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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 17:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NightMist[edit]

not enogh info Melaen 23:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not notable. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-20 01:00:40Z
• delete NN (also, note this page blanked and replaced with copy of article by 66.170.8.8, which I've now reverted). Pete.Hurd 07:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Šinec[edit]

From WP:PNT. Discussion from there follows. Delete per Pavel. Kusma (討論) 00:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Found in the category. Croatian?, about a Croatian musician. Kusma (討論) 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the text is in Croatian xompanthy

• Hmm, a guitarist. What's interesting on him is the way he helds a guitar (says the article). Not even birthdate. Cruft. Pavel Vozenilek 01:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per me. Pavel Vozenilek 01:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Vozenilek. Grandmasterka 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guler[edit]

Appears to be complete bollocks. Only Google hit returned for "Guler Kingdom" is this article. Delete as nominator. Hynca-Hooley 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Hoax. No Guru 00:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as very bizarre complete bollocks. Almost reads like something out of some SF alternate history universe. Mythical country with impossible history. Slightly different version of it appears here [[1]] attributed to a Stanford professor who doesn't seem to actually exist. Fan1967 00:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination Jedi6 00:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unverifiable possible hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:V and WP:BALLS. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Pavel Vozenilek 01:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Ziggurat 02:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Original research, {{hoax}}.  (aeropagitica)  06:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as hoax and nonsense. --Terence Ong 10:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Adbarnhart 19:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Hoax. Eivind 05:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The Urbandictionary link Fan1967 found makes this a copyvio. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about that, as a good deal of Urbandictionary seems to have been copied from WP Fan1967 21:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax. -- Alpha269 17:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rather complicated, really. Citing this discussion (yay!), I have moved the AfDed article to 1978 American League Championship Series, and changed the resultant redirect into something more appropriate. Note that none of this required AfD. To Hell with "process". If anyone reckons an article title should be redirected, but doesn't want to blank the content, they're quite capable of performing the move and altering the redirect themselves; the only reason I'm doing it is because some silly sausage brought it to AfD.

Note that the current 1978 ALCS article is lacking a lot of context and could do with a fair amount of cleanup. Whelp, that's some work for you all to do. Your time starts ... now. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Massacre[edit]

This article describes the 4 game sweep of the Red Sox by the Yankees in the 1978 World Series. It was prodded but after less than 10 minutes another editor blanked the article and redirected to the historic Boston Massacre. I don't know if the baseball content is original research or is worth merging to a better sports article, but completely blanking it seems totally out of process. At the very least someone should have a chance to see if the content is worth saving in some form. My vote on the baseball content is Abstain. Thatcher131 00:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect page to Boston Massacre. Merge content to 2004 World Series. I added a d.a.b. link on the Boston Massacre page already. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about Boston's loss in the 1978 World Series 1978 ALCS, not the win in 2004. Thatcher131 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into 1978 World Series article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.112.23.9 (talk • contribs) .
• Redirect page to Boston Massacre, merge content to 1978 World Series. Ziggurat 02:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Ziggurat. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boston Massacre and merge content with the 1978 World Series. create 1978 American League Championship Series and move content.Capitalistroadster 03:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boston Massacre; move content to 1978 American League Championship Series, since the series in question was not the World Series but the round before. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It may be worth noting that when contributions made in one article under GFDL are merged into another article, the attribution history of the merged text must be preserved. This is normally achieved simply by maintaining the history of the original page (once it is turned into a redirect). If we turn the redirect page to a third article, I'm fairly certain we'd have to find some way of crediting the contributors properly. In this case, I think the important action is redirect to Boston Massacre. An editor who additionally wishes to merge text into a suitable article on the 1978 Series may also consider doing the following:
  1. merge text appropriately in target article
  2. copy the history of The Boston Massacre, and paste it in the Talk page of the target article, with a note explaining that "text written by these contributors has been merged into this article" or some such. Link to the history page.

It might be a good idea to check for copy vio; large chunks of this article were uploaded in single edits. However, I couldn't find anything through a quick google search. —Encephalon 08:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Boston Massacre. --Terence Ong 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Boston Massacre, but only after moving the page (w/ its history and talk) to 1978 American League Championship Series. ×Meegs 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If I understand the process, moving the current article to 1978 American League Championship Series will preserve the history as if the article had that title all along, and leave a blank redirect page at The Boston Massacre with no history. We can then change the redirect page to the historic event. I think that satisfies Encephalon's concerns. I change my vote from Abstain to Move per Meegs. Thatcher131 12:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're absolutely right Thatcher, we can do it that way too (note incidentally that the resulting redirect at The Boston Massacre actually would maintain something in its history log—a single entry stating that a move was performed. This is fine). The main issue is having the attribution history accessible from the target article, either in its own history logs, the talk page, or from a redirect that points to it. There are 3 or 4 ways to do these things; I remember writing a longish post on this somewhere way back when—I ought to reread it. ;-) —Encephalon 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC) NB. Looking at the AFD it appears to me that we're all agreed on the redirect; all that is left to do is determine a suitable target article to merge this text into. I don't see a problem with Capitalistroadster's 1978 American League Championship Series, so this is one more "vote" for the text to be moved there per Thatcher's excellent suggestion. —Encephalon 02:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Thatcher131. Chris Chan.talk.contribs 16:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into New York Yankees (although it would need to be pared down) - article is not about the 1978 AL Championship Series it is about the 1978 regular season. I also think it's a copyvio copy and paste job. No Guru 16:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move+Redirect per Thatcher131 unless copyvio. Carlossuarez46 22:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and Redirect per Thatcher131. Sorry 'bout the out of order redirect.Dragoonmac - ^{If there was a problem yo I'll solve it} 22:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ad Redirect per Thatcher131. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per above -- Alpha269 17:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D.S.G Justice[edit]

Nonnotable backyard wrestler, vanity, fails WP:BIO. Prod tag removed so send to AfD. Thatcher131 00:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Combination of PHWA and D.S.G. Justice returns a single link on google, which I believe is back to his own website. Non-notable athlete, of a non-notable league in a relatively minor sport does not deserve an article. Not my leg 00:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable wrestling bio; "...he hopes to beecome one of the greatest backyard wrestlers ever." Aspirational rather than a discussion of notability. WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  06:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN, self promotion, etc, etc,. --Bachrach44 18:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alpha269 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jango Jamboree[edit]

Since the {{prod}} tag was removed from this page, I guess this bit o' vanity must come here. Denni ☯ 00:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vanity...definitely my favorite sin. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 02:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per article itself. Nothing verified, nothing gained. Ziggurat 02:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 03:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. --Blue520 06:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "...no information has been verified." Non-notable & non-encyclopædic. Leave it on myspace.  (aeropagitica)  06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. -- Alpha269 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brokat AG[edit]

non-notable Grocer 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If a few references could be added, the article would make an excellent addition to Wikipedia. —Eternal Equinox | talk 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. The article reads somewhat like a trainwreck, but notability is there. With a little cleanup, it will work well as a viable article.--み使い Mitsukai 05:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am a former employee of Brokat and edited many parts of the entry. I would like to know which wikipedia policy was violated.
• Keep, Brokat has been a notable company for almost half a decade. JIP | Talk 13:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I added a cleanup tag. No opinion on inclusion/deletion, but this article is crying for a complete rewrite for formatting, tone/language, and notability/sourcing. I'm in IT and while reading this I found myself wondering why I should care about this company or its products. I'm not trying to be offensive to the author, but you need to make a better case for why this company and their products are important. Also, adding sources for this information would be very helpful.--Isotope23 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just clean it up. --Krashlandon (e) 21:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Brokat AG. - Bobet 16:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twister (Software from Brokat AG)[edit]

non-notable Grocer 01:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I am a former employee of Brokat and created this entry. I would like to know which wikipedia policy was violated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wroemer (talk • contribs) .

Some people here use notability guidelines as a logical extension of WP:VAIN (since it's unlikely that an unconnected observer would know about something that's genuninely non-notable) and/or WP:OR (since things which are non-notable can not be documented to encyclopedia standards). Others who believe in notability might cite WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information or the "self-promotion" clause of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. I hope that this explanation makes sense to you. -Colin Kimbrell 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Brokat AG. Jedi6 07:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Jedi6. There is still room in Brokat AG for a brief description of their products. JIP | Talk 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I concur. Merge into the Brokat AG article, after it's cleaned up. -Colin Kimbrell 16:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.--Isotope23 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Jedi6. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge.--MaNeMeBasat 15:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surjan Singh Bhandari[edit]

non-notable bio Grocer 01:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Only 559 Google hits, but that's English Google. It's verifiable, and I'd say the award confers notability. --djrobgordon 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable and verifiable. Monicasdude 04:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But rewrite slightly as it sounds a little like a memorial in places. Jcuk 10:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Needs some cleanup, but I think the award confers sufficient notability. -Colin Kimbrell 16:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jcuk. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the others. Piccadilly 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per others. (Arundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the others.--Dwaipayanc 15:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 01:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Degenerate[edit]

Redirect created as personal attack. Editor has done other vandalism. Crumbsucker 01:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 21 (U.S. series)[edit]

Has been proposed for deletion several times, it seems to be back at the top of the log yet again now. Original reason for PROD still stands-- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Hynca-Hooley 01:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Crystalballism, all pure speculation, just the authors favourite songs. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 01:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Oh dear god, we have all the others. I fear for civilization.  ·  rodii  ·  01:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not a crystal ball. Ziggurat 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Total crystal-ballism. Cnwb 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think the fact that the article itself states, "this is a prediction list," is ... yeah. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 03:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Schizombie 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know if this is of any use, but Amazon has the album cover on it's site. [2] May it be worth just altering this page to the artists featured on the cover?
• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (*), albeit with only known facts included, and *totally* rewritten. It has a projected release date, and cover. Whilst this in itself isn't enough to justify keeping it, the thing'll be released very soon- at which point someone will probably make it a proper article. Hardly seems worth deleting (and possibly dealing with the problem again). Fourohfour 15:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (*) Comment: NB This assumes that Now! albums are individually notable. I wasn't convinced of this personally; however, since my attempts to get concensus via both Wikiproject albums *and* an RfC didn't attract sufficient interest, and since the number of (and work done on) articles has grown quite a lot since then, it seems that the time for objection has passed. Fourohfour 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was the one who originally tried to PROD this, original reason still stands. Petros471 22:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bitty[edit]

Delete Catchphrase of a TV show, belongs in the playground not in Wikipedia Gsd2000 01:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day, even if the school in this case is fictional. Delete.--み使い Mitsukai 02:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's not from a fictional school. The character in question is a fully grown man. Regardless, it's a short-lived sketch, and not notable enough for Wikipedia. Cnwb 03:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete neologism, not notable Schizombie 05:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another TV-created neologism/portmanteau that isn't notable. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn catchphrase among many phrases from a notable sitcom. Will probably never be notable as it's among the weakest sketches on Little Britain. MLA 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non notable catchphrase. In Finland, tea is drunk, not eaten. JIP | Talk 13:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep Very common word used nowadays in Britain and if this fails the Google test I just won't believe it. J.J.Sagnella 18:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

J.J - Wikipedia Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Gsd2000 22:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked myself in Google and for that reason i must change my vote to Delete J.J.Sagnella 07:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 10:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A big fan of the show, but unless the word has become common parlance, I say delete 66.95.139.107 16:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Skiffle music. Rynne and Zoe are most persuasive. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skiffle bands[edit]

Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Of the entire list, only The Quarrymen and Tommy Steele are internal links. All external links appear to be mirrored from skiffle.net/links, the main page of which is already linked on skiffle music. Delete as nominator. - Rynne 01:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Change to Redirect to Skiffle music.--み使い Mitsukai 02:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skiffle music. Cnwb 03:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skiffle music. Capitalistroadster 04:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of Skiffle Groups, and verify per lists such as List of British hard rock and heavy metal musical groups or performers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcuk (talk • contribs)
• Merge to Skiffle music with redlink deletion. Ewlyahoocom 18:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of skiffle groups. No similar list of such groups exists on the Internet, and is thus a valuable resource. External links exist for the purpose of giving the reader more information about each group (since most bands do not have their own Wikipedia article), information about which is available generally only on German language websites that are difficult for English readers to negotiate. Badagnani 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most of the linked sites aren't written in English anyway. If English speakers can't negotiate the German links page, then the linked websites in German, Swedish, etc. are going to be completely useless ([3], [4], etc.). Furthermore, the links to English pages are all for modern skiffle groups which fail WP:MUSIC ([5], [6]). This list of NN and non-English websites is not a resource which is necessary or useful to Wikipedia. - Rynne 01:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not completely useless. Please speak for yourself; I do not speak German myself, yet these sites are useful to me as a Wikipedia user. Babelfish allows one to translate texts from German to English and I have also emailed some of these groups in order to gain more information about this style of music. You're correct that most, if not all, skiffle groups, as performing a music that is not of mass interest in popular culture (i.e., it doesn't sell large numbers of records), might not be "notable" enough to merit their own articles here; this is all the more reason why the genre deserves special treatment in our encyclopedia, as information about the genre is very difficult to find elsewhere. We are building something that will have information on all genres of music, not simply the ones that are most popular at a given time. Badagnani 06:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of skiffle groups, per Badagnani's rationale. Adbarnhart 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to List of skiffle groups, per Badagnani's rationale. dadwasp 20:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: dadwasp has made only two edits: this discussion and Skiffle bands (Special:Contributions/Dadwasp). - Rynne 02:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skiffle music. See no need to merge any of the content. -- Krash (Talk) 01:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skiffle music. If this article were actually a list of Wikipedia articles, then the rename option would be appropriate, but this is a list of external links, something specifically considered inappropriate at WP:NOT. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This statement is inaccurate. This is a list of all skiffle bands in the world that are known about, supplemented with links. You do not come out and say "delete all the bands" in the redirect; is that what you mean? Why not just say it? I must admit that it is very upsetting that another Wikipedia editor would simply vote to throw away such a large amount of effort that went into collecting these band names and locations; it's not something I would ever do to you or another editor. And are you not aware that there are Wikipedia articles with lists of bands in many other genres? Why is skiffle being singled out for deletion? As mentioned above (which no one has addressed), roots musical styles are often culturally and historically significant, while commercially unsuccessful (meaning most bands will not meet WP notability requirements for their own articles). It does not mean that the content about the bands should be deleted. Badagnani 20:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry you went to all the trouble, but collections of external links are not appropriate Wikipedia content. If you want to write articles about all of those people, and they pass WP:MUSIC, then a List of Skiffle bands with links to the Wikipedia articles is a valid article. But a list of external links is not. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the genre. If you think there are other lists of bands that are only external links, please let me know on my Talk page, and I'll nominate those for AfD as well. User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is inaccurate. It is not a list of links but a list of skiffle groups around the world, which contain links to their websites, to assist users in finding out more about them (as these sites are often not easy to locate). It is very disturbing that you seem to gain gratification from trying to destroy the contributions of another editor. And, even worse, that you simply ignore what I had said above about skiffle being a roots musical form that is not well understood, and deserving of coverage here (in the same way that lists of numerous other musical genres have articles here at Wikipedia). I would not treat another editor here in such a way. Badagnani 05:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of martyrs[edit]

unmaintainable, potential POV-war flamebait. The truth is, while many of the people on this list could be seen as martyrs, many may disagree with that. It also invites vast controversy (9/11 hijackers - terrorists or martyrs?), as well as possible loss of control by people adding pop-culture "martyrs" (Tupac Shakur, et al). み使い Mitsukai 02:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This list is not consistent with the traditional view of martyrdom and is totally POV. Capitalistroadster 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete High potential for flamewar, per nom. There are already names listed who do not meet the Merriam-Webster definition of 'martyr' (for instance, Matthew Shephard died neither "voluntarily" nor "for the sake of priciple"), unless you use definition three which defines 'martyr' as a synonym of 'victim', in which case,... just delete this list as inherently POV. --CrypticBacon 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an actual list of martyrs would be useful, but that's not what this is. A martyr is a person who willingly dies for a cause. Most of these people were assassinated. --djrobgordon 04:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A martyr is whatever a martyr is defined as being, to risk being circular. The page doesn't define martyr. Not sure about this one, but leaning towards delete as NPOV. Schizombie 05:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The list will be perpetually incomplete even if it grows to enormous lengths as the categories are too general and tend towards POV. One person's martyr is another's terrorist, so WP:NPOV violations are inevitable. Could see an argument for splitting the list in to seperate articles such as 'list of Christian martyrs', 'list of Muslim martyrs' an giving strict criteria for inclusion so as to reduce possibility for NPOV bias.  (aeropagitica)  07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-ish Needs total reorganization based upon the existance of multiple sences of martyr. It should consist of a short list of real martyrs, with possibly an even shorter list of famous ones first, followed by a much longer list of notable people who have been refered to as martyrs. JeffBurdges 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even as a rather apolitical person who hasn't even heard of 1/3 of the people on the list, I can see myself taking issue with about 5 of people there. (There are also several notable omissions). The crux of the issue is of course the fact that there are variable definitions of who is and isn't a martyr. This makes the page a NPOV violation and a massive flame war and vandalism target. --Bachrach44 18:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, CrypticBacon, and Bachrach44. I expect that maintaining this list and keeping it up to encyclopedic standards would be difficult, to say the least. Also, no way to keep it NPOV, given disagreements as regards qualifications for martyrdom. ergot 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only use I see is to have it as honeypot for warriors. Pavel Vozenilek 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Krash (Talk) 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the real martyr here would be whichever poor editor tried to maintain this list ;x . — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, the list will perpetually remain incomplete.--Dwaipayanc 05:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete, protect and block perpetrator. The only good thing is that we have been free of this for three months and they will eventually run out of variant titles. See Special:Whatlinkshere/St. Noels Parish Hall for the background. -- RHaworth 03:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Noel's Parish Hall[edit]

Delete. No context. Personal references. Wickethewok 02:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)WickeThEwok[reply]

• Delete. Does not establish notability. A Google search reveals very little. Cnwb 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob P Secrest[edit]

Non-notable and possibly autobiographical. 523 google hits, a number of which are for an unrelated college football player. There's no corroboration for the Zero Wing story DMG413 02:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Nobody[edit]

Non-notable musician. Prod tag removed by User:69.164.231.195 with the edit summary "Just because he is an underground musician doesn't make him unnotable" Cnwb 03:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Guess who made the article. --SYCTHOS^talk 04:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per comments from lightdarkness.  (aeropagitica)  07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• But failing WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MUSIC does, sadly. Del. —Encephalon 08:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hes a nobody - lol. Defunkier 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• But there's Nobody to delete, so we can't delete this! Let's try anyway. Delete. JIP | Talk 13:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 14:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable --Bachrach44 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Detroit has a completely kick ass noise rock scene but unfortunately Mike doesn't have enough WP:V info out there to meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 19:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:MUSIC and insert requisite "nobody" joke here. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He is a nobody afterall --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico Avenue (Washington, D.C.)[edit]

Non notable small road Delete --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Oddly humorous, but not notable. CrypticBacon 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – no notability asserted, or that I'm aware of. Expect a lot more of these stemming from recently-kept red link farm List of state-named roadways in Washington, D.C.. ×Meegs 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn small road. --Terence Ong 14:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We seem to be keeping all roads - from Ohio Drive to Kentucky State Highway 2259. Why should we single this one out for a higher sandard of notability? --Bachrach44 18:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no notability asserted Dlyons493 Talk 18:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree with Bachrach44. If Kentucky State Highway 2259 is noteable, so is this. If every train station is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, then we can hold on to Puerto Rico Avenue. NoIdeaNick 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment state routes get kept, this normally don't --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Bachrach44 and NoIdeaNick Keep Eivind 06:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The roads named after states and territories form a small set of "notable" roads. This one in itself is rather "non-notable" except for its presence in the set. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per SPUI, likely to be searched for, no reason to disappoint. Kappa 04:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was given a speedy injection of admin deleting medicine for vanity, recreation of previously deleted material, etc. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 03:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beer Picnic[edit]

Non-notable band Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Recreation of deleted content, CSD G4! --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete qualifies under db-band. -- JLaTondre 03:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Per Speedy criteria A7. Cnwb 03:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: Speedy Deleted as a non-notable band. --InShaneee 04:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skex[edit]

Delete. The said band is not notable. Unlike most music vanity articles, though, the band likely exists. La Pizza11 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete per CSD A7. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 03:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - CSD A7 - nn-club --lightdarkness ^(talk) 03:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance O'Sullivan[edit]

delete not notable enough Mayumashu 03:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the last sentence indicates a vanity article. --djrobgordon 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless unverifiable. Listing by multiple independent sources as leading figure in his profession ought to be sufficient to demonstrate notability. Article certainly asserts notability. So fix it. Monicasdude 04:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for vanity and notability. Leroy Jenkins 07:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it seems that the man is at least somewhat well known in the area in which he works. Certainly could use some work, but very salvagable. TheConsortium 08:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vanity and nn. --Terence Ong 11:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unremarkable vanity. -- Krash (Talk) 01:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep only if verified / cleaned up. If it comes back to AfD in a few months, delete. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete nn Brcreel 04:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's a copyvio (actually I can't believe no one checked this) from [7] with about 3 words changed and a sense of humour inserted. Unfortunately we didn't catch it quickly enough to WP:SPEEDY it away. Cursive 23:42, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by User:The Epopt; list at DRV if this is a problem. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JT Woodruff[edit]

already speedy deleted twice, extremely short nn-musician-- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This musician is apparently notable and the speedy deleters seemed to be a little quick on the trigger finger. Please check out Hawthorne Heights and this Google search. In the future, I suggest administrators do a little research when a claim of notability is made in the article, even if it is a stub. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A notable band does not a notable musician make, hence why there's so little to say in this article. For the most part, especially for newer bands, anything that needs to be said about them can be said on their band's page. --InShaneee 03:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I don't see the logic in this. There are many musicians who are notable simply because they are in a band. In fact, that is one of the best ways to become famous: start a famous band. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is very true. However, I don't think this guy is one of those people. I've heard of Guns 'N Roses, and I've heard of Slash and Axel Rose. I've heard of Hawthorne Hights, but I couldn't name a single member, and I think as of now (aside from the band's hardcore following), that's pretty typical (for reasons enunciated by the voter below, most likely). --InShaneee 04:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not because the musician isn't notable, but becuase he hasn't had a career independent of Hawthorne Heights, and I therefor find it doubtful there's anything to put here that isn't already in that article. --djrobgordon 04:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Hawthorne Heights unless he does something of note outside the band. His credits on Allmusic.com shows that he hasn't done much outside the band [8] and the current article is a substub. However, he is a person who is likely to have people search for information on so we should have him as a redirect. Capitalistroadster 04:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JHMM13. Subject notable, article needs work. So fix it. Monicasdude 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Burke[edit]

Delete This 15 year old chap is apparently "famous" for his language abilities and the revolution he caused in Russia in 2006. Did I miss that? Avalon 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Probably a hoax. --djrobgordon 04:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are some Google hits for "Danny Burke" Russia revolution but nothing verifying this. [9]. Google News is totally unaware of it [10]. Capitalistroadster 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as likely hoax; even if it is real, he hardly seems notable per WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. There was a similar article up for AfD recently that made similar claims regarding Zimbabwe. MLA 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax. --Terence Ong 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxiest hoax that ever hoaxed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor attempt at a hoax. ergot 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very poor attempt at a hoax, apparently by someone who believes Russia is still a communist country. Fan1967 19:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just plain Crap. --Z.Spy 00:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Complete bollocks. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hoax. Eivind 06:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Dekete as per above. Hoax --† Ðy§ep§ion † ^{Speak your mind} 07:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete this one it because it is a hoax Yuckfoo 00:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax -- Alpha269 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 05:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Koizumi family[edit]

Vanity Page Bladeswin 03:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it's not a vanity page, as most of the people listed have legitimate articles of their own. --djrobgordon 04:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. This article is legitimate and functionally no different than one on the Bush family, save for length.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per above Jcuk 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Junichiro Koizumi, where it can bloom into its own article or wither away. Ewlyahoocom 18:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. I just tried to format it better, but wasn't really happy with the results so I'll let someone ellse do it. -- Krash (Talk) 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not vanity. Legitimate topic for article. Fg2 03:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per Ewlyahoocom. Harro5 22:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please this is a legitimate topic Yuckfoo 00:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve. Scranchuse 21:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, don't merge. Kappa 04:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henley and Thames[edit]

Non-notable; a hoax, perhaps. Poorly written, no refs. +sj + 04:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nonsense and I'm not going to assume good faith here as the references suggest it's someone who thinks they're clever/funny because of the university they attend and the sporting club they're a member of. The made up in school one day guidelines need to cover university/college students explicitly. MLA 10:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense and hoax. --Terence Ong 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete {{hoax}} Channel 5 didn't exist in 1986!  (aeropagitica)  17:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as {{hoax}} per above.--み使い Mitsukai 19:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. name is possibly usable as a redirect to Henley-on-Thames. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn -- Alpha269 17:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. - Bobet 16:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agnostic Pedestrian[edit]

Previously prodded. Delete as a nn-club. Or possible hoax. No significant ghits. ---J.Smith 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unverified and not notable regardless. CrypticBacon 04:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and CrypticBacon. Schizombie 05:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so very non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn, or hoax. --Terence Ong 11:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and everybody else. GRuban 14:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Chairman S. ^Talk 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this clearly looks like a hoax--Khalid hassani 15:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoax or non-notable Jfiling 20:02, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Alpha269 17:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Town Meeting Season in Merrimack, New Hampshire[edit]

This article can never become anything more than a stub on a non-notable town meeting. Non-notable in its own right. Ral315 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Ral has a vendetta against me, so he takes it out on articles I have to do with. This is an annual town election, just like any other, the winners of it will become notable, why not the election they're involved with. Karmafist 04:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No vendetta here. But it's a non-notable article. I could write a similar article about thousands of cities across the world, and I feel that the subject is non-notable, and can't be expanded beyond a basic voter's guide (and, after the election, a news article reporting the results). I find your assumption of bad faith here disturbing. Ral315 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I find disturbing is that you don't write a similiar article about the thousands of elections occuring like this across the world instead of just blithely slapping a tag on it despite the fact that you likely don't care either way. Karmafist 05:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I do care. I would have nominated this whether it was you, or an IP. I would not write such articles, because I know they don't fit notability. My city of 75,000 people, and the neighboring city of 200,000 people, don't even have articles on their respective mayors- not because they couldn't be written, but because they're not automatically encyclopedic. Ral315 (talk) 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's where we disagree. Anyone elected to any public position is notable, as well as elections that elect them. I've put a transwiki to Wikibooks already, just as a backup in case this afd continues the way it's going. Karmafist 06:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. Dogcatcher is an elected office in some localities[11] -- should we also include those elections? Ewlyahoocom 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as non-notable Merrimackcruft. Would be appropriate for Wikimerrimack if there were one; Karmafist should make that part of the platform! But good luck in the election! (Stricken in light of recent comments.) Schizombie 05:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's alright, i'm a darkhorse in any case. But if caring for my town and trying to help its voters get some NPOV and V information costs me the luck of someone, I'm willing to accept that. I'm sorry i've offended you, that was not my intent. Karmafist 13:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Smalltownelectioncruft. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. CrypticBacon 05:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The winner of the elections will not automatically become notable. The method of city government is worth a mention on the town's article. Discussion of the elections for a particular year is probably of interest to residents but not many others. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from WP:BIO

Major local political figures who receive significant press coverage. The question is, what is "significant"? I can almost guarantee 4-6 local papers will be covering the results, along with possibly a few radio stations and WMUR. Is that significant enough? Karmafist 06:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to say no. Significant, as I interpret it, refers either to national coverage, or extensive regional coverage (i.e. days of coverage at the state level). Ral315 (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a community noticeboard. --Carnildo 06:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local politics, not encyclopædic in scope & an expectation of notability for candidates is not the same as notability itself.  (aeropagitica)  07:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. I dont know much about american politics. Would the winner of the election be equivalent to a British MP, or more like a Councillor Jcuk 11:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, a councillor. Ral315 (talk) 11:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unencyclopedic. Hello, we are an encyclopedia, not some notice board. --Terence Ong 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy as legitimate background information of a Wikipedia user. Unless the town gets significant media attention (as the school board did a while back IIRC), it is not notable. NoSeptember ^talk 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete who cares! Guys running shouldnt create stuff even if its not an ad for them. Defunkier 13:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence of notability outside the locality of Merrimack, New Hampshire.--Isotope23 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was elected a student council representative in 6th grade, where's my article? But this isn't even an article, it's an indiscriminate collection of junk that's being defended. Grandmasterka 17:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per NoSeptember. youngamerican (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We keep this up and eventually we're going to have to keep track of articles on Congressional and Parliamentary elections and...oh, wait. We already do. My bad.--み使い Mitsukai 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely unimportant as written. Perhaps a rewrite and rename could create a meaningful article on something to the effect of government affairs in Merrimack for 2006, but even that's dubious . Cool3 20:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local politics, local political meetings, local political clubs, local schools, local churches, are not inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 22:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn per nom. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, do not userfy. What's next? The minutes of my mother's TOPS meeting this morning? User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: individual sittings of a town meeting are not inherently notable. Jonathunder 21:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Scm83x ^talk 11:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Badgerpatrol 14:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• De-freakin'-lete. C'mon Kf, you've gotta have better things to do with your time here on WP than this or, maybe not. hydnjo talk 01:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Alpha269 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Votes by users with no previous edits were disregarded. Postdlf 00:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control Monger[edit]

Non-notable. GameSpot, GameSpy and IGN show nothing on this game. It seems the game hasn't even been out for very long, as the article was previously deleted in December, when the game was "coming soon". Drat (Talk) 04:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Not sure how to use this as Ive never used Wikipedia to contribute, but Id say to keep this listing. From what I have seen, it is the same as many other created games which seem to be on here. Some of which are less known, but have never been brought up on this issue. An example that came to mind was Blade Mistress, a rather simplistic FREE multiplayer game. Considering it is a free game, this entry has grown over time thanks to the players of the game.

Cheza 21:43 CST March 05, 2006

• • That other "less worthy" articles are still here is not really a good reason to keep this one, but rather suggests that perhaps those other articles shouldn't be here either.) —Wrathchild ^(talk) 13:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn. --Terence Ong 11:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I get 25,000 hits on Google for the game, including reviews on quite a few game sites. Is there Wikipedia consensus that GameSpot, GameSpy and IGN are somehow "the places" that determine a game's notability? GRuban 15:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. A freeware independently produced video game is very rarely notable. Most of the hits I see for it are for download sites which list just about anything anyone uploads to them. Same with the review sites; they'll review anything. Doesn't mean anyone actually plays it. http://gameinfo.wikicities.com/ might be interested in it though. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This game does not appear to pass WP:SOFTWARE. If we could find some sources that prove its notability, I would be more than willing to change my mind. Isopropyl 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 00:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Alliance Video Game[edit]

Delete. All information actually contained under more accurate name of X-Wing Alliance Thefourdotelipsis 05:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and blank the text as it is less informative than X-Wing Alliance.  (aeropagitica)  07:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Terence Ong 11:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 01:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic negotiation[edit]

An earlier deletion vote resulted in no consensus; all three 'keep' votes hinged on a rewrite. Over a year later, no improvement has been made; it's still a circular definition with questionable usefulness. Deltabeignet 05:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pending the lack of a complete overhaul with sources cited. I'm not claiming this is original research, but it kind of gives that impression. If it really is a notable topic, someone will come along and recreate it anyway. CrypticBacon 05:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete lacks of sources. --Terence Ong 11:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No, I disagree. Electronic negotiation (sometimes called automated negotiation) is a very hot research topic at the moment in the Artificial Intelligence, electronic commerce and multi-agent systems research communities. I promise I will personally try to rewrite it. The truth is that I need to delete a lot of the existing text for the result to make any sense at all. Of course, you will do as you please, but in my opinion deleting the whole entry would surely be wrong. User:Papertiger
  • comment the above editor has 4 edits, all involving this article, its AFD or its prior AFD. RJFJR 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to this comment: I have edited many more Wikipedia pages, but without having an account (so I was logged by IP). In general, I prefer to edit pages where a lot of specialised info already exists and I can use my expertise to build on that (e.g. the Game Theory site). Electronic negotiation really requires complete clean-up: I simply hesistate undertaking this task (I assure you I have an expertise in scientific paper writing, but anonymous writing is not my thing, usually). I could look at it when I have time, but no promises. Papertiger

• Weak keep I see potential for the article but it needs work. I added an econ-stub and tech-stub tag and did a little clean up. Not really in my area of expertise to add material. Question: is there an article we could redirect to? RJFJR 20:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable topic, the stub tags will help to get it cleaned up, also hopefully it can be de-orphaned. Kappa 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Postdlf 00:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzreich[edit]

Originally a {{prod}} candidate. This band seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Claims a discography, but also admits "currently recording its first professional demo." Wikimirrors aside, most search results are about other people with the name. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I think their existing albums are self-made. Most of the google results are either bulletin board fare or brief mentions in articles about their ex-guitarrist's church burning. He might be notable, but the band is not. ×Meegs 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 11:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 19:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They meet the following Criterea

Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city (or both, as in British hip hop); note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

They are the most prominent Chaos Metal band in Victoria

Has won or placed in a major music competition.

The Push Start Battle of the Bands is the largest Battle of the Bands for Amaetuers in Australia. They came second in their heat

Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that page.)

They have performed on Channel 31, a Public Access Television show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.159.4.4 (talk • contribs)

• Comment; the key point of that last one being "a work of media that is notable," which, by definition, public access shows do not. ergot 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And Delete. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. ergot 00:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most prominant Victorian band in a NN genre, appears to have come in second in a Battle of the Bands qualifying round and not moved on, played on public access. Seems to fail WP:MUSIC to me. - Rynne 02:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nahilism[edit]

this is a great article and i believe that it does not need to be deleated!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.229.143 (talk • contribs) If this page needs to be verified, I can do this as I personally have heard of these people. It is just a new craze that the kids are creating as a way of distancing themselves from both parents, as well as their own peers. I do not see it as going very far as they think that religion is something that they can just create. I rank this up there with Scientology.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.150.229.143 (talk • contribs) Was de-prod-ed, original proposed deletion was {{prod|complete bollocks}} Blue520 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Posible Hoax, Has Verifiability problems (dosn't meet WP:V) --Blue520 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:141.150.229.143 please add your comments to the bottom of the discusion. Unless replying to posters comment, then it should go below that comment. Also please sign any recommendation or comment you add, by adding this at the end: ~~~~ --Blue520 16:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable unverifiable religion, and original research too. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Adrian as that's a nice, non-biting way to describe this article MLA 10:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per original research, unverifiable and most probaly a hoax. --Terence Ong 10:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Adrian Lamo.--Isotope23 15:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unverifiable, possible hoax. "Similar to Hinduism and Catholicism"??? Fan1967 16:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I had a friend in high school who made up a religion too. WP:NFT. --Bachrach44 18:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per the above admission, "It is just a new craze that the kids are creating," WP:NFT applies. Or blank and redirect as a misspelling of nihilism... --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Remaly[edit]

Zero Google hits, apparent hoax. -- Curps 06:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:V as hoax. Schizombie 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, reasons above. Can find no other info on this name. TheConsortium 08:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. --Terence Ong 10:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. With a history like that, you'd think the Web would be full of pages on him and his organizations. GRuban 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax. Adbarnhart 19:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, hoax. PJM 19:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This name sounds familiar, for some reason. Anyone check to see if this has been AFD'd before?--み使い Mitsukai 19:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete funny but still a hoax

71.162.176.52 02:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Globlogization[edit]

Delete as neologism. Peter Grey 06:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:WINAD Schizombie 07:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nnneo. CrypticBacon 07:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as protologism that probably won't catch on. Try saying it out loud... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. --Terence Ong 10:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neologism --Bachrach44 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:WINAD --MaNeMeBasat 15:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Metal[edit]

Delete, apparent hoax, not referenced by any other page Kymacpherson 07:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A neologism (see WP:NEO) verging towards a protologism, noted by the "i completely made this up off of the top of my head, sounded good at the time" addition by the article creator Sorm Metal 000. --Blue520 09:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsnese, hoax. --Terence Ong 10:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above MLA 14:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Blank and redirect to Metal Storm. People transpose words when searching, so this can easily be used to point a legitimate article.--み使い Mitsukai 01:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So stupid it made me laugh. Sending to BJAODN. dbtfz^talk 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Villa Grove Fire Department[edit]

Non-notable institution. (I would like to add that for a first-time user/editor, this is a very nice looking article.) CrypticBacon 07:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The fire department is a pretty important institution in a town, and probably as notable as any school. But this town is pretty small. Also, I don't think we need detailed info on the numbering of the fire engines. Trim and merge with Villa Grove, Illinois. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to delete after I saw that the contributor wants this copyrighted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think fire stations are as notable as schools. I don't happen to think schools are that notable and fire stations rank below them - I can't see police stations as being notable for the same reasons. MLA 10:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nn fire station. --Terence Ong 10:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio. At the bottom, it says "Copyright 2006 Chris Elston", which either means this is pasted from somewhere or the author doesn't understand the GFDL. Delete for that reason, but I do think fire departments are generally notable (better candidates for sections in their town article than having their own articles though). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as copyvio or otherwise abused copyright. ergot 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete local politics, local political meetings, local political clubs, local schools, local churches, and now local fire departments are not inherently notable. Those who favor inclusion of every one-room-schoolhouse can start to see the fruits of their inclusiveness. Carlossuarez46 22:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 01:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emblements[edit]

Moved to Wiktionary. emblement Gandalf 07:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is on the List of legal topics and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification/E2, no point turning it back into a red link. Kappa 04:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, article has potential to be much larger, expansion into historical implementation would add much to article. Wangfoo 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Despite the less-than-stellar arguments for deletion, it turns out to be a copyvio, so ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos Kambers[edit]

Delete - no evidence of notability of this person Xorkl000 08:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this ones a gem "He was one of the founding fathers of our association" - obviously the author does not have enough distance from the organisation. --Xorkl000 08:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nn-bio. --Terence Ong 10:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starbridge Networks[edit]

Non-notable corporation under WP:CORP -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete, nn company. --Terence Ong 10:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn company MLA 15:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable corporation. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by author request. enochlau (talk) 12:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Final Destruction Tutorial[edit]

Delete. I as the origional author have realised that this tutorial page shouldn't be on the main wikipedia, another user also pointed this out to me and suggested that I look at moving it to wikibooks, which I did. I beleive it should be deleted because it was a tutorial and didn't fit the wiki guidelines to be on the main page. - Faded_Mantis 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy no real content plus author's request MLA 15:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, please, per nom. GRuban 15:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. per nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:54, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Well, that much is super-duper-clear. We must merge! And merge right now!! But nobody seems to know where to merge it to, so I'll just leave it as-is until someone bothers to come along and fix it. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rastafarian movement in america[edit]

Was proposed for deletion at WP:PROP, original contributor has removed the template, so I am bringing it here for consensus. It appears to be a personal essay as it stands, but if someone can salvage the content should it be renamed to Rastafarian movement in the United States, or perhaps even merged with another appropriate article? RobertG ♬ talk 10:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Terence Ong 10:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Merge, clearly don't delete. GRuban 15:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into several existing articles, assuming it's not a copyvio. Grandmasterka 17:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Renamed, FWIW. Delete unless cleaned up and verified or merge if someone can appropriately tackle that task. -- Krash (Talk) 01:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazy Brown[edit]

Was proposed for deletion at WP:PROP. Template was removed, but article makes no case for why subject is notable. RobertG ♬ talk 10:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 11:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn MLA 13:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN. Webzine writer, works for a music marketing website with alexa rank way past 2 million. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn, vanity. GRuban 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn and boring - Pdean 15:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)  17:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete (see also WP:SNOW). Friday (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Bar[edit]

Reference to a month old forum -- Koffieyahoo 10:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn forum vanity MLA 10:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete forum vanity. --Terence Ong 11:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as forum vanity. JIP | Talk 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn-freeforum --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN forum, doesn't even have its own domain yet Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete. KnowledgeOfSelf 11:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl-Emil Kjellstrand[edit]

Only contains an e-mail address Evadb 10:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy no real content MLA 10:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed Evadb 10:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: {{db-empty}}, and thus tagged. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Heavens and New Earth[edit]

Seems to self-promotion of the editor's own book. Nothing new that is not covered in Christianity Evadb 10:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vanity ad. --Terence Ong 12:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity soapbox. -- Krash (Talk) 01:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vanity and POV. Nothing that isn't said better elsewhere. Fan1967 01:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RAAF No. 3 Operational Training Unit[edit]

Uncessesary redirect spoiling the Category:RAAF squadrons naming conventions. Entry was created as the result of a typo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dowling (talk • contribs) 2006-03-02 02:54:14

You can nominate redirects for deletion at WP:RFD, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (like this:~~~~), and you can delete this much more easily by just tagging it with {{db-author}} for speedy deletion under CSD/G7. Thanks for taking the time to improve Wikipedia, and for cleaning up after yourself too! : )

— Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Greer[edit]

Delete as non-notable vanity article(Author has confessed it as vanity article in talk page) under WP:BIO -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as nn-bio. --Terence Ong 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, WP:BIO. PJM 13:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable political candidate MLA 15:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per nom. pm_shef 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as NN candidate. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 16:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and note that the Vaughan contingent may attempt to sway this as precedent for keeping unelected municipal candidates there too. Bearcat 17:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Redirect redirect to Toronto municipal election 2006--Eyeonvaughan 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Mushroom (Talk) 13:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mad-Studios[edit]

Non-notable web forum / online fiction writers' club with "over 50 members". Weregerbil 11:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as db-club, and tagged thusly. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'll need to reread WP:CSD, wasn't aware there was such a thing as db-club. Thanks! Weregerbil 12:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per Adrian. --Terence Ong 12:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was As a painfully obvious Speedy A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BDD Clan[edit]

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was non-notable, advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nn clan vanity MLA 13:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vanity clan, nn. --Terence Ong 13:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as "clanity" or advert. PJM 13:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's a gaming clan. Duh. JIP | Talk 13:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nn-clan posting for recruiting purposes? Delete regardless. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable group. Gaming clans are almost always non-notable. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 16:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can pretty safely drop the "almost" there. They'd have to evoke a national scandal of some sort to become notable. JIP | Talk 17:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as yet another case of clancruft. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as non-notable online gaming group. Long non-notable articles are still non-notable. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chomskybot[edit]

Vanity IMHO. 130.126.220.138 18:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. I'd not be strongly opposed to a delete MLA 15:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Completely frivolous nomination; article is not vanity. This is a decent article about reasonably well-known, well-documented script that has been around for over a decade, and widely adapted to other purposes. This article has been here for nearly three years—would it be too much to ask for reasons for deletion a little more compelling than "Vanity IMHO"? · rodii · 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per rodii. Also because the term gets >15,000 Google hits, and there's no evidence the article was a vanity. --Aaron 20:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Undecided. I was pretty skeptical, but after visiting the FAQ linked from the article, it sounds like the program has a minor following. At first, this appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE, but it has been ported by someone other than the author. This chunk of code should probably be categorized as a "phrase generator", of which there are many examples that generate phrases in many fashions, such as creating Shakespeare insults. Perhaps a separate article called "phrase generator" could be made, and this page could be merged into it. Isopropyl 20:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Racks up the Google results but has anyone ever written anything about it that's not in a blog or forum? Cleanup the page a bit (the example runs long, certain links seem unencyclopedic). The article is certainly lots of things, but definitely not vanity IMHO. -- Krash (Talk) 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep as admitted WP:POINT, probable WP:SNOW; nominator states "this article does not deserve to be deleted" — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Gay[edit]

Due to the deletion of Hawkins, who is an Australian rules footballer that hasn't yet been drafted, I thought it would be a case of double standards that an as yet undrafted NBA player hasn't been deleted. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it deserves to be deleted on its own mate. Gay is a prominent college basketball player himself, and if guys like him are getting deleted purely because they're not a 'big name' guy yet, it does nothing but outline the apparent rubbish standards of this site.

Same goes for young Hawkins. Boomtish 10:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article does not deserve to be deleted, but hopefully it will raise awareness of the Tom Hawkins debacle. See Talk on WikiProject AFL. Rogerthat ^Talk 10:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously, guys, this isn't cool. Trying to make a point by listing an unrelated article for deletion is just throwing a grenade into a room. Don't do this.--Mike Selinker 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The article isn't great, but Speedy Keep, nominated in bad faith. -Colin Kimbrell 16:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as WP:POINT-violating nomination. Would be a keep regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Developers programming language[edit]

Delete. Simple clone of Brainfuck (essentially just replacing the way the symbols are interpreted), no citations, no categorizations, nothing, possibly made up just for Wikipedia, thus possibly counts as original research. Also it's not funny. // Gargaj 13:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unverifiable original research. Would add "unfunny" but that's not really a reason for deletion. Weregerbil 13:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. PJM 13:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research and per nom. --Terence Ong 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research, per nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 13:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, pathetically unfunny joke on the Brainfuck programming language. JIP | Talk 14:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as failing WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Turnstep 16:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unfunny duplicate page.  ;-) Silensor 21:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unfunny. Pavel Vozenilek 21:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• BJAODN. - Sikon 13:21, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Esolang-cruft. —Ruud 05:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demilich (band)[edit]

This page was previously deleted and has since been recreated, possibly in multiple locations (see [12]). I tagged it for speedy deletion under CSD:G4 (reposting previously deleted material) and CSD:A7 (article about a band not asserting the band's notability). This has been disputed by Johnson542 and additionally, I suspect the material is not a verbatim copy of the previously deleted material anyway. Delete, possibly speedy, per WP:MUSIC. See the article's talk page for further information. Stifle 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Keep, and thanks for the improvements. Stifle 18:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete: This is reposted deleted material from a unanimous proper Afd and should have gone through WP:DRV. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually the first AFD is moot. It made the common mistake of thinking that "two full length" albums on a major label is *the* standard of WP:MUSIC. That's actually just one of many criteria, that are allowed, and not the most relevant in this case. The AFD completely ignored the fact the band's music was used by another notable band. There was *no* discussion of what writing about the band existed (it's ok to reject some writing as trivial, but the AFD did not discuss the matter at all). Now, I fully understand the reason for original deletion. The article was horribly incomplete. But the fact an article was incomplete, doesn't mean it should never be completed. --Rob 17:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't say I agree with this. It's not a nom.'s responsibility to scour the Internet trying to find reasons to keep it. That's the author's job. The article looked like garbage and it was deleted. Unanimously I might add - meaning even the author didn't bother trying to save it. Go ahead and keep it now - I wouldn't have even nominated it the way it currently is - but don't blame me for getting it deleted it in the first place. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as CSD A7. --Terence Ong 13:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Can you elaborate? +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have recently become aware that the page was listed on WP:DRV here, after it had been recreated. I'm not sure where to go with this, as I don't believe in venue shopping. Stifle 15:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is the place to come if something exists and may qualify for deletion under the deletion policy. Unlike Deletion Review, which has some kind of numerical voting system, AfD operates by rough consensus. --Tony Sidaway 16:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I haven't followed the saga of this article's previous deletion, but I have a large metal collection which does include this album. The band was notorious in the 90s for having a vocal delivery style unlike any of its peers. Googling for "demilich" and "vocals" returns a lot of other album reviews that make reference to demilich, like these [13] [14]. Also note the band's page on the German wikipedia (link just added) Kymacpherson 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NON-NOTABLE BAND J.J.Sagnella 16:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Can you elaborate? +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has one released album (first released 1993 on Necropolis Records, rereleased 1996 on Repulse Records, rereleased again on Century Media, 2005). This obviously isn't a garage band, and the frequent rereleases, particularly the latest one on Century Media, who also signed Blind Guardian, Cryptopsy, Iced Earth, Nightwish and Lacuna Coil, confirm the band's cult status. Is currently signed to Morbid Thoughts Records, toured in the fall, and has a new album due for release this year, so I don't see how removing this verifiable information would improve Wikipedia's music coverage. --Tony Sidaway 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kymacpherson. Kappa 16:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as per all above Jcuk 16:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:MUSIC (separately these points are week, but together they're good enough):
  • "Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above." - A song of theirs was covered by Fleshcrawl [15]
  • "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable sub-culture."
  • "Has been featured in multiple non-trivial published works in verifiable media." - Links in the article --Rob 17:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and per reasons at DRV. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 17:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's verifiable, and they even come reasonably close to meeting WP:MUSIC. This isn't just some garage band. Friday (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. The original AFD nominator didn't show a complete grasp of WP:NMG by stating that a band should have 2 albums on a major label to pass. That's obviously not the case. The indy release and re-release, with another en route, plus the tour + press, is enough to squeak in. PJM 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. They've got a few U.S. shows scheduled, which for them is international, which makes them notable by WP:MUSIC.
• Strong Keep. The page was deleted in the past without weighing the evidence. It falls under the many of the requirements for non-mainstream music (note that a band is NOT required to have two albums, as stated by wknight94 in previous deletion, this is just one possible criteria for notability. The band does not even fall under this category. see WP:MUSIC. Band notability has been proven in the talk page for the demilich band site. +Johnson542 22:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Kymacpherson. Dysfunktion 22:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For the record, my original nom. didn't say two albums are "required" - it said that two albums is the standard. While the article is a vast improvement over what it was, I still maintain that if we had an article for every death metal band with a single album from a label that was so shaky that it went out of business, we'd be flooded with them. I have relatives who would have an outside shot... —Wknight94 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Good question. How many of them do we have about which a verifiable article can be written? If there are 10,000 such, let's start to worry when we have 10,001 such articles. But I strongly suspect that bands of this kind of pedigree are much thinner on the ground. In fact, looking at our category "Heavy metal musical groups", we seem to have barely 200, which is laughable. We really shouldn't be deleting articles about those that we have. --Tony Sidaway 00:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, 200 is very few. And Demilich have done more than release one album; they are currently on an international tour. (not to mention the fact that their one album has been rereleased on two major record labels). Is this enough consensus to keep the page?
      • Comment: As long as the articles are halfway decent ones (like this one has become), I agree with Tony Sidaway completely. But, perusing the http://www.metal-archives.com database, I could certainly live without quite a few of those. Like do we need seven articles to cover each of the death metal bands called "Cremation"? Or five articles to cover the "Crematorium"s? Anyway, this isn't the place for this discussion - I just wanted to make it clear that I do have a decent grasp of WP:BAND and the previous article for this band was definitely nowhere near it. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. So can I remove the deletion header on the page? Are you revoking your deletion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnson542 (talk • contribs) .
          • Just leave it there. Eventually, an admin will remove it. Also, this AFD doesn't "belong" to one person, so it's not as simple as one person ending it. There's three people who still indicated they want a delete. Anyway, the decision to do an early close is best left to an uninvolved party. The best thing you can do, is add as much relevant sources and information to the article. The only reason this was deleted in the first place, is that it was never completed. You can avoid future problems (like future deletion nominations) by completing the article. --Rob 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Per Rob and Tony Sidaway. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib)  –  March 3, 2006, 01:11 (UTC)
• Keep.[16] Get rid of the reviews maybe. -- Krash (Talk) 01:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Original deletion was really out-of-process; two-album rule is sufficient, but not necessary, condition for notability, and it's certainly not a standard to be accepted with Blind Faith. Monicasdude 02:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Out-of-process" meaning what? Were the three steps of Afd not followed correctly? Was it closed prematurely? Which part of the process was not followed? —Wknight94 (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but I feel the need to point out that Blind Faith was all notable prior to becoming Blind Faith. -- Krash (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was just pointing out that the 2 album rule doesn't always apply. +Johnson542 00:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Tony Sidaway. -ikkyu2 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balga Bogans Cricket Club[edit]

Non-notable sporting club. Three months old. Was prod'd, tag removed with comment "KEEP THE SITE! IT IS THE BEST" in Talk. Weregerbil 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn sports club. --Terence Ong 13:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, includes text written in first-person voice. Oh, and non notable sports club. JIP | Talk 14:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: A7. I don't even see an assertion of notability. "It all started one evening at Steve's place" does not count. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Per the "laughable list" comments, however, I will be moving the article to Political parties in Turkmenistan. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of political parties in Turkmenistan[edit]

Delete. Turmenistan is a single-party state. You can't have a list of one thing. We can recreate it when freedom and democracy come to Turkmenistan. —Felix the Cassowary | toːk 13:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom MLA 14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - though I appreciate the irony. Changing to Abstain per Crypticfirefly, below. If there are others, they should be documented somewhere, though even a list of two or three items isn't a very good "list" as such. "Lists" are usually 10 or more, no? Anyway, I don't know enough about the issue. GRuban 15:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - is user trying to make a point? Grandmasterka 16:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--Isotope23 18:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment Keep There was an opposition group called Unity (Agzybirlik) - banned in January 1990. Members formed the Party for Democratic Development - banned in 1991. This led a coalition called Conference (Gengesh), for democratic reform. So I think there's some scope for an article. Dlyons493 Talk 18:53, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment the title is misleading though - this seems to have been created as an article about political parties rather than as a list. Dlyons493 Talk
• As Dlyons493 said there were political parties (or groups) and they surely exists in underground. The article should be labeled as stub, incomplete, whatever until someone will add the details. This article could also cover period of Czarist Russia and the chaos after WWI. Pavel Vozenilek 21:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It does seem laughable to have a list of one thing. But I vote "keep" based on Dlyons493's comment and Pavel Vozenilek's observation. This one party is surely verifiable, the topic is "encyclopedic," and other information can be added. Crypticfirefly 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is not a vote! That goes for Kappa below, too ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I meant it in a figurative sense. Crypticfirefly 02:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Part of a series which should cover every country in the world. Piccadilly 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons above. Scranchuse 21:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Kappa

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperconnectia[edit]

11 google hits. Word made up in a blog. Article promotes creator's book. Joelito 13:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advertising vanity, we don't need neologisms here. --Terence Ong 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Terence Ong MLA 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per Nom. --Krashlandon (e) 21:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. David | Talk 14:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity[edit]

Unverifiable, hoax Renegade Master 14:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep bad faith nomination. Thatcher131 14:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This article is an utter joke!!! And I'm Jason Gastrich! --Renegade Master 14:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. David | Talk 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eternal (band)[edit]

Spam, blatant promotion Renegade Master 14:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. David | Talk 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Blair[edit]

Non-notable biography Renegade Master 14:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Focus (spirituality)[edit]

Confusing page, original to anonymous editor, tagged for cleanup since July 2005, no changes since that time Ewlyahoocom 14:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --Terence Ong 15:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ought to be relevant to various New Age articles. JeffBurdges 17:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's relevant to one New Age article is grossly wrong in another. Vague, badly-written defitinition of a word which may mean any number of different things. Define as needed within particular articles. Fan1967 19:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verified. -- Krash (Talk) 01:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yaplock[edit]

Tagged for speedy as non-notable software, which is not a CSD criterion. Bringing here instead. Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nn software. --Terence Ong 15:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--み使い Mitsukai 05:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as a G4. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BOCTAOE[edit]

neologism, deleted before [17] -- Koffieyahoo 14:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - CSD G4, Recreation of speedy material. Regardless it's neologism. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 19:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4.--み使い Mitsukai 20:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4 and lock the page. --Aaron 20:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy G4 and protect --Krashlandon (e) 21:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, tagged. Kusma (討論) 23:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]