance Survey have ever heard of Obesanes, so let's all be sane and delete it. Grutness... wha? 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • That's not quite what I meant. Even in bound encylopedia entries for what one might consider obscure towns that almost no one has ever heard of, there is generally some standard information that is missing here. I was concentrating on the lack of information, such as approximate population, local industry, local places of note, form of government and so forth, usually found in material that is considered "encyclopedic." Your point about bound encylopedias vs Wikipedia is well taken, however, I have written article stubs and when I have done so, it has at least been one paragraph, and more than one sentence. So, I think size does have to do with it, again, I would say that one sentence doesn't even make a stub, and one sentence weighs heavily in my mind against keeping the "article." GestaltG 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, completely unverifiable, likely hoax. - Phaedriel 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete following Grutness. While a verifiable one-sentence stub should be allowed to survive and grow, this one seems to be a hoax: e.g. there is no Obesanes in the index of the AA Great Britain Road Atlas for 1978, and Morpeth is 14 miles from Newcastle-on-Tyne so a "village" can't be "close" to both of them. -- JimR 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - probable creation by User:Obesanes - only logical conclusion I can come to. -- Sunfazer 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod

No Google hits, except in Wikipedia mirrors, looks like a hoax. Pilatus 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - definite hoax (I checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to be sure). The giveaway, apart from the lack of verification, is the joke definition for the Douglas Pouch, which is something else entirely (see Pouch of Douglas and Google). Associated articles with references to Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod inserted from the same IP addresses (i.e. MacLeod and Nicholas McLeod) have been fact-checked since the AfD first went up. Tearlach 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Worldwidezation

Neologism. Zero results from Google search. Spondoolicks 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau ( talk) 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kitmouse_Nadorian

non-notable person Ttwaring 17:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Aladin

Delete, not notable enough. The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion. He was never on TV, he only worked on projects that never aired. The notability of that title "International Magician of the Year" is heavily questioned: The award organisaton seems to not even have a website, and a search for the title leads to only 123 hits ( [21]). So when one removes all that promotional hoopla, his notability has to be rated on this bottom line: Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the City of London. I strongly believe that those elements don't suffice that an individual be included in the wikipedia. Additionaly, the article sounds very much like blunt euphoric advertising, written by the person himself to jumpstart his career and business by taking advantage of the popularity of the wikipedia project. To any admin deciding the vote: I'd like to order a full sockpuppet and meatpuppet check on all people that have voted here, with an article of such a bad quality, all those "keep" votes cannot possible be the thruthful opinion of the well-educated general wikipedia public. Please do a IP-Address-Location&Provider-check, not just a "numbers of good edits" check which could be faked by a determined person. Thank you. Peter S. Several edits between 17:12, 1 January 2006 and 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • By puppets, I didn't mean you, Ragib. And yeah, I edit my own talk, the proper way would have been to have multiple signs at the end (since some of my old stuff stayed), but thought that multiple signs only added even more "noise". Peter S. 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It is not at all normal to do an IP check over an AfD unless there is substantial evidence of sockpuppetry -- more than just votes that favor what some think is a poor article. many of the keep voters have long contribution histories, have made hundreds or thosands of edits, on many different subjects. I don't see any plausibel evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, overall. Of couse legit editoes can have unwise opnions for a time, and IMO User:Peter S's substantive points should be substantively answered, but arging about socks is not the way to prevail in this debate, I think. DES (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (considering all those "keep" votes): Whoa whoa whoa people.... I think you need to slow down and take a look at this before you vote... The article as written makes it seem like he is notable, but it's written like a brochure for self-promotional purposes. For example, the extensive quote cited to Inside Magic is deceptive, as that quote was printed in Inside Magic, but it was quoting a student newspaper ("The Oxford Student has an incredibly positive piece about a young magician") -- the most important bit from that piece is that the editor of Inside Magic calls aladin "a magician I have never heard about." Furhtermore, he questions the student newspaper's claim that he left some society because it wouldn;t admit women as he knows a number of women in the society. This looks like a majorly deceptive bit of advertising by someone trying to give himself credential he doesn;t have. DON'T JUST VOTE KEEP claiming that he's notable without EVIDENCE that he is notable. He fails the Google test, and quite badly. The writer of this article created deceptive references, and sockpuppets have already been suggested. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Well said, DreamGuy, thanks. Other misleading credentials include the link "NBC Today Show featuring aladin's Book of Cool", but "aladin" was never mentioned on the Today Show, just this book with 25+ different people in it. And it's not *his* book, he's just one of those 25 people. Peter S. 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment:The dude was International Magician of The year 1991 [22]/ Yes, the article needs cleaning up and yes it needs to be made neutral but the magician is notable. Englishrose 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Was he? Prove it? That source quotes some school newspaper as having made the claim, but we have no idea whether it's accurate or not. The source you list never heard of the guy, so you can;t take second or third hand information as if it were real. DreamGuy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. However the article is very much POV, so I'm going to tag it as such. -- MisterHand 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's first edit was on 30 december 2005 DES (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Very notable magician. In fact he is a former International Magician of the Year. Englishrose 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Englishrose, the organisation behind "International Magician of The year" doesn't even have a website, how notable can this award be? There are thousands of such smallish awards with grandiose names. Bottom line is, Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the London gov, so I really really can't see how he's notable. Peter S. 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • speedy keep as above. v notable and verrifiable. shoked to see this up for dele Tiksustoo 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's firat article edit, on 17 Oct 2005 was to this article. DES (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) However, this user has since edited a significant range of articeles. DES (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After reading the aladin talk page I am very confused. Talk:Aladin Peter S. has been aware of this article since the 3 October 2005. He has disputed the POV of the article but never its notablity and has been trying to organise (and made)improvements to the article. Just seems strange. Englishrose 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, but I never edited it, cause the article always looked "fake" to me. I though I stayed on the sideline and view what happens to the article, but it still looks like a huge self-promo-thing to me :-/ Peter S. 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. I echo the comments above. Very noteworthy and VERY well substantiated. In fact the article is possibly one of the most heavily annotated in List of magicians and so interesting that I have been itching to add to it as it needs to include his 'other lives' in greater detail - all of the latter easy to find through search engines and other websites. Might well be a candidate for starred article? And I must agree with EnglishRose - Peter S seems to be pursuing aladin for a reason which one cannot fathom. Very strange. Autumnleaf 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: Notable and verifiable. -- Ragib 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Autumnleaf asked me to look at the article and the deletion entry -- even as a complete outsider to magic and the entertainment biz, I'm impressed by the guy's vita. However, the article needs to be toned down and put into perspective. Right now it sounds like he's the Second Coming of Houdini. Zora 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. notable and verifiable, even for an outsider like me. It's high on fancruft & pov, but that could be fixed. -- Pamri • Talk 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. Notable and verifiable. This is one of the better magic related articles. Grroin 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. What has already been said above, and I think it needs to be cleaned up to fit the standards of Wikipedia. -- nihon 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Bonaparte talk 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete is my not for now... see my comment above... the credential appear to be forged, Inside MAgic never heard of him, claims of being on National Geographic, etc., unconfirmed. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • A little google reveals [23], a National Geographic website that refers to aladin as a magician and management consultant. They may be taking him at face value. He certainly seems to be devoted to self-puffery. All the same, I should think that that any major falsification would have ruled out that particular TV show. NG has been caught in bad fact-checking in the past (the Chinese fossil that turned out to be faked) but they come clean about it and they aren't generally known for being a dodgy source. Zora 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Zora, that's a program about refugees, he was portrayed as a refugee. The article claims "He performs from bombay to las vegas and has appeared on National Geographic", which is clearly a misleading statement. As I said before, once you cut through all the promo language, you end up with a boring person that doesn't warrant an entry in the wikipedia. Peter S. 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • We've got articles about people even less notable. Better to turn your energies to deflating the article. You've alerted enough people to the hype that I'm sure it will be toned down. Zora 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Zora, he's roughly as notable as somebody that works at a bank and plays the harmonica in clubs at weekends. Do you really want to have every human at this level included in an encyclopedia, between Einstein and Churchill, just because he likes to spin such half-thruths? Peter S. 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my comments at Talk:List of magicians. This is one the many Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic artcles that should never have been written. -- Krash 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would instead vote to delete the Quotations about aladin if we had an Sfd! Neither Einstein nor the Alladin tale itself gets that luxury in an encyclopedia. It's simply called a vanity section! It gives a bad balance to any article mixing jokes w/ facts, peotry and magic. Please get rid of that stuff unless it is really relevent. Cheers -- Szvest 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
    • Hi Szvest, we tried deleting it before, but it's always added back: [24]. Believe me, editing the article won't change anything, and since he really isn't notable, it's of no use anyway. If you'd like to dig deeper and change your mind later, you're of course always allowed and welcomed to do so. Cheers, Peter S. 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for the note Peter. I noticed that and I commented above my opinion re the issue but that is never releted to the Afd. I see the vote below as paradoxial; deleting an article because of a section and then rewrite it?!. And yes, I understand that the main reason behind the deletion is that you don't agree about the guy notability. Personally, true, never heard about him and thought that it was about deleting Alladin. I've read the article and the guy is definetly notable. Cheers -- Szvest 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Delete, but at the very least, remove the Quotations about aladin. What is this, the yellow pages? The whole article could be rewritten to three paragraphs once the POV and publicity brochure info is removed. Dyslexic agnostic 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I just rewrote it. Three paragraphs is just about right. I dunno how long that version will stand, but I do hope that other editors won't add anything back unless there's a reliable source for it -- not just claims BY aladin. Zora 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep hey a magician! -- Snakes 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I don't see what the problem is here. The guy is a cultural adviser to Red Ken and got a huge profile in the Times in 1998, which I just read. Obviously deserves an article, but I don't understand why some editors just butchered what was there. -- JJay 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I was the butcher. Link the Times article then, and we'll see what's notable. Look, you can't just say that what was there was FINE when many of the people saying KEEP were also saying that the article was over the top. Zora 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I don't know if the article is online, I get this from pay databases (in this case Newsbank). The reference has been added- It was a 3 page feature profile in the Times magazine. The article mentions all the awards that we had in the Aladin article that have been removed. Moreover, I can say what I want about the article, considering it's my opinion. I don't know how you voted and have no plans to check. -- JJay 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This article has distinct verifiability problems, not least because most, possibly all, of Aladin's self-publicity seems to be either exaggeration or outright fiction. Last year we had Alkhemi ( AfD discussion), which was as far as could be determined a fictional company created by this person, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted, and for which no independent evidence of existence could be found. (It's possible that it is a one-man consultancy company that exists solely on paper, for tax purposes.) But that is far from the only apparent work of fiction in this person's publicity, it transpires.

    Mentioned above is the fact that Inside Magic is using The Oxford Student as its source for an article on "a magician I have never heard about". However, it seems that the only source for that article is Aladin himself. On Aladin's web site we have a quote from the article, describing it as a "3-page feature", published on 2004-02-19 by Tamara Cohen. However, going to the archives for that issue of The Oxford Student (Volume 37 issue 6) I find no such article.

    True, Aladin was a "subject of a documentary on National Geographic". But that was as a refugee, not as a magician. True, there is a Book of Cool (It's actually a set of DVDs.). But it isn't by Aladin. True, Aladin was a "government adviser". He was the vice-chairman of the Mayor of London's Cultural Strategy Group. And the article in the Times is inaccessible without a subscription fee, but given that it begins "Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals." and is an interview with this person I am highly skeptical of its accuracy.

    The key to notability here is being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources (e.g. magazine feature articles, books, and so forth). But upon investigation the whole thing turns out to be either built on sand or unverifiable. The Inside Magic article cites as its source an article in The Oxford Student that doesn't exist. I am unable to verify the purported 1999 coverage in The Hindustan Times, because its archive doesn't go back that far. The only person who appears to have even heard of the "Golden Turban Award from the Magic Academy of Bangalore" (or, indeed, the Magic Academy of Bangalore itself) is Aladin himself. The Daily Star archives don't go back to 1999, either.

    Strip away everything about this person that isn't verifiable, and one is left with someone who only satisfies the WP:BIO criteria because of the National Geographic documentary. Weak Keep. Uncle G 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Very Strong Keep. I note from the edit histories on this page that some contributors are active on 'south asian' pages. As a non-south asian I do wonder whether aladin is trapped in the wrong section; he is arguably a 'very' notable personage of Indian and Bangladeshi origins, partly based in the West, who is notable as an artist, magician, strategist and public official.  freedom Annawright 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The image on this page has no licensing information. I would assume that if this article is kept, then someone should determine whether it is being used properly (e.g., whether duplic domain, GFDL or fair use). I'd contact the person who uploaded the image, but that person only contributed briefly last August & appears to have left Wikipedia. -- llywrch 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It would appear to me that Magicsucks (who uploaded the image) might be related the same anon user(s) ( 172.215.214.127, 172.200.195.231) who started and added to this page one day before Magicsucks registered. Additional users ( Themeat, Waikiwai, and the curiously-named user Selfpublicitysucks) seem to have registered just to contribute exclusively to the article only to pull a disappearing act. Suspicious activity. And then there's Thegirlinwhite, another user who seems to have registered just to add to the article and also place references to aladin into various articles. She seems to have stuck around a little longer. -- Krash 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This Article is Misleading and Inaccurate. In order to judge the accuracy of this article, one would need expertise in the subject, right? Well, I may not be able to judge the accuracy of the scientific articles on wikipedia, but I have performed Sleight of Hand for over 30 years and have never heard of this individual. Additionally, the original article listed Sleight of Hand Artists that I not only *know*, but several of them have given me endorsements for promotional material. I've even gone to the trouble of contacting some of the most knowledgable Sleight of Hand people in the world and none of THEM have heard of this fellow. This leads me to believe the article was posted for purely promotional reasons. Keeping the article would lead people to believe that this indiviudal is one of the top Sleight of Hand Artists/Magicians in the world and this is simply not the case. Darwin Ortiz, Jon Racherbaumer, John Bannon, Paul Curry, Ed Marlo, Dai Vernon, John Scarne, Jean Hugard, Fred Braue, Larry Jennings, and about 100 others are the ones you want articles on, not this fellow. Questions? E-Mail me: steven.youell at gmail.com Steven Youell -- (unsigned comment by 68.7.141.95 17:36, 3 January 2006)
  • Comment I have managed to track down two of the articles.
    The Asian Age of 9 January 1999: aladin has the top right quarter of the 'People' page on page 21 in a four column article entitled 'Man with the magic lamp' which also has a photograph of him across two and a half of the columns; written by Abhik Sen:
    To mobilise support for the homeless, to walk some of London's roughest neighbourhoods in the middle of the night and charm street gangs off their crimes, to help the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser on youth and community projects, to coordinate and synthesise the work of South Asian musicians and artistes in Britain, and to do all of it at the same time, one would have to be a magician. That's precisely what aladin is, among, it has to be added, many other things.
    Indiaweekly of Friday September 10 - Thursday September 16 1999: aladin has practically the whole of page 25 in the 'Entertainment' section in an article entitled 'Master of Magic'; 3 of 4 columns to be exact, including a photograph stretching the width of the article, which is written by George Simpson. aladin was interviewed at the Institute for Contemporary Arts where he was appearing:
    aladin, amongst many other things, is a magician, live artist and producer/director. Born in Washington DC to Indian and Bangladeshi parents, aladin (his real name) was brought up everywhere, speaks English, French and Bengali, has worked with street gangs and been an academic, journal editor and government advisor. And this is just a small sample of the man’s achievements.
    Both articles cast him as a Renaissance Man and so have some fascinating background which I am going to include in the Wiki page. The quotations on aladin’s own website match up to the sources incidentally Autumnleaf 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Autumn, after those accusations, I cannot trust you. Please state a link instead of just entering text here. You could very well just have invented that story. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Peter, I understand that you're suspicious. Since I too believe that aladin has been editing his page with sockpuppets, I can understand that you'd look askance at any editor you didn't know. Well, Autumnleaf has been editing Indian cinema articles for a while now and she seems quite level-headed. I don't agree with her on this issue -- I think she has too much faith in journalists! -- but I don't think she'd lie. I'm not the best judge of people in the world, but I've certainly had no reason to distrust Autumnleaf. Zora 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    I do not take your comments personally Peter. You are clearly in favour of an order of 'proof' none of us may ever be able to provide and I have better things to do - just ask Zora. I suggest you yourself email/call the key publications [PRINT newspapers] in question or get a friend to look them up. I would be particularly delighted if you would call up Asian Age and India Weekly - all the details are above. Of course, you WILL come back to this page after, won't you? Autumnleaf 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I already added the reference from the Times, which was a three page feature. Aladin was also written up in The Express on March 15, 2001. I have both of those articles of course. -- JJay 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The photograph used for the Asian Age piece above is by Nicholas Sinclair who is a notable(!) British portraitist as I just discovered via Google. Autumnleaf 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Again, a link here would have been worth a lot more than just stating something that you might just have invented on the spot. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Try a library. Or maybe you should have tried that before making statements about Aladin's notability such as: The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets. It took me one minute to disprove that and I did not make up the Times feature on Aladin-- JJay 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • An article that states that Aladin helped "the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser" is almost certainly repeating Aladin's own exaggerated and fabricated self-publicity, and thus wholly suspect in all respects. Aladin was the chairmain of an advisory committee to the Mayor of London, which is nowhere near Cabinet-level. Uncle G 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Let's say he had 2 Dozen Articles about him in magazines and newspapers. That's enough to make him worthy of an article in a reference source? If so, there are at least 10,000 more amateur magicians waiting to use wikipedia as their personal promotional tool. Anyone with a modicum of talent and enough money to hire a press agent could easily get more press than that. Has he published any work in any of the trade journals? What are his contributions to the art? Has he lectured for the International Brotherhood of Magicians? How about the Society of American Magicians? How about for The Magic Circle? Has he even played the Magic Castle? WHAT?!? Tell me something he's done besides generate a few articles!!! And then tell me why those achievements make him high enough on the ladder to earn his own article in what is supposed to be a serious and accurate reference source.

    Steven Youell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs)

    • I'd vote keep for some of those 10,000 amateurs, even Steven Youell when he gets a 3-page spread in the Times Magazine. -- JJay 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • JJay-- if you believe that someone who gets a 3-page spread in ANY magazine automatically deserves an article in an encyclopedia, then you really don't have the respect for the Art of Magic OR Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: I'm not sure how much credit to apply to your opinion given that you have not contributed to this project. You claim to be Steven Youell. The claim is of course unverifiable, although I have been able to determine that there is an aspiring magician by that name. Details are sketchy, though, because Mr. Youell, unlike Aladin, has apparently not been mentioned in any of the 1400+ newspapers included in the Newsbank and Proquest databases. -- JJay 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Comment: I am more than willing to assist you in verifying my qualifications. You may e-mail me at steven.youell at gmail.com Allow me to repeat once more-- I don't think "notable" should be defined by how much press you get, but by what you've contributed to the particular subject. Go search your 1400 newpapers and find out how much press Karl Fulves has, yet he is a prolific author on card magic. How about Charlie Miller? If you don't know those names, then you're not qualified to form an opinion on who is "notable" in magic and who is not. Again, I am more than willing to verify my credentials to anyone posting here. steven.youell At gmail.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The only credential that interests me is your lack of participation in this project. That is why I can not give much credence to your opinion. Regarding your query, Charles Miller has been discussed in articles in Newsday, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Times of London. Karl Fulves has had his book reviewed in the Washington Post and the Times of London. Please submit articles on these men when you find the time. -- JJay 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I understand your position now. Expertise in a subject is defined by how much you've participated in Wikipedia and how well you can use google. Brilliant. Now THAT'S how you build a reliable reference source. By the way, Karl Fulves has written more than a dozen books on magic and produced three of the most influential periodicals in magic-- The Pallbearers Review, Epilogue and The Chronicles. But you didn't find that from searching newspapers online, did you? Probably because the only people that care about that would be people who are knowledable about the subject at hand. See my point? SEY
        • We are not building a reliable reference source with your input since you have made no material contribution to the project besides this AfD. For all I know you are Aladin or David Blaine, rather than aspiring magician Youell. Again, instead of wasting our time with your opinions regarding notable magicians such as Fulves and Miller, who are not the subject of this AfD, please submit articles so we can improve our coverage of the field. -- JJay 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • "Comment'**** JJay-- you've made it pretty clear that you determine who is "notable" in a field based on press clippings and from what you can find out from behind your keyboard. You have repeatedly questioned my credentials yet you have not taken me up on my offer to substantiate them. I therefore question your journalistic integrity and consider the matter closed. My offer to substantiate my credentials, however, stands: steven.youell at gmail.com -- SEY
      • It's not useful for anyone doing serious research on historical/professional magicians to come across articles about amateur magicians because they have been linkfarmed into valid magic articles. That "aladin" would appear on a list among the likes of Houdini, Copperfield or even David Blane is utterly ridiculous. I know we're not here to debate "what links here", but I think this whole thing is capable of setting a really bad precedent for those 10000 awaiting articles. -- Krash 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable; the notability itself may not be just because he is a magician. It can also be because he is influential in the community etc. Linus Pauling is notable not just for research in chemistry but also for work in fostering peace. Vilayat Khan is considered a better Sitar player by connoisseurs of Hindustani music in comparison to Ravi Shankar. However, the latter is more notable and was awarded the Bharat Ratna as he worked on several international projects and built bridges between India and "the West." It may be that Aladin may not be as great a magician as others; yet, he is notable, precisely because he leveraged his seemingly low notability in magic to effect community service positively. Hence, keep. -- Gurubrahma 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- on all of the above.
    I've managed a look at the Times article (being coy, lest the copyright police swoop) and it does state as fact a number of the items that we can't substantiate with google. But I *still don't believe it*. Sorry. The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker. All the rest of it seems to be repeating claims that aladin made to the writer. But if he had put on a magic show in India that had a cast of 800 magicians and was watched by a billion people (one sixth of the population of the planet, right?), surely there would be some record of it in google? Is there any TV show on record with a demonstrated viewership of one billion? Is there any Magic Academy of Bangalore?
    Googling furiously, I found the following curious note in ExpressIndia:
    Muthukad, who is popularly known as India’s Houdini, also runs the Gopinath Muthukad Magic Academy in Thiruvananthapuram, the first of its kind in Asia. "Magic with a mission" is the slogan of his institution. [25]
    If the Magic Academy of Bangalore is so famous that a billion people watched the show it sponsored, how is it that ExpressIndia doesn't know that there is another magic academy in India?
    Plus, I can't replicate much of anything in the article on aladin's supposed father, Abul Fateh. Certainly nothing that proves that he is aladin's father, or that various details given in the Abul Fateh article are true. There are details that could have only been supplied by a fabulist -- or possibly a family member who edits from sockpuppet accounts, and may be prone to exaggeration.
    I was originally trusting, but the more research I do, the more alarm bells go off. I know that it's upsetting for people to admit that they've been conned, but aladin seems like a con. A con who edits vanity articles from sockpuppet accounts. Possibly a notable con, but con nonetheless. I don't think it makes any sense to trust a conman just because he's South Asian, or argue that it's prejudice to distrust him. We're all human, and human includes grandiosity. Zora 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The fact that you do not believe the article is one thing. That is your right. However, statements like: The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker are completely out of line without factual evidence to back up the claim. Have you spoken to the reporter who wrote the story? Have you contacted the Times? If you had done any research, you would know that the Aladin feature was written by a well known investigative reporter in the UK. Please have the decency not to slander Ms. Brinkworth or Times journalism without real evidence. -- JJay 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • JJay, the only thing in that article that the reporter said that she personally witnessed was aladin interacting with some youths in a slum. I believe that she witnessed that. It's possible, and I have no reason to think that she would lie about what she had SEEN. (Of course, journos have done that -- does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell? -- but I see no motive here.) However, given that she reports as fact extremely dubious material that she can only have gotten from her interviewee, I think she's too darn trusting. Gullible. Journos can be. A friend of mine who was a magazine reporter wrote a long crusading article about a man who had a land claim against the state of Hawai'i, a claim based on supposed Hawaiian historical facts. I trusted the friend until I spent hours in the archives trying to chase down the "facts". I found that my friend had believed the claimant without checking anything, and that the claimant had been b!llsh!tting him. JJay, your faith in journos is misplaced. Zora 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks Zora, for your search into the matter. I just want to comment on the Abul Fateh article, that his role in Bangladesh Liberation War is verifiable and he was the first foreign secretary of Bangladesh. Other than that, I can't find references for anything else. It may be possible that someone who personally know him added the details, including his relation with aladin. Thanks. -- Ragib 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Verifiable enough and notable enough for me. David | Talk 14:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In the last few months, the credibility of Wikipedia has been questioned and I had no basis on which to form an opinion either way, since I really don't have any specific academic credentials. However, if this article is kept then I will sadly conclude that Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source. I could make that conclusion based on the fact that *I DO* have the expertise to judge whether or not someone is a "notable magician"-- and people who *DO NOT* have those qualifications are making editorial decisions based on magazine articles rather than extensive knowledge of the subject at hand. Wikipedia may be accurate in the Scientific realm, but if this aricle is kept, I will have no doubt that it's usless in every other sense. --Steven Youell— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete when mirror and smoke was cleared, there is nothing verifiable left. It was a mistake to start a vote and then to remove garbage. The magicial already did his rabbit-from-hat thing. Mukadderat 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Verifiable and notable. I haven't been able to contribute much to the Wikipedia project these days. However tomorrow morning I will take a cue from what has been left on my Talk Pages and drop in with some verifiable and verified material for discussion. Thanks thegirlinwhite 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Degz

Claims notability. Is a hoax. Discuss. - Bobet 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete NN-bio, hoax Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Matthews Southwest"

Advertising. Delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lovely (micronation)

Listing Orphaned AFD Page Vary | Talk 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Why are no other micronations tolerated on Wikipedia? This is crud about some guy that did a TV show. That makes it important? Wikipedia hates this kind of stuff! Look at the number of micronations that tried to add themselves to the list of micronations, none of them were tolerated! Why should Lovely? Becuase it was on TV? Is Sealand the only Micronation that has a page? There are hundreds of micronations on the internet, mabye three on wikipedia? Keep the pattern. Wikipedia hates nonsense. delete Kilroy Collins

I'm not trying to attack you here, but when you say "Wikipedia hates this kind of stuff!", you seem to mean "I hate this kind of stuff". As i said above, its not the most important article on wikipedia, but an article about a micronation serially televised on the BBC and hosted on their website is a lot more important than a lot of ridiculous stuff on wikipedia. -- jeffthejiff ( talk) 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There are 42 in Category:Micronations (One is the Micronation article and another looks to be made a redirect with another AfD, but that leaves 40.) -- Billpg 15:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a notable micronation, at the centre of a popular TV programme helmed by a notable comic and author. Other micronations like Sealand have articles; Lovely, with its large number of people affiliating themselves to it, is as notable as Sealand if not more so. Jess Cully 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Lovely has over 53,000 citizens almost rivaling the Marshall islands. That many people cannot be ignored. David Lewis (Citizen of Lovely) 6th January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.103 ( 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.
  • Delete. This article is both innacurate and irrelevant. The associated websites are closed.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jared F. Warren

Non-notable vanity page. Jokestress 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Jimfbleak - SCEhard T 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Private School Gangstas

Unremarkable people or groups NJ 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Deathstation 9000

Neologism that some people made up and thought would make a great article. - Bobet 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Light Side of the Moon

Vanity page on a non notable Internet show that doesn't even exist yet. Presence on the web (besides from their own blog): 0 hits. - Phaedriel 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Why dyou have to be a jerk?! I worked hard on this!! Me and my friend are trying to get our show up this week, and we wanted to be in Wikipedia. Were just starting out, duh we wouldnt be know very well yet! Can't you just leave it be? Geez!! Bert
  • Delete actually speedied once before in a probably out of process deletion, but anyway - it doesn't exist yet etc. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Why dyou want to delete it? Its not hurting you now is it? ~~~~. Bert 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable. Wikipedia is not the place for publicity or advertising. If and when the show takes off and becomes notable, that would be the time to list it here. In the meantime, might I suggest you get a MySpace account? You should also look over WP:WEB. -- MisterHand 18:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The show kicks off in a week from today, so what would be the point of deleting the wikipedia now only to update the show's status in a mere 7 days? Besides the fact that MySpace hosts BANDS...how would that help? it'd be useless! Wikipedia is a free encyclodpedia for everyone's use, and if they wish to add a description of their show on it without quite advertising it then it's their right! Tell me, what's the difference between wikipedia's pages for "The Light Side of the Moon" and "Whose Line is it Anyways?" Sure they haven't had the chance Whose Line had, but if you're offended by this in any way by this, DON'T WATCH THEIR SHOW! Leave 'em alone! Everyone's got a point of view, and a right to bear their own opinions, but why don't we all save those up for bigger, more important issues, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.168.45 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete If and when they make a notable contribution to anything the page will have a reason to exist. Until then, there is no reason for it to be here. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable show, advertising. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. First become notable, then become the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion or advertising. -- Metropolitan90 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "Were just starting out, duh we wouldnt be know very well yet!" My sentiments exactly. -- Tothebarricades 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, ok, delete it if you must, but I can make it once the show is well known, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunetsuki22 ( talk • contribs)

Not just known, notable, which is a higher bar to get over. And you shouldn't be writing articles about your own work anyway. If it's truly notable, some else will do it for you. Just get over the idea that Wikipedia is here so you can pimp your own projects. It's not like listing your site on Yahoo or something. Seriously: read this. rodii 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

-> I'd say just let them delete it...Once you get viewers and fans and whatnot, then you'll have the support you need here at wikipedia- until then the people here obviously don't have their proof of your hard work at attempting the show... Let them delete your profile, keep it running, get viewers/more supporters/what-nots, then hopefully the people here at wikipedia won't be so hard on you. ...And I'm sorry I don't have my own Wikipedia account with which to sign my comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.173.9 ( talk • contribs)


Pimp?! Ok, just because I'm from the south-side of Chicago doesn't mean I'm some fag ganster guy. but, ok, whatever.


Sorry about all of the crap guys, just delete my wikipedia article if you have to.

  • I would let them keep it, but if you at Wikipedia must...delete it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. enochlau ( talk) 06:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kabayama

There is no need for this page; the character is covered thoroughly enough in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX minor characters, and only appears in one episode. Setokaiba ✌ ≝ 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Grand Prize Winner!

Speedied by another admin with the message

"Story Reader" books are really not notable enough for articles

Of course, that's not a CSD. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-band delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reddin

Band which does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines (have only recorded a demo, and "as soon as possible they will start recording their firs album."). Scott 5114 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jaroslaw Nowicky

The person referred to is referenced by few sites and seems to be famed for an unverifiable "cancer cure". I find this very suspicious; even if true, wikipedia is not for original research, which is what this would be. Mozzerati 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This article also satisfied several criteria for speedy deletion. Mind matrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Santa Catalina, Bolívar

Santa Catalina, Bolívar was listed for translation on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but remains untranslated after 2 weeks, so now its time to list for deletion. — TheKMan talk 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments from translation page:

This entire article is in Spanish, I can translate it given time, but that I do not have right now. (This article is not present on the Wikipedia en Español) SailorfromNH 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Judging by the footnotes, and the copy-and-paste style, it's ripped out of the "DICCIONARIO GEOGRAFICO Y CATRASTAL DE LA REPUBLICA DE COLOMBIA", and even cites the page number. Does that make this a copyvio, or is that source free of copyright? (Not found the source online yet, BTW, maybe from print...) Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 05:22, 18 December 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 delete. Mind matrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kim Loan

Non-notable vanity/advertising. I couldn't find any evidence that Kim Loan or D&D Media are any sort of "national phenomena". — Cleared as filed. 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Somebody moved it already to WP:BJAODN. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rear-toading

Two things wrong with this page: (1) - neologism if its not just (2) utter nonsense. CastAStone 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Politic_(slang)

Neologism. This belongs at UrbanDictionary.com. Delete CastAStone 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Social capital theory

there is already a page Social capital which should cover this theme; the actual facts in this page seem to be misleading (Glenn Loury may have used the concept of "Social Capital", but doesn't seem to have invented it according to a brief search) and it hasn't been cleaned up even after being marked in May 2005. Mozzerati 19:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Pulling Tubes

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhard T 20:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for the reasons given below. I am also speedily deleting Image:Becky.pdf which is a copy of this article's text. Uncle G 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Potato queen

Even if this person exists, the article contains enough falsehoods and factual errors to warrant deletion - Tenerife as a graduation present? The UK coming in to being in 1995? --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Swechno

This term is not wide spread and doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry. mere 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 20:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Velvet Rut (locale)

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhard T 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The term does seem to exist but does not seem to be very popular (excluding references to the band and the play which share the same name). Also, this is barely a dicdef. The claims of authorship seem to be completely unsupported and are probably false, given the other uses of the phrase. ManoaChild 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted based on WP:CSD A6 on attack pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ferndown upper school

The article is not about the school - rather it is about the author's problem with attending said school. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jamie Harris

Vanity page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (4 delete, 1 move). Mind matrix 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Once Moore

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously deleted on 16 Dec 05. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Once Moore/2005-12-11. The article was recreated on 27 Dec 05. It was mistagged as {{ empty}} (a speedy-delete template). This new version is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version and therefore does not qualify for the re-created content speedy criterion either. However, the verifiability issues raised during the first AFD discussion do appear to still be relevant. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it to Hell it's first creation was a mistake, now it's a big mistake. The album has yet to be titled. It's an illusion created by the "fake" mandy moore site apparently. It should be deleted at least until Mandy Moore post it on her site. Parys
  • Move to Mandy Moore's fifth studio album and merge to Mandy Moore following a complete removal of all the information (and the album cover) that originated from http://www.media-press-release.com/release-69.htm, as well as the external "Hey!" lyrics link. The direct quotes from Moore and the list of people she collaborated with on the album are from reliable sources, however, and probably deserve a mention in Moore's article (at least until the actual title of the album is announced). I'd take out the false information right now, except that the article is currently protected. Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What if, god forbid Sire refuses to release the album? Then we would have an article for nothing. That press release isn't anything official, trust me, it's easy to make a fake one. Like i said DELETE. Parys
  • What about the cover? And what about that song "Fear of Flying", i have heard no such song, and i have searched it, and all I found was a mirror of the wiki article and also Mya's album Fear of Flying.
  • Delete. Apparently a hoax, or at least not reliably sourced. We don't need a page on her next album until there's a definitive announcement about it. *Dan T.* 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly, we'll just have to wait on mandy.

Parys

Delete Am tired of seeing this branded about. JackO'Lantern 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mind matrix 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Police Notebook

Sounds like an ad (as said through template). Still, is it really worthy? Compu ter Joe 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-band delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

T spigot

Obvious nn band Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mind matrix 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

CKA

NN neologism. Randwicked 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The google search you link is misleading, as although I get 895,000 results - many of them are not related to this. A more accurate search term indicates only about six unique hits. Delete. Barneyboo ( Talk) 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • overturn. All of the result links on your google search goto www.canadaka.net. Also on the above "CKA" search google suggests that "cka" should be "Canada Kicks Ass" (See results for: canada kicks ass) -- Canadaka 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment - All of the result links on your google search goto www.canadaka.net - you're right, they do. But that doesn't suggest notability just because Google links to various pages within a CMS. The six or so hits it displays are a slightly more realistic indication. A search for cka -"canada kicks ass" shows how many entries on Google for 'CKA' have nothing to do with 'Canada Kicks Ass'. Barneyboo ( Talk) 09:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment Please use correct AfD ettiquette. The proword is Keep, not Overturn, and please only vote once. It is also preferred that you use edit summaries, and let people know if you have a vested interest in the AfD debate, as your username suggests you do. Thanks, and Welcome to Wikipedia. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. -- Angr ( t· c) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete- neologism. Reyk 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a copyvio, despite the majority of votes being "keep". — JIP | Talk 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kabalah Yoga

Page not NPOV - partisan to Kabbalah cult --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ashlea Evans

Reality TV contestant that is not notable enough. She left the show after about two weeks, Big Brother fans barely remember her, she is overshadwoed by other contestants who were more notable but don't have thier own articles, etc. Chicbicyclist 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. What objective truth? That they are not notable enough? A couple other constants such as Eric and Maggie, and especially Ivette had a far-reaching effect on the show and are alot more well-known by casual tv viewers than Ashlea. The only notable thing Ashlea ever did was being on the show with Janelle. Chicbicyclist 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - IIRC there's some guideline about who is eligible for articles and I think they pretty well have to either win the contest or become notable in their own right outside the series. Remember these are just game show contestants when all is said and done; would you want to see articles done on everyone who ever appeared on Jeopardy? 23skidoo 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have no problem with articles on game show contestants. Big Brother's ratings average 8-9 million per week. Compare that with published authors who are eligible for an article according to guidelines with book sales above 5,000. Seems like a double standard to me. -- JJay 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.
  • Keep for being on a major hit show. Reality contestants on a show aren't the same as Jeopardy, as they are "characters" on a show, with a closer analogy to an actor of a hit TV show (e.g. for a hit sitcom or drama we might have articles on the character and the actor, in reality TV, the two are one). Generally, Jeopardy contestants have no national mainstream published sources of information about the lives of the contestants outside of the show, and little independent stuff about the show. In cases where a Jeopardy contestant receives sufficiently high levels of mainstream media coverage, relating to their show, and life outside the show, they may well qualify for a bio article. People do follow, in the press, the lives of these reality contestants, like it or not. Finally, I suggest more recent precedent is to keep an article like this (though not consistently). But, it probably would be good to discuss at WP:BIO some mention of reality show contestants. -- Rob 16:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If Debb Eaton can have a wiki article, then so should Ashlea. You can't just go around and start randomly marking articles for deletion like this. It's ridiculous. Jtrost 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That same argument has been used to justify the keeping of other very obscure reality conteststants, and in fact, the page for Ashlea Evans has been used the same way you used Debb Eaton. This is what prompted me to put it up for deletion. I might have to put the article for Debb Eaton up for deletion, too. Chicbicyclist 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is a bit strange that Micheal Donellan who appears on the same debate page as Ashlea is getting more delete votes than her. Micheal is alot more accomplished(being a well-established artist and all), stayed longer in the house and had a love affair with Janelle, arguably one of the most popular contestant on Big Brother USA, ever. Chicbicyclist 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as notable person on very popular (e.g. known to a large number of people) show. "ashley evans big brother" gets >16,000 Google hits (apparently the Ashlea spelling is not known to many people). Turnstep 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Viera Scheibner

Fails professor test. Doesn't appear to be much about them that can be verifed (uses a geocites site as a cite) Geni 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • keep what is a professor test? And who is them? She is the most notable vaccine critic, which is why medical (allopathic) people want to keep her suppressed. john 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I can think of more notable without even trying. Geni 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • You find anyone who has written two books devoted to vaccine criticism. Pray do tell and I'll open a page to them. It is just medical politics anyway, so save me the false reasoning. She is the number one vaccine critic which is why you want to suppress a page to her, end of story. I am dying to know what your Professor test is, I'd love to see you pass these rules over Brain Deer [29], who is only notable for his attempts, through the Sunday Times, in smearing Andrew Wakefield. john 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is not the type of case where the professor test is applicable. Viera Scheibner seems to lead some kind of campaign against vaccination which has made her known and controversial. She may be on the fringe as a scientist, but that is not a reason to delete the article, just to make sure it is NPOV. "Dr. Viera Scheibner is a retired micropalaeontologist, without any formal training in health-related sciences, who tours the world claiming that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous and lead to a host of ills such as cancer and asthma. Professionals in public health or the clinical arena are from time to time called upon to publicly respond to her, or similar, claims disseminated during tours of Europe, North America or Australasia and in books and articles." Julie Leask, Peter McIntyre, "Public opponents of vaccination: a case study", Vaccine 21 (2003), 4700–4703 (PDF) If scientists feel a need to analyse and discuss her in scientific journals and respond to her publicly, that makes her notable enough. Up+land 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • One of their main fears is publicity for her research into cot-death and vaccination using a special cot monitor http://www.whale.to/v/scheibner.html which proved the vaccination cot-death connection, no mention at all. They have kept off the vaccination connection on the Cot death page. I have managed to get on the vitamin C prevention discovered by Archie Kalokerinos, but the headings have been removed and the comment about it being endorsed by Linus Pauling. john 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I don't care whether she is right or not (and the article certainly should not express the POV that she is right), but the fact that she is controversial for something makes her a reasonable candidate for an article. Up+land 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • speedy keep: Just another nuisance AfD. As the author of several books and numerous scientific articles, there ought to be some sort of applicable criteria for an author's publishing history, which Scheibner would easily fulfill. Ombudsman 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Ombudsman, please have respect for due process. "Nuisance AFD" is not applicable where there are legitimate concerns about the subject's notability. The publishing history, uh, shows that she is not exactly a medical scientist. JFW |  T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm in favor of keeping this, although I hope it doesn't fall foul of Ombudsman's usual tactics. People need to know that this lady has no relevant qualifications, since she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists or by parents who've been suckered into these things. Even when this bio first appeared, however, Ombudsman went straight in to remove this critical information, as he has done with so many of these biogs intended to create (a false) sense that there is a body of medical opinion which thinks, eg that MMR causes behavioral problems. Probably, we'll end up having to rely on the drug industry to provide the staff time necessary to watch all this stuff, which will be a shame. Before long maybe someone could make up a page of all these characters - Scheibner, the Geiers, Yazquack, Wakefield, Bradstreet and all that crowd - and people will get a real good sense of what's happening. 86.129.115.248 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: 'No relevent qualifications' is ad hominem, and gives the impression you need a medical (allopathic) education to form a sound opinion on vaccination, which is complete nonsense of course, but a belief medical people like to spread and fertilise, for obvious reasons. And it is completely untrue that 'she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists'. I have been in this game for 10 years, and I can't recall one instance of that, that may have happened with a parent but so what, that is an easy mistake to make for a newcomer, and anyway, it gives the false impression being an MD is an advantage, when the medical education would be more of a hinderance. Also it gives the impression people are lying to make a better case, when any idiot can work out the truth doesn't need to lie. john 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please register on Wikipedia so we can count your vote. JFW |  T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable Australian anti-vaccinationist, with an article about her in the Vaccine journal in December 2003 PMID  14585678. And also notable for receiving the Australian Skeptics's Bent Spoon Award. Andrew73 18:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks. JFW |  T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: a notable vaccination critic and quack. -- CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the above, and I'm closing this. If nothing else, she's a model by which quacks can be recognized as such, but that aspect needs to be stressed a bit more. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thebadrobots

Non-notable band. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It was deleted by EdwinHJ, not myself. CastAStone 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Christopher Jones (student)

Hoax, troll page. Speedy delete --  (aeropagitica)  UK 21:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

EditMe.com

Fails WP:WEB on all three points Soothing R 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Vaccination critics

"A compilation of organisations, books and people critical of vaccination." how is that an encyclopedia article? It's not a list either. Geni 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that the best you can come up with? What is a list in your definition? john 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


Wikipedia:Lists of course wikipedia is full of examples of lists. Geni 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
'The list may be a valuable information source'. If a list of vaccine criticism books isn't useful then you are living in allopath land, where vaccines are perfect, time to think about the children, don't you think? Most people don't even know ONE of those books exist, let alone 50, but top marks for trying to keep them suppressed. john 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So you admit you are pushing a POV? Geni 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • conditional keep: In Vaccine controversy, John added a list of ten vaccination critics, with no balancing information. This is a violation of policy, and User:Jimbo Wales has repeatedly asserted that NPOV is non-negotiable. My goals are not suppression, but rather maintaining proportions that conform with policy. I think it would be more useful and maintainable to include a single list to Vaccination critics instead. So if John intends to use this new page instead of including long lists of individual critics, I think this page is valuable. But if he intends to use it in addition, then I wouldn't support it. So before I commit to a vote, I'd want to know more about John's intentions for the page. Who knows -- maybe we can use this page to help forge a sustainable compromise. -- Arcadian 14:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't think it's necessary to make deals with John on this. It doesn't make sense to include a long list of vaccine critics within several articles when we have a serviceable list. Put a link to this list on {{ vaccines}} and we're done here. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Ten, I think that is a productive solution, but because John isn't the only person affected, I'd rather get consensus before changing the template. At Talk:Thimerosal#Summary_of_See_also_disagreement_for_RfC, User:InvictaHOG stated that "I'll take it as is, but would understand if Ombudsman et. al would prefer to replace pox party with something else more to their liking." Perhaps it would make sense to replace pox party with Vaccination critics. If nobody objects, then if this page survives VfD, then I'll make that substitution. I think Ombudsman supports the direction we're headed (he left a kind note on my talk page about it) but let's give him some time to respond. -- Arcadian 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd prefer a page like this that doesn't get shafted by allopaths, and a link from Vaccine controversy (which is an allopath page when I looked at it) and a page with a foot in both camps which doesn't appeal to me much, so I'd prefer a link here and to keep off that page, myself. Are you suggesting I limit my pages to individual vaccine critics? I think a page like this with all the books listed along with the organisations is valuable to offset the bias on all of the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. I may try and add 'the alternative view' to those pages but it will be a battle to get one or two lines in, let alone a header. I could put the alternative view (naturopathy, nutritional med, and homeopathy) for mumps and measles, for example, here and save all those edit wars on those pages. john 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The critics page would serve well as a hub for the template. As it stands, there is nothing else resembling a centralized nexus where a clear account of vaccine criticism is available. Surely, this article will eventually cover epidemiological vs clinical perspectives, data manipulation, pathologies related to vaccine injury (e.g., autistic enterocolitis). Maybe, when the Age of Autism has receded into the rear view mirror, hopefully by the dawn of the next century, this page will no longer be so necessary, except as an historical footnote. Ombudsman 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
oh I don't know perhaps Vaccine controversy? Geni 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
You would say that, you are the main hub for allopath/medical butchering of vaccine/allopathy criticism. The vaccine controversy page is a half way house controlled by vaccinators, so a link to a proper page on vaccination criticism is a good solution, but I don't expect them to give in without a fight, as vaccine criticism has been well suppressed for 150 years or so, which begs the question---what are they afraid of if vaccination is safe and effective????? Surely they would like everything to be out in the open to show vaccination is above reproach? john 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So you admit its intent is as a POV fork? Uh uh. -- Calton | Talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
If you look at all the medical vaccine pages AND the vaccine disease pages they have all been written by vaccinators/allopaths, so if that isn't POV I don't know what is. If you would like to arrange a section on each of those pages for me to offer my balancing comments then I can do without any pages outlining the anti-vaccination viewpoint, but vaccinators like Hog can't take any criticism which is why he deletes all of my work. john 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) john 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Levi Vega Martinez

Not-notable bio. Unverifiable. I could find nothing on this person with Google, so I marked the article {{unreferenced}} on December 20 2005. The article has been edited since then, but no reference has been provided. Dalbury( Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • come on Dalbury! Costa Rica is a very small country and of course we do not have extensive information on our people in the net, but this doesn't mean that our people is not important for us to be in such an important media as Wikipedia. You might find some information on this journalist on the net but as he was heavily active during the 80's and 90's most of his work is printed in hundreds of newspapers in Costa Rica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.196.77.182 ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Please read the official policy on verification of material in articles. I have been to Costa Rica and I like it, but it is the burden of the editor adding material to Wikipedia to provide sources for that material that can be readily verified by another editor or reader of the article. So, tell us where the information in the article has been published. -- Dalbury( Talk) 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was The result of this debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It was Deleted by EdwinHJ. CastAStone 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cord Tangeling Gnomes

This might be speedyable, but it certainly isn't encyclopediac. Its obviously false information presented as if it were true. CastAStone 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

TheRingess 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Conor McAvinue

Hoax - potato mining accident etc. Manchester United don't seem to have a player with this name. Delete. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

+ Delete rubbish! SatuSuro 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Barkaloo

I think this is a hoax; If it's not, then it's original research. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ria, Noel

There is no discernable research value in this page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kramus

Non-notable band. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Natures Valley, Western Cape

Currently this page is a broken link to another wiki (I believe they meant to link to [30]). It fails to establish the notability of "Natures Valley". Nature's Valley is indeed a place in Bitou Local Municipality, Western Cape, South Africa. - Halidecyphon 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Snaking

Snaking was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaking/2005-11-24.

An advanced technique that belongs on the Mario Kart page or in a FAQ or not even mentioned at all. Hbdragon88 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Now a redirect. enochlau ( talk) 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Restaurants in Namibia

Was listed for speedy deletion, does not meet CSD so moved to AfD. I think it's better suited for WikiTravel EdwinHJ | Talk 22:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename as Cuisine of Namibia (needs cleanup and expansion - but then the article is only 6 hours old!). There is a precedent for reference to specific restaurants in similar articles on regional cuisine (eg Cuisine of California). Humansdorpie 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Julia Adams

Tagged as an A7 speedy but it claims some notability. I say Delete unless there is more verification. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Admiral Freebee

Non Notable songwriter. Delete CastAStone 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Conform WP:MUSIC:
A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.
Both his albums were released on Universal.
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Depending on what you call major (note: size of country not mentioned in the guideline), Humo´s Rockrally.
MB 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia Is The Next Google

I did not add this AFD, but the creator of the AFD did not create this page after about a period of twenty minutes. My view on this article is neutral Frag 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Whale.to

Advertisement for a non-notable quack website whose administrator is a Wikipedia user. Delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

John is mentioned in the introduction and is the same john replying in this thread! InvictaHOG 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

I'll abstain for now, but I have a question for John that may help us work through these issues. You keep adding links to your deprecated source? website to many, many medical Wikipedia pages. Are you doing this because you believe whale.to is currently a notable resource, or because you are hoping it becomes a notable resource in the future? -- Arcadian 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I haven't added any links for weeks, I'll be back in the saddle in a week or so. I did a Wiki page some time ago which had a few links pointing out the allopaths game, and I'll update that in due course, eg deleting pages I have done such as Lily Loat, and attemting to delete these Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics, that one took an hour to do. While I have been off whale.to for a few weeks, for various reasons, I have been doing Wiki pages, eg National Anti-Vaccination League, started this one Harris Coulter, so I may do more of that as Wiki certainly needs more of a balanced viewpoint as nearly all of the vaccine pages and vaccine disease pages (for starters) are purely allopathic thinking, with no vaccine criticism allowed, and I enjoy doing that. I did manage to create Archie Kalokerinos and put his vitamin C cot death prevention on the SIDS page---after a big battle on the Talk MMR page (not sure that was worth the talk). But at least he seems to be still up there, fingers crossed. I may put a link to the Wiki page I have done on The National Anti-Vaccination League, rather than duplicating it on whale.to. That needed doing and I doubt I would have done it if I hadn't come here, so that is one plus point. I have the books on the shelf. I can't see Wiki ever improving on my pages eg Scheibner www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html, unless you have a document facility, and can keep the allopaths from deleting them or the links. As to your query about whale being a notable resource, I feel (IMO) it is the most valuable resource on medicine on the internet, right now, but i don't expect anyone who hasn't done the research I've done to see that, especially allopaths for obvious reasons, the main reason being the lack of real knowledge of most people who have been fed propaganda, like I was. (Medical) Truth is very simple, but really annoying to man, as Goethe said. I have the best vaccine document resource on the internet, especially smallpox. I have taken apart vaccination already, so any additions will be gilding the lily, but I will have all the relevent smallpox books up there one day, as I like to be thorough. john 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I have added more detail to the page. I believe it is NPOV, but further review is of course appreciated. -- Arcadian 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the bogey words (demons, implants, etc) that User:InvictaHOG are using in his ad hominem ploy are also on wiki pages. So I am mighty curious to know how come it is OK for Wiki to have pages to Alien implants, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Skull and Bones, Demons, but NOT OK for me to have them?? john 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Goes to credibility, as the TV lawyers like to say. -- Calton | Talk 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Attack page (It was literally one line of text consisting of a personal attack) WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cookin' With Romeo and Juliet

It was originally started as an insult page (check the past revision in history), but was blanked earlier today. Upon Googling the name, I found that it was an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but an unnotable (besides its reference to the Shakespeare play) episode hardly deserves its own article, even if it actually had content. Frag 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Burmle

This article can never be expanded, because no furthur information exists. Any info relating to Burmle belongs on the relevant LEXX episode page. LeonWhite 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Allen Hall

This page is about one of the dorms at The University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign, which already has its own detailed explanation of their housing situation. This doesn't come close to being notable enough to have its own article. I'd say merge, but, again, the U of I already covers this, so... Delete. JDoorjam 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oxford Belles

This group appear to be students, rather than professionals, and not sufficiently notable to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. -- Whouk ( talk) 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Shakuto

Found while looking at 0 length pages. Reverted blanking, but bringing to AfD. Not a real Bionicle character. Google search of shakuto bionicle turns up 5 unique hits of which it looks like this is either fanfic or person's msg board name. JLaTondre 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Data Technology Services

Non notable company and product, article is practically empty. TheRingess 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_1&oldid=1116878858"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 31 January 2 >

Purge server cache

January 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. The article never had any content in its entire lifetime. — JIP | Talk 20:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Breslin Murphy

It seems to be some kid who has done his own bio for a laugh -- Chazz88 20:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jesse Hughes

Has this person contributed something of note to the fields of Mathematics or Philosophy? If so, it should be referenced to demonstrate a reason for inclusion on WP. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 23:59, 31 December 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 delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Smash World Forums

Non-notable, self-promotional fancruft Delete Kevin 00:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Laurance Doyle

From speedy. Some Google and Google News hits. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


  • Google scholar indicates a publications by him. I find some 29 papers on Web of Knowledge by an LR Doyle on astronomical topics, which I believe are by him. Also appears to have been editor of the proceedings of at least one conference. Work is of the sort likely to interest the public, as evidenced by at least one article in Scientific American. So a verifiable scientist with a track record and a position of reasonable authority. Keep. Average Earthman 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per above. Plus his work on animal communications seems interesting. -- JJay 02:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I created it, but I'm not voting in this case. I was surprised when this was put on speedy as that seemed a bit extreme. That said I mentioned this guy when doing List of Christian Scientists (religious denomination) and at the time things I said indicated I didn't think he was noteworthy enough to start an article on him. So that might explain some things. That said I did an article on him because I did find he was in Google News and also figured he might actually be important enough. Oddly I'm still not entirely certain of that, but he has a couple books at Amazon. I'm assuming that is the same guy as it's a Laurance R. Doyle book distributed by SETI, which indicates he probably is LR Doyle. "LR Doyle" gets a good deal more hits at Scholar Google. That said his books at Amazon have a sales rank that is lower than even that Kenneth Eng guy so I'm not sure. I don't know enough on notability for scientists and have said enough as is.-- T. Anthony 03:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think everything gets tagged as a speedy now. There must be a competition going on. You were somewhat lucky since you had a full 11 minutes to edit before the tag. -- JJay 03:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep but definitely needs to be expanded. TheRingess 03:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Average Earthman. Seems to have done some significant work on extrasolar planets and planet systems. (I wonder how many articles on scientists actually get speedied because some anonymous or just lazy and uninterested bypasser has tagged them as nn-bio.) u p p l a n d 08:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Not much. A few end up at Speedy, but those are usually moved to AFD. - Mgm| (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
What qualifier? Do you mean the part that says "religious denomination"? Well no, that qualifier isn't redundant. If you forget capitalization and qualifier you get the List of Christian scientists, then see where that leads. I don't think I put any qualifier in adding him to Christian Science list except to say he works at SETI.-- T. Anthony 12:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Michael Meunier

Some google hits, came second place in something. From speedy. No vote. r3m0t talk 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Idahowiki, PatheticPocatello.com

Idahowiki is a wiki for Idaho-related information set up only a few days ago. PatheticPocatello is a webforum for citizens of the city of Pocatello, Idaho, with some 600 users and an Alexa rating > 4000000. Both websites fail to meet the criteria put forth in WP:WEB, besides Wikipedia isn't an advertising medium. Pilatus 00:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Already Speedied under CSD A7. Note that I am not the admin who deleted it, so perhaps the admin who did should sign here Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 10:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Gabe Cohen

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Conflict behavior

Tagged as a speedy with the reasoning

"1. "Conflict behavior" does not appear to mean what the editor says it does (e.g. google it w/ and w/o "fidgeting"). 2. The bulk of this page was pasted in from "Psychology". 3. The editor didn't finish: ("I'm amazed if you've read this far.")"

No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The text of the page appears to be cut-and-paste, with large sections having little-or-nothing to do with the subject of the article. If an expert and sift the wheat from the chaff then it may make a legitimate claim to existing on WP. As it stands, delete. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 01:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete possible copyvio...no, looks like it is a copyvio...speedy-- MONGO 11:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I nominated this article for deletion, according to the reasons listed above. (Do you need to be an admin to vote? Is it okay to vote on an article that you nominated?) -- Shunpiker 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
No, you don't need to be an admin to nominate or vote. I think that a nomination is generally counted as a vote to delete, unless otherwise specified. However, it doesn't hurt to also vote to make it explicit. If you do, it's a good idea to mention that you're the nominator. - Rholton 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Is it really a copyvio? From where? To the above: anyone can vote, though only an admin can close the voting process once some consensus is reached. And yes, unless you say otherwise, it's implied that if you nominate an article for deletion, then you are voting "delete". -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rewrite from scratch - as others have said, this is mostly cobbled together from bits of other Wikipedia articles. A Google shows "conflict behavior" exists as a term, but it does not refer to fidgeting etc. Tearlach 03:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. From what I can tell, this is a purely descriptive phrase, with no definite meaning beyond "behavior in/during conflict". Therefore, it would be at best a dicdef. - Rholton 15:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article appears to be a couple of original (?) paragraphs followed by a cut-and-paste of the entire Psychology article. As such, it is too trivial and unencyclopedic to stand on its own. MCB 04:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

DiggFans

I thought this was afd'd already.... anyway the article says it all "around 250 members and over 1000 posts" (does not meet WP:WEB for the pedantic :))

It's being nominated for not meeting WP:WEB. Not being offended is not a valid reason to keep an article. - Mgm| (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jeff Roney

Delete: Not notable. Google has only 200 hits. Probably will never be more than stub. Anonymous contributor indicates possibility of vanity article. — Shadowhillway 02:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 A8 Delete by User:Zoe WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Llafeht Publishing

Non-notable, self promotional. User is making articles about himself and his business set up to promote.. himself. Delete Kevin 02:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedied as a copyvio from http://www.mp3.com.au/label.asp?id=4000. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dr. Robert Celmer

Non-notable mechanical engineering professor. No books or other works of note. Delete. Neutrality talk 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

WNEP Anchors

Most of the information already listed at WNEP-TV Smerge Tazz765 02:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

True Vine Christian Community

Totally non-notable. Zero Google hits. Only 1000 members at maxmimum. Madman 02:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete I honestly can hardly believe anyone went to the trouble of writing that article. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ross Aubrey

Non-notable, advertising, vanity. User made their own page. Delete Kevin 03:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 move if appropriate). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Todd River Race

Seemingly non-notable "race" Down Under. Madman 03:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

GetMADD

A public advocacy group whose stated objective it is to serve as a counterpoint to MADD. Never saw it mentioned in the news anywhere, and Alexa doesn't even give its website a rating although it tells that it has been around since September 2003. Nowhere close to WP:WEB, and Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for any cause, however worthy they may be. Pilatus 04:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Moved to last WP:BJAODN. :) -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 01:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Piss cycle

This article doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia in my opinion, also appears to be original research. Delete KnowledgeOf Self | talk 04:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. MCB 05:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Straight pride

  • Delete this homophobic neologism -- Revolución ( talk) 04:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is a mess, but I know that certain college groups have been organizing "straight pride" marches and days and I think there have been some lawsuits over this as well. We need an article that explains the issue, homophobic or not. I would also appreciate it if you could make more of an effort with your nom. Delete this is not good enough. -- JJay 05:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: A check on Newsbank shows hits for straight pride going back to the 1980s in both the US and UK involving high schools, colleges, municipalities, demonstrations, etc. -- JJay 05:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Mo0[ talk] 11:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Simone Salmon

Non-notable teen musician. -- Longhair 04:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Psychic Mad Cow Exorcism Polka’

Non-notable book by an author currently on afd. Although the picture is worth 1000 words, as they say :). WhiteNight T | @ | C 04:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 02:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Teen Tech Buzz

nn podcast WhiteNight T | @ | C 05:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Amber-chan

The main character in a forthcoming web-based manga with a free host (geocities). See also Aibyouka-kun on AFD. No evidence that's its important to any existing audience. Kappa 05:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was - no consensus -- Ichiro 05:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Gay and lesbian kingdom and Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands

nn micronation. Only 70 unique Google hits. Note that there was previously an AfD for Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea Islands. User:Zoe| (talk) 05:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Having looked more closely at the articles, there's nothing to merge. And although it's not a true micronation, it's a verifiable historical event. -- LesleyW 07:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
File:Legal9.gif
File:Glk.jpg
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Luis Angel

Incomplete nomination (1st and 3rd steps completed, 2nd not) by an anon user. Reason for deletion in edit summary is given as "RECOMMEND FOR DELETION, PERSONAL BIO". After looking at the article, I would hazard an opinion that the article provides no claims of notablilty, but have done no research, do not wish to vote either way, and do not personally care about the outcome of this deletion. I'm just the messenger. Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 07:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 13:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Academic dress of Loughborough University

This is a very college-specific list that is only information for people within the college, not an encyclopedia audience. Comfort 06:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Be it in a much condensed and edited version. - Mgm| (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

L. L. Nunn

Was tagged for speedy deletion by LambaJan but clearly claims importance, so bringing it to AfD instead to respect LambaJan's wishes. Seems rather notable/encyclopedic to me, however. A previous version of this was deleted for being a copyvio from [8]. howch e ng { chat} 06:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  1. stops plagurising sections of that bio.
  2. links to company articles, not just colleges. And,
  3. puts a bit of why he's important in the beginning.

That said, there may be a place for him on the Wiki. LambaJan 07:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) BTW: Thanks for respecting my wishes. reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 05:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

German African Party

Possible hoax, or fails WP:V big time, only 10 google hits for the exact phase German African Party, and they lead one way or another back to wiki, and 6 for German African Party Namibia [9] Delete -- Jaranda wat's sup 06:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You try and Google for it in German? 68.39.174.238 07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6 unique hits there, all wikipedia. -- Jaranda wat's sup 07:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Exactly how is this political party not notable? If you vote to delete, it's useful to give counter arguments to the one made by Grutness. - Mgm| (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Ichiro 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

King Of Pop

My first AFD of 2006. Nonencyclopedic, totally POV ... really could have speedied this somehow but the author would learn better what should go on Wikipedia if I put it here. Daniel Case 07:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. AT the moment MJ is the King of Pop. Should the need to disambiguate ever arise, the redirect could be easily undone. There could be another King of Rock and Roll, but it is unlikely that someone will ever get the title from Elvis. Movementarian 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

GTC Technical Support

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Lbbzman for nn-bio, but it's a company, so bringing it to AfD instead. The reason given was, "No assertion of notability - does not pass WP:CORP." No vote. howch e ng { chat} 07:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 06:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Bodybalance (exercise program)

Creating editor has removed speedy and cleanup tags. Google shows little here except a somewhat dubious vitamin/supplement line that shares the name. Earlier vote sounds like same article. Promotional. Daniel Case 07:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Bodybalance is a exercise program it has its based on the principles of Tai Chi - Yoga and Pilates. Bodybalance is internationally known in the world of aerobics. It has certain health and healing aspects to the program. Squiddy do some research on Bodybalance maybe then you will have a different view point of Bodybalance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipera ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 3 January 2006

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

D. Granosalis

Was tagged for speedy deletion by Heron with the reason "sounds like a fictional character, and does not exist outside Wikipedia/Wikiquote." Since he has a Wikiquote page, I thought it would be best to bring it to AfD instead. Almost all Google hits are wikimirrors, but there were one or two that had quotes from him (in German) [11] [12] that suggest he might be a real person. No vote. howch e ng { chat} 07:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Bodypump

Advertising essentially the same as Bodybalance. Made by the same user, Pipera. jnothman talk 07:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It is not advertising it it telling people about Bodypump I have not placed any advertsing on the entry?

There are numerous enteries for pop groups - IBM - Microsoft etc... on this site is that not advertsing?

pipera

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Brigadesoft

Non-notable "up and coming" software company with [poor and] incomplete web site. Given web site is low in search results for entities by this name. jnothman talk 07:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Richard's Animorphs Forum

Was tagged for speedy deletion by User:Vary for being a non-notable club, but it's a web site. Claims to be the most popular forum for Animorphs fans, but only has "over 300" members. Already exists as an external link in the Animorphs article. howch e ng { chat} 07:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete - this is an author request. -- RHaworth 08:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lindsey O'keefe

this entry was created on a whim. I am thoroughly smitten with this girl and i did this in an effort to lightly impress her. I apologize for the misuse of this resource. I use Wikipedia all the time and very much appreciate its versatility.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Extremesims

Crufty, and it fails to establish notability. The subject purports to be a splinter of a group which itself does not seem to have a Wikipedia entry. Seancdaug 08:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

*keep: I'm in favour of creating some kind of technology-based filtering instead of deletion for non-notability-- Marvin147 10:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Ichiro 05:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cemetary Gates

Heavy metal cruft, riddled with POV violations. Seancdaug 08:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kiwitea Street

I hate to do this to a New Zealand article, but it's just a suburban street. There is a soccer ground there, but in New Zealand soccer grounds are hardly major stadia - probably of a similar standard to larger high school sports fields in the US or UK. The details about the soccer ground could easily be merged into the entry on the club, and there's little else to say about the place. Click on the map at [13] to see what I mean. Grutness... wha? 08:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — Cleared as filed. 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Casualties of the 2004 March 11 Madrid bombings

Tragic, but being killed in this violent way does make the individuals notable. -- RHaworth 08:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's called the 9/11 memorial wiki. And since it is a wiki, its name is fine. It is not called Wikipedia to begin with. - Mgm| (talk) 13:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
That's not quite true. The url is sep11.wikipedia.org, and at the upper left corner it has the "Wikipedia the free encyclopedia" logo. Blackcats 20:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Looking at it, I'd say it is most definitely a part of Wikipedia. Qarnos 22:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It's got nothing to do with 9/11 happening in America. It just happened to be a very well-known and larger terrorist attack. If we have a separate wiki for those victims (all 2000-3000 of them), I don't see why we should mention the victims of the Madrid bombings in Wikipedia. - Mgm| (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, as above. Ajwebb 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I found it useful when checking to see if any if my Spanish aquaintances had died
  • Keep; I am the person who made this article. I just want to explain why I think the English Wikipedia should have such an article. However, of course, if you think that this page should be deleted, go on. (Interested people can check this information in the Spanish version, if they understand Spanish.)
    • 1) Most people argues that "Wikipedia is not a memorial". Well, this article should not be considered as a memorial page, but as a page with additional information about the Madrid bombings. If you consider that the names of the people who died in Madrid are not relevant for Wikipedia, you can delete these names, but at least keep the information about the victims (for instance, why does usually appear the name of Francisco Javier Torrenteras between the people who died, although he did not die in the bombings; or why at first officially the media spoke about 202 casualties, instead of the real number, 190; or the fact that died people of 17 nationalities... etc). If this page is deleted, I think that this information should be added to the Madrid bombings article, but, in order not to excede the amount of information that appears there, I think that the better solution is a page about the persons who dead there.

      I understand that, as the names of the victims takes up most of the article, many people could think that it is a memorial, but if you read it, you will see that there is more information (that has to be emproved and expanded, I know).

    • 2) Before I made this article, I saw that someone (I don't know who), added in the Madrid bombings article, in the "See also" section, this hidden line:

      <!-- * [[Casualties of the 11 March 2004 Madrid bombings]] -->

      (as you can see in this edition of an old version of the article), claiming for such an article.
    • 3) P.MacUidhir argues that "Bombings are not unusual, and certainly not usually notable". I agree, bombings are not notable. But not all bombings are the same! Sadly, ETA is responsible for most bombings in Spain, but the Madrid March 11 bombings were not at all usual. It was the worse Al-Qaida attack in Europe. There died almost four times more people than in the 7 July London bombings. Millions of persons took part in the demonstrations against terrorism the day after (more or less the 28% of the Spanish population). Many poeple think that there was a political change in Spain because of these bombings (they happened three days before the March 14 general elections), and that the authors aimed this change; other people think that the former goverment lied supporting that ETA was the author of the attacks until the last moment, as they could lose the elections because of their support to the Bush' invasion of Iraq (it is still a very hot subject, and I don't want to give my opinion here, I just speak about the opinion of many people). I only want to say that obviously the Madrid bombings are, sadly, once again, a historical event, not only in Spain, but worldwide, such as the London bombings, the 9/11 or the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I am not speaking in this point about the number of persons who died, but just about the importance and consequences of the event.
    • 4) I saw that there was an article about the casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings, with the names of all the victims, and I thought that there should be an equivalent article with the Madrid victims. I don't want to think that nationalism should be so important in Wikipedia (when we speak about worldwide events), and the terrorism victims in England should not be more or less important than those who died in Spain. I saw too that there is an article about the London victims in the Spanish wikipedia, without the names (in my opinion this article lacks those names). Nevertheless, in the 9/11 died thousands of men and women, and I think that it is better there an external link, not because those persons were less important, but just because it would be too large; but maybe some persons who died in the 9/11 should appear in wikipedia (the many firefighters who died there? People who saved other people? For instance, William Rodríguez became famous, but he didn't die there). I think that the queston is not as simple as "there should appear all victims of terrorist attacks or none of them".
    • 5) I made the article, as every article, thinking about it as a starting point. So, it should be extended and improved by other wikipedians. For example (as in the July London attacks), who died in each place (the Atocha Station, or El Pozo, or Santa Eugenia, or the Téllez Street)? How many? Where were first carried? What does Pilar Manjón (president of the Association for the victims of 11-M) think about the political reactions? These questions maybe could be too much for the principal article, but not for an article about victims, and it could contain interesting information for wikipedia. I think that there should be a page of the same quality as that one about the London attacks, and I hope that it will be so. I only contribute with my knowledge. I don't know many things about the London attacks, so I can't speak about them.

Well, thank you, principally if you had enough patience to read till here! Eynar Oxartum 03:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! -- Ichiro 08:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Spamfuck

Non-notable slang term- 160 unique Google hits, for something Internet-based- and pretty much a dictionary definition. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 08:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Noip

Apparent neologism. Delete.- Mr Adequate 09:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

mappum 05:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • This is a made up word, but nobody will notice it is there unless they search it. People will only search noip if they know the word. Anyway, it won't use up much space on the wikipedia servers! Keep. mappum 0 10:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) comment really by 24.17.169.93 ( talk · contribs), who has only ever edited the article Noip and this AfD. reply
    • "This is a made up word" pretty much proves our point. Just because someone makes a word up one day doesn't automatically mean it deserves a Wikipedia article. I can make up a word right here. "Splaw" means the same thing as "excellent". But no one else than I is ever going to care a flying toss about that word, even if I were to write a Wikipedia article about it. Wikipedia should not be used as a medium to gain notability for new concepts, it should only be used to document concepts that already are notable. If we allowed articles about everything just because "it doesn't use up much space on the Wikipedia servers" then we would have tens of millions of poorly written articles about things only their author will ever care about, and the actual real encyclopedia articles would get lost in the background noise. — JIP | Talk 11:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. crap. Incognito 06:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Paula Rizzuto

Previously speedy-deleted. The original article contained non-notable content and included a link to a blog created to discredit the subject. This new re-creation contains poor references. I'm assuming the original contributions were meant as an attack page. -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Please do not feed the troll".
  • Delete -- Longhair 09:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Subject is notable, the article as it stands is fuly sourced and hardly constitutes an attack page, quite the reverse. I was confused about which link was which but am happy to leave out the parody website if Longhair prefers. I don't know how to test the prominence of a user but certainly a Google search shows very many references to Rizzuto playing an active role in public life in Melbourne. Seems very notable to me. Have also improved the sources with links to newspaper articles and and other links. Seems to be pretty comprehensively sourced now. Longhair seems determined to delete the article and is now saying the sources are low quality without elaborating. The sources all seem pretty good to me. StephenBengHo 09:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment: The original article by User:Stephenho contained reference to this link, which the above author calls parody [14]. Troll alert!-- Longhair 09:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. She's just an ordinary failed political candidate (to a local council, no less), who seems to have earned the obsession of some random guy (as evidenced by his "parody site"). The "sources" consist of a news story which she is not mentioned in at all, two blog articles, some minutes of a local council, and an alumni association entry which she appears to have written herself. There's practically no relevant Google hits about her, and I can't imagine this being of interest to anyone much else apart from its author. Ambi 09:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Comment - Yes as I said I was confused between two similar looking websites, either way I am happy for the parody one to be excluded if that's Wikipedia policy. StephenBengHo 10:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(Delete. Non-notable would-be local politician. Sling it in the untidyness bin. Anthony Appleyard 18:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 05:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Eastern Hill Fire Station

Wait wait... don't tell me! Fire stations getting articles now? Stop the madness. Yeah, it's... you guessed it... Firecruft. FCYTravis 09:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • weak keep from the article contents this building also has a mueseum in it. Sounds notable enough then. novacatz 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The museum mentioned in the article could be notable, but that would involve writing a completely new article at a new title. Ambi 10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If someone wants to write an article on the museum, I have no objection - fire museums are probably notable. But a fire station that happens to have a museum next door... isn't. This is how precedents get set, and I really don't think Wikipedia needs articles on every fire station in the world. FCYTravis 10:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This is an article about the fact that the building's historic, not that it's a fire station, per se. Historic buildings are encyclopedic, plain ol' fire stations are not. So I can't see how it's setting a precedence. Cnwb 13:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So does this set a precedent for a separate article on every single one of the 79,000 places and 1.2 million buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places, the 1,100 California State Historic Landmark plaques, etc.? FCYTravis 11:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Where in here does it say 1.2 million? I see 79,000 as the overall total, with buildings being a subset of that. -- Rob 16:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rebekah Scogin

NN musician/director. Claims to be director of Ciambella Orchestra Internazionale. The subject gathers only a few hits, the orchestra just one. Decidedly non-notable. Delete. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm

Delete or Complete previous merge. Article was voted to merge for previous AfD, but the merge was never completed, after six months. This shows a lack of interest in the article and it should possibly be deleted, or the previous merge should be done. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 09:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Dry Bomber

An extremely minor kart that has only been shown in one game. Better belonged on Wikibooks or at the very least put on a List of Mario Kart karts or something like that Hbdragon88 10:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Egg 1

Another page about a minor kart that has only been in one game. Belongs on Wikibooks or in a much larger "list of" page Hbdragon88 10:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Ichiro 20:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yamigo

Bartimaeus marked this for speedy deletion with reason "advertisement" which is not a CSD. While this is certainly an advertisement, I have not researched its notability and am posting on the basis of its marking for deletion otherwise and therefore give no vote atm. jnothman talk 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's advertising because it provides information on how to get it rather than what it does. Also it contains a lot of bad tone ("you" is generally not encyclopedic) and external links should not be embedded in the text. I'm not sure whether we should have a cleaned up version, so I won't vote. - Mgm| (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Standard MR

Another kart page. Minor kart. Belongs on Wikibooks or in a "List of" page Hbdragon88 10:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete ( CSD A7). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Tommy Hall Schedule

Non-notable band --  (aeropagitica)  UK 10:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, appears to be a tribute band. From official site without Alexa rank: The THS studio CD is finished and will be officially released soon! For information on how to obtain it, email Fred at <blanked>. or catch us at a gig. which tells me they aren't signed by a recognized label, nor are they sold by reputable stores. - Mgm| (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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; merge impractical. Johnleemk | Talk 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Poltergust 4000

Another minor kart page that belongs in a larger page or in a Wikibooks article Hbdragon88 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You have Your answer below.  :) -- Eddie 03:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, between merge and delete. Merge it and its similar articles into Mario Kart DS if there is anything of value. Voice of All T| @| ESP 06:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

B Dasher

Another minor kart page that belongs in a larger page or in a Wikibooks article Hbdragon88 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (blatant copyright infringement). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Coalition for Healthcare eStandards

It's promotional material and much of the content seems to be ripped from this page. I don't see how this article can be considered encyclopedic. Reyk 10:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was (was a redirect when I looked at it). enochlau ( talk) 06:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Emperor Dale

Non-notable "emperor" of non-notable micro-nation. Likely A7, but claims questionable notability, -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

SheaBaseball

Non-notable fan website. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete The site does exist, however a Google search only shows 514 hits for the term "sheabaseball." I note also that someone attempted to avoid detection by not making Sheabaseball.com the title of the article, knowing it would be deleted, instead, they tried to name it to sound like a serious subject. If it is not a criteria for deletion, I think basic dishonesty in any manner weighs in my mind in favor of deletion. Further, the article is poorly written, and contains nothing notable. GestaltG 16:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and I'm closing this one. For the record, this site's Alexa rank > 1,200,000.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Poseur

This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. -- Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We keep some crap therefore we should keep all crap, is a poor axiom to apply to the VFD process. And we don't need an encyclopedia of all topics talked about in youth culture, lest we become a glorified Urban Dictionary. -- Tothebarricades 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
On the second point, Wikipedia does give a different spin to the topic compared to Urban Dictionary. On the first point, it's nevertheless the axiom I am choosing to use. To be honest, whether or not this article is deleted, I believe a Wikipedia article on posers will exist in a year's time. Cedars 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I believe so as well. And I also think we should have one. But maybe it is best to start over. Punkmorten 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — Cryptic (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sagar Sarkar

NN Musician fails WP:MUSIC google 'sagar sakar' +musician returns 10 hits MNewnham 19:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The name is spelt wrong in the earlier check, it is sarkar google 'sagar sarkar'+ contraband returns several relevant hits. Further verification of sources on the article are also authentic. Google 'Packabelles' returns the band page and there is indeed a vrushali bokil in the band.

  • please check http://m.domaindlx.com/milinddate/Albums-Recordings%201.htm - Milind Date, the famous Indian flautist has recorded several albums on authorised labels, many of these are South Asian labels, but in all fairness would be very discriminatory not to consider. Sagar Sarkar and his band Contraband was the first musician Milind Date played with and even mentions this on the site. This fulfils Wikipedia criterion that the band should have at least one known artiste who has officially released recordings on known labels. In India Sagar Sarkar is well known as a pioneer of the Pune Blues scene. (that was User:Mifern NickelShoe 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)) reply
  • I suggest renaming this page to contraband (band), with a much more prominent link to Milind Date (who clearly does have a verifiable discography and easily qualifies for his own wikipedia article, and appears to be the only qualifier for a contraband entry), and if necessary, adding Sagar Sarkar as a redirect. The assertion that Sagar Sarkar is known as the 'Father of Indian Blues' appears totally unverifible (0 google hits) , and the single reference to Pune Blues in the context of a musical style appears on the band's site, pretty much making it a neologism. with that, I'll change my opinion to very weak keep MNewnham 20:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus -- Ichiro 21:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

3DXML

Article on proprietary XML-based language definition which reads like a press release to the company which proposed it Mecanismo | Talk 22:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -- Ichiro 08:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Miss Adventure

Using google I have been unable to verify if this comic actaully appears in the Weekly World News - someone in the US could probably verify it more easily. The page has been speedied several times as nonsense. I also don't think that a comic that appears in a spoof newspaper is necessarily encyclopedic - all edits that aren't from the original contributor are fixing disambigs.-- nixie 23:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Weak keep but clean-up. The character is legitimate though I don't recall if it's actually a comic strip. I thought it was a photo feature. Characters like Bat Boy from the WWN get their own articles, so Miss Adventure I guess deserves one, too. 23skidoo 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • As 23skiddo already said, Miss Adventure is a legitimate character, but is not a comic strip. More of a fictional story that is continued each week. The article was previously deleted, but brought back for the reason of characters like Bat Boy getting their own articles. DaemonDivinus 01:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (It appears to be 4 deletes to no keeps). Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

LE3 Multimedia

Little to no hits for this company on Google. Doesn't look notable at all. -- Spring Rubber 22:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

---

I have the explanation for this vandalism, a user of the following board called "Orcus" (the Chris Mark Johnson character referred to) http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=77704

An idiot who feels that he can create a work of blatant self promotion, or simply for the gas of it, and call it an encyclopedia entry. Wikipedia isn't the Yellow Pages and nor does it offer itself as a free "company" promotion site I'm afraid. -- Ariogasius 22:57, 20 December 2005(UTC)


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Softroute

Advertising for NN Corp MNewnham 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. VOIP is something I've researched, and I've never heard of these blokes. Non-notable. Begone with them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tomlillis ( 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 merge and redirect; merging and deleting is illegal under the GFDL. Johnleemk | Talk 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Stay-Put Socks

One-time cartoon joke

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Billy Cardine

Article on very obscure steel guitar player. Isn't listed in allmusic guide and google test lists 279 hits. Non-notable musician and completely lacking encyclopedic value Mecanismo | Talk 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Keep as player with the Biscuit Burners, important bluegrass band, cds released and rated one of the best in 2004 by Chicago tribune. -- JJay 00:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Hmmm, The Biscuit Burners seem to merit an article but don't yet have one. This guy has done one solo album (which, judging by the songs on the Biscuit Burners website, is pretty darn good) but I don't think he's got enough notability on his own account. If the band had an article I'd say merge but they don't. -- Spondoolicks 22:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Frenulum piercing

I'm moving this page be deleted for two reasons. 1) The information in this article is already at the appropriately named page frenum piercing and 2)There are several different frenulums in the human body which are pierced, making the name of this article misleading. Glowimperial 21:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

List of Mario References

The information on this page is duplicated at Mario. There is no real reason to even keep it as a redirect. JDoorjam 19:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! Mo0[ talk] 11:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge with List of games with Mario and Delete. There are three lists now: this one of Mario cameos, List of Mario games of games starring Mario, and List of games with Mario which seems to be the union of the two. I did a couple of checks, and it seems like all or most of the cameos are already there. Since this is already here on AFD, I suggest deleting rather than redirecting since the title is pretty useless and it has no incoming links × Meegs 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Denplan City Ground

A soccer field with 180 seats.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Eleanor Roosevelt: A Biography

Not only is this 'article' quite badly written, but it also seems to be pointless to have a separate biography of a person, when they already have a (quite sizable) page to themself Eleanor Roosevelt. My gut feeling would be to salvage any relevant points from this which aren't already on the above article, merge them with it and then delete this one. I just thought I'd throw it open for discussion. Dan 13:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sorry, that was me being too lazy, and uninterested, to read "Eleanor Roosevelt" in full. Dan 13:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Francesca Newton

Promotion of a non-notable child singer. Vanity page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 08:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ben Harper (Character)

The one-sentence note on My_Family_(television) is enough for this character. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 14:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

John Boland (author)

Unencyclopedic. Apparently somebody has mixed up a politician and an author with the same name. Valentinian 14:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! -- Ichiro 08:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Gap State High School

This article is sadly someone showing off about maths comps from eons ago. It is vanity without the name. Dankru 14:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, nomination withdrawn. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Golden age hip hop

This can be mentioned in Hip hop culture instead. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 14:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I posted the following on aeorpagitica's user page: 

lemme explain why this deserves an article:
1.Allmusic.com recognizes golden age as a genre 
2.Old school hip hop has its own page. 
3.There is plenty to talk about, of encyclopedic significance. 
Please remove the suggestion for deletion, or if you disagree, discuss this with me. Thanks! --  
Urthogie 14:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

For these reasons, I suggest a speedy keep decision for this article.-- Urthogie 14:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The reason it has no such content is I just started it! And by the way, the mention of it in hip hop music was thanks to my edit.-- Urthogie 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Well then, please add something meaningfull and I may be inclined to change my vote. Karol 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Expansion

I will prove its value as a seperate article. May I request a one week period of expansion before any action is taken as far as its removal? We can continue voting and deciding after that period.-- Urthogie 15:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Based on the contents of the article as I have reviewed it today, I suggest that this article is now retained rather than deleted. The author has put work in to the contents and acknowledged that more work is to be done in order to make the page a useful resource for research and reference. --  (aeropagitica)  17:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Removing this vfd

I am removing this vfd from the page, as the creator has chosen to keep the article now that I have made edits. A new vfd may be placed if you feel that this does not deserve an article.-- Urthogie 17:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Looks good now. Karol 22:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Deleted before it could be listed here. Cobra 19:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Arsim

Dictdef, neologism, and possibly hoax. Karol 15:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Note: This page was deleted while I was listing it. 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Aaron Swartz

Vanity article about a relative unknown Maxplank 15:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Well-known in the area of web standards (RSS, RDF). Only 140 unique google hits out of 499,000 total, but I take this as indicative of highly focused activity rather than non-notability. Notable for his work on the RSS 1.0 spec if nothing else. Has written an op-ed for the New York Times, spoken at conferences, etc. The article could use some expansion. rodii 21:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is a kid who spams around the web his own name. The article was created by himself, and if you go visit his homepage he writes "he even appears on Wikipedia". WTF!!! He is a relative unknown, and it's all about vanity. He is just YET ANOTHER loser. 1:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by 83.71.106.95 ( talk •  contribs)
  • Keep, although it could stand to be rounded out and unfortunately does read like a vanity page right now. But he's mentioned several times in the RSS article alone. Totally Noteable. -- Vary | Talk 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I've toned down the prose a bit. Better? -- Vary | Talk 01:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Better, although 83.71.106.95 up there added some condescending stuff that should have been taken out (which I did). I have no involvement with Aaron, never met him or corresponded with him, but I know his work. The comments above and the defacing of the article smell bad to me. The actual edits of the article by Aaron Swartz look pretty minimal to me, unless someone knows that anon 69.181.82.221 is him (not impossible). rodii 04:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I did not create the article. I believe it was created by Andrew Morrow, who I'd never heard of until he sent me an email saying he'd created a page about me on Wikipedia. He said he created it because I was referred to in a number of other articles on Wikipedia. (There are 4 backlinks: RSS (file format), Paul Graham, Low-power, and Markdown.) And if it's bad form to link to one's wikipedia page from one's website, let me know and I'll take the link down. AaronSw 04:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The backlinks are very convincing. I've always thought the point of having notability criteria is to avoid cruft and keep only useful material...not to argue about if someone is "famous". Is Swartz notable enough? The answer to that should be related to, are the links to the page currently serving a purpose? I think "yes". -- C S (Talk) 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I'm a knowledge management research scientist and I've heard of him and his work. (In fact, I'm referencing one of his publications in a paper I'm writing today.) Not sure if that means the average Joe would also be interested in him, but it does show that there is at least some audience for this article. — Psychonaut 22:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Blackwhork

It's a term used by players of Battlefield 2 to refer to other players who use the helicopter to get points. CDN99 17:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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. – Sceptr e ( Talk) 21:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Foil (band)

Smells Like Band Vanity. → Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 14:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Comment - User:Superswade added this page because there were several references to the band FOIL already in the Wikipedia under the Tad and Willard (band) sections so I thought I would elaborate. I was planning on adding more info / other sections on lesser-known Seattle grunge bands in the future (of which I am somewhat of an expert). Bands like, The Derelicts, Coffin Break, Daddy Hate Box, Yeast, Resonator etc.) I guess if they are just going to get deleted I won't bother, since it would be a waste of time... I guess google is a better place to find detailed information that is wikipedia??? I was under the impression that detailed information was the goal of the wikipedia... I await your censure and rebuke. 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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 DELETE. Jinian 19:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Gwen Stefani discography

Gwen Stefani only has one album, and currently has no plans to release other solo albums. Love.Angel.Music.Baby already has its own page, so this is overkill. Unless this article is cleaned up, and expanded to include more information, (work with No Doubt, guest appearances with Eve, Moby, Sublime, etc.,) then this page isn't needed. Josh 02:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hal Siemer

Delete. The only notability this person has is as editor of Quest Magazine, and the material also seems to be a vanity page. There is nothing notable about either the individual or the magazine. MSJapan 10:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was nothing to merge; redirected. Johnleemk | Talk 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

List of software for accessing open files

Useless list with nothing but external links Hirudo 08:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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 -- Ichiro 21:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Muslim scholars

No entries in this page of any substance CltFn 18:27, 31 December 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 delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ottawa Creek B-5

I think this is speediable, but I'm bringing it here for the entertainment value. Extremely complete entry describing a perfectly ordinary (and non-notable) apartment, its perfectly ordinary (and non-notable) undergrad residents, and their lifestyle. Nicely done, but in no way encyclopedic. Nominator votes BJAODN and delete. bikeable (talk) 18:43, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Non-notable hoax page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 18:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete I am frequently asked by fellow classmates to give tours of the apartment for possible place to live (they literally ask if they can come over and "check the place out"), and i thought this would be an easier way for them get to know the apartment without having to give tours all the time. This is not advertising in anyway, as i would be doing a favor for my fellow classmates by making this. Also wanted to make my first Wikipedia Article. Besides its obviously not taking up too much space and besides being reffered to the page by me, it will remain unknown to the average Wikipedia User. I know it probably goes against Wikipedia code, but this remaining on here would be a great referance for me to use. Wikipedia is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, and this is verifiable useful information that many people will find useful. Please Do not Delete, its not hurting anything. Chrisboven 20:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
    • As soon as you find yourself using the "But it's not taking up too much space!" and "It's not hurting anything!" arguments, you know that you are arguing the case for mis-using Wikipedia as a free wiki host. Wikipedia is not a free wiki host. It is an encyclopaedia. If you want to advertise your apartment to potential occupants the place to do so is on your own web site. If you want some ideas for your first encyclopaedia article, please go to Wikipedia:Requested articles. Uncle G 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Chrisboven, I removed all the unverifiable info (aka everything beyond existence). As said, we can't advertise an apartment for you. I suggest you put "{{db|mistakenly created}}" at the top of the article, and we'll avoid a pointless 5-day debate here. You're very welcome to edit other articles in Wikipedia, but you won't be able to add any unverfiable information to any article (not even this one, not even for the few days it has left). -- Rob 17:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Rob, i hope you also plan on deleting the thousands of sections on articles without citings here in WIkipedia, not just this one Chrisboven 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I would love to remove thousands of uncited sections from thousands of articles. However, time constraints and popular opinion prevent me from doing that. Instead, whenever I find something with no sources *and* it's not possible to ever find any sources, and it's therefore *inherently* unverifiable, then yes, I do remove the section. I have removed a *lot* of sections, from a lot of articles. Occasionally, those sections are added back when sources are found, but usually they stay gone. -- Rob 01:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom Tom Harrison (talk) 19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Don't Delete All the information is true and useful :— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.196.106 ( talk • contribs)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. — Crypticbot (operator) 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for obvious triviality and unverifiability. Perhaps userify some of it. -- Rob 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • BJAODN :) Reductio ad absurdum of Wikipedia's level of detail. Gave me a good chuckle - please preserve this somewhere. - Haukur 17:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It also tells us the name of the chair in the apartment's living area.

    There is no speedy deletion criterion that covers this article. However, as the nominator explains, and as the article's author indeed confirms, this article is original research and unverifiable. It is a novel description of a place, created by a Wikipedia editor directly in Wikipedia from firsthand knowledge that readers do not have access to from any sources (let alone reliable ones) outside of Wikipedia. It is also an attempt to mis-use Wikipedia as a free wiki host. Delete. Uncle G 17:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Reyk 22:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete; this is not what Wikipedia is for. Bearcat 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, per nom. Skeezix1000 13:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jinian 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Panic leave

Original research, unverifiable, Zero google hits on subject MNewnham 22:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 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 DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Quest Magazine

Delete. This is a non-notable online magazine, with less than 10 relevant Google hits and no reputable citations that are not self-referential. MSJapan 10:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. No useful information (only 1 line of content). -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Sydney University Judo Club

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Zahareh

Zahareh appears to be either non-existent or an implausible misspelling of Zavareh. I can find no town called Zahareh within 120 km of Isfahan on the multimap.com map of Iran. Google suggests it doesn't exist: [18] (compare Zavareh: [19]). -- Muchness 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Relisting to gain consensus. Please place any new votes below this text. Ral315 (talk) 10:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

  • Delete, unverifiable with the information in the article. I can't find mentions of a town called "Zahareh" anywhere. And Zavareh is indeed around 120km from Isfahan (the city). Redirect if someone thinks it's needed. - Bobet 16:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Typenex - Transfusion Safety Wristbands

Originally tagged for speedy deletion as copyright violation from [20], yet in its latest version the article asserts there is permission to publish the text here. So it goes to AfD.

  • This is a blatant advertisement, and there is really no need to have an entry on a specific brand of transfusion-related equipment. Wikipedia isn't an advertising medium for Baxter Healthcare. Pilatus 15:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep & Clean (if possible, see below) The page seems to contain enough generally useful information that it could be salvaged as an article, if the specific references to the "Typenex-Transfusion Safety Wristbands" is removed. Once those are removed, what remains is an article on a notable subject, which is blood tansfusion errors. The page should then be renamed to remove the brand reference, renamed to something like "Blood Transfusion Safety Systems" or "Blood Transfusion Errors" Now as to the copyright issue, that's another story, because we have no way of knowing if such permission was given. Salvaging the article then would require figuring out how much of the text is copied. If that cannot be done, then I am afraid it would have to be deleted and replaced. GestaltG 16:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as advertisement (the simple solution). Anville 21:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Anyone can go to the relevant sources and write an article on blood transfusion safety. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. — JIP | Talk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Champagne fashion brunch

Doesn't appear to be reference material. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 15:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Philip Schonewille

This article is nominated for the sake of completeness. A number of related articles have already been deleted (see AfDs for Support Local Trade, Adam Hayes, Martin Hudson, and Leon armstrong). I abstain on this nomination. Mind matrix 16:01, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rent a crowd

This term was not invented in Australia in has existed for decades. Factually incorrect article. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 16:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

what a pointless article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.234.60 ( talk • contribs) 23:28 1 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Obesanes

Non-valid information, unproven — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackwhick ( talk • contribs)

  • Delete hoax. Zero google hits, not found on any map. David | Talk 16:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain - check. -- Blackwhick 16:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete hoax - 0 googles. WhiteNight T | @ | C 16:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Uncertain, don't delete - may not be hoax. -- Blackwhickham 16:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Hoax (no Googles, doesn't appear on maps) or at least unverifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Whether or not it's a hoax or if the place really exists, the article should be deleted because it's only one sentence. As B.Wind said recently on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Butterfly Caught page, "One sentence does not a Wikipedia article make." From one sentence, we cannot determine the notability of the place, or the truthfulness or accuracy of any statements. If the writer cannot bother to write more than one sentence, or doesn't have enough knowledge or material to write more than one sentence, it should be deleted. For reference, pick up any bound encyclopedia and look at the entry for any major city near you. GestaltG 17:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • With respect to you and B.Wind, a tiny village and a major city are hardly the same thing, and similarly Wikipedia and a bound encyclopedia are hardly the same thing. In the former case, a village will almost always have a tiny article compared to a major city; in the latter, bound encyclopedias only ever contain finished articles - Wikipedia always only contains articles in progress. As such, a one sentence stub may be the start of a future featured article and - as long as it contains some information (like a village's location) - should not automatically be considered for deletion on its size alone. In this particular case, however, neither Google nor Ordnance Survey have ever heard of Obesanes, so let's all be sane and delete it. Grutness... wha? 01:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • That's not quite what I meant. Even in bound encylopedia entries for what one might consider obscure towns that almost no one has ever heard of, there is generally some standard information that is missing here. I was concentrating on the lack of information, such as approximate population, local industry, local places of note, form of government and so forth, usually found in material that is considered "encyclopedic." Your point about bound encylopedias vs Wikipedia is well taken, however, I have written article stubs and when I have done so, it has at least been one paragraph, and more than one sentence. So, I think size does have to do with it, again, I would say that one sentence doesn't even make a stub, and one sentence weighs heavily in my mind against keeping the "article." GestaltG 01:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, completely unverifiable, likely hoax. - Phaedriel 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom TheRingess 01:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete following Grutness. While a verifiable one-sentence stub should be allowed to survive and grow, this one seems to be a hoax: e.g. there is no Obesanes in the index of the AA Great Britain Road Atlas for 1978, and Morpeth is 14 miles from Newcastle-on-Tyne so a "village" can't be "close" to both of them. -- JimR 06:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - probable creation by User:Obesanes - only logical conclusion I can come to. -- Sunfazer 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod

No Google hits, except in Wikipedia mirrors, looks like a hoax. Pilatus 17:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete - definite hoax (I checked the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography to be sure). The giveaway, apart from the lack of verification, is the joke definition for the Douglas Pouch, which is something else entirely (see Pouch of Douglas and Google). Associated articles with references to Laurence Obadiah Douglas-McLeod inserted from the same IP addresses (i.e. MacLeod and Nicholas McLeod) have been fact-checked since the AfD first went up. Tearlach 17:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Worldwidezation

Neologism. Zero results from Google search. Spondoolicks 17:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted for nn-bio. enochlau ( talk) 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kitmouse_Nadorian

non-notable person Ttwaring 17:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Aladin

Delete, not notable enough. The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets that are blown up out of proportion. He was never on TV, he only worked on projects that never aired. The notability of that title "International Magician of the Year" is heavily questioned: The award organisaton seems to not even have a website, and a search for the title leads to only 123 hits ( [21]). So when one removes all that promotional hoopla, his notability has to be rated on this bottom line: Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the City of London. I strongly believe that those elements don't suffice that an individual be included in the wikipedia. Additionaly, the article sounds very much like blunt euphoric advertising, written by the person himself to jumpstart his career and business by taking advantage of the popularity of the wikipedia project. To any admin deciding the vote: I'd like to order a full sockpuppet and meatpuppet check on all people that have voted here, with an article of such a bad quality, all those "keep" votes cannot possible be the thruthful opinion of the well-educated general wikipedia public. Please do a IP-Address-Location&Provider-check, not just a "numbers of good edits" check which could be faked by a determined person. Thank you. Peter S. Several edits between 17:12, 1 January 2006 and 4 January 2006 (UTC)

  • By puppets, I didn't mean you, Ragib. And yeah, I edit my own talk, the proper way would have been to have multiple signs at the end (since some of my old stuff stayed), but thought that multiple signs only added even more "noise". Peter S. 15:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It is not at all normal to do an IP check over an AfD unless there is substantial evidence of sockpuppetry -- more than just votes that favor what some think is a poor article. many of the keep voters have long contribution histories, have made hundreds or thosands of edits, on many different subjects. I don't see any plausibel evidence of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry here, overall. Of couse legit editoes can have unwise opnions for a time, and IMO User:Peter S's substantive points should be substantively answered, but arging about socks is not the way to prevail in this debate, I think. DES (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (considering all those "keep" votes): Whoa whoa whoa people.... I think you need to slow down and take a look at this before you vote... The article as written makes it seem like he is notable, but it's written like a brochure for self-promotional purposes. For example, the extensive quote cited to Inside Magic is deceptive, as that quote was printed in Inside Magic, but it was quoting a student newspaper ("The Oxford Student has an incredibly positive piece about a young magician") -- the most important bit from that piece is that the editor of Inside Magic calls aladin "a magician I have never heard about." Furhtermore, he questions the student newspaper's claim that he left some society because it wouldn;t admit women as he knows a number of women in the society. This looks like a majorly deceptive bit of advertising by someone trying to give himself credential he doesn;t have. DON'T JUST VOTE KEEP claiming that he's notable without EVIDENCE that he is notable. He fails the Google test, and quite badly. The writer of this article created deceptive references, and sockpuppets have already been suggested. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Well said, DreamGuy, thanks. Other misleading credentials include the link "NBC Today Show featuring aladin's Book of Cool", but "aladin" was never mentioned on the Today Show, just this book with 25+ different people in it. And it's not *his* book, he's just one of those 25 people. Peter S. 22:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment:The dude was International Magician of The year 1991 [22]/ Yes, the article needs cleaning up and yes it needs to be made neutral but the magician is notable. Englishrose 22:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Was he? Prove it? That source quotes some school newspaper as having made the claim, but we have no idea whether it's accurate or not. The source you list never heard of the guy, so you can;t take second or third hand information as if it were real. DreamGuy 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Notable and verifiable. However the article is very much POV, so I'm going to tag it as such. -- MisterHand 17:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's first edit was on 30 december 2005 DES (talk) 00:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Very notable magician. In fact he is a former International Magician of the Year. Englishrose 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Englishrose, the organisation behind "International Magician of The year" doesn't even have a website, how notable can this award be? There are thousands of such smallish awards with grandiose names. Bottom line is, Aladin performs rarely, is portrayed in 1 book, and works for the London gov, so I really really can't see how he's notable. Peter S. 22:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • speedy keep as above. v notable and verrifiable. shoked to see this up for dele Tiksustoo 23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) User's firat article edit, on 17 Oct 2005 was to this article. DES (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) However, this user has since edited a significant range of articeles. DES (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment After reading the aladin talk page I am very confused. Talk:Aladin Peter S. has been aware of this article since the 3 October 2005. He has disputed the POV of the article but never its notablity and has been trying to organise (and made)improvements to the article. Just seems strange. Englishrose 00:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, but I never edited it, cause the article always looked "fake" to me. I though I stayed on the sideline and view what happens to the article, but it still looks like a huge self-promo-thing to me :-/ Peter S. 03:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. I echo the comments above. Very noteworthy and VERY well substantiated. In fact the article is possibly one of the most heavily annotated in List of magicians and so interesting that I have been itching to add to it as it needs to include his 'other lives' in greater detail - all of the latter easy to find through search engines and other websites. Might well be a candidate for starred article? And I must agree with EnglishRose - Peter S seems to be pursuing aladin for a reason which one cannot fathom. Very strange. Autumnleaf 01:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep: Notable and verifiable. -- Ragib 02:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Autumnleaf asked me to look at the article and the deletion entry -- even as a complete outsider to magic and the entertainment biz, I'm impressed by the guy's vita. However, the article needs to be toned down and put into perspective. Right now it sounds like he's the Second Coming of Houdini. Zora 02:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. notable and verifiable, even for an outsider like me. It's high on fancruft & pov, but that could be fixed. -- Pamri • Talk 04:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. Notable and verifiable. This is one of the better magic related articles. Grroin 12:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep. What has already been said above, and I think it needs to be cleaned up to fit the standards of Wikipedia. -- nihon 20:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Keep Bonaparte talk 21:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete is my not for now... see my comment above... the credential appear to be forged, Inside MAgic never heard of him, claims of being on National Geographic, etc., unconfirmed. DreamGuy 22:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • A little google reveals [23], a National Geographic website that refers to aladin as a magician and management consultant. They may be taking him at face value. He certainly seems to be devoted to self-puffery. All the same, I should think that that any major falsification would have ruled out that particular TV show. NG has been caught in bad fact-checking in the past (the Chinese fossil that turned out to be faked) but they come clean about it and they aren't generally known for being a dodgy source. Zora 23:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Zora, that's a program about refugees, he was portrayed as a refugee. The article claims "He performs from bombay to las vegas and has appeared on National Geographic", which is clearly a misleading statement. As I said before, once you cut through all the promo language, you end up with a boring person that doesn't warrant an entry in the wikipedia. Peter S. 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • We've got articles about people even less notable. Better to turn your energies to deflating the article. You've alerted enough people to the hype that I'm sure it will be toned down. Zora 23:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Zora, he's roughly as notable as somebody that works at a bank and plays the harmonica in clubs at weekends. Do you really want to have every human at this level included in an encyclopedia, between Einstein and Churchill, just because he likes to spin such half-thruths? Peter S. 23:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per my comments at Talk:List of magicians. This is one the many Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic artcles that should never have been written. -- Krash 23:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - I would instead vote to delete the Quotations about aladin if we had an Sfd! Neither Einstein nor the Alladin tale itself gets that luxury in an encyclopedia. It's simply called a vanity section! It gives a bad balance to any article mixing jokes w/ facts, peotry and magic. Please get rid of that stuff unless it is really relevent. Cheers -- Szvest 00:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
    • Hi Szvest, we tried deleting it before, but it's always added back: [24]. Believe me, editing the article won't change anything, and since he really isn't notable, it's of no use anyway. If you'd like to dig deeper and change your mind later, you're of course always allowed and welcomed to do so. Cheers, Peter S. 00:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for the note Peter. I noticed that and I commented above my opinion re the issue but that is never releted to the Afd. I see the vote below as paradoxial; deleting an article because of a section and then rewrite it?!. And yes, I understand that the main reason behind the deletion is that you don't agree about the guy notability. Personally, true, never heard about him and thought that it was about deleting Alladin. I've read the article and the guy is definetly notable. Cheers -- Szvest 01:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;
  • Delete, but at the very least, remove the Quotations about aladin. What is this, the yellow pages? The whole article could be rewritten to three paragraphs once the POV and publicity brochure info is removed. Dyslexic agnostic 00:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I just rewrote it. Three paragraphs is just about right. I dunno how long that version will stand, but I do hope that other editors won't add anything back unless there's a reliable source for it -- not just claims BY aladin. Zora 01:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep hey a magician! -- Snakes 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. I don't see what the problem is here. The guy is a cultural adviser to Red Ken and got a huge profile in the Times in 1998, which I just read. Obviously deserves an article, but I don't understand why some editors just butchered what was there. -- JJay 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I was the butcher. Link the Times article then, and we'll see what's notable. Look, you can't just say that what was there was FINE when many of the people saying KEEP were also saying that the article was over the top. Zora 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Comment: I don't know if the article is online, I get this from pay databases (in this case Newsbank). The reference has been added- It was a 3 page feature profile in the Times magazine. The article mentions all the awards that we had in the Aladin article that have been removed. Moreover, I can say what I want about the article, considering it's my opinion. I don't know how you voted and have no plans to check. -- JJay 02:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This article has distinct verifiability problems, not least because most, possibly all, of Aladin's self-publicity seems to be either exaggeration or outright fiction. Last year we had Alkhemi ( AfD discussion), which was as far as could be determined a fictional company created by this person, published on his web site, and mentioned wherever his autobiography is quoted, and for which no independent evidence of existence could be found. (It's possible that it is a one-man consultancy company that exists solely on paper, for tax purposes.) But that is far from the only apparent work of fiction in this person's publicity, it transpires.

    Mentioned above is the fact that Inside Magic is using The Oxford Student as its source for an article on "a magician I have never heard about". However, it seems that the only source for that article is Aladin himself. On Aladin's web site we have a quote from the article, describing it as a "3-page feature", published on 2004-02-19 by Tamara Cohen. However, going to the archives for that issue of The Oxford Student (Volume 37 issue 6) I find no such article.

    True, Aladin was a "subject of a documentary on National Geographic". But that was as a refugee, not as a magician. True, there is a Book of Cool (It's actually a set of DVDs.). But it isn't by Aladin. True, Aladin was a "government adviser". He was the vice-chairman of the Mayor of London's Cultural Strategy Group. And the article in the Times is inaccessible without a subscription fee, but given that it begins "Alaudin Ahmed used to use his sleight of hand to broker million-dollar deals." and is an interview with this person I am highly skeptical of its accuracy.

    The key to notability here is being the subject of multiple non-trivial published works from independent sources (e.g. magazine feature articles, books, and so forth). But upon investigation the whole thing turns out to be either built on sand or unverifiable. The Inside Magic article cites as its source an article in The Oxford Student that doesn't exist. I am unable to verify the purported 1999 coverage in The Hindustan Times, because its archive doesn't go back that far. The only person who appears to have even heard of the "Golden Turban Award from the Magic Academy of Bangalore" (or, indeed, the Magic Academy of Bangalore itself) is Aladin himself. The Daily Star archives don't go back to 1999, either.

    Strip away everything about this person that isn't verifiable, and one is left with someone who only satisfies the WP:BIO criteria because of the National Geographic documentary. Weak Keep. Uncle G 05:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Very Strong Keep. I note from the edit histories on this page that some contributors are active on 'south asian' pages. As a non-south asian I do wonder whether aladin is trapped in the wrong section; he is arguably a 'very' notable personage of Indian and Bangladeshi origins, partly based in the West, who is notable as an artist, magician, strategist and public official.  freedom Annawright 16:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. The image on this page has no licensing information. I would assume that if this article is kept, then someone should determine whether it is being used properly (e.g., whether duplic domain, GFDL or fair use). I'd contact the person who uploaded the image, but that person only contributed briefly last August & appears to have left Wikipedia. -- llywrch 17:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It would appear to me that Magicsucks (who uploaded the image) might be related the same anon user(s) ( 172.215.214.127, 172.200.195.231) who started and added to this page one day before Magicsucks registered. Additional users ( Themeat, Waikiwai, and the curiously-named user Selfpublicitysucks) seem to have registered just to contribute exclusively to the article only to pull a disappearing act. Suspicious activity. And then there's Thegirlinwhite, another user who seems to have registered just to add to the article and also place references to aladin into various articles. She seems to have stuck around a little longer. -- Krash 17:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This Article is Misleading and Inaccurate. In order to judge the accuracy of this article, one would need expertise in the subject, right? Well, I may not be able to judge the accuracy of the scientific articles on wikipedia, but I have performed Sleight of Hand for over 30 years and have never heard of this individual. Additionally, the original article listed Sleight of Hand Artists that I not only *know*, but several of them have given me endorsements for promotional material. I've even gone to the trouble of contacting some of the most knowledgable Sleight of Hand people in the world and none of THEM have heard of this fellow. This leads me to believe the article was posted for purely promotional reasons. Keeping the article would lead people to believe that this indiviudal is one of the top Sleight of Hand Artists/Magicians in the world and this is simply not the case. Darwin Ortiz, Jon Racherbaumer, John Bannon, Paul Curry, Ed Marlo, Dai Vernon, John Scarne, Jean Hugard, Fred Braue, Larry Jennings, and about 100 others are the ones you want articles on, not this fellow. Questions? E-Mail me: steven.youell at gmail.com Steven Youell -- (unsigned comment by 68.7.141.95 17:36, 3 January 2006)
  • Comment I have managed to track down two of the articles.
    The Asian Age of 9 January 1999: aladin has the top right quarter of the 'People' page on page 21 in a four column article entitled 'Man with the magic lamp' which also has a photograph of him across two and a half of the columns; written by Abhik Sen:
    To mobilise support for the homeless, to walk some of London's roughest neighbourhoods in the middle of the night and charm street gangs off their crimes, to help the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser on youth and community projects, to coordinate and synthesise the work of South Asian musicians and artistes in Britain, and to do all of it at the same time, one would have to be a magician. That's precisely what aladin is, among, it has to be added, many other things.
    Indiaweekly of Friday September 10 - Thursday September 16 1999: aladin has practically the whole of page 25 in the 'Entertainment' section in an article entitled 'Master of Magic'; 3 of 4 columns to be exact, including a photograph stretching the width of the article, which is written by George Simpson. aladin was interviewed at the Institute for Contemporary Arts where he was appearing:
    aladin, amongst many other things, is a magician, live artist and producer/director. Born in Washington DC to Indian and Bangladeshi parents, aladin (his real name) was brought up everywhere, speaks English, French and Bengali, has worked with street gangs and been an academic, journal editor and government advisor. And this is just a small sample of the man’s achievements.
    Both articles cast him as a Renaissance Man and so have some fascinating background which I am going to include in the Wiki page. The quotations on aladin’s own website match up to the sources incidentally Autumnleaf 01:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Autumn, after those accusations, I cannot trust you. Please state a link instead of just entering text here. You could very well just have invented that story. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Peter, I understand that you're suspicious. Since I too believe that aladin has been editing his page with sockpuppets, I can understand that you'd look askance at any editor you didn't know. Well, Autumnleaf has been editing Indian cinema articles for a while now and she seems quite level-headed. I don't agree with her on this issue -- I think she has too much faith in journalists! -- but I don't think she'd lie. I'm not the best judge of people in the world, but I've certainly had no reason to distrust Autumnleaf. Zora 21:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    I do not take your comments personally Peter. You are clearly in favour of an order of 'proof' none of us may ever be able to provide and I have better things to do - just ask Zora. I suggest you yourself email/call the key publications [PRINT newspapers] in question or get a friend to look them up. I would be particularly delighted if you would call up Asian Age and India Weekly - all the details are above. Of course, you WILL come back to this page after, won't you? Autumnleaf 20:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I already added the reference from the Times, which was a three page feature. Aladin was also written up in The Express on March 15, 2001. I have both of those articles of course. -- JJay 01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The photograph used for the Asian Age piece above is by Nicholas Sinclair who is a notable(!) British portraitist as I just discovered via Google. Autumnleaf 01:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Again, a link here would have been worth a lot more than just stating something that you might just have invented on the spot. Peter S. 03:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
            • Try a library. Or maybe you should have tried that before making statements about Aladin's notability such as: The cited sources used to back up all claims consist largely out of tiny newspaper snippets. It took me one minute to disprove that and I did not make up the Times feature on Aladin-- JJay 03:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • An article that states that Aladin helped "the UK government as a Cabinet-level adviser" is almost certainly repeating Aladin's own exaggerated and fabricated self-publicity, and thus wholly suspect in all respects. Aladin was the chairmain of an advisory committee to the Mayor of London, which is nowhere near Cabinet-level. Uncle G 14:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Let's say he had 2 Dozen Articles about him in magazines and newspapers. That's enough to make him worthy of an article in a reference source? If so, there are at least 10,000 more amateur magicians waiting to use wikipedia as their personal promotional tool. Anyone with a modicum of talent and enough money to hire a press agent could easily get more press than that. Has he published any work in any of the trade journals? What are his contributions to the art? Has he lectured for the International Brotherhood of Magicians? How about the Society of American Magicians? How about for The Magic Circle? Has he even played the Magic Castle? WHAT?!? Tell me something he's done besides generate a few articles!!! And then tell me why those achievements make him high enough on the ladder to earn his own article in what is supposed to be a serious and accurate reference source.

    Steven Youell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs)

    • I'd vote keep for some of those 10,000 amateurs, even Steven Youell when he gets a 3-page spread in the Times Magazine. -- JJay 05:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • JJay-- if you believe that someone who gets a 3-page spread in ANY magazine automatically deserves an article in an encyclopedia, then you really don't have the respect for the Art of Magic OR Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • Comment: I'm not sure how much credit to apply to your opinion given that you have not contributed to this project. You claim to be Steven Youell. The claim is of course unverifiable, although I have been able to determine that there is an aspiring magician by that name. Details are sketchy, though, because Mr. Youell, unlike Aladin, has apparently not been mentioned in any of the 1400+ newspapers included in the Newsbank and Proquest databases. -- JJay 21:02, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Comment: I am more than willing to assist you in verifying my qualifications. You may e-mail me at steven.youell at gmail.com Allow me to repeat once more-- I don't think "notable" should be defined by how much press you get, but by what you've contributed to the particular subject. Go search your 1400 newpapers and find out how much press Karl Fulves has, yet he is a prolific author on card magic. How about Charlie Miller? If you don't know those names, then you're not qualified to form an opinion on who is "notable" in magic and who is not. Again, I am more than willing to verify my credentials to anyone posting here. steven.youell At gmail.com— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • The only credential that interests me is your lack of participation in this project. That is why I can not give much credence to your opinion. Regarding your query, Charles Miller has been discussed in articles in Newsday, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, and the Times of London. Karl Fulves has had his book reviewed in the Washington Post and the Times of London. Please submit articles on these men when you find the time. -- JJay 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I understand your position now. Expertise in a subject is defined by how much you've participated in Wikipedia and how well you can use google. Brilliant. Now THAT'S how you build a reliable reference source. By the way, Karl Fulves has written more than a dozen books on magic and produced three of the most influential periodicals in magic-- The Pallbearers Review, Epilogue and The Chronicles. But you didn't find that from searching newspapers online, did you? Probably because the only people that care about that would be people who are knowledable about the subject at hand. See my point? SEY
        • We are not building a reliable reference source with your input since you have made no material contribution to the project besides this AfD. For all I know you are Aladin or David Blaine, rather than aspiring magician Youell. Again, instead of wasting our time with your opinions regarding notable magicians such as Fulves and Miller, who are not the subject of this AfD, please submit articles so we can improve our coverage of the field. -- JJay 21:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • "Comment'**** JJay-- you've made it pretty clear that you determine who is "notable" in a field based on press clippings and from what you can find out from behind your keyboard. You have repeatedly questioned my credentials yet you have not taken me up on my offer to substantiate them. I therefore question your journalistic integrity and consider the matter closed. My offer to substantiate my credentials, however, stands: steven.youell at gmail.com -- SEY
      • It's not useful for anyone doing serious research on historical/professional magicians to come across articles about amateur magicians because they have been linkfarmed into valid magic articles. That "aladin" would appear on a list among the likes of Houdini, Copperfield or even David Blane is utterly ridiculous. I know we're not here to debate "what links here", but I think this whole thing is capable of setting a really bad precedent for those 10000 awaiting articles. -- Krash 13:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - Notable; the notability itself may not be just because he is a magician. It can also be because he is influential in the community etc. Linus Pauling is notable not just for research in chemistry but also for work in fostering peace. Vilayat Khan is considered a better Sitar player by connoisseurs of Hindustani music in comparison to Ravi Shankar. However, the latter is more notable and was awarded the Bharat Ratna as he worked on several international projects and built bridges between India and "the West." It may be that Aladin may not be as great a magician as others; yet, he is notable, precisely because he leveraged his seemingly low notability in magic to effect community service positively. Hence, keep. -- Gurubrahma 06:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- on all of the above.
    I've managed a look at the Times article (being coy, lest the copyright police swoop) and it does state as fact a number of the items that we can't substantiate with google. But I *still don't believe it*. Sorry. The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker. All the rest of it seems to be repeating claims that aladin made to the writer. But if he had put on a magic show in India that had a cast of 800 magicians and was watched by a billion people (one sixth of the population of the planet, right?), surely there would be some record of it in google? Is there any TV show on record with a demonstrated viewership of one billion? Is there any Magic Academy of Bangalore?
    Googling furiously, I found the following curious note in ExpressIndia:
    Muthukad, who is popularly known as India’s Houdini, also runs the Gopinath Muthukad Magic Academy in Thiruvananthapuram, the first of its kind in Asia. "Magic with a mission" is the slogan of his institution. [25]
    If the Magic Academy of Bangalore is so famous that a billion people watched the show it sponsored, how is it that ExpressIndia doesn't know that there is another magic academy in India?
    Plus, I can't replicate much of anything in the article on aladin's supposed father, Abul Fateh. Certainly nothing that proves that he is aladin's father, or that various details given in the Abul Fateh article are true. There are details that could have only been supplied by a fabulist -- or possibly a family member who edits from sockpuppet accounts, and may be prone to exaggeration.
    I was originally trusting, but the more research I do, the more alarm bells go off. I know that it's upsetting for people to admit that they've been conned, but aladin seems like a con. A con who edits vanity articles from sockpuppet accounts. Possibly a notable con, but con nonetheless. I don't think it makes any sense to trust a conman just because he's South Asian, or argue that it's prejudice to distrust him. We're all human, and human includes grandiosity. Zora 06:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: The fact that you do not believe the article is one thing. That is your right. However, statements like: The only thing that the writer of that article knew for certain was that aladin was a youth-worker are completely out of line without factual evidence to back up the claim. Have you spoken to the reporter who wrote the story? Have you contacted the Times? If you had done any research, you would know that the Aladin feature was written by a well known investigative reporter in the UK. Please have the decency not to slander Ms. Brinkworth or Times journalism without real evidence. -- JJay 19:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • JJay, the only thing in that article that the reporter said that she personally witnessed was aladin interacting with some youths in a slum. I believe that she witnessed that. It's possible, and I have no reason to think that she would lie about what she had SEEN. (Of course, journos have done that -- does the name Jayson Blair ring a bell? -- but I see no motive here.) However, given that she reports as fact extremely dubious material that she can only have gotten from her interviewee, I think she's too darn trusting. Gullible. Journos can be. A friend of mine who was a magazine reporter wrote a long crusading article about a man who had a land claim against the state of Hawai'i, a claim based on supposed Hawaiian historical facts. I trusted the friend until I spent hours in the archives trying to chase down the "facts". I found that my friend had believed the claimant without checking anything, and that the claimant had been b!llsh!tting him. JJay, your faith in journos is misplaced. Zora 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Thanks Zora, for your search into the matter. I just want to comment on the Abul Fateh article, that his role in Bangladesh Liberation War is verifiable and he was the first foreign secretary of Bangladesh. Other than that, I can't find references for anything else. It may be possible that someone who personally know him added the details, including his relation with aladin. Thanks. -- Ragib 06:44, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Verifiable enough and notable enough for me. David | Talk 14:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In the last few months, the credibility of Wikipedia has been questioned and I had no basis on which to form an opinion either way, since I really don't have any specific academic credentials. However, if this article is kept then I will sadly conclude that Wikipedia is not a reliable reference source. I could make that conclusion based on the fact that *I DO* have the expertise to judge whether or not someone is a "notable magician"-- and people who *DO NOT* have those qualifications are making editorial decisions based on magazine articles rather than extensive knowledge of the subject at hand. Wikipedia may be accurate in the Scientific realm, but if this aricle is kept, I will have no doubt that it's usless in every other sense. --Steven Youell— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.141.95 ( talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • delete when mirror and smoke was cleared, there is nothing verifiable left. It was a mistake to start a vote and then to remove garbage. The magicial already did his rabbit-from-hat thing. Mukadderat 00:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep Verifiable and notable. I haven't been able to contribute much to the Wikipedia project these days. However tomorrow morning I will take a cue from what has been left on my Talk Pages and drop in with some verifiable and verified material for discussion. Thanks thegirlinwhite 15:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Degz

Claims notability. Is a hoax. Discuss. - Bobet 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete NN-bio, hoax Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mind matrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

"Matthews Southwest"

Advertising. Delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 17:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Lovely (micronation)

Listing Orphaned AFD Page Vary | Talk 17:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Why are no other micronations tolerated on Wikipedia? This is crud about some guy that did a TV show. That makes it important? Wikipedia hates this kind of stuff! Look at the number of micronations that tried to add themselves to the list of micronations, none of them were tolerated! Why should Lovely? Becuase it was on TV? Is Sealand the only Micronation that has a page? There are hundreds of micronations on the internet, mabye three on wikipedia? Keep the pattern. Wikipedia hates nonsense. delete Kilroy Collins

I'm not trying to attack you here, but when you say "Wikipedia hates this kind of stuff!", you seem to mean "I hate this kind of stuff". As i said above, its not the most important article on wikipedia, but an article about a micronation serially televised on the BBC and hosted on their website is a lot more important than a lot of ridiculous stuff on wikipedia. -- jeffthejiff ( talk) 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
There are 42 in Category:Micronations (One is the Micronation article and another looks to be made a redirect with another AfD, but that leaves 40.) -- Billpg 15:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is a notable micronation, at the centre of a popular TV programme helmed by a notable comic and author. Other micronations like Sealand have articles; Lovely, with its large number of people affiliating themselves to it, is as notable as Sealand if not more so. Jess Cully 18:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Keep. Lovely has over 53,000 citizens almost rivaling the Marshall islands. That many people cannot be ignored. David Lewis (Citizen of Lovely) 6th January 2006 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.15.103 ( 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.
  • Delete. This article is both innacurate and irrelevant. The associated websites are closed.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jared F. Warren

Non-notable vanity page. Jokestress 17:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by User:Jimfbleak - SCEhard T 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Private School Gangstas

Unremarkable people or groups NJ 17:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Deathstation 9000

Neologism that some people made up and thought would make a great article. - Bobet 17:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Light Side of the Moon

Vanity page on a non notable Internet show that doesn't even exist yet. Presence on the web (besides from their own blog): 0 hits. - Phaedriel 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Why dyou have to be a jerk?! I worked hard on this!! Me and my friend are trying to get our show up this week, and we wanted to be in Wikipedia. Were just starting out, duh we wouldnt be know very well yet! Can't you just leave it be? Geez!! Bert
  • Delete actually speedied once before in a probably out of process deletion, but anyway - it doesn't exist yet etc. WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Why dyou want to delete it? Its not hurting you now is it? ~~~~. Bert 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not-notable. Wikipedia is not the place for publicity or advertising. If and when the show takes off and becomes notable, that would be the time to list it here. In the meantime, might I suggest you get a MySpace account? You should also look over WP:WEB. -- MisterHand 18:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • The show kicks off in a week from today, so what would be the point of deleting the wikipedia now only to update the show's status in a mere 7 days? Besides the fact that MySpace hosts BANDS...how would that help? it'd be useless! Wikipedia is a free encyclodpedia for everyone's use, and if they wish to add a description of their show on it without quite advertising it then it's their right! Tell me, what's the difference between wikipedia's pages for "The Light Side of the Moon" and "Whose Line is it Anyways?" Sure they haven't had the chance Whose Line had, but if you're offended by this in any way by this, DON'T WATCH THEIR SHOW! Leave 'em alone! Everyone's got a point of view, and a right to bear their own opinions, but why don't we all save those up for bigger, more important issues, eh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.168.45 ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete If and when they make a notable contribution to anything the page will have a reason to exist. Until then, there is no reason for it to be here. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 19:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, non-notable show, advertising. — JIP | Talk 20:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. First become notable, then become the subject of a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion or advertising. -- Metropolitan90 21:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. "Were just starting out, duh we wouldnt be know very well yet!" My sentiments exactly. -- Tothebarricades 00:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ok, ok, delete it if you must, but I can make it once the show is well known, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitsunetsuki22 ( talk • contribs)

Not just known, notable, which is a higher bar to get over. And you shouldn't be writing articles about your own work anyway. If it's truly notable, some else will do it for you. Just get over the idea that Wikipedia is here so you can pimp your own projects. It's not like listing your site on Yahoo or something. Seriously: read this. rodii 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply

-> I'd say just let them delete it...Once you get viewers and fans and whatnot, then you'll have the support you need here at wikipedia- until then the people here obviously don't have their proof of your hard work at attempting the show... Let them delete your profile, keep it running, get viewers/more supporters/what-nots, then hopefully the people here at wikipedia won't be so hard on you. ...And I'm sorry I don't have my own Wikipedia account with which to sign my comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.219.173.9 ( talk • contribs)


Pimp?! Ok, just because I'm from the south-side of Chicago doesn't mean I'm some fag ganster guy. but, ok, whatever.


Sorry about all of the crap guys, just delete my wikipedia article if you have to.

  • I would let them keep it, but if you at Wikipedia must...delete it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect. enochlau ( talk) 06:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kabayama

There is no need for this page; the character is covered thoroughly enough in Yu-Gi-Oh! GX minor characters, and only appears in one episode. Setokaiba ✌ ≝ 18:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Grand Prize Winner!

Speedied by another admin with the message

"Story Reader" books are really not notable enough for articles

Of course, that's not a CSD. No opinion WhiteNight T | @ | C 18:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-band delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Reddin

Band which does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines (have only recorded a demo, and "as soon as possible they will start recording their firs album."). Scott 5114 19:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jaroslaw Nowicky

The person referred to is referenced by few sites and seems to be famed for an unverifiable "cancer cure". I find this very suspicious; even if true, wikipedia is not for original research, which is what this would be. Mozzerati 19:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This article also satisfied several criteria for speedy deletion. Mind matrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Santa Catalina, Bolívar

Santa Catalina, Bolívar was listed for translation on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, but remains untranslated after 2 weeks, so now its time to list for deletion. — TheKMan talk 19:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments from translation page:

This entire article is in Spanish, I can translate it given time, but that I do not have right now. (This article is not present on the Wikipedia en Español) SailorfromNH 02:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Judging by the footnotes, and the copy-and-paste style, it's ripped out of the "DICCIONARIO GEOGRAFICO Y CATRASTAL DE LA REPUBLICA DE COLOMBIA", and even cites the page number. Does that make this a copyvio, or is that source free of copyright? (Not found the source online yet, BTW, maybe from print...) Jamie ( talk/ contribs) 05:22, 18 December 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 delete. Mind matrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kim Loan

Non-notable vanity/advertising. I couldn't find any evidence that Kim Loan or D&D Media are any sort of "national phenomena". — Cleared as filed. 19:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Somebody moved it already to WP:BJAODN. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rear-toading

Two things wrong with this page: (1) - neologism if its not just (2) utter nonsense. CastAStone 19:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Politic_(slang)

Neologism. This belongs at UrbanDictionary.com. Delete CastAStone 19:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Social capital theory

there is already a page Social capital which should cover this theme; the actual facts in this page seem to be misleading (Glenn Loury may have used the concept of "Social Capital", but doesn't seem to have invented it according to a brief search) and it hasn't been cleaned up even after being marked in May 2005. Mozzerati 19:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Mind matrix 00:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Pulling Tubes

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhard T 20:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for the reasons given below. I am also speedily deleting Image:Becky.pdf which is a copy of this article's text. Uncle G 22:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Potato queen

Even if this person exists, the article contains enough falsehoods and factual errors to warrant deletion - Tenerife as a graduation present? The UK coming in to being in 1995? --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Swechno

This term is not wide spread and doesn't deserve a wikipedia entry. mere 10:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

This AfD discussion did not gather enough votes for consensus, relisting. — JIP | Talk 20:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Velvet Rut (locale)

Term was invented by article author and does not appear to be in common use. SCEhard T 20:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete. The term does seem to exist but does not seem to be very popular (excluding references to the band and the play which share the same name). Also, this is barely a dicdef. The claims of authorship seem to be completely unsupported and are probably false, given the other uses of the phrase. ManoaChild 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted based on WP:CSD A6 on attack pages. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ferndown upper school

The article is not about the school - rather it is about the author's problem with attending said school. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Jamie Harris

Vanity page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. (4 delete, 1 move). Mind matrix 00:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Once Moore

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously deleted on 16 Dec 05. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Once Moore/2005-12-11. The article was recreated on 27 Dec 05. It was mistagged as {{ empty}} (a speedy-delete template). This new version is not "substantially identical" to the deleted version and therefore does not qualify for the re-created content speedy criterion either. However, the verifiability issues raised during the first AFD discussion do appear to still be relevant. Rossami (talk) 20:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Delete it to Hell it's first creation was a mistake, now it's a big mistake. The album has yet to be titled. It's an illusion created by the "fake" mandy moore site apparently. It should be deleted at least until Mandy Moore post it on her site. Parys
  • Move to Mandy Moore's fifth studio album and merge to Mandy Moore following a complete removal of all the information (and the album cover) that originated from http://www.media-press-release.com/release-69.htm, as well as the external "Hey!" lyrics link. The direct quotes from Moore and the list of people she collaborated with on the album are from reliable sources, however, and probably deserve a mention in Moore's article (at least until the actual title of the album is announced). I'd take out the false information right now, except that the article is currently protected. Extraordinary Machine 22:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • What if, god forbid Sire refuses to release the album? Then we would have an article for nothing. That press release isn't anything official, trust me, it's easy to make a fake one. Like i said DELETE. Parys
  • What about the cover? And what about that song "Fear of Flying", i have heard no such song, and i have searched it, and all I found was a mirror of the wiki article and also Mya's album Fear of Flying.
  • Delete. Apparently a hoax, or at least not reliably sourced. We don't need a page on her next album until there's a definitive announcement about it. *Dan T.* 06:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly, we'll just have to wait on mandy.

Parys

Delete Am tired of seeing this branded about. JackO'Lantern 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mind matrix 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The Police Notebook

Sounds like an ad (as said through template). Still, is it really worthy? Compu ter Joe 20:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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-band delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

T spigot

Obvious nn band Sceptr e ( Talk) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 Mind matrix 00:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

CKA

NN neologism. Randwicked 14:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The google search you link is misleading, as although I get 895,000 results - many of them are not related to this. A more accurate search term indicates only about six unique hits. Delete. Barneyboo ( Talk) 23:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • overturn. All of the result links on your google search goto www.canadaka.net. Also on the above "CKA" search google suggests that "cka" should be "Canada Kicks Ass" (See results for: canada kicks ass) -- Canadaka 23:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment - All of the result links on your google search goto www.canadaka.net - you're right, they do. But that doesn't suggest notability just because Google links to various pages within a CMS. The six or so hits it displays are a slightly more realistic indication. A search for cka -"canada kicks ass" shows how many entries on Google for 'CKA' have nothing to do with 'Canada Kicks Ass'. Barneyboo ( Talk) 09:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply
Comment Please use correct AfD ettiquette. The proword is Keep, not Overturn, and please only vote once. It is also preferred that you use edit summaries, and let people know if you have a vested interest in the AfD debate, as your username suggests you do. Thanks, and Welcome to Wikipedia. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 01:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. -- Angr ( t· c) 20:51, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete- neologism. Reyk 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 a copyvio, despite the majority of votes being "keep". — JIP | Talk 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kabalah Yoga

Page not NPOV - partisan to Kabbalah cult --  (aeropagitica)  UK 20:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ashlea Evans

Reality TV contestant that is not notable enough. She left the show after about two weeks, Big Brother fans barely remember her, she is overshadwoed by other contestants who were more notable but don't have thier own articles, etc. Chicbicyclist 21:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • Comment. What objective truth? That they are not notable enough? A couple other constants such as Eric and Maggie, and especially Ivette had a far-reaching effect on the show and are alot more well-known by casual tv viewers than Ashlea. The only notable thing Ashlea ever did was being on the show with Janelle. Chicbicyclist 06:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - IIRC there's some guideline about who is eligible for articles and I think they pretty well have to either win the contest or become notable in their own right outside the series. Remember these are just game show contestants when all is said and done; would you want to see articles done on everyone who ever appeared on Jeopardy? 23skidoo 15:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I have no problem with articles on game show contestants. Big Brother's ratings average 8-9 million per week. Compare that with published authors who are eligible for an article according to guidelines with book sales above 5,000. Seems like a double standard to me. -- JJay 15:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film and TV-related deletions.
  • Keep for being on a major hit show. Reality contestants on a show aren't the same as Jeopardy, as they are "characters" on a show, with a closer analogy to an actor of a hit TV show (e.g. for a hit sitcom or drama we might have articles on the character and the actor, in reality TV, the two are one). Generally, Jeopardy contestants have no national mainstream published sources of information about the lives of the contestants outside of the show, and little independent stuff about the show. In cases where a Jeopardy contestant receives sufficiently high levels of mainstream media coverage, relating to their show, and life outside the show, they may well qualify for a bio article. People do follow, in the press, the lives of these reality contestants, like it or not. Finally, I suggest more recent precedent is to keep an article like this (though not consistently). But, it probably would be good to discuss at WP:BIO some mention of reality show contestants. -- Rob 16:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep If Debb Eaton can have a wiki article, then so should Ashlea. You can't just go around and start randomly marking articles for deletion like this. It's ridiculous. Jtrost 18:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That same argument has been used to justify the keeping of other very obscure reality conteststants, and in fact, the page for Ashlea Evans has been used the same way you used Debb Eaton. This is what prompted me to put it up for deletion. I might have to put the article for Debb Eaton up for deletion, too. Chicbicyclist 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is a bit strange that Micheal Donellan who appears on the same debate page as Ashlea is getting more delete votes than her. Micheal is alot more accomplished(being a well-established artist and all), stayed longer in the house and had a love affair with Janelle, arguably one of the most popular contestant on Big Brother USA, ever. Chicbicyclist 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as notable person on very popular (e.g. known to a large number of people) show. "ashley evans big brother" gets >16,000 Google hits (apparently the Ashlea spelling is not known to many people). Turnstep 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Viera Scheibner

Fails professor test. Doesn't appear to be much about them that can be verifed (uses a geocites site as a cite) Geni 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • keep what is a professor test? And who is them? She is the most notable vaccine critic, which is why medical (allopathic) people want to keep her suppressed. john 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I can think of more notable without even trying. Geni 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • You find anyone who has written two books devoted to vaccine criticism. Pray do tell and I'll open a page to them. It is just medical politics anyway, so save me the false reasoning. She is the number one vaccine critic which is why you want to suppress a page to her, end of story. I am dying to know what your Professor test is, I'd love to see you pass these rules over Brain Deer [29], who is only notable for his attempts, through the Sunday Times, in smearing Andrew Wakefield. john 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This is not the type of case where the professor test is applicable. Viera Scheibner seems to lead some kind of campaign against vaccination which has made her known and controversial. She may be on the fringe as a scientist, but that is not a reason to delete the article, just to make sure it is NPOV. "Dr. Viera Scheibner is a retired micropalaeontologist, without any formal training in health-related sciences, who tours the world claiming that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous and lead to a host of ills such as cancer and asthma. Professionals in public health or the clinical arena are from time to time called upon to publicly respond to her, or similar, claims disseminated during tours of Europe, North America or Australasia and in books and articles." Julie Leask, Peter McIntyre, "Public opponents of vaccination: a case study", Vaccine 21 (2003), 4700–4703 (PDF) If scientists feel a need to analyse and discuss her in scientific journals and respond to her publicly, that makes her notable enough. Up+land 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • One of their main fears is publicity for her research into cot-death and vaccination using a special cot monitor http://www.whale.to/v/scheibner.html which proved the vaccination cot-death connection, no mention at all. They have kept off the vaccination connection on the Cot death page. I have managed to get on the vitamin C prevention discovered by Archie Kalokerinos, but the headings have been removed and the comment about it being endorsed by Linus Pauling. john 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I don't care whether she is right or not (and the article certainly should not express the POV that she is right), but the fact that she is controversial for something makes her a reasonable candidate for an article. Up+land 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • speedy keep: Just another nuisance AfD. As the author of several books and numerous scientific articles, there ought to be some sort of applicable criteria for an author's publishing history, which Scheibner would easily fulfill. Ombudsman 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Ombudsman, please have respect for due process. "Nuisance AFD" is not applicable where there are legitimate concerns about the subject's notability. The publishing history, uh, shows that she is not exactly a medical scientist. JFW |  T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I'm in favor of keeping this, although I hope it doesn't fall foul of Ombudsman's usual tactics. People need to know that this lady has no relevant qualifications, since she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists or by parents who've been suckered into these things. Even when this bio first appeared, however, Ombudsman went straight in to remove this critical information, as he has done with so many of these biogs intended to create (a false) sense that there is a body of medical opinion which thinks, eg that MMR causes behavioral problems. Probably, we'll end up having to rely on the drug industry to provide the staff time necessary to watch all this stuff, which will be a shame. Before long maybe someone could make up a page of all these characters - Scheibner, the Geiers, Yazquack, Wakefield, Bradstreet and all that crowd - and people will get a real good sense of what's happening. 86.129.115.248 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment: 'No relevent qualifications' is ad hominem, and gives the impression you need a medical (allopathic) education to form a sound opinion on vaccination, which is complete nonsense of course, but a belief medical people like to spread and fertilise, for obvious reasons. And it is completely untrue that 'she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists'. I have been in this game for 10 years, and I can't recall one instance of that, that may have happened with a parent but so what, that is an easy mistake to make for a newcomer, and anyway, it gives the false impression being an MD is an advantage, when the medical education would be more of a hinderance. Also it gives the impression people are lying to make a better case, when any idiot can work out the truth doesn't need to lie. john 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Please register on Wikipedia so we can count your vote. JFW |  T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notable Australian anti-vaccinationist, with an article about her in the Vaccine journal in December 2003 PMID  14585678. And also notable for receiving the Australian Skeptics's Bent Spoon Award. Andrew73 18:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks. JFW |  T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: a notable vaccination critic and quack. -- CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per the above, and I'm closing this. If nothing else, she's a model by which quacks can be recognized as such, but that aspect needs to be stressed a bit more. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thebadrobots

Non-notable band. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 21:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It was deleted by EdwinHJ, not myself. CastAStone 23:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Christopher Jones (student)

Hoax, troll page. Speedy delete --  (aeropagitica)  UK 21:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

EditMe.com

Fails WP:WEB on all three points Soothing R 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Vaccination critics

"A compilation of organisations, books and people critical of vaccination." how is that an encyclopedia article? It's not a list either. Geni 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Is that the best you can come up with? What is a list in your definition? john 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


Wikipedia:Lists of course wikipedia is full of examples of lists. Geni 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply
'The list may be a valuable information source'. If a list of vaccine criticism books isn't useful then you are living in allopath land, where vaccines are perfect, time to think about the children, don't you think? Most people don't even know ONE of those books exist, let alone 50, but top marks for trying to keep them suppressed. john 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So you admit you are pushing a POV? Geni 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • conditional keep: In Vaccine controversy, John added a list of ten vaccination critics, with no balancing information. This is a violation of policy, and User:Jimbo Wales has repeatedly asserted that NPOV is non-negotiable. My goals are not suppression, but rather maintaining proportions that conform with policy. I think it would be more useful and maintainable to include a single list to Vaccination critics instead. So if John intends to use this new page instead of including long lists of individual critics, I think this page is valuable. But if he intends to use it in addition, then I wouldn't support it. So before I commit to a vote, I'd want to know more about John's intentions for the page. Who knows -- maybe we can use this page to help forge a sustainable compromise. -- Arcadian 14:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I don't think it's necessary to make deals with John on this. It doesn't make sense to include a long list of vaccine critics within several articles when we have a serviceable list. Put a link to this list on {{ vaccines}} and we're done here. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Ten, I think that is a productive solution, but because John isn't the only person affected, I'd rather get consensus before changing the template. At Talk:Thimerosal#Summary_of_See_also_disagreement_for_RfC, User:InvictaHOG stated that "I'll take it as is, but would understand if Ombudsman et. al would prefer to replace pox party with something else more to their liking." Perhaps it would make sense to replace pox party with Vaccination critics. If nobody objects, then if this page survives VfD, then I'll make that substitution. I think Ombudsman supports the direction we're headed (he left a kind note on my talk page about it) but let's give him some time to respond. -- Arcadian 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I'd prefer a page like this that doesn't get shafted by allopaths, and a link from Vaccine controversy (which is an allopath page when I looked at it) and a page with a foot in both camps which doesn't appeal to me much, so I'd prefer a link here and to keep off that page, myself. Are you suggesting I limit my pages to individual vaccine critics? I think a page like this with all the books listed along with the organisations is valuable to offset the bias on all of the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. I may try and add 'the alternative view' to those pages but it will be a battle to get one or two lines in, let alone a header. I could put the alternative view (naturopathy, nutritional med, and homeopathy) for mumps and measles, for example, here and save all those edit wars on those pages. john 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The critics page would serve well as a hub for the template. As it stands, there is nothing else resembling a centralized nexus where a clear account of vaccine criticism is available. Surely, this article will eventually cover epidemiological vs clinical perspectives, data manipulation, pathologies related to vaccine injury (e.g., autistic enterocolitis). Maybe, when the Age of Autism has receded into the rear view mirror, hopefully by the dawn of the next century, this page will no longer be so necessary, except as an historical footnote. Ombudsman 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
oh I don't know perhaps Vaccine controversy? Geni 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
You would say that, you are the main hub for allopath/medical butchering of vaccine/allopathy criticism. The vaccine controversy page is a half way house controlled by vaccinators, so a link to a proper page on vaccination criticism is a good solution, but I don't expect them to give in without a fight, as vaccine criticism has been well suppressed for 150 years or so, which begs the question---what are they afraid of if vaccination is safe and effective????? Surely they would like everything to be out in the open to show vaccination is above reproach? john 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
So you admit its intent is as a POV fork? Uh uh. -- Calton | Talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
If you look at all the medical vaccine pages AND the vaccine disease pages they have all been written by vaccinators/allopaths, so if that isn't POV I don't know what is. If you would like to arrange a section on each of those pages for me to offer my balancing comments then I can do without any pages outlining the anti-vaccination viewpoint, but vaccinators like Hog can't take any criticism which is why he deletes all of my work. john 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) john 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Levi Vega Martinez

Not-notable bio. Unverifiable. I could find nothing on this person with Google, so I marked the article {{unreferenced}} on December 20 2005. The article has been edited since then, but no reference has been provided. Dalbury( Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

  • come on Dalbury! Costa Rica is a very small country and of course we do not have extensive information on our people in the net, but this doesn't mean that our people is not important for us to be in such an important media as Wikipedia. You might find some information on this journalist on the net but as he was heavily active during the 80's and 90's most of his work is printed in hundreds of newspapers in Costa Rica. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.196.77.182 ( talk • contribs)
    • Comment - Please read the official policy on verification of material in articles. I have been to Costa Rica and I like it, but it is the burden of the editor adding material to Wikipedia to provide sources for that material that can be readily verified by another editor or reader of the article. So, tell us where the information in the article has been published. -- Dalbury( Talk) 08:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as per nom. TestPilot 04:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Werdna648 T/ C\ @ 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was The result of this debate was SPEEDY DELETE. It was Deleted by EdwinHJ. CastAStone 23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cord Tangeling Gnomes

This might be speedyable, but it certainly isn't encyclopediac. Its obviously false information presented as if it were true. CastAStone 21:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

TheRingess 22:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Conor McAvinue

Hoax - potato mining accident etc. Manchester United don't seem to have a player with this name. Delete. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN ( talk) 21:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

+ Delete rubbish! SatuSuro 05:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Barkaloo

I think this is a hoax; If it's not, then it's original research. Tom Harrison Talk 21:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Ria, Noel

There is no discernable research value in this page. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 21:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kramus

Non-notable band. --  (aeropagitica)  UK 22:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Natures Valley, Western Cape

Currently this page is a broken link to another wiki (I believe they meant to link to [30]). It fails to establish the notability of "Natures Valley". Nature's Valley is indeed a place in Bitou Local Municipality, Western Cape, South Africa. - Halidecyphon 22:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Snaking

Snaking was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-24. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snaking/2005-11-24.

An advanced technique that belongs on the Mario Kart page or in a FAQ or not even mentioned at all. Hbdragon88 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Now a redirect. enochlau ( talk) 06:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Restaurants in Namibia

Was listed for speedy deletion, does not meet CSD so moved to AfD. I think it's better suited for WikiTravel EdwinHJ | Talk 22:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename as Cuisine of Namibia (needs cleanup and expansion - but then the article is only 6 hours old!). There is a precedent for reference to specific restaurants in similar articles on regional cuisine (eg Cuisine of California). Humansdorpie 00:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Julia Adams

Tagged as an A7 speedy but it claims some notability. I say Delete unless there is more verification. WhiteNight T | @ | C 22:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

The result of the debate was keep -- Ichiro 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Admiral Freebee

Non Notable songwriter. Delete CastAStone 22:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Conform WP:MUSIC:
A musician or ensemble is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels.
Both his albums were released on Universal.
  • Has won or placed in a major music competition.
Depending on what you call major (note: size of country not mentioned in the guideline), Humo´s Rockrally.
MB 09:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia Is The Next Google

I did not add this AFD, but the creator of the AFD did not create this page after about a period of twenty minutes. My view on this article is neutral Frag 23:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Whale.to

Advertisement for a non-notable quack website whose administrator is a Wikipedia user. Delete. -- Pablo D. Flores ( Talk) 23:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

John is mentioned in the introduction and is the same john replying in this thread! InvictaHOG 04:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Comments

I'll abstain for now, but I have a question for John that may help us work through these issues. You keep adding links to your deprecated source? website to many, many medical Wikipedia pages. Are you doing this because you believe whale.to is currently a notable resource, or because you are hoping it becomes a notable resource in the future? -- Arcadian 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I haven't added any links for weeks, I'll be back in the saddle in a week or so. I did a Wiki page some time ago which had a few links pointing out the allopaths game, and I'll update that in due course, eg deleting pages I have done such as Lily Loat, and attemting to delete these Viera Scheibner, and Vaccination critics, that one took an hour to do. While I have been off whale.to for a few weeks, for various reasons, I have been doing Wiki pages, eg National Anti-Vaccination League, started this one Harris Coulter, so I may do more of that as Wiki certainly needs more of a balanced viewpoint as nearly all of the vaccine pages and vaccine disease pages (for starters) are purely allopathic thinking, with no vaccine criticism allowed, and I enjoy doing that. I did manage to create Archie Kalokerinos and put his vitamin C cot death prevention on the SIDS page---after a big battle on the Talk MMR page (not sure that was worth the talk). But at least he seems to be still up there, fingers crossed. I may put a link to the Wiki page I have done on The National Anti-Vaccination League, rather than duplicating it on whale.to. That needed doing and I doubt I would have done it if I hadn't come here, so that is one plus point. I have the books on the shelf. I can't see Wiki ever improving on my pages eg Scheibner www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html, unless you have a document facility, and can keep the allopaths from deleting them or the links. As to your query about whale being a notable resource, I feel (IMO) it is the most valuable resource on medicine on the internet, right now, but i don't expect anyone who hasn't done the research I've done to see that, especially allopaths for obvious reasons, the main reason being the lack of real knowledge of most people who have been fed propaganda, like I was. (Medical) Truth is very simple, but really annoying to man, as Goethe said. I have the best vaccine document resource on the internet, especially smallpox. I have taken apart vaccination already, so any additions will be gilding the lily, but I will have all the relevent smallpox books up there one day, as I like to be thorough. john 23:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
I have added more detail to the page. I believe it is NPOV, but further review is of course appreciated. -- Arcadian 19:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply
It hasn't escaped my attention that most of the bogey words (demons, implants, etc) that User:InvictaHOG are using in his ad hominem ploy are also on wiki pages. So I am mighty curious to know how come it is OK for Wiki to have pages to Alien implants, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Skull and Bones, Demons, but NOT OK for me to have them?? john 09:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Goes to credibility, as the TV lawyers like to say. -- Calton | Talk 07:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Attack page (It was literally one line of text consisting of a personal attack) WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Cookin' With Romeo and Juliet

It was originally started as an insult page (check the past revision in history), but was blanked earlier today. Upon Googling the name, I found that it was an episode of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody, but an unnotable (besides its reference to the Shakespeare play) episode hardly deserves its own article, even if it actually had content. Frag 23:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Burmle

This article can never be expanded, because no furthur information exists. Any info relating to Burmle belongs on the relevant LEXX episode page. LeonWhite 23:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau ( talk) 06:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Allen Hall

This page is about one of the dorms at The University of Illiois at Urbana-Champaign, which already has its own detailed explanation of their housing situation. This doesn't come close to being notable enough to have its own article. I'd say merge, but, again, the U of I already covers this, so... Delete. JDoorjam 23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. enochlau ( talk) 06:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oxford Belles

This group appear to be students, rather than professionals, and not sufficiently notable to meet the requirements of WP:MUSIC. -- Whouk ( talk) 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. – Rob e rt 00:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Shakuto

Found while looking at 0 length pages. Reverted blanking, but bringing to AfD. Not a real Bionicle character. Google search of shakuto bionicle turns up 5 unique hits of which it looks like this is either fanfic or person's msg board name. JLaTondre 00:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Data Technology Services

Non notable company and product, article is practically empty. TheRingess 00:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
enochlau ( talk) 06:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_1&oldid=1116878858"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE