Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Random articles (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 7 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< January 6 >

Purge server cache

January 7

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

The result of the debate was relist to WP:RFD. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slim desktop computer

Inappropriate redirect (to Apple iMac). Delete. --worthawholebean talkcontribs 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion Tznkai 01:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aladin (London)

Something very wrong with this "article". Seems mostly like a hit-piece on this article: Aladin. Speedy? -- Peripatetic 00:24, 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 nothing worth merging. Therefore, delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HUI (accronym)

exactly 1 google hit for "Hawaiian User Interface". No indications of notability in the article. Delete unless verifible evidence of notability is presented. DES (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnkannaus

This was marked as a copyvio, but it turns out it's a copy-paste taken from [1] (freely distributable). However, it's a first-person account of a slave's life, and thus a primary source, violating WP:NOR. howcheng {chat} 01:00, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch blindfold

This is a neologism. Though not invented by the author for WP, it was invented (or preserved) only by Viz website Profanisaurus. Thus, this is a non-notable neologism.Obina 01:00, 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. The informal TRIM should become the redirect per style guidelines.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page has no detail; which trade treaty & between whom? No categorisation provided either. -- (aeropagitica) UK 01:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was merge and delete not possible; as content duplicates material in other articles, delete. Johnleemk | Talk 16:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Sangju and Chungju

Why do we need this article, when we have separate ones for the Battle of Sangju, and the Battle of Chungju? If there is material here that a contributor believes pertinent, it should perhaps be moved to the general Seven-Year War article. LordAmeth 02:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This page seems helpful to understand the context of these 2 battles, in April of the same month, as all 3 pages are written today. While this 'could' be put on the seven years war page, as written, it makes sense. If some author or editor expert in this area had a better way to structure the whole discussion, and the result was that this page was not needed, then a delete at that time could make sense. A rename per SJ Howard seems helpful, but that doesn't need an AFD.Obina 15:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the logic above. As nom states, each battle has its own article. A reason therefore needs to be provided to justify an additional article that does nothing more than recapitulate the content of the separate entries. There is none implied in this article, nor can I see how one could be given; additionally, further work on these engagements would be better focused on their individual pages - this is a distraction that adds nothing. As a result, Delete. Eusebeus 19:20, 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 category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recall To Hell

Non-notable Doom3 mod. Severe neutrality problems, in any case. Delete. Natalinasmpf 04:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Measuredprogress

Non-notable website, advertisement, no real content in article. Delete. --MisterHand 05:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cruelization

Internet music competition with only 196 Ghits, including mirrors. NN, possibly moribund. Xoloz 05:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting 31 December 2005. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting again to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

DELETE. Johntex\talk 02:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate wasDelete Sceptre (Talk) 23:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marquis de Napa

Individual restaurants don't get their own entries unless shown to be important. Most likely this is only one of several restaurants in the tourist spot Ayia Napa. Punkmorten 11:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 Sceptre (Talk) 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SoCS

This acronym doesn't require a page in WP; a reference in a list will be sufficient, if required at all. -- (aeropagitica) UK 13:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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 WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wood ranch

Not an encyclopedic topic. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:04, 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) 00:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charlemagne's Legionnaires

A stub about a book which was (according to the article) «dedicated to "all of the members of the French Waffen-SS, living or dead, as well as all of the other volunteers of the Waffen-SS, whatever their nationality."». The book is at 2 400 000th rank on Amazon sales. Deletion asked in view of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents (4.7) : Books are notable if well-known, and should be listed under the author if not. This non-academic book is not important enough to justify an article French Tourist 15:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to generate more discussion. Robert 01:05, 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. Ichiro 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Cacavas

Not notable

I am relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 17:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting again to generate more discussion. Robert 01:05, 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) 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backtothefuture

NN vanity. Google search comes up with lots of results due to the movie, but none of them except the wikipedia page refer to this person from what I can tell. VegaDark 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it: non-notable by any means. Gerk 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --SarekOfVulcan 03:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom DrIdiot 04:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. — TheKMantalk 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Banes 12:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I hate to disagree with those that have voted before me on this one, but the music video Schfifty-Five, shows up 31,800 times on Google, and has been watched (at least by kids, and their annoyed parents) all over the world. It seems to be popular with 5th, 6th, and 7th-graders. Though I can't stand the video nor the song personally, my son and most of his friends love them, right up there with Al Yankovic. Because of its widespread audience, it is a notable achievement, and the creator(s) of the music video deserve mention (and rotton tomatoes). In relation to the video, "backtothefuture" comes up 741 times on Google, crediting him with creating this animated piece of ____. Therefore, due to the widespread distribution and viewing of his creation, I believe backtothefuture qualifies as a notable individual as per Wikipedia policy. Though I hope his future videos are better than this one. Go for it! 12:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable, vanity and attempt to contact. Ifnord 16:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It seems non notable. But per Go for it, if creating a stick drawing animation to a song, and giving it away to over 5000 people over the internet, is the same as being a published author, then perhaps we should keep. I think, though, that in common sense terms, as a flash animator, he (or she)is not yet notable. Not sure if it matter but there is no verifiable biography content here. For all we know, this is not a person, but a group of people. Perhaps a mention on the Group X page (the music artists who performed Schfifty-Five) would make sense.Obina 16:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems the voting has been changed. Can someone investigate?Obina 16:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, user:159.134.77.247 had blanked out some delete votes. I have reverted, I think all is kosher now. Ifnord 16:47, 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) 00:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eusebio Elizondo

Delete as nn bio. The only assertion of notability of this person is being nominated as the auxiliary bishop of a local archdiocese, which is not a particularly high rank in the RC church. MCB 01:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, archbishops seem to be generally given articles, but auxiliary bishops (as a title) appear to generally be redirected to the name of the archdiocese. See, e.g., Roman Catholic Auxiliary Bishop of Chicago. MCB 06:01, 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) 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S.o.t.a.r.

Non-notable robot, no relevant hits on Google. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:28, 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 Merge with Oceanic Flight 815 Sceptre (Talk) 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"oceanic flight 815"

Looks like fancruft from Lost fans. Assuming anybody wants to keep it, it should probably be renamed to something along the lines of Oceanic Airlines Flight 815 or something similar. Delete. - CorbinSimpson 02:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) After taking another look at the page, I'm changing my suggestion to move to Oceanic Airlines Flight 815. There's been a serious amount of improvement, and it doesn't look as much like a fan page. It needs to be moved. - CorbinSimpson 21:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Harvard of the Midwest

This is a completely idiosyncratic nontopic. It verges on original research because, unlike Public Ivies, there is no definitive list of which schools are included, and no objective standard for which schools qualify. A few sources are cited but they do not demonstrate that the phrase is a true idiom with a well-defined meaning. The phrase simply consists of the combination of a metonymic usage of "Harvard" (to mean "exceptionally good school") with the name of a region of the country, followed by mostly unsourced opinion about which are the exceptionally good schools of the Midwest. Midwestern Ivy League was, properly, deleted; this is just another attempt to reinsert similar material in a different guise. Nominator votes delete. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P. S. This article also has verifiability problems. It claims that every listed institution returns search engine hits, but, for example, Googling on "Harvard of the Midwest" "St. Cloud State University" turns up one hit on the Wikipedia article, one hit on a mirror, one hit saying that a different college is the "Harvard of the Midwest," and a single, sole relevant hit—from someone's "personals" ad. Not convincing evidence that St. Cloud State University is well known as "the Harvard of the Midwest." Dpbsmith (talk) 03:11, 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) 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPengo

This is a vanity page for a web site. 419 users is hardly a notable web site. OCNative 03:29, 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 Sceptre (Talk) 23:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don and Drew Show

Extremely non-notable podcast. no Alexa ranking, 252, no kidding google hits, etc. nn vanity self advertisement podcastcruft. Timecop 03:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Testimonial by drag:I think these guys are really talented. They make a song like in how many days. how many people can do that anyway. Even though it sounds kinda crappy, at least its funnyy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by zzz (talk • contribs) 2006-01-11 09:49:52 UTC
  • Testimonial by Tan DX:Let me testify.This podcast is one of the most downloaded in the world.Honestly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdxiang (talk • contribs) 2006-01-07 04:29:42 UTC
You wish. Honestly. --Timecop 04:56, 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) 00:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moffaty & Gideon

Not notable, google searches yield little. Orphaned. Ezeu 03:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Skully Record Label

nn record label, first person, advertising. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:53, 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) 00:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nerds With Attitude

Non-notable Geocities website, seems to fail WP:WEB; phrase yields 528 Google hits. Ohnoitsjamie 03:58, 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 no consensus. Ichiro 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of sexual slurs

This has a long list that violates notablity standards, WP:CITE, WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NOT 1.2.2 and WP:NOT 1.2.3. This list includes terms from several languages with nothing to assert their validity. While some of these are obvious actuall terms, most are likely just cruft and made-up nonsense. Also note that the last AFD was ridden with numerous sockpuppets(users with 1-3 edits)

I recommend that the list be deleted and the rest moved to Sexual slang or perhaps merged into Sexual slurs. The non-list content of this article was already merged into a subsection of sexual slang. If we merge to Sexual slurs, then the subsection in sexual slang must be removed. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 04:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: In response to the request for clarification from Voice of All(MTG) left on my talk page and here, strong keep means exactly what it usually means in English- Keep the article strongly, do not delete, do not merge, do not redirect, do not remove, do not disparage, do not disrespect. Furthermore, clean-up means add some references- it does not mean remove, kill, redirect or merge, as you seem to be implying. I hope this clears everything up for those who were confused by my initial opinion. -- JJay 06:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, with cleanup — What User:MonkeyHateClean said. And there should be some form of censure against User:Voice of All(MTG)'s abuse of his admin powers, imho. — OwenBlacker 14:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, every vandal and trolls call "admin abuse", getting RID of policy vios is "admin abuse", this is just getting old.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article's a mess, it's not really a list but an actual entry - which should be merged into sexual slurs. But crappy articles can always be cleaned up and I can conceive of a better list evolving. Ifnord 16:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment addressed to those advising cleanup: Could you describe, either here or on the entry's talk page, what sort of cleanup you reccomend? I think that would be helpful in the event this results in a "no consensus" or "keep, cleanup" closure. The Literate Engineer 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes what kind of cleanup do you want? Do you want the list removed?Voice of AllT|@|ESP 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to have sources cited for this list. It is very, very susceptible to a bunch of teens deciding to put their own little inventions inside. Cite sources, people! Johnleemk | Talk 10:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly delete, possibly merging whatever's verifiable into Sexual slang. The intro may contain usable content, but the list part of it is not an article, it's just a magnet for people inventing neologisms and using Wikipedia to promote them. Friday (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to demonstrate the idiocy of this list, I have randomly chosen a word and its definition from the list: shitdick -(U.S.-Ohio)Gay male; one who enjoys anal sex. I ask, is this encyclopedic? Does it have a source for the claim of it coming from Ohio? Or was it that, some anonymous user from Ohio, excited they came upon this "dirty word" list, made up the word "shitdick" on the spot and inserted it into the article. This is most likely the case for most of the words listed. --Revolución (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To demonstrate the viability of the list I randomly chose Jobby Jabber, a term supposedly from Scotland that I had never heard of. I immediately found a printed source that confirmed the usage and derivation. In fact, most of the terms are in wide use and can be referenced to print sources. Editors need to look beyond their personal revulsion and accept that this is really no different from articles like List of political epithets, which unfortunately also lacks any references, notes or bibliography. -- JJay 20:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think if Bill Watterson were still doing the Calvin & Hobbes cartoon series he'd have a field day with this. Those cartoons of Calvin phoning up libraries, trying to get librarians to give him lists of swear words. Now, all Calvin needs to do is look it up in an encyclopaedia! Strong delete JGF Wilks 22:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep although the terms themselves may need verification. Jcuk 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. No valid reason for deletion. If words on the page are suspect, remove them to the talk page until they can be validated. Perhaps make a talk subpage of "non-verified words" that should not be added until sourced. Turnstep 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Sexual slang, and remove any non-verifiable content. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely a useful list. Some people seem to be voting with their biases. --Cyde Weys votetalk 06:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sure that people who enforce WP:V are baised. Nice job ignoring all the rules violations I posted and using an ad hominem statement.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or [non-ideally] Merge -- This content is relevant to a large cross-section of the readership of Wikipedia, and likely to be referenced or used. Slavish adherence to the text of "Wikipedia is/is not" guidelines isn't indicated here. Adrian Lamo 09:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sexual Slurs. SorryGuy 18:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Unverified content. Delete the list (or transwiki to Wiktionary, if they want to bother with it) and merge any useful content, if any, to Sexual slang, per nominator. - Mike Rosoft 20:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if possible, failing that Merge any verifiable, encyclopedic content with Sexual slurs. Anything that does not satisfy WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NOT has to go. - brenneman(t)(c) 22:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only what is verifiable. Guettarda 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep such American priggery - it never ceases to amaze me. WolframSiever 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The trouble with knee-jerk responses is that they generally fail to have paid any attention whatever to the nomination and/or the preceding comments. I wonder if you can document which delete-parts of the debate so far deal with "American priggery" — apart from your own comment, of course. -Splashtalk 04:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wish AfDs were more of a debate, a list of points for and against, in addition to voting. As of now we have numerous policy vios and notablility(6+ and stong) vs. the possibilty of citing and cleanup (1, only addresses 2 points maybe). We do have a lot of idiotic knee-jerk trolling strawman arguments, not that those count. I could imagen Britannica authors discussing what to include in a civilized, reasonable, manner, and they would never even consider many of the keep votes by newer users as they either have no argument or use a strawman(no argument).Voice of AllT|@|ESP 15:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • AFD is a debate; that's why it had its name changed from Votes for Deletion to Articles for Deletion. The problem is that often there can never be a winner, because there are bound to be crucial things which are simply a matter of opinion, and not fact. For instance, that perennial bugaboo, notability. Some people refuse to even accept it as a legitimate reason to delete, while others have different definitions of notability. For instance, this article is notable, IMO, because it compiles a list of different slang words regarding sex without necessitating the creation of a few dozen/hundred articles on each of those slangs, many of which are probably in themselves notable. You, on the other hand, disagree. It's purely a matter of opinion. This is why debates have limitations when it comes to real solutions to real problems. AfD is currently a hybrid of a debate, a vote and something else entirely. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • On the contrary, Voice of All's nomination does not rely on notability one inch. It cites several bases in policy, not a one of which has been challenged by those saying "keep, because, oh well, because I can't be bothered to work on it myself by detest deletion of lists on principle". If something "compiles a list of words", is not for a dictionary? -Splashtalk 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Indeed. While I believe that notability is what stops this encyclopedia from ballooning in size by 100 fold with cruft, that cost money to mantain on the servers, that is not the only reason I listed this. I see it as important, but even if you don't, there are so many other issues I raised that are important policy vios that it really doesn't matter at all what you think of notability.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those policies apply to content not topic, like I said. If there's an issue with the content, and the content is salvageable (which at least some of it is), the appropriate action is to tag it for cleanup. And I see no reason why a list of words can't be encyclopedic provided those words have more than definitions (you know, etymological history, pop culture references, etc.). Johnleemk | Talk 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup with sources. -- nae'blis (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for two reasons:
    • See seperate page here for analysis of how August 2005 AfD was manipulated by sockpuppets (who got away with it then but shouldn't continue to be rewarded).
    • Also on that page -- Many of the Keep votes for the August 2005 AfD were basically "Keep but only if cleaned up". It has NOT been cleaned up. I here submit five additional delayed-action Delete votes based on the expressed opinions of those (August) voters. If those votes are not considered then "Keep if cleaned up" means nothing, disrespecting the wishes of those editors.Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: All of you voting "Keep if cleaned up"... keep in mind the above, that your vote will be recorded as "Keep", that several voters in August said the same thing, that the article has not been cleaned up since then, that (IMO) it probably won't be now (if kept), and that, if the article isn't cleaned up, there is no mechanism to follow up and convert your votes to "Delete". (I am claiming to do so for the August voters, but (a) that may be considered outlandish and (b) it's very labor-intensive and can't usually be done, I just happened to do it this time.) You might want to reconsider your votes? Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to closing administrator to consider, per the above, that previous AfD was manipulated and/or my submission of five addional Delete votes from August. Herostratus 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the voters from August continue to have feelings regarding this matter, they should vote again now. Past performance is no guarantee that this article will not be edited for the better in the future. Adrian Lamo 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can't expect editors to follow up their AfD votes like that, watching articles to see if they're cleaned up, re-AfD'ing them after a time if they're not, perhaps contacting the other Keep-if-cleaned-up voters. It's too time-consuming. Also, its inefficent for each voter to follow up their own vote. Here I have done a batch follow-up for all these votes. They made their wishes clear at the time, and it's been six months. I think that's long enough to qualify as "cleanup was not implemented" for the purposes of those (August) votes. Herostratus 21:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You must be joking. As you know, proxy voting is not allowed. We are trying to reach consensus here and referring to imaginary delete voters and your interpretation of past AfDs is not helpful and is insulting to participants in this forum. -- JJay 21:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep does not equal "Keep if cleanup up". The condition has not been meet after 6 months. Now, I do not believe that they still hold 1:1 weight with new votes, but they do have significant weight. What is "insulting" is to just dismiss the conditions of people who had optamistic votes.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 22:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          How do we know whether or not those people are satisfied with the progress the article has made? There have been *lots* of edits to the page since the last AfD. Perhaps it now meets their definition of "clean". Turnstep 02:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My Keep vote actually represents five additional advanced-action Keep votes for participants who will be here in six months. Like you, I can see read this in the tea leaves. -- JJay 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • LOL. Oh yeah? Well... well... I claim an additional vote because I'm pregnant, so there! (not really j/k) Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • That really didn't help to advance this discussion. I'd urge you to redact. Feel free to delete this if you do. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • A little humor isn't going to cause AfD to burst into flames. It highlights how ... unserious the concept of voting on behalf of random people is. Sorry, Voice of All, but I don't find your assertion that we need mind theoretical votes by hypothetical voters (who can't be bothered to be here, now) to be credible. It goes against the concept of voting, which is to capture the zeitgeist, not to try and figure out what people were thinking six months ago. Adrian Lamo 05:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Future is not the same as the past. These people put up a condition that was not met. Should contracts be ignored because "people might not still remember"? I think not. And using future voters as a strawman is just childish.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 07:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, JJay, c'mon. Are you sure you're arguing from principle rather than stating a principle to support your position? (We all do that sometimes, don't we? But it's not best!) Do you really, as a matter of principle, believe that "Keep if cleaned up"=="Keep"? Will you support that principle if and when it will lose you votes on a future AfD? I'm just asking. Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unmaintanable listcruft; already covered (better) in other places. An encyclopedia needs this? I think not. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not encyclopedic -Doc ask? 02:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unencyclopedic, and similar to the transwikied List of sexual slang. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To expand on my keep vote earlier, and directly address the nominators concerns:
    • WP:CITE and WP:V -- I maintain that the items on this page *can* be verified and cited, thus the problems of WP:CITE and WP:V are cleanup problems for individual items on the list, not the page as a whole. If it turns out that every item on the page fails WP:CITE and is thus removed, then the page can be deleted at that time for having no content.
    • WP:NOT 1.1.1 -- which says please do not create an entry merely to define a term. This is a list of terms, not a definition of a single one. While some may only be "dicdefs", they are important in the context of the page.
    • WP:NOT 1.2.3 -- which prohibits lists of such definitions. However, this page is more than that: it has text at the top, references, and most important, many of the terms are hyperlinked to actual articles (thus, it is not just a list of dicdefs).
    • This list includes terms from several languages with nothing to assert their validity -- They should be removed if not validated, regardless of the language: see above.
    • While some of these are obvious actuall terms, most are likely just cruft and made-up nonsense -- an argument for cleaning up, not deleting.
    • ...the last AFD was ridden with numerous sockpuppets -- that's a matter for Deletion Review. The article should be evaluated as it exists, not because it somehow "escaped" AfD deletion earlier.
    • Overall, the "no lists of dicdefs" is the only real argument here, but that fails if for no other reason that there are items on the list that link to genuine established non-dicdef articles. Turnstep 03:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Impossible to cleanup and keep cleaned up. Not only does experiance with other lists of this type show it, experiance with this list shows it. See Talk:List_of_sexual_slurs#Mini_revert_war for context. - brenneman(t)(c) 07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It does make me unhappy that I voted to delete. There is useful info there. For instance... in future decades if someone comes across the term "light in the loafers" in an old manuscript, there ought to be some place to look that up. But I think cleaning up this article is Augean task, and I don't think its going to happen, and then it will have to be continually maintained. IF someone were to pledge to do a major cleanup, fairly soon, and maintain the article, that might be diferent. Anybody? Herostratus 16:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems easy enough to clean up. Much easier to clean up than a lot of the overblown political dreck on so many wiki pages. WhiskyWhiskers 18:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, need for cleanup is immaterial to AFD, does not violate WP:NOT. // paroxysm (n) 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most definitely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No amount of "clean-up" would make this puppy acceptable. Sunray 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can be fixed and maintained. Ashton Coochter 23:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Delete. enochlau (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satingear.com

Spam for a nonnotable little company Zantastik 04:25, 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 merge. Not an issue for AfD. Don't forget to leave a redirect to 2006 Sago Mine disaster when you're done. howcheng {chat} 08:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CNN Coverage of Sago Mine Disaster

I am not downplaying the tragedy at Sago Mine. I am just proposing that this article be appropriately merged with the main article under "Media Coverage" for example. It is just a little too much for there to be an encyclopedia article about a news channel's coverage of an event
--Jay (Reply) 04:28, 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 WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently Dangerous

Nom & vote Del (after removing Speedy-G1 tag on grounds of being far from patent nonsense as defined at CSD). This topic may be worth covering, but this article is not a help toward that (thus not a candidate for merging). If you favor coverage, expand and probably rename the Fail-Safe article that some earlier revisions referenced.
--Jerzy•t 04:54, 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 all. enochlau (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of streets in Comerica City, 15th Street (Comerica City), List of Comerica City streets, 23-42, Goddard Street (Comerica City), Broadway Street (Comerica City), Sixth Street (Comerica City), Comerica City's Major Avenues, First Street (Comerica City), Second Street (Comerica City), 2nd Street Spartan Supermarket, Third Street (Comerica City), Antoine Street (Comerica City), Alex Elementary School (Comerica City)

Looks like fanfiction or something. See Talk:Peanuts#Alex_Elementary_School_.28Comerica_City.29. Kappa 19:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions now merged here. Votes below were on one or more of the individual articles.
The article mentions Charlie Brown and Linus so I assume it's the school that these fictional characters attend. That wouldn't make it eligible for inclusion in any serious encyclopedia but, hey. Sbz5809 18:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd require that the person who posted it provide verification, and if such were not forthcoming, I'd delete it as meaningless garbage. Actually, I'd delete it anyway, but that's just me. Sbz5809 19:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it can be verified, I'd vote to Merge this with the main peanuts article Jcuk 19:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New votes here

Delete as rampant fancruft. We would probably not allow these trivial streets even if they were real - whcih they are not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 00:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All This is worse than the "Taylor, Michagan" streetcruft and the Toronto buildingcruft we saw a few weeks ago. NOTE: I'm moving this vote down to here since I now want to vote on all the articles. Segv11 (talk/contribs) 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who nominated these things, I would have thought my nominations would count as deletes, but since they don't, delete. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That would make sense if there is good evidence that Comerica City is normally associated with the Penuts strip. A Google for "Comerica City" Peanuts reveals precisely one hit - and that's the author's edit to add this list to the article on Peanuts (comic strip). As far as I can tell (and I am not a Peanuts weenie) the name Comerica City was made up by the author and is not used elsewhere, certainly not in the strip itself. If this is wrong then I will change my vote to merge for all verifiable information - but here again we may have an issue since the only source I can find for any of these names is the author's Wikipedia articles. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy City Pimps

Locations from a romhacked NES game. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Delete as non-notable and possible vanity. --InShaneee 05:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per FCYTravis. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The speedy deleted was contested on WP:DRV. I have undeleted it as I think it's only fair that non-admins can see the content and engaged in reviewing the deletion. I'll unclose the Afd. Friday (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting for more discussion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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) 00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He-Man (NES ROM hack)

User created hack of an NES game. Makes no attempt to establish notability. Delete. --InShaneee 05:06, 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 a redirect is more appropriate, and the POV material will be gone once the redirect is effected. Johnleemk | Talk 07:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Scams, Microsoft scams

Too inherently POV and nothing that can't be handled under Common criticisms of Microsoft, as it seems to admit. Daniel Case 05:12, 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. Mo0[talk] 16:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Truthman

Non-notable romhack, and most likely vanity. Delete. --InShaneee 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Johnleemk | Talk 16:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spock and Data

Article covers two Star Trek characters, each of whom has an article already, and are the only sources of inbound links. Christopherlin 05:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage Mammal Nice Chipmunks II

Non-notable romhack, and probable vanity judgeing from the comment left on the discussion page. Delete --InShaneee 05:19, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas Spellbinder

Not notable vanity. No information found on the same. Delete. -- Krash 05:23, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Islamic Bosnia (Note: name of the article was changed into Bosniak nationalism)

as stated by previous users on article's talk page hellenica 05:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The concept is not recognised nor in use. There is no political party that makes this supposed movement a part of its platform. A google search for "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" in English, Bosnian, and Serbian, comes up with zero results, aptly illustrating the fact that this alleged movement is unknown even locally. The sources used to justify the alleged movement nearly all come from highly controversial radical serb sites with obvious agendas (i.e. SrpskaMreza), or succumb to logical fallacies. It is a clear case of "partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact", which is listed as one of the basic reasons why an article should be deleted. For instance, the article states that the political goal "is often hidden behind the pro-European and pro-democratic rhetorics of the Bosniak politicians..." - the article's lone author clearly making an opinionated judgement of the "real" intentions of politicians who promote the exact opposite of this alleged policy. Furthermore, none of these "ethnic Bosniak politicans" described in the article would ever agree to be supporting this idea. There is absolutely no valid reason to keep this article; the topic is not grounded in reality and is a clear attempt to insert a highly controversial POV and bias into wikipedia. The few valid facts that the article might have should be integrated into existing and undisputed articles where they would belong. Asim Led 06:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per original nom of speedy delete (this should only be considered ONE vote for deletion - not including my nom herein) and for very reasons outlined by above user. Neutral/Keep Willing to assume good faith for the time being and allow author to verify the data, but seems as if the author is already involved in other dubious articles. Article appears to be false material meant to defame and demonize an ethno-religious group. hellenica 06:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC) I have attempted a drastic alteration to POV, and in its current incarnation (with a bit of cleanup and sourcing) is far more acceptable. Articles do exist pertaining to irrendist and nationalism movements of other ethnic groups in the Balkans, excluding this article would then be POV in and of itself. Care should of course be exercised to only include verifiable fact. It should also be noted that both User:Alihodza (Bosniac POV) and User:Bongo11 (non-Bosnian POV) have only been created in the past 24-hours and only have edits pertaining to this article and AfD; possible sock-puppetry in action. hellenica 15:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me: I am not a sock puppet. I have been a non-registered wikipedia user for a long time and only decided to work on the basis of my login after Jimbo's recent policy changes. Also, what on earth is this label of Bosniak POV that you give me? I do not see the world in ethnic terms, nor should you. Plus, I am not a Bosniak. I do not assume you are an apologist for Serb genocide just because of your Helllenic handle. Grant me the same respect please. Alihodza 21:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user had only 1 previous edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article appears to come across as factual, but only until you read the 3rd paragraph does it begin to sound inappropriate. The 3rd paragraph reads as if the article is attempting to propagate some sort of opinionated conspiracy. I suppose if that were deleted the article would be acceptable, but since I'm not an expert on this, this decision should be relegated to more knowledgable editors. --HappyCamper 06:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I...um...what they said. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - for all reasons above. Interestingly the article appeared while high profile negotiations are taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina regarding constitutional changes that need to re-define the structure of the country. Highly politicised and factually wrong. --Dado 06:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dado this article is certainly part of their Greater serbian conspiracy! now they want to influence negotiations through Wikipedia! It should be deleted!!

  • Keep - The name of the article was changed into Bosniak nationalism, and I do not think that anybody would deny that such nationalism exist. If we have articles about Greater Serbia and Croatian nationalism, why not about this one too? Is it a taboo or what. Also, I wrote this article for the sake of the neutrality policy of Wikipedia, since much is written on Wikipedia about Serbian nationalism with the purpose to demonize Serbian people. The Greater Serbia article is much larger POV that this, but I do not deny that some small number of Serbs support this idea. Who can say here that only Serbian nationalism exist, and Bosniak one not? For the NPOV policy, both nationalisms should have their own articles. As for my sources, I posted them here: Talk:Bosniak nationalism. Can you explain why these sources are not credible? You just used word "not credible", with no explanation why. For example, here are excerpts from the "Islamic declaration" written by Alija Izetbegović, a former Bosnian president: [4]. What is wrong with the credibility of this source? PANONIAN (talk) 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the fact that it doesnt mention Bosnia or Bosniaks once could pose a problem? Asim Led 18:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is simply an inflammatory piece of Serbian propaganda. The original concept that was the originall title does not exist as per the talk page for the piece, and later edits are an attempt to imply that Bosniak political parties want a mono-ethnic "Greater Bosnia". Whilst there is a mountain of evidence to suggest the reverse is true, the author has been unable to demonstrate that mainstream Bosniak parties actually espouse this view. Vague references to "Bosniak nationalism" from mostly Serbian propaganda sources are not enough to make the case. Alihodza 11:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user had only 1 previous edits -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
this user had never edited before -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 21:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is a perfect example of using Wikipedia for spreading lies. An article about Bosniak nationalisam would be more than welcome, but then with a neutral content. Namek 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • User's earliest edit is 1/4/06, almost all edits having to do with similar topics. Namek, feel free to contribute to the article from a Bosnian perspective. hellenica 18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, but are there any contributions of which u could say that they contain incorrect information? Namek 17:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I havent looked at the articles in detail because that isnt the point. The issue here for AfD is your short lifespan and concentration on one topic area. hellenica 20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • My short short lifespan can be explaind from the fact that i have just recentley created an Wikipedia account. My presence on Wiki is much older, and as u can see every dag I contibute to more subjects.
  • Strong delete. Bosniak nationalism? does such a thing exist? no it does not! and it is a totally ridiculuos attempt to remove attention from serbian nationalism by insolently accusing bosniaks of the same thing. Bosniak/bosnian authorities or goverment has never expressed any nationalism, as far as I know it is the serbian jugoslavic goverment who are the ones accused of ethnic cleansing and agression on countries in the balkans. All bosniaks did during the war was to defend Bosnia from being split up between neighbouring countries. And all bosniaks do after the war is to keep the country together. Therefore such a thing as bosniak nationalism does not exist, if you doubt please then look at the war datas from the war and you will see that bosniak civilians died 30 times more than serbian or croatian civilans. STRONG DELETE. Damir Mišić 19:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reviewing the exchange on the talk page, seems like a clear candidate for removal, not to mention a dumping ground for exciting competing balkan political passions. Ugh. Eusebeus 19:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It exists and this is a base for explaining it to the world.It`s one of the reasons for war in B&H. --CrniBombarder!!! (†) 20:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Look again what you wrote and then look all facts that exists, all books... and i don't speak this on base of readings books but on that that i stayed all 4 years of war, and war DIDN'T started becuase som Bosniak exstremism. Just see what Karadjic said... " Don't think you won't take Bosnia and Herzegovina to hell and the Muslims into annihilation...". Your comment is non sense. --HarisM 23:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I wanted to vote delete but have then checked whether there are such articles about various nations, and there are: Nationalism#See also lists Arab Nationalism, Japanese nationalism and Nationalism in the United States, among others. So if they exist, this article should exist too, if it's currently POVed it could be NPOVed (hopefully). An article being POV is not a reason for its deletion. Nikola 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. According to this user's logic we should also have articles on "Fur nationalism" or "Nationalism in Liechtenstein". Just because there are articles about nationalism among some nations doesn't justify articles about nationalism among all nations. Asim Led 20:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. We surely should have "Fur nationalism" or "Nationalism in Liechtenstein" if they are as notable as Bosniak nationalism is. For example, if they were used to start a war with 100,000 casaulties. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Because this is largely unsung and important topic, and we need a series of articles on this (not to delete the only existing article). If we delete this one... well, then it would be only fair to grant a quota for every nation: say nation XYZ puts a veto on articles A, B, and C, hence we delete those articles. -- Obradović Goran (talk 14:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Dado is removing internal links to the redirect to this article (see [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] and [12]), which are all articles which logically should have them, to the point that currently there is no Wikipedia article that links to it (but I am just about to change that). I see this as an attempt to rig the VfD voting process, as people who are interested in the topic but don't follow VfD won't even know about the article and so won't come and vote. I suggest that, because of this, at least Dado's vote shouldn't count, and maybe vote process should last three days longer than it usually does, so that effects of this are reduced (Dado removed the links on 7th). Nikola 08:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or we can view it as I have helped repair those articles by removing term that is clearly disputed (at least until it is decided if the term "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" should remain on this Wikipedia). Your attempt to make a political issue of this voting is not wellcomed. Your attack on my intentions and my right to vote and be equally respected here have been noted as a personal attack. It seams to me that you are more inclined towards rigging anything since you are bringing it up. Voting typically lasts 7 days for any article (per HappyCamper). I don't see why would this case would be any different. --Dado 18:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some of the links have been removed again, this time by Asim Led. I strongly suggest that his and Dado's vote should not count because of this. Nikola 06:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I strongly suggest that this user, as usual,should not be taken seriously seeing as his objection to the perfectly reasonable removal of a term pending deletion arises from his own personal POV in this debate rather than some concern over wikipedia ettiquete. Asim Led 06:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I strongly suggest that this user should be beaten with a clue stick, preferably over the head. You are trying to create impression ("pending deletion") that the article will certainly be deleted and removing the links to it, to make other people think that way. That is precisely the reason why they should not be removed. I returned the links again. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Nonsense. It seems that just Serb hard-core nationalist users who already had many conflicts with other users vote for keeping this article. As the author of this article (called "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" in the first place?!) said, it was just a crap. Now people who followed him voted for the crap. Why? I explained their motive in the discussion page. The others who voted for the crap gave unreasonable explanations talking about possibilites not reallity. They lost their credibility, showing nationalistic motive, not scientific approach. --Emir Arven 13:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I just want to reminder here that AFD is NOT A VOTING, as it's been asked on IRC for votes -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This article needs a lot of work but the checking that I have done has discovered some Bosnian politicians who have made arguments which are along these lines. For example Alija Izetbegovic opened a branch of his SDA party in Sandzak outside Bosnia in 1990 and "argued that should Serbia and Montenegro decide to unify in some future new federation or confederation, the Moslems of the Sandzak would demand both cultural and political autonomy" (Broken Bonds by Lenard J. Cohen, p. 144). I have also seen characterizations of Izetbegovic's earlier writings such as the Islamic Declaration which are of the nationalist kind. David | Talk 20:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alija Izetbegovic's "Islamic Declaration" does not mention Bosnia or Bosniaks once, while the Sandzak comment in no way supports the alleged "irredentist" nature as it has nothing to do with territorial ambitions seeing as it took place at a time when all the regions were one country.. Asim Led 20:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember children, there can be no peace or coexistence between the Islamic faith and non-Islamic societies! Alija's book is an example of Pan-Islamism. If that is the only book that shows some traces of Bosniak nationalism, you might have a point. That is not the case. Nikola 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What part of Islam being a religion and not a nationality don't you understand? If you want to mention Izetbegovic's early writings as an example of pan-Islamism go ahead, but trying to portray a theological discussion that doesnt mention Bosnia or Bosniaks once as an example of so-called "Bosniak nationalism" is like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First, Islamic Declaration has nothing to do with the subject. Noel Malcolm explained in his book "Bosnia: A Short History" (Chapter "Bosnia and Death of Yugoslavia: 1989-1992") that the book has nothing to do with neither fundamentalism nor nationalism. He explained how Serb propaganda took same quotes from the context (there you can read some examples) trying to present this book as something it is not. For instance the main part of the book is about moral values in Islam. It is generally about muslims all over the world. The second thing is that the user who first created this article as "Unitary Islamic Bosnia" has himself stated that "This article is crap" [13] because he thought that Serbs were demonized in every discussion. So it was his little revenge. --Emir Arven 23:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This is serbian fasizam and as far as I know, wikipedija don´t support fasizam!!!!!!Dr. Muu 11:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Only edits of this user before the article was listed for deletion were his user page, uploading of three images, neither of them used anywhere, revert war on Albanians and Talk:Albanians. Nikola 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, he's also a significant member of the bosnian-language wikipedia community. In the vote on Serbophobia, a similar situation occured with a Serbian user who only had a handful of interwiki edits but had his vote counted. I don't see why this should be any different. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The user who originally started this article has himself stated that "The article is crap" and created as a form of revenge to heated debates on Serb articles.[14] Asim Led 19:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This and following comment have been placed on the top of this page, out of established practice on AfD, obviously in hope that people who come will see them first and vote on that impression. I moved them below. I again suggest that this user's vote should be disregarded because of this. (Dr. Muu did the same, but he is a newbie so it doesn't apply)
      • My vote was the first on the top of this page. As far as I'm aware, moving a page to a new location as soon as its brought up for deletion isn't exactly an established practice on AfD either. I merely added a comment to my original vote to reinforce my point following your bad attempt to save an inherently POV article. As for your pathetic attempts to have my perfectly valid vote discounted because of an alleged agenda, you shouldn't throw stones if you live in a glass house - and you clearly do. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quote is taken out of context. The user wrote The article is crap, as most other articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina (this country is a lost case for the goals of Wikipedia). Apparently, he refers to state of the article after your edits and Dado's edits (you are responsible for that situation in BH-related articles). Anyway, he voted KEEP on this very page. Nikola 08:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You forget to mention that right after he noted that the article was "crap" he explained that he created it as a form of retribution to percieved bias against Serbs elsewhere on wikipedia. And what "situation in BH-related articles" am I responsible for? Getting them featured on the front page? What exactly have you done to improve the state of BH-related articles? Better yet, what haven't you done to make the situation worse? Every BH-related article you have touched has turned into an edit-war. From being struck down in your corrupt bargain-like nomination for administrator due to extreme bias and nationalism to runing everything you touch, you are not one to talk about responsibilty for the current state of balkan-related articles. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Though the page has been moved, the situation reamins relatively unchanged. Despite this, supporters of keeping the article (nearly all of them users from the Serbian language wikipedia) claim that it should be kept considering the presence of other "(people name) nationalism" articles on wikipedia. Ignoring for a second the giant logical fallacy in this argument (Should wikipedia also have articles on "Fur nationalism" or "Nationalism in Lichtenstein"?), or the fact that all such articles about nationalism in the region were created by these same Serbian users, it should be noted that a google search for Bosniak nationalism finds less than .5% of the total number of sites a similar search for "Serbian/Serb" nationalism does, while a serbian language search finds a whopping one article (a wikipedia discussion page). No matter how persistently its twisted or presented to appear acceptable, this was and still is a poor attempt to force POV into wikipedia. I thus hope that well-meaning members of our community will join the effort to not let Wikipedia's credibility be ruined by inherently biased and irrepairable articles put forward by proponents of the by now infamous Serb radicalism. Asim Led 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some users here said that Bosniak nationalism doesn't exist. An example of it which recently stirred much controversy is a statement by Bisera Turkovic, Bosnian ambassador to the US, and one of the founders of Bosniak SDA, together with Izetbegovic. She said that "it will take time, but people in B&H will certainly stop calling themselves Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks and they will all inevitably become Bosnians"[15]. (If you don't understand how is this a statement of Bosniak nationalism, you should note that "Bosniaks" actually means "Bosnians" and hence Bosniaks speak, not Bosniak language, but Bosnian language. Naming of the language is intentionally chosen as a step towards this goal.) I am adding this in the article at some of the places where citations are needed. Nikola 09:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are again spreading incorrect information, as you did before and do now in Bosnian-related articles. I have just read her statement. First she said it was her personal opinion. Second, she said that Bosnia should follow USA model. It means that Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats should identify themselves with their own country Bosnia and Herzegovina as Americans do identify themselves with USA. Also, she says every man has right to preserve his/her ethnicity, religion, culture etc. Third, this is actually argument against "Bosniak nationalism". If someone says that Bosniaks should call themselves Bosnians it is not Bosniak nationalism, it is anti-Bosniak nationalism. Bosniak doesnt mean Bosnian. I will not comment the crap about the language and your visions. --Emir Arven 18:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bosniak means Bosnian. And the language of Bosniaks/Bosnians has always been Bosnian Damir Mišić 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once in the past it meant. Nowdays, no. --Emir Arven 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. Saying that when outside of the country people will present themselves as Bosnians instead of Bosniaks and then making sure to clarify that this is your personal view rather than a political policy is a wonderful example of Bosniak nationalism. Give me a break Smolenski. Asim Led 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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


Keep itDzoni 20:03, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower 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. --Celestianpower háblame 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EditMe.com

Fails WP:WEB on all three pointsSoothingR 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. --Celestianpower 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. SCEhardT 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 delete. Johnleemk | Talk 08:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don Paysan

This stub article was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe that the article's statement that the person in a professional wrestler in Canada's Northern Championship Wrestling makes this an improper CSD but I am listing it here out of courtesy to the editor whose speedy tag I removed. No vote at this time. -- DS1953 talk 06:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion (two deletes and one abstention is not enough). But I have removed the other names that Harro5 added, because {{afd}} templates were never added to four of those pages, and the other two have already been deleted. Harro5, it's all right to list several articles in one AFD, but if you do, all articles must have the AFD template on them linking to this discussion. --Angr (t·c) 19:12, 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) 06:22, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Vegas

This stub article was listed as a candidate for speedy deletion. I believe that the article's statement that the person in a professional wrestler in Canada's Northern Championship Wrestling makes this an improper CSD but I am listing it here out of courtesy to the editor whose speedy tag I removed. No vote at this time. -- DS1953 talk 06:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Abstain. I see where the speedy nominator comes from. It makes a claim to notability, but really doesn't say anything useful apart from that. CSD A1 was appropriate, but if anyone is willing to add a line or two of basic information, I'd be happy to keep this without reservations. - Mgm|(talk) 10:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's also scores of professional footballers, and atletes, but we still keep those. If you're going to delete this, please do it based on lack of content. Notability shouldn't be an issue with professional sportsmen. - Mgm|(talk) 08:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Professional wrestlers are not sportspeople, they are performers. We do not have pages for every obscure performer in a band. Hu 09:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this to generate more discussion. --Angr (t·c) 18:55, 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) 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Celestianpower 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 Werdna648T/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. --Celestianpower 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 delete. --Celestianpower 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. enochlau (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Belmont Conspiracy Project

This article is nominated for the sake of completeness. A number of related articles have already been deleted (see AfD for Dj Ryko Suave; Mc Radiation and Big Pimping E were speedy deleted). I abstain on this nomination. Mindmatrix 16:47, 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) 06:27, 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 no consensus. Ichiro 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After looking up on the contribs, users who voted for keep has almost no contributions at all. Result changed to delete--Ichiro 05:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hillard Library

No Google hits for "Hillard Library Snape. Speedy Delete as hoax vandalism from a known hoaxer. Pilatus 16:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but edit - Although he does seem to have a history of this sort of thing, I think user ‘Archibald Wednesday’ has actually written a genuine article here, although it perhaps needs a little revising to make it more accurate. The ‘Hillard Library’ isn’t really a library in the sense of a building, but a private collection of medieval texts actually kept in Buxlow Manor, which is closest to Snape in its postal address. The only reason I know of it is from an article I remember in the local newspaper from when I lived in Suffolk, where the British Museum were pushing for the texts to be released to the general public. I assume it was then opened to the public, although I’m surprised that there is nothing on Google about it. Perhaps they want to keep it quiet! Have you tried any of the other search engines? - Charles Bingham 10:54, 4 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. Mindmatrix 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. — 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 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. howcheng {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) 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Heroes 2, Characters in Sonic Heroes 2 and The List of Issue Names in Sonic Heroes 2

Vanity articles about unpublished, mostly not-yet written and certainly non-notable fiction. -- RHaworth 06:41, 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) 00:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rich O'Brien

notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:26, 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 I'll be bold and call this a delete. We're relisting enough AfDs as it is. Johnleemk | Talk 17:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Plexy

Some random DJ. Is he notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Keep (Withdrawn by nominator) Rob 11:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Boone

nn actor? (amazing how much cruft you find just browsing "random article" these days...) Segv11 (talk/contribs) 07:34, 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) 00:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie_Wraith:_Brainnnzzz!

Advertising blurb for a small independent game which hasn't yet been released, and apparently won't be finished until Fall 2007, according to its otherwise blank website. Googling for "zombie wraith" catdirt gives no results other than the developer's site - this obviously doesn't meet any of the software notability guidelines. Bub27 07:34, 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 delete. --Deathphoenix 08:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceval (the painter)

Delete Vanity page--Cuchullain 07:37, 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. Ichiro 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Godcasting

Relisting per WP:DRV discussion. I may vote later, depending on justifications for keeping/deleting this given. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:43, 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) 00:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic Ice

Stubstub about an ice company in Ontario. Notable? Segv11 (talk/contribs) 08:01, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Seltzer

This article was previously nominated for a speedy. This article attempts to establish notability, though whether it satisfies WP:BIO is up for debate. IMO, it doesn't, so I believe it should be deleted. --Deathphoenix 08:02, 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) 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th Level

Delete. Vanity. Zpb52 08:06, 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 article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng {chat} 08:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eagle Bill (Indian)

This was previously nominated for a speedy. In its current state, it reads like a memorial, and Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Deathphoenix 08:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A&W Canada Restaurant Structure

Delete or Shorten and Merge with A&W_Restaurants. This page meets criteria for deletion because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual (Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is Not). In a shortened form with less detail, it could be a valid part of the A&W_Restaurants article, giving insight into how they operate; in it's current form, it's essentially a walkthrough for new A&W employees, and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. WalterBranflakes 08:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beersketball

39 googles, Delete. Totally non-notable. I'm No Parking and I approved this message 05:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 08:26, 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. — 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 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Howard

This article is more like a newsflash than a biography and contains only info on the subject's death. I'm hoping somebody will know more about it and improve. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 09:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup per above. I think if someone spends more than one minute on this we could get a better bio of this pro streetball player. -- JJay 09:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems notable, but needs to be changed from a memorial to a biography. Starts off "It is our sad duty to share some news with you about a member of the AND1 family" and continues "...This legendary AND 1 Mix Tape Player" which led me to believe he was a musician, until I found out from Google that he plays something called streetball. At the very least it should say what he did. Since the author is still working on it I'm inclined to leave it alone and clean it up when it looks like he's done. --Last Malthusian 13:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks! --Ichiro 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lawerance_Newell,C.B.E

Delete. I haven't been able to verify the information, and it appears that even if it were verified, the subject wouldn't warrant an entire article, Brendanfox 09:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Keep and move, as per explanation below. --Brendanfox 11:07, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 00:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macintosh User Groups in the UK

Delete. Does not assert importance or significance, and no references. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:58, 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 no content, no context. enochlau (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Penk TV

This article doesn't specify why Penk TV is important, and 69 Google hits suggests it's not. Punkmorten 10:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was nothing to merge, but redirects are cheap. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo Concept 2002 Tokyo-Geneva

Very little information/poorly written. Thorpe | talk 10:14, 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 no consensus, keep. Johnleemk | Talk 08:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milbert Amplifiers

Likely vanity. Term gets 143 google hits [19]. Interiot 10:19, 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, unverifiable and nothing to merge. Johnleemk | Talk 08:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moib

Article about "A word that does not exist". Google search for moib together with the name Shaun Micallef gives 1 hit. Punkmorten 10:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Brendanfox, move moib to Milo Kerrigan as it directly relates to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critical impact (talk • contribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summoning of Spirits

Delete - All other "Work In Progress" OverClocked Remix albums were deleted in this vote, just listing the one that got missed from that vote. It's an articles about an incomplete fan project. FredOrAlive 11:53, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Attack page

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was overwhelmingly to remove all of these lists.--File Éireann 18:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

91X Top 91 of 1984, 91X Top 91 of 1985, 91X Top 91 of 1986, 91X Top 91 of 1987, 91X Top 91 of 1988, 91X Top 91 of 1989, 91X Top 91 of 1990, 91X Top 91 of 1991, 91X Top 91 of 1992, 91X Top 91 of 1993, 91X Top 91 of 1994, 91X Top 91 of 1996, 91X Top 91 of 1997, 91X Top 91 of 1998, 91X Top 91 of 1999, 91X Top 91 of 2000, 91X Top 91 of 2001, 91X Top 91 of 2002, 91X Top 91 of 2003, 91X Top 91 of 2005

We've been through these before EOY lists before. Non notable. We cannot have year end countdowns from all local radio stations. With the thousands of stations in the world and the lack of methodology usually used for these things, it's unencyclopedic as well. Kill all 3 of these lists. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 12:25, 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 userfied. Johnleemk | Talk 07:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Terado

individual only has 3 web hits[20] and works for a company that does not seem notable (no main article, 105 hits[21]) Shawnc 12:28, 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 being bold, I'll just delete this. Johnleemk | Talk 08:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ETaskMaker

Seems pure advert to me, proprietary and not notable, no reason to include it in WP Khalid hassani 12:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Open Cities

The author told me that this was his original concept. Since then he appears to have started his own wiki on SourceForge.


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

The result of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek_Shahin

Delete because there is significant misrepresentation Oshukri 13:29, 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) 00:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shimon Yanowitz

This article makes no note of the notability of the subject. It just mentions his interests and the fact that he has been the author of several articles and papers. Also, the creator is User:Shimon Yanowitz. Google turns up few results. Delete as nn-bio. May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good point  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    20:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment has anyone actually checked to see if his claims can be verified? or put anything on his userpage to ask if he's aware that we dont encourage autobiographical articles? Jcuk 19:42, 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) 00:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Running Out

An amateur film that doesn't exist yet.

Comment not only is Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, but since you, the creator of this movie, made the article, it falls under WP:VAIN as well. That's why it's up for deletion. -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 08:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hatten är din

The article on the Swedish wikipedia is enough, this meme has no notability in the English-speaking community. Obli (Talk) 14:02, 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) 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strap It On (AC/DC album)

There is literally little to no information available on the subject. The release would be in a few days and the offical AC/DC website doesn't mention the album at all. The article reads like an unverifiable hoax to me. SoothingR 15:01, 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) 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Desi Blogger

I fail to see how a Desi blogger is significantly different from any other. The term itself gets 496 results, which doesn't really qualify it on the basis of being in wide use. - Bobet 15:06, 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) 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allan Kembe-Stohr Morell

Non-notable, "Allan Morell" (Kembe-Stohr means Giant-Big) has been coach for the secondary team of Fremad Amager, notable Danish football club, but is now coach in non-notable club in the 6th best league in Denmark. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesper Ottesen. Poulsen 17:36, 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. enochlau (talk) 00:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GSNForce

Delete. GSNForce is a relatively insignificant community with little cultural importance, and the article is a heavily biased advertisment for the site with no important, relevent, or factual information.

KEEP IT-TError

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 (no assertion of notability (head of club with no assertion of notability)) --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 15:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Stryhn

Non-notable, Johnny Stryhn is head of non-notable club BK Olympia 1921 in the 6th best league in Denmark. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesper Ottesen. Poulsen 17:38, 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 merge and redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 17:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mio Kuroki

This article was tagged for speedy deletion by Danny Lilithborne with the reason "Kuroki Mio is a clone of Queen Beryl that only exists in PGSM." which is not currently a criterion for speedy deletion. I have moved the discussion here. No vote. Stifle 15:09, 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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 16:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Olsson

Suzanne Olsson is a published author, but beyond her one book she is neither notable nor enclopedic. The article makes other claims for notability, but they are not supported by any evidence: witness Google searches for '"Suzanne Olsson" "New York Times"', '"Suzanne Olsson" "reader's digest"', and '"Suzanne Olsson" "Afghan"'. - squibix 15:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. While the article is poorly written, the book seems somewhat notable. The article could probably benefit from being stripped back significantly and rebuilt. This can be addressed on the Talk page.
    • I don't want to appear to be persecuting this article--I promise I don't have anything against it personally!--but what evidence do you have for the book's notability? All I could come up with was 17 Google hits for 'Jesus "Last King of Kashmir"', the most liberal formulation of the title I could think of, and all of them are either bookshop links or mentions on sites advancing Jesus-in-Kashmir theories themselves. - squibix 23:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would disagree with the above opinion because if you google further, you will realize she remains in the public eye (and news) through two of her ongoing proects: First, she continues to build momentum for obtaining the DNA of the graves, DNA she will have compared with that found on the Shroud of Turin. Second, she continues to struggle against the theft and desecration of the ancient sites. She is working with world reknowned authors in the same genre, who are all seeking to stop the desecration before the sites go the way of the Bamiyam Buddha. She is an activist for this cause, and duly noteworthy for these reasons...I say let the page stay... Nandi
  • Keep --Nick Boalch ?!? 09:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 07:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24SevenOffice

Company with revenues of around $1m and 30 employees - well below the levels in WP:CORP. Nominated for deletion here, three delets and one rewrite taken as consensus keep and rewrite. Article creator admits they are an employee (a bad idea!). It has been suggested that this user is currently engaged in linkspamming (see here), and is internally linked from far more articles than I'd expect for such a small firm (here's the list) but the jury is still out on that. Anyway, as far as I can tell the previous AfD was mainly delete, and the article is "advertorial" in tone, and the company itself is of highly questionable notability. It looks to me like vanispamcruftisement. Creator asks what is the difference between this and salesforce.com - the answer is that salesforce.com has a market capitalisation of over $4bn and is quoted on the NYSE (ticker CRM). Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.--nixie 10:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My vote is not objective though - I work for 24SevenOffice. The article is about the application not the company. 24SevenOffice is the most comprehensive web based application available and I belive that makes it notable enough for an article. The company is very well known in Norway (I can provide an extensive list with press coverage) but have also gained international recognition. The application won an award at CeBIT. In this article 24SevenOffice is mentioned together with NetSuite as a successfull ASP/SaaS provider - this means that 24SevenOffice meats the criteria for notability as stated in WP:CORP: "The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."

I do not see why this article should be deleted when there are articles for the following:

I have done most of the editing on the article and I agree that is not a very good idea. If anything in the article needs to changed please do so. --Sleepyhead 13:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This argument is specious - existence of other articles for minor software of no verifiable importance does not justify inlcusion of all such. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion should you feel they fall below the level for inclusion. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated several similar articles for deletion. If the others are kept then the 24SevenOffice should be kept as well. There must be a general concensus which applies to all articles that are about products, websites or companies. --Sleepyhead 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I don't really care about the article itself, but I'm sick of having to revert the addition of a link to this article into other articles where it doesn't belong. As far as I can see, the authors worked out that a link to their homepage would survive a lot longer if they wrapped an article around it. Rufous 17:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly engaged in a promotional compaign, excessive internal linking and categorisation (see what links here), while the linking might be relevant it is not in accordance with the notability of the company when it puts itself on the same footing and in the same sentence as SAP or salesforces.com, the tone of the the article is adevertorial too, puts his link in the first position and removes his competition too, see here for instance Software_as_a_Service and its history--Khalid hassani 16:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Reason to be kept: WP:CORP states: "A company or corporation is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: 3. The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indexes 5 6. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." 24SevenOffice is listed on the OTC-market in Norway. The current market value is 122 000 000 NOK. --Sleepyhead 10:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The OTC-market in Norway. See this link. --Sleepyhead 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Press coverage today after signing partner agreement with Europe's larget network indepentend ISP; Active24: http://www.tmcnet.com/usubmit/-active-24-asa-signs-cooperation-agreement-with-24sevenoffice-/2006/jan/1273502.htm
I don't speak Norwegian, but that sure looks like a whole-market index to me. And the press coverage is apparently a press release, also specifically excluded under WP:CORP. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is a press release - but not our press release. The press release from Active24. --Sleepyhead 14:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not by itself, no. Attaining/buying/spamming links is easy and can be done by people within the company. Rufous 12:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand the effort to reduce the presence of what are essentially adverts from wikipedia. However, if the article provides tangible and useful facts about the software, and is written in an impartial manner, I see no reason why - as an encyclopaedia - we cannot include such articles. They have their uses. It is one of the few places where one can find publically editable information about an application. There seem to be those who would not allow any articles about software just because a traditional encyclopaedia would not include them. There are also those who try to quantify importance, often using 'Google hits' or other such indicators. I believe that this is wrong.
My opinion is... allow articles for Software - no matter how small, PROVIDED that the software exists (not vapourware), the article is likely to be of use to someone researching the software and that any editors known to be linked to the company behave responsibly with regard to link inclusion. Rob cowie 17:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That isn't what I said. Rob cowie 11:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think the company is notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia entry and the article seems a little bit biased to be written by only one author. Achen00 06:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Johnleemk | Talk 07:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Entertainment Corp.

Delete. I initially created this page. It seems that the title of the page does not go along with the Manual of Style. If a person was interested in Magna Entertainment Corporation they are better served by the replacement site I have created. To view this site got to Magna Entertainment Corporation. The creation of the new page renders this page effectively redundant Loucards 16:21, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 07:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Dee

NN DJ that claims notability, but none verified  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    16:46, 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. enochlau (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lee huang

Possible Hoax, no relevant Google links, and added bonus-article is in all CAPS  J\/\/estbrook   Talk  VSCA    16:58, 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. Johnleemk | Talk 08:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missile (Single - 2005)

The article is about some single, there are no references to the artist(s), absolutely nothing except for a list. This article is useless, I couldn't even find any info from Google...or AltaVista. --Thorri 17:33, 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) 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

USS Wyoming (NCC-43730)

this is a little known about ship in star trek. if anything it should be on memory alpha but not in wikipedia. Random articles 17:35, 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_January_7&oldid=34258716"