Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 December 15: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:39, 15 December 2005 editAurochs (talk | contribs)1,116 edits Schnozz.net← Previous edit Revision as of 19:47, 15 December 2005 edit undoEsinkhorn (talk | contribs)6 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 181: Line 181:
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Rasely}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tom Rasely}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ELion}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ELion}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/J. Erick Sinkhorn}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social clubs}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Social clubs}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zorba the Hutt}} {{Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Zorba the Hutt}}

Revision as of 19:47, 15 December 2005

< December 14 >
Guide to deletion Centralized discussion
Village pumps
policy
tech
proposals
idea lab
WMF
misc
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.

Purge server cache

December 15

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Russel Winterfield

I cannot find any proof of this man's existence. If someone else can, please prove me wrong and I'll change my vote, but until then, my gut says this is a hoax. (As does the fact that he supposedly plays for 3 teams at once, and can "change his race"). אריאל יהודה 00:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Okay, this one was a toughie. Once one discounts the obviously silly bits ("Noah Feldmen lent his name!", "why should it be encyclopaedic?", and my favourite "keep if it's not a hoax, I know it's unverified"), and the anon who signed as a logged-in user but wasn't, there's not much left but arguments for deletion. Good arguments, like "it's not even on IMDb" and "there's no independent verification", the sort of arguments we like to see on AfD (as opposed to an unqualified "non-notable", which is the more common fare). So, delete. I am equipped with a talkpage if anyone wants to hurl rotten tomatoes at me later. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

American Zeitgeist

Non-notable (and unreleased) film. "American Zeitgeist" "Rob McGann" (Rob McGann is the creator) gets 10 google hits. Thue | talk 00:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - There isn't even an imdb article about it! 9cds 03:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - connects many other articles - like a disambig page, but about a nexus of other articles rather than their distinction. Airumel 04:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I fail to see how this acts as a disambig page. This is an article about a non-notable indie documentary that has yet to be released. Movementarian 06:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Thesquire 09:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per absence from IMDb. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:46, Dec. 15, 2005
  • Delete: With this capitalization, it couldn't disambiguate articles on a particular American zeitgeist: it can only refer to a particular film that has not been released and is not appropriate content. Geogre 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: all info has been submitted to IMDB, they take 2-4 weeks to process; film has already shown at one festival, will show at many more over next six months; the caliber of film's interviewees should demonstrate that AZ is a serious work, not a non-notable indie. Suchman 4:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • So you say. When IMDB has it, we can verify it. Until the film is 1) released, 2) reviewed, 3) has an impact, 4) discussed by someone not involved with it, it cannot have an article. Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Noah Feldman, prof at NYU law, wouldn't lend his name to bad project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.219.138.254 (talk • contribs)
The issue is not whether this documentary is good or bad, the issue is whether this documentary is notable enough for an article. Aecis 22:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

jcuk

  • Weak Keep. Obviously a serious documentary from the impressive list of interviewees (assuming this is not a hoax--if not in IMDb, how to verify?). But also smells like self-promotion. Billbrock 03:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • If it can't be verified, it can't be verified. Deletion policy is that unverifiable artworks, regardless of anything else, should be deleted. Geogre 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is verified that a sneak preview of the film screened at the Ohio Independent Film festival in November. This is a potentially important film that is just beginning to be shown domestically. User:Cinophile 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Barry Wood

Does not seem to be notable. Thue | talk 00:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Jcuk

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Columbia TriStar Home Video slogans

For the most part this seems to be unverified slogancruft (which is a form of listcruft). We do not need an orphaned list of slogans that doesn't tell indicate where the info for the slogans came from (that last part is more important after recent circumstances with Misplaced Pages). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bu-Cheng-Shi

This looks like a hoax - no google hits. Thue | talk 00:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Oakleaf

There is too much nonsense in this article. Probably a non-notable person. Thue | talk 00:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I read this and thought it was hilarious. It´s all true, the "Oakleaf Hype" is becoming a mainstream cultural phenomena in all of Scandinavia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petter-e (talk • contribs) 00:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Bold textThe magazine was established as print in 1995 locally, and Carol A Mann has appeared on local talk show "Think About It". The magazine Women of Color has only entered the online realm since August of 2005.

Carol A Mann

Carol A Mann has written articles on non-profit organizations about all the good that they do, has interviewed prominent newcasters, written short story "Candi Sweet" publishes her own magazine, written articles on "Tina Turner, Donna Summer", and Khani Cole, inside of the magazine Women of Color, No Doubt, Keith Sweat, Blackstreet to name a few. Advertising clients were Iman Cosmetics, Samaritan Health Services Phoenix Suns. The woman is phenomenal her newest venture is www.goodtimesports.com, and www.carolamann.com. I vote to KEEP !!! Was tagged as {{nn-bio}} by User:Spearhead. Asserts notability, so moving it here for a vote. Jamie 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I was the 2007th person to visit the website of her magazine established in 1995. Given this, I suspect it doesn't have a big circulation. However, I would vote to keep if notability could be established against WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: The magazine has a very popular phrase as its title, and yet the site does not seem to be flourishing. The print version of the magazine was not found in the university libraries online that I searched. The article looks like a tear sheet or CV for the author, and Misplaced Pages is not Monster.com. I wish her luck and success, as I'm sure we all do, but she is not yet an appropriate target for an encyclopedia biography, based on the material presented here. Geogre 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom; reads more like a CV. Jasmol 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Niru enterprise

Seems to be a non-notable company. Thue | talk 00:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Catherine Orenstein

Was tagged {{nn-bio}} by User:Spearhead. Not CSD, so moving here for a vote. Jamie 00:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete, non-redunant content Merged karmafist 22:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

DeCal

Orginization within a university; doesn't seem very notable nor important enough to have its own entry. Delete --Spring Rubber 00:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Followship

Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Thue | talk 00:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

What Is Joppa?

Non-notable website. 117 google hits. Thue | talk 00:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to AIM-7 Sparrow. --Titoxd 21:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Selenia Aspide

From WP:PNT, been there since December 1st. Discussion from WP:PNT follows... Jamie 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what language this is in. Seano1 06:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
It's Italian. Muriel R 14:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
"Missile A-A Air to Air (air air) employed from the F 104 S then modernizes you subsequently to standard ASA and then ASAM. Characterized from a guidance system of the type typical seed-assets of similar systems which Sky Flash and Sparrow (of which the viper it turns out to be a produced copy) can come employed is like missile air air that like missile earth air. In fact the Viper is the base of the system missile of national aerial defense."
  • redirect to "AIM-7 Sparrow". The Selenia Aspide is an upgrade of this missile "Improved versions of the AIM-7 were developed in the 1970s in an attempt to address the weapon's limitations. The AIM-7F, which entered service in 1976, had a dual-stage rocket motor for longer range, solid-state electronics for greatly improved reliability, and a larger warhead. Even this version had room for improvement, leading British Aerospace and the Italian firm Selenia to develop advanced versions of Sparrow with better performance and improved electronics as the Skyflash and SELENIA ASPIDE (caps mine), respectively"

Jcuk

  • Delete: It's a discussion of something at a wholly illogical title, and the article appears to be a discussion of an upgrade to missiles. I'm not sure how many of our readers actually have A-A missiles that they need to upgrade, but I hope they'll be able to get the information some other way. Geogre 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Jcuk. Redirects are cheap... Jamie 04:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by Harro5 as a copyright violation. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 15:50, Dec. 15, 2005

Verso Technologies

This is pure advertisement Stefán Ingi 01:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Beatriz.pedrosa (talk · contribs) has been spamming several articles with this firm. Stefán Ingi 01:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems this is a copyvio from , that page asserts copyright and the posting user makes no claim he is allowed to do this. Of course, this is probably someone from within the company who wanted to post this but that is pure guesswork on my behalf. Somebody more knowledgeable please come and explain whether this can be speedy deleted as a copyvio. Stefán Ingi 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. --Titoxd 21:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

VATBRZ

From WP:PNT since December 1st. Discussion from WP:PNT follows Jamie 01:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Portugese. Something about flight simulation or pilot training, or air traffic controller training. Solver 14:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
It looks like an advertisement. It is not worth keeping it. Carioca 05:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I can defend myself in Portuguese....an online virtual pilot simulation? I would delete...--Orgullomoore 07:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
This is about the Brazilian branch of the Virtual Air Traffic Flight Simulation Network. Not worth keeping as a separate article, should be redirected, possibly merged. JoaoRicardo 07:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Non-native speakers of English frequently use en Misplaced Pages. They may look for articles using thier native acronymn and upon not finding it, recreate the article. Redirects keep such things from happening. Movementarian 03:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm aware that non-native speakers use the project, and I'm not saying "English-only," but I think we're looking at too fine a subset of a subset (Brazilians who would look for this game in their own langauge and then recreate when not finding by acronymn). I think it's an empty Venn diagram, myself, and I don't see why we need to preserve the content in history. I won't cry if it gets redirected, but we're not doing anyone favors by doing so. Geogre 18:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete per VfD. - Mailer Diablo 12:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

All Things accordion

Advertising for a music shop

  • Delete Gazpacho 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. -- JJay 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete But the nomination reason is wrong: advertising may be neutered by a non-lazy wikipedian. The real reason is that it is nonnotable. mikka (t) 01:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is advertising, which makes it suitable for an AfD. Also, non-notable. — TheKMan 06:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Advertising is one of the criteria in the deletion policy, while, as the Schoolwatch people will repeat ad nauseam, "notability is not." It's always great when industrious AfD readers rescue articles by neutering the advertising, but an ad is a deletion candidate, and no one's going to be industrious with a minor shop's ad. Geogre 19:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Your last sentence is exactly my point: advertising alone is not a reason for deletion. Also, schoolwatch position is not "notability is not", but "all schools are notable". mikka (t) 21:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • copyvio --Rob 20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd rather guess it is not a copyvio, but a self-promotion. Who else would want to vio this copy? mikka (t) 21:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, you're partly right, the text probably came from somebody with the company, but that's meaningless. A typical promotional photo is released to the public to promote a person, yet we can only use it with fair use, and could never use it as GFDL. Releasing something for promotion doesn't mean its usable by Misplaced Pages (often explicit permission to use on Misplaced Pages, isn't even good enough). Now, if the copyright holder is a private individual, and that specific individual copyied the text, then that would not be a copyvio (as the upload would constitute licensing under GFDL). But we can't guesse if the uploader is the legal copyright holder (their employee/agent might not be authorized to donate corporate property). --Rob 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Well, duh. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sudo Nerd

Neologism; zero Google hits. choster 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:RHaworth as nonsense. Jamie 06:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Scottish hell

Delete: I can't find any references to the playright Fredorof (delete) or either play (see also The Constant Telgram, delete). I may not be looking hard enough, or it may be incredibly obscure, or it may be non-notable, or the whole thing may be winding us up. Hu 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. KHM03 02:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nonsense/vandalism. I did a bit of digging: the article creator's username shows nothing before yesterday. Only contributions were to create unverifiable articles nominated for deletion and the following contribution to hell:
"Matthew Kershaw wrote about his own personal account of hell in 1966's Northern Crusade. The account is of him being forced northwards, by a weird being and his relatives. Cats play a large part in the book, (little of this was incorporated in the film and play versions) with the most deeply sorrowful tall of a deceased cat that accompinied Matthew on his journey. The tale is perhaps an allegory for hell and heaven, his own appreciation of his life in the south being the stories final chapter."
This is all WP:Complete Bollocks. Amazon.com lists no author named Matthew Kershaw. The IMDB has no film titled Northern Crusade. The active Wikilink is to the historical Northern Crusade. I suspect that this is a sock puppet of User:Chris04, a username also minted yesterday, who created the related Scottish hell article and Core-based trees. I nominated the latter for a speedy as nonsense/vandalism because the article has nothing to do with the actual computing term core-based trees.
This also leads to unregistered user Special:Contributions/194.80.204.67, another contributor who has been a busy vandal. I'm undoing his/her damage atm and hope an administrator looks into the situation. Durova 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Note: The user User:Kingofengland, Contributions, who made the junk edit to hell referenced above, removed two "Call for Speedy Delete" from the related Fredorof page (calls by Pavel Vozenilek and Looper5920). Hu 03:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)



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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:RHaworth as nonsense. Jamie 06:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Fredorof

Delete: I can't find any references to the playright Fredorof or either play (see also The Constant Telgram, delete and Scottish hell, delete). I may not be looking hard enough, or it may be incredibly obscure, or it may be non-notable, or the whole thing may be winding us up. Hu 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedied by User:RHaworth as nonsense. Jamie 06:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The Constant Telgram

Delete: I can't find any references to the playright Fredorof (delete) or either play (see also Scottish hell, delete). I may not be looking hard enough, or it may be incredibly obscure, or it may be non-notable, or the whole thing may be winding us up. Hu 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Kudos to Jonathan de Boyne Pollard for yet another great rewrite. howcheng 17:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Core-based trees

Delete yet more nonsense from User:Chris04 (see Scottish hell). Hu 02:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) (see retraction below).

Note: The article has been entirely rewritten; this was the state of the article at the time of nomination.

  • Delete I'd still prefer to speedy this. It's part of a pattern of complete bollocks. Durova 03:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Keep per rewrite. Thanks for the fine work. Durova 09:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Formally, this article is original research, and possibly hoax vandalism. Informally, this article is, as it stands, complete and utter tripe. The formula that purports to show the probability of "rejection" of computer viruses based upon Planck's constant, and the idea of dismantling a computer virus "for the sap it provides", are both total rubbish. Durova has identified what core-based trees actually are. For sources that verify this, see the references at Talk:Core-based trees. I suggest that Durova, or anyone else willing, perform a quick rewrite, based upon the sources given on the talk page, and turn this into a {{compu-network-stub}}. Uncle G 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Complete Rewrite. If not rewritten, delete. The way the article is now is drivel. The few things it asserts coherently are ridiculous and wrong. Reyk 06:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not sure this bit of jargon is worthy of a stand-alone article — even the alleged real definition seems unintelligible to non-specialists. At any rate, this present gibberish will not help anyone write a valid article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since the article is complete and utter junk, it is not worth rewriting. Any writer would have to start from scratch. It is better to scrap it entirely until an able and willing writer arrives to write a proper article. Until then Misplaced Pages can manage just fine without it since the only link to it is a disambiguation page for the three letter acronym CBT. Hu 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite by Jonathan de Boyne Pollard. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda 04:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Azlea Antistia

Having attempted to research this subject, I've come to the conclusion that this article will just relist information found on both IAFD and IMDB. Azlea Antistia hasn't done anything notable, and is presently out of the industry. Therefore, I don't see any reason why Misplaced Pages should have an article on this subject. (And, as always, if something changes, we can always go in and readd the article.) Thus, delete. Joe Beaudoin Jr. 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. I've come to the conclusion that this article will just relist information found on both IAFD and IMDB. Misplaced Pages needs to restate info from other sources. Otherwise the article would not be verifiable.
  2. and is presently out of the industry. Being dead or no longer working is no reason to remove an entry. People may still want to look it up. - Mgm| 11:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Today's Azlea Antistia is tomorrow's 1970 Penthouse centerfold. Unless she has some reason for a biography other than her pornographic films or unless she is one of the few porn queens discussed in other media, we're talking about preserving a stage name, not a real name. I wish 200 porn films was a large number, but, with the video production of the porn industry now, it could represent two months of work in 15 shoots that have been recut and repackaged a number of ways. It is not sufficient to be "real" nor "verifiable": there must be something to discuss about the person. Geogre 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Agree with Zoe, actors with reasonably wide audiences and a large production are notable. Porn actors as well sadly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Mgm's very salient points. Disagree with Geogre, information is valuable in its own right - even when dicussion has ended. User:Paragon1976 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Who said she's out of the business anyway? Her own website states: "She got her start in the business to have some fun and has stayed because she loves it." wikipediatrix 21:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was redirect to Chess, with no apparent support for preserving/merging the content, thus delete, then redirect. Concerns regarding its usefulness should be handled by RFD. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:42, Dec. 25, 2005

Rank and file (chess)

Comment If that is true, you could have just redirected it to chess without much trouble. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ---- 23:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Thermodynamic evolution

Original research, self promotion of pet theory/book JPotter 01:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Thermodynamic+evolution%22&btnG=Google+Search. 585 hits in google, most nothing to do with the article. --JPotter 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: go help User:Sholto Maud write reasonable articles about ecology, and in particular, concepts like emergy and etc. that deal with these types of topics. However, the goal is to write articles on existing, notable topics, and not write lessons/essays or perform original research.linas 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. as original research. linas 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete OR. Karol 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research Brimba 04:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep and merge. Some of this article appears to be OR, some of it appears to be non-OR. There appears a problem in the conveyance of information about the history of physical biology, and physical ecology. Such a topic seems to attract those from physics who are not familiar with the basic works. Likewise it attracts those from ecology and biology who may not have a foundation in mathematical physics, and so cannot formulate proofs in the language of mathematical logic. As for the debate about the title, I'd like to draw your attention to the maximum power theorem entry because it has vertually no references at all (except for the one I put there, is it not therefore OR?), and yet seems to have been unchallenged, even though the use of the term 'theorem' in the title is in conflict with the definition of the word 'theorem' given in the theorem article. As I understand it, the maximum power "theorem" is defined as the "law" of thermodynamic evolution - so what is a thermodynamic law, and what is a electronic theorem? (Note also that Clausius identified the entropy "law" as a theorem).
  • Some historical context - The systems ecologist H.T.Odum tried to use the ideas of both Boltzmann and Lotka (referred to in the article) in his approach to ecological systems. Odum referred to a concept of biological "thrust" - such as the "thrust" of a tree as it grows and raises mass up from the soil, into the air against the force of gravity, and transforms it into an apple which then could drop due to the force of gravity and hit Newton on the head. Is this "energy-transformative thrust" analysable in terms of thermodynamics, and can we expand this beyond the consideration of the life cycle of just one plant (for instance), and extend it to the succesive genearational adjustments over the 'evolution' of a species of plant? Does evolution attempt to optimize biological and ecological thrust?
  • In the context of thermodynamics there is a massive issue, and it is with the notion of "neg entropy". This concept, was discussed by Schrodinger in the context of the physical definition of "life", seems to be equivalent to the concept of "exergy", and appears to be in contradiction with the first law of the conservation of energy, I.e. exergy algorithms are, in some instances, non-conservative. Consider a pregnant woman. S.E.Jorgensen in 2000 suggested that a preganant mother living in a big isolated room with sufficient food until she gives birth to her child will increase in exergy because the growing child has more exergy than the food she consumes.
  • How do we get around this issue, or introduce it here in WIkipedia?
  • My suggestion is that we consider merging the thermodynamic evolution article with the article on maximum power. However this does not resolve the issue of whether maximum power might be simultaneously considered both the 4th law of thermodyanmics and the thermodynamic law of evolution.
  • My conditions are that such an article be uncompromisingly rigorous, with deletion of any original reserach - lets stick to the history of the development.
  • but that those who object to this article commit to doing research in the area so that they can help keep the treatment rigorous, and so that they can contribute to the formal expression of these matters in terms of mathematical logic. Sholto Maud 10:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep for diambig and major rewrite. Many use system boundaries in conceptual ways when discussing thermodynamics, but slamming the big bang and the biome together just aint right. "Thermodynamic evolution" should lead to a disamb because the term is ambiguous and doesn't answer the question "evolution of what?" Most of this article should be titled "thermodynamics of biological evolution" and have a major rewrite to add specificity. The last bit should be titled "thermodynamics of the evolution of the universe" and would ideally be fleshed out more completely. These topics are mentioned elsewhere, but individual articles dedicated to them would be a good place for more detailed information for the thermodynamically inclined. Flying Jazz 16:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per ScienceApologist. The common usage of this term is to describe the evolution of a thermodynamic state, not the thermodynamics of evolution. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 09:51, Dec. 25, 2005

Dryrise

Vanity/unverifiable/unencyclopedic. KHM03 02:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete vanity page

  • Delete. Somehow i feel that their "shows" page is empty for a reason. Nazgjunk - - Signing is 11:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Looks like a hoax. The various puffs they mention are real (the channel, the show, the magazine, the producer), but there doesn't appear to be any verifiable act that matches those things. Therefore, delete for being unverifiable. Geogre 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm not sure how 1380 hits on Google counts as unverifiable....??? Jcuk
    • I couldn't verify the things stated in the article. I could verify that their name is on the web, but that doesn't verify the claims. It would really help if they were a signed, distributed band. Geogre 18:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Wiki policy states a musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, hip hop crew, dj etc) is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
  • Has been prominently featured in any major music media.
  • Does their appearance on Skuzz count?

Jcuk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng 17:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Quasistatic equilibrium

original research JPotter 02:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDILY REDIRECT. I can't understand why, after moving this to its new title, User:Go for it! then duplicated it. Anyway, a redirect is clearly in order, and that doesn't need an AfD. -Splash 02:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

List of library and information science topics

Exact duplicate of List of basic library and information science topics GUllman 02:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Moshzilla

Originally deleted back in July, this was reversed on DRV with all those seeking undeletion recommending it be relisted here citing concerns over the interpretation of the original debate. The original nomination read "Non-notable, could be merged into Internet phenomenon. Merge and delete". -Splash 02:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete as podcruft. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:07, Dec. 25, 2005

Bibb and Yaz

advertising, not-notable podcast Dalbury 02:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

delete ad, nn  J\/\/estbrook       02:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, very few podcasts are notable. I added the "importance" tag earlier, which the editor removed. User:Zoe| 02:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There are always usually different types of example of what podcasts are, I don't think they are giving the defination of podcasts, they are defining themselves. Just as there may be an insert for The Tonight Show and it's history. I think there should be a section on the different genres of podcasts and the history of the hosts. - Perhaps in the defination of podcasts it could go into the different types that are out there. and allow podcasters to post about themselves and their show. We are going to miss a great history not with just Bibb and Yazz, but with all the shows that started it all. What was the very first podcast? Who did the first couple cast? Who did the first podcast over 2 hours. If someone did want to right a paper or article on podcasts the defination is all about feeds and internet jargin. We all know podcasts are about the people. 12.226.99.247 03:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Kelli~ (first edit by this anon user)
  • so it is a question of importance??? and who is the judge of that??? yaz
    • The world at large is. Furthermore: The best way that we here at Misplaced Pages can tell that the world at large has adjudged something to be notable is the fact that multiple people in the world at large, who are independent of the subject, have deemed it notable enough that they have expended the time and effort to create and to publish non-trivial works of their own about it. So if you wish to demonstrate that your podcast is notable, point to where it has been reviewed in magazines, where it has been reported in newspapers, where it has had books written about it, where it has had a third party independently write a history of it, and so forth. Uncle G 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would need external references to independent sources discussing the significance of Bibb and Yaz to be convinced that this podcast is notable; if those references are added to the article, I'll reconsider my vote. To User:12.226.99.247: I agree that it would be worthwhile to research the origins of podcasting, but if you have verifiable information about that, you should discuss it at Talk:Podcasting, not under Bibb and Yaz. At this point, I can't tell whether Bibb and Yaz is a landmark in the history of podcasting or just another podcast, but I'm leaning toward the latter unless I find out otherwise. --Metropolitan90 07:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, Zoe - nn podcast. Eusebeus 08:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think any podcasts are notable. — JIP | Talk 18:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Then don't go deleting stuff because you dislike it. I think all emo and hiphop and pop music is "not notable", but I'm not going to go deleting any page about/referring to it. Podcasting is becoming popular, and Misplaced Pages is going to have to start accepting podcasts into its databases. Plus Bibb and Yaz kick ass.--ElNacho 23:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • What does that mean?--ElNacho 14:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment The closing admin may discount any recommendation made by a user account that appears to have been created for the purpose of influencing the discussion. Editors participating in a nomination for deletion discussion are urged to mark such comments as an aid to the closing admin. -- Dalbury 16:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Podcasting, like other DIY media (incl. blogs), is very difficult to assess, but number of weekly downloads might be some indication. However, it isn't a case of "is it popular" that, it seems to me, we need to address. There is one simple rule that will help us separate wheat and chaff: are other media discussing it? (And I mean other than, in this case, websites. In the case of magazines, I would ask for radio/tv or web discussion. In the case of a forum, I'd ask for magazines, radio/tv.) Are there newspapers, tv shows, magazines on paper, or radio programs discussing this podcast? If not, Misplaced Pages is not a secondary source of information. Geogre 18:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: From what I have seen, the Bibb and Yaz podcast has been in existence for over a year (or close to it from what i have found). Many podcasts that I have seen in the past have no staying power as compared to this one. I see no need for public justification outside of the podcasting community if this is one of them who has been around since close to the begining.(61.26.193.182 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter nash and the all-star schnapps convention

lacks notability Hirudo 02:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was move to HEGA. howcheng 17:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hega

Advertising. According to an email on the Help Desk mailing list, only the linked company is involved in this technology, making this an ad for their product. I don't know anything personally about this subject, so if this is not a valid AfD, then I apologize in advance. User:Zoe| 02:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep Move to HEGA. The term does seem to be in use. The article needs a lot of work. I'd like to say it should be redirected or merged, but I don't know with what. Tom Harrison 03:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If kept, Move to HEGA. Pburka 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: the term appears to have little web use outside Austin air conditioner advertisements (excluding it it gets 13 unique Google results), but at least one somewhat credible website, intelihealth.com, supports the article's story. Global Security.org mentions it, but doesn't confirm any claims in the article other than what HEGA stands for. -- Kjkolb 04:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: HEGA is a valid topic and the definition would seem to be correct. However, the last sentence is not supportable with only Austin Air using the technology and should be considered for deletion. The external link goes to a sales site with little information on this topic so should be deleted. zaytran 07:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Move to HEGA. I replaced the link selling air purifiers with the InteliHealth link, which has the information in the article. I didn't even see it on the page that was linked. -- Kjkolb 08:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

3 Hairy Thumbs Up

Not notable, no worthwhile history etc. Eeee 02:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:09, Dec. 25, 2005

Business Agility

"This article is work in progress by the participants of the IEEE International Workshop on Business Transformation". An inappropriate use of Misplaced Pages. User:Zoe| 02:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete, commentary by author and IP contributors nonwithstanding. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:14, Dec. 25, 2005

Troop 34, moved to Troop 34 (Detroit Area Council)

non-notable, unverifiable, can't even tell which Troop 32 out the hundreds that must exist. (BTW, I've been a Webelos Cub Scout, Star Boy Scout, Sea Scout, Cubmaster, Pack Committee Chairman, Assistant Scoutmaster, Troop Committee Chairman, and District Training Chairman, and I don't think any Boy Scout Troop deserves its own article.) Dalbury 03:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • keep Every scout troop deserves their own wikipedia article! This one is actually very spectacular. (BTW Eagle Scout)

] 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)



    • Comment someone please explain a valid reason why this needs to be deleted? It is a quality article about a good troop. Although it currently lacks information, that is what wikipedia is for, so other users knowledgable about Troop 34, can update it. It is not irrelevant becuase other troops have wiki articles and it is good information, there is no reason why it should be deleted. Abduncan4 18:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be deleted because this article says nothing more than "We are a Scout troop from Detroit. We do Scout-type stuff. Cool!". There is absolutely nothing provided in the article that demonstrates the importance or significance of this troop. I will admit that your troop has significance to its members and the local community, as does mine, but we're talking a state-wide or national-wide impact outside the scouting community here.

Had this come in a few days later, it would have fallen under the new expansion to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, section A-7, which is what I have based my reasoning above on.

I should also refer you to the WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a free host or webspace provider section of the What Misplaced Pages is NOT policy. The material here would best be suited to a website, which you can set up for free with numerous providers. Misplaced Pages is not for your troop's personal homepage.

On the above, I believe that this article is a suitable candidate for deletion, and do not change the vote I provided above. If my Rover Crew suddenly received an article, I'd have it deleted, for the exact same reasons. Don't take this personally. You're probably a good troop, just not a suitable one for Misplaced Pages.

Good Scouting, Saberwyn - 19:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh how I disagree. Every scout troop is deservable of a wikipedia article. Also, the troop has a very rich tradition and history that is over 50 years old, however that information has not been organized yet, so it cannot be posted.

  • Comment: As of 2003, there were 43,984 troops in the USA alone , and Scouting exists in over 100 countries. --Metropolitan90 07:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - There is nothing notable about 50 years of history; my son earned his Eagle rank in a troop founded in 1914, and it doesn't have an article. -- Dalbury 12:06, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • comment = this is so notable, every signle of the 43,984 troops deserves a wikipedia article, also maybe you or your son should write an article about that troop.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing Lynx.

Looks like it blatantly fails WP:MUSIC. Delete --Spring Rubber 03:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Kick Off 2 competition version

This page is just a list of features (and a wishlist of features) for a game which doesn't exist yet. WP is NOT a free web hosting service, a crystal ball, or a promotional service. Pburka 03:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This game is the only UFFICIAL version adopted by the international Kick Off Organization (1400 members) and is actually used on all the major international tournaments. Kick Off 2 competition version was firstly used on july 2005 with the national UK championship and then it was used on the kick off World cup this year, 12-13 november in Cologne (Germany) with 63 players from 11 nations. So request of deletion is simply ridicolous, get updated yourself going to the ufficial forums and websites of the Kick Off Association, many thanks. filippodb 19 December 2005

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

GEN@

someone's personal Neo-logism. All buzzwords and no content novacatz 03:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. If it appears again, I'll protect it as {{deleted}}, mark my words. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:19, Dec. 25, 2005

Xavier N Parkes

A bio about a small-time actor from the UK. I speedy deleted the content once under CSD A7, but it's back, so I thought I'd let the author get it a hearing. Google has nothing but links about a character from The OC. Harro5 03:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete just yet- although I know nothing about Xavier Parkes, the film 'Hungarian Surf Trip' does exist: I watched it get an award at a film festival held in Cornwall this year, and it was very well received by the audience. The bio on the actor might be a kind of hoax, possibly to try to raise publicity for the film. W. Beamon. 15 Dec — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete and padlock - article about nn British article was already spedily deleted. It's probably not a hoax, but still is a long way from deserving a Misplaced Pages article on its own. B.Wind 01:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Both the film and the actor exist and are moderately well known outside of the commercial film-making arena. Hungarian Surf Trip is currently available to buy on very limited release from either the director, Desmundo Profundo, or the production company. Parkes is no longer registered with Equity but is believed to be working on location in Slovenia on the prequel to Trip. --Timduffy 09:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Probably keep, albeit with reference to his correct/alternative name - I recognise the description and knew 'Parkes' in the 1990s when he called himself Spencer Stephens (come to think of it, perhaps that was a pseudonym too). I met him during my time on the Eastern European theatre circuit. He was a rather abrasive character who was often drunk, but not a bad actor - although it surprises me not one bit that Hollywood has not yet 'discovered' him.... He seems to have adopted the name of a character he played in Etchison and Kelley's Boy@nt - the Internet Movie Database verifies this: I've never heard of Hungarian Surf Trip though - although this doesn't mean it doesn't exist of course! Dominique

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd 21:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Place Montréal Trust

There are a few shopping malls that are notable. This one's not. Delete. Fang Aili 03:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:22, Dec. 25, 2005

Mark McConnellogue

Non-notable schoolteacher - plus general unverifiability and original research. In what reputable published source can we find verification that "Mark’s students describe him as ‘sound’ – a term of approval used sparingly among the pupils of this large, urban school. The students respect his calm yet firm management while colleagues view him as an excellent role model for students ... As a school counsellor many pupils have found guidance, strength and wisdom from talking to him"? Tearlach 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he didn't. The national Guardian Award for Teacher of the Year in a Secondary School in 2004 was won by Philip Beadle, Eastlea Community School Technology College, London (see ). Mark McConnellogue won one of the 146 runner-up category awards, Teacher Training Agency Award for Outstanding New Teacher, Northern Ireland (). Tearlach 04:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm Sorry but i must correct you. saying "he won 1 of 146 regional awards." is a gross misrepresentation. It is the equivalent of saying X won only one out of Y gold medals at the olympics. There are only two awards for secondary school teaching in Northern Ireland. (1) "The Guardian Award for Teacher of the Year in a Secondary School " and (2) "The Teacher Training Agency Award for Outstanding New Teacher ". McConnellogue won the later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.117.143.42 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Two secondary school categories out of 10 Teaching Awards and 14 more for special commendees, within NI, out of the 146 nationally. Tearlach 12:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: High school teacher, no matter how many kudos. Let's say he won the sole award for secondary teaching for all of the United Kingdom. Ok. That would make him last year's winner and would put him in a set of yearly winners. Within the ranks of Who's Who in Education, it would get him an entry. However, for an encyclopedia, we need a life that is discussed, and not an accomplishment that is a single event. What can one say about this person that makes him remarkable among persons? He does his job well, and we all appreciate that, but that does not make him a force above and beyond his students and the professional context. (Salesman of the year for America wouldn't be appropriate encyclopedic content, either.) Geogre 11:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. ouch. 82.26.164.168 15:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ---- 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


Armed Dragon, Dark Scorpion Gang, Destiny Heroes, Elemental Hero series, Gate Guardian (Yu-Gi-Oh!), Gaia The Fierce Knight, Gilford the Lightning, Harpie Lady, Ojama Trio, Panther Warrior, Time Wizard, Toon Series, Toon monsters, VWXYZ series, Vehicroid series

Listcruft, unnotable, precedent for deleting card articles, possible copyvio by copying card text word for word. I'm tackling the card lists first, then moving on to the single cards, and left alone the ones that seem important in the TV shows. If you feel that one article doesn't fit here, I'll give it its own AfD. --Apostrophe 03:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Given the current deletion reform proposal, I propose this get put off until that proposal gets moved on. Hackwrench 20:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is kind of rude of you making this proposal without making note of it on the main Yu-Gi-Oh! Talk page, so I did so. Hackwrench 21:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! has a show as well as the cards, so to some extent there are a number of different issues involved. There are people who haven't seen the real-life cards but seen the show and wondering what the relationship of certain cards are to others, for one. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Freakofnurture's vote shouldn't count due to his apparent hatred of Yu-Gi-Oh! in general.Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- lists of no worth doktorb 22:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - These cards list the various series of cards made and their relation to the show itself.
  • Delete - Many of these cards are too minor to truly be worth taking attention. However, some of these, such as the Elemental Hero series, the Destiny Heroes series, and the VWXYZ series actually have great weight on the show. I would defintely remove all of the single card articles that are short and extraneous though Sephiroth BCR 23:15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - So are the Ojama Trio, Vehicloid series, & Harpy Lady. The Dark Scorpion Gang were also an important part of the series do to their leader being one of the main villians.
      • Because characters use them rather often doesn't mean they warrant an article. Especially in the case of Harpy Lady, whose user only plays in few episodes. I can see reason to keep the God card articles, as they're important plot devices in the series, but cards like Harpy Lady only warrant few sentences in their user articles saying "(Person) often uses (Card), which is a (Type) card, that can (explanation of user's strategy or card's effect)." Maybe an iamge if you really feel the need. What those cards certainly don't deserve are articles, with potential copyvio problems, no less. --Apostrophe 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Truth but if a card evolves into series of cards that revolve on that one original card, it should be acceptable.
          • I don't think so. To me, that's tantamount to saying that people who produce offspring and a family lineage are automatically notable. Series of cards still need to be notable to warrant inclusion. --Apostrophe 19:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Most of the cards mentioned are notable due to being used on the show. They are not as major like the Gods, Dragons, & Demons, they still played a big part in the storyline.
              • Harpy Lady certainly wasn't a big enough part of the storyline if all we have for notability is that "Mai uses it!" Same goes for Toon cards, VWXYZ series, and clearly others. --Apostrophe 04:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
                • Mai is one of the major characters of the plot and the V-to-Z series is used by two duelists in the anime.
  • Merge into a single article, the phenomenon itself is notable (although notability itself is not cause for deletion on Wiki), and verifiable.Jcuk 09:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Just because they were used in the show, that does not warrant making an entire page dedicated to them. You have to ask yourself, "In 100 years, will anyone care?"--JackGeneric 00:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
No you don't, because 100 years is more than sufficient time to delete them if they lose notability, but if the reverse is true, then it will be a pain to add them back in plus new supporting material. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
What makes you say that? This goes for everyone else here that has little interest in the Yu-Gi-Oh! scene. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge, All Harpy cards on one page with redirects on each of the card names. Gilford, Gearfried, and Gaia all on one page because people are going to get them confused and there should be one page to explain things out ASAP. I watch the series and have around 200 cards despite never playing in a duel using anything near the official rules. Hackwrench 20:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • They should start having communities for groups of articles. Only those interested in Yu-Gi-Oh! should be able to vote for deletions for Yu-Gi-Oh!. Same for Magic: the Gathering, Star Trek, Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, and I can think of other areas. Anybody would still be able to edit any of the pages though. I just don't see how improperly informed votes are going to help Misplaced Pages be a good source for information. I don't know where to go to propose this community thing, but I'm bringing it up here because this is a place where Misplaced Pages's usefulness can get totally thrashed without it. Hackwrench 20:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng 17:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Advaita Vedanta Ajativada

Delete. Original research. —Preost contribs 04:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully my further editings are now within the guidelines..--Aoclery 17:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony

Actually, they are not. What you added here is vague, ungrammatical, unencyclopedic, lacks context, and could be a copyright violation, which is a very serious matter. and this: "............Sri Swami Atmananda." is just sort of meaningless and inappropriate. Is this a quotation from Sri Swami Atmananda? If so, what page of what book, article, or interview is it from? You lower the value of the entire Misplaced Pages project when you carelessly insert text like this. I appreciate that you understand Ajativada in a deeper way than I do, but you really need to be more careful and to read the Misplaced Pages guidelines if you want your contributions to be respected and retained. Your edits will have to be severely cleaned up. Everything in Misplaced Pages must be attributed to a source. — goethean ॐ 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice and editing.........--Aoclery 17:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Jaranda 05:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Blunted affect

Looks like original research. P0per 04:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Gospel of Thomas according to Advaita Vedanta

Delete. Original research. —Preost contribs 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reference Here is a academic opinion on these purports by the venerable professor..V Krishnamurthy............ "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk@y...> wrote: Namaste, Tony-ji > > I just browsed through your site on the Gospel of Thomas. It is > wonderful. I shall keep reading it more and more in detail. In the > meantime I recommend it to all the members of this list for their > reading. Your purports are illuminating and refreshing from an > advaitin's point of view. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. > > PraNAms to all seekersd of Truth. > profvk....posted by --Aoclery 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Tony

Got it.I'm getting the message now, Misplaced Pages isn't a magazine..--Aoclery 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Tony

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, but leaning toward a possible merge. Be WP:BOLD and WP:DIY. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:32, Dec. 25, 2005

Foetodon, Ligocristus, Vastatosaurus Rex

Not notable fictional dinosaurs from King Kong (2005 film). --Apostrophe 04:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Luciana De Romana

Zero Google hits for "Luciana De Romana" or "Luciana DeRomana". Lots of Google hits for "Luciana Paola", but they're all in Spanish, not English or Italian. User:Zoe| 04:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete - yeah, Google for luciana romana (no quotes) and luciana model also turn up no related hits. FreplySpang (talk) 23:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda 04:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of the BBC

Unfinished page that the original author hasn't touched for months. Also seems to be at least moderately POV. Unless expanded and NPOV-ized during the AfD, delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete looks like a POV fork to me. KillerChihuahua 04:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems interesting. -- JJay 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Has potential and maybe this AFD might spur some activity. Perhaps someone might consider moving this to a temp page? 23skidoo 04:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. We have a number of organisations that have criticisms including Misplaced Pages and there is certainly enough verifiable material dating back to the 1920's to justify a page. Capitalistroadster 06:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup. utcursch | talk 09:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no reason to delete. Dan100 (Talk) 09:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This page is pretty poor and is misnamed (it contains criticisms of TV news in general, and BBC news in specific, has very little BBC specific content to do with the licence fee and suchforth.) Morwen - Talk 09:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into BBC controversies or into BBC. - Mgm| 11:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capitalistroadster Tom Harrison 14:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • "Criticism(s) of X" pages are inherent violations of our neutral point of view policy, since they deliberately present debates in a one-sided way. See Talk:Criticism of Christianity#Rendering_this_article_neutral and Talk:Criticisms of communism#NPOV. Sidelining all criticisms of a subject into separate articles is not implementing the NPOV. It is the creation of POV forks, plain and simple. MacGyverMagic has exactly the correct idea. The subject should be covered in articles which are neutral in their scope. Uncle G 14:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Capit.R. and expand. Youngamerican 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, as of now. First, most of the "good" information is already present in some form in BBC_controversies. Second, as it is now, this is not a worthwhile article and relies on contemporary critiques by bloggers for a significant portion of its content. I agree that there is room for criticism articles, but simply because one could exist (or one exists in a NPOV) doesn't mean that we should keep it. Unless someone is willing to undertake a significant rewrite, it doesn't seem worthwhile to keep. mmmbeer 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and cleanup. Remove all criticism that is by the article author and not by a cited source. Verified criticism of notable organisations is encyclopedic. — JIP | Talk 18:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Just out of curiosity, if votes are "keep" and "cleanup", how does that work. What if there isn't a cleanup? Even a cursory examination of this article suggests "clean up" would be a massive undertaking. What's more, a good clean up would seem to require significant duplication of the material that exists already within BBC and BBC controversies. If this isn't what's meant by "cleanup", then it seems to otherwise be a collection of uotes about the "badness" of the BBC. Quotes standing alone aren't very encyclopedic. mmmbeer 19:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Reply: I would figure that the article would be tagged for clean-up for a month or two, and if it was not cleaned up in that time, it would be AfD'd again. — JIP | Talk 19:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Is that really how it works? Or is that just a hope for how it works? Has this ever happened successfully this way? If so, I'd be willing to change my vote. It seems, however, that permitting "cleanup" to complicate a vote is really a form of conditional voting. Seems hardly productive. mmmbeer 20:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Essetial delete POV fork. There is next to no chance that if we allow articles of this sort of they will achieve neutrality. Rhollenton 00:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no consensus that "Criticism of X" articles are automatically POV forks, as some editors here have alleged. They of course can be, but it is no more inherently POV to write about criticisms of a particular person, place or thing than it is to write about any other aspect of that person, place or thing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Presenting a discussion of a subject in such a way as to only include the negative views of it is non-neutral. The NPOV policy requires that Misplaced Pages not present debates in ways that implicitly advocate specific sides. Articles should be neutral in scope. The fact that almost all of our "Criticism of X" articles have sported chronic neutrality disputes should be evidence enough of the fact that that isn't the case for articles that are formulated with "this article contains only negative views" scopes. Ironically, in this particular case, we already have proper neutral-scope articles, pre-dating this article by the larger part of a year. Uncle G 08:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • "Presenting a discussion of a subject in such a way as to only include the negative views of it is non-neutral." Well, then, there's no problem, because that is not in any way, shape or form inherent in an article titled "Criticism of X". It is certainly possible to cover the subject of "Criticism of X" one-sidedly, but then that is also possible for the subject "X" to begin with. How many times does it have to be said? If an article covers a subject from only one point of view, that is the problem, not the fact that the subject is "Criticism of X". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment. Feldspar, your analysis is clearly wrong. "Criticism" does suggest only one side of the issue. Nothing about that asks for the opposite, let's just call them "glowing reviews". By having a criticisms, especially in this case, you're asking for only those things that criticise the BBC's overage. I can't even imagine how that would constitute NPOV as it totally avoids the other side. Besides, is there a single topic that doesn't have its critics? On the other hand, "BBC controversies" sort of asks for the controvery to be explained; it BEGS for both sides. In addition, most of the legal topics I could do could also have an entire article devoted to legal criticisms, but I don't think that anyone would advocate such a thing. That's not to say, of course, that there isn't room for them, but rather there's no point and needlessly POV and lopsided. mmmbeer 16:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
  • delete or merge with main BBC article. Unbehagen 00:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No valid reason for deletion has been put forward. POV is a reason to put a tag on the article asking for help in cleaning it up, not a reason to delete. Turnstep 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We have plenty of "criticism of ..." articles (which to me are justified as a way to keep articles shorter more than anything else), and there's plenty on the BBC from all ends of the political spectrum. If "The original author hasn't touched it for months," I submit that the appropriate remedy for that is leaving a message on his/her Talk page, or (God forbid) working on it yourself, rather than a deletion vote. Daniel Case 16:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Addendum and suggestion: The "criticism" article should be about general themes in BBC criticism (like the license fee), whereas the BBC controversies article should be redone as a list to encourage the creation of separate articles about the individual incidents where warranted. Daniel Case 16:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ---- 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


United States Political Issues

Unfinished, at least mildly POV, and unnecessary. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

List of postcodes in the Australian Capital Territory

Note: previously survived a then-VfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Postcodes: New South Wales on 25/09/2004.

I consider a list of postcodes to be of very dubious value on wikipedia given it is derived directly from freely available data from the Australia Post website. Unlike some other lists, this one adds nothing that isn't already available elsewhere in basically the same format. Garglebutt / (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep - I was just bouncing around the ZIP code listing in wikip looking up some info (so having here is kinda useful) and if US postal codes are kept, I don't see why Aussie ones should not be. novacatz 04:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. These lists are very common and reliably pass AfD. This one has been recently formatted, looks good and is up to date. It is not harming wikipedia by being here. --Martyman-(talk) 04:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
nitpicking perhaps, but it was not up to date at the time of your vote, I have updated it--A Y Arktos 21:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at the very least reformat into a very short article with a link to the current Australia Post web site. I appreciate a lot of work has one into this but I question the value of maintaining such a list; the only current list is maintained by Australia Post. It is not a particularly static list and if someone wants authoratative information we should be pointing them in the right direction, not offering something that might not be up to date. My comments apply to all lists of postcodes in Australia. They do not imply that the current lists are not up to date, but we cannot guarantee they will be completely right in 6 months time. Took me years to cotton on that ANU had its own weird postcode (0200 not 2600) - not sure when it changed but I believe well before I dropped the habit of addressing letters to the institution under 2600.--A Y Arktos 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
We are not just setting a precedent here for australian postcodes, this would also apply to all the lists of US zip codes etc. PS. I think the ANU has been 0200 for as long as I can remember (at least 10 years) these things do not chnage on a weekly basis. --Martyman-(talk) 04:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. These lists have survived AfD overwhelmingly before, are fairly static (making the reliability objection bunk), and I'm currently in the process of cleaning them up so they're less ugly. Ambi 04:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This is no less encyclopaedic than any other "List of ..." article on Misplaced Pages. I'm interested to hear the nominator's opinion on the rumoured similar lists for states in the USA, too ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm aware of heaps of these lists and I'm not about to target all of them as there would never be a consensus, however for this State as a start, I see no problem with testing the waters again. Having survived afd previously is a fairly weak substantiation for keeping them. Perhaps I should create a list of all the numbers between 1 and 100 because I'm sure people use those all the time. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Unlike numbers between 1 and 100, however, people are likely to need to consult a resource to find out postcodes. I and others do so on Misplaced Pages first. Ambi 08:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It is probably sarcasm, but please don't create list for 1-100 -- remember WP:POINT novacatz 14:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Not sarcasm; just a light hearted jest. Garglebutt / (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
And let's not forget Lists of postal codes which lists postal codes outside the US for a substantial amount of countries. - Mgm| 12:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment as I have already voted delete above. (Some of us graduated from ANU more than ten years ago :-)!) You would be surprised how quickly these lists do get out of date and what an issue it might be to maintain them, for example to cover new suburbs. In my (real world) work, most documents of importance (or not just importance but reference), for example policies and procedures, are tagged as being not an authorised copy and that the only authorised copy is the electronic version from a specified location on our intranet. I think at the very least any and all lists of postcodes should be similarly tagged with a qualification and pointer to where the official list should be found. Due to the success of Misplaced Pages, googling list of postcodes means our pages will rise to the top. At the moment googling postcodes and canberra gives Misplaced Pages third, after the WA government and the white pages. We are followed by Aged Care and the ACTU before Australia Post comes up, and even then it is not a post code page but a page for Express Post. Obviously, one can format the search better, I am trying to think how the "punter" might approach the issue.
When one navigates to Australia Post's post code page, you can download the database. It comes with a disclaimer, firstly about copyright - and there have of course been copyright coases on telephone listings and the like but I am sure that lists of postcodes are not copyright so long as they are not generated by a cut and past. The second is the qualification about accuracy and a caveat about not relying on the list - to my mind something akin to buying a child for a toddler, marked clearly for two year olds with a warning not to be used by a child under three - if you can't rely on a list from Australia Post?!?
I have not searched the database for wrong codes, but have found missing ones (2914 for Harrison,Bonner and Forde ; according to the Harrison article, building in Harrison has commenced and thus people are quite possibly already there.) If we cannot and are not maintaing the list (and I did fix it), should we have it and similar lists? The ACT is small - I bet NSW and Vic have even more ommissions. I can't speak about overseas. In conclusion, at the very least such lists should be tagged as potentially not complete.--A Y Arktos 21:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Everything in this article was correct. Postcodes for already existing suburbs don't change. Making sure we add new suburbs when they are created (heck, Bonner and Forde don't even exist yet, but have been recently given postcodes anyway) is something we'll have to keep an eye out for, sure. However, that is easily enough done, and even with an omission or two in these very new cases, the list is still a reliable and useful resource for at least the vast majority of cases. Ambi 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Accept the previous result. Rhollenton 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sarah Ewart 02:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - though I personally would delete all articles on postcodes, telephone area codes and road numbers as more suitable for an almanac than an encyclopaedia. But if people want to keep ZIP codes and UK postcodes then theres no reason to delete the Australian version - or the postcodes of Mongolia if someone chooses to put them up. A list is just about OK - the problem is people then start creating linked pages entitled "Area Code 123" or some such. Jameswilson 04:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepJcuk 09:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as perfectly useful information that has already survived an AfD. Almost seems bordering on WP:POINT if the nominator's intention was to "test the waters". Raise this on the Village Pump or elsewhere if you just want a discussion about removing all postal code information from Misplaced Pages. Turnstep 01:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I was not the nominator, however, in response to Turnstep's comments: The last debate was over a year ago and was not conclusive by the concensus standards that have now evolved. The previous debate's results were :The result of the debate was KEEP. (6 delete, 9 keep, 1 ambiguous) - a 60% keep vote, ignoring the ambiguouos vote.--A Y Arktos 01:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete karmafist 10:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Unison FAQ

Misplaced Pages is not a FAQ repository.

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep as nomination withdrawn. Well done to Movementarian for the rewrite. Capitalistroadster 10:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Corner Shot

Advertisement. Originally this was so badly formatted that it was unreadable. In the process of Wikifying it became clear that this is nothing more than a product profile. Durova 04:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. However, a fresh redirect to the aircraft model seems reasonable, and is not contested herein. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:39, Dec. 25, 2005

Bravo Bravo

Advertising, nn bar. User:Zoe| 04:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SmartWorks

Advert for non-notable software product. Klaw ¡digame! 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng 17:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Charyyapadas

I could not find any external references to this word. Any online references seem to be just copies of this wikipedia article. I believe this article is bogus. Spookfish 04:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a re-creation of Obscured by Species (AfD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Obscured by species

NN webcomic - the article even admits it's obscure. AFD'ing rather than speedy-ing in case anyone can prove otherwise 23skidoo 04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - I am swinging on this, so I will just go over my reasons in point form:
Why it is worth deleting:
  1. Alexa rank of 3 million
  2. not listed in topwebcomics.com's top 100
  3. its forum is empty
  4. only 51 unique google hits
  5. Their main page talks about advertising
  6. They go on about being published, yet only have 1 edition published.
Why it is worth keeping:
  1. 17,000 google hits
  2. It is available for sale (hence not just a web comic)
In the end, it looks too much like advertising for mine. So I am going with delete. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 07:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was move to Dirk of West Frisia. howcheng 17:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Dirk, Count of Holland

Not submitter. Just completing deletion procedure. I'd vote keep as there's plenty of random European nobles around here. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

ComputerWorX

Lacks notability Hirudo 04:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Company in question is also only the number 3 hit on google behind two other companies with the same name (but different capitalization) Hirudo 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Zack Apman

non notable band member of a non notable band Missing Lynx (which is also nominated for deletion) and appears to fail WP:MUSIC so Delete--MONGO 04:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Klingon packleader

Non-notable. I feel speedy deletion is not justified because the article does assert that the person is "infamous" in a certain "community", however misleading this may be. Deco 04:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Giovanni Navarria

not notable and appears to be bio anyway.--MONGO 04:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was MOVE to Lexus GS430. The merge-or-not decision can be taken elsewhere. -Splash 21:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The Lexus GS 430h

--JLaTondre 23:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)= Car doesn't seem to exist and if it did, "The" wouldn't be in the name PS2pcGAMER 05:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • If there is some precedent set with having articles for individual models, then move to Lexus GS430. If not, don't start a chain reaction, and move to Lexus GS. My .02. Pepsidrinka 23:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete Jtkiefer ---- 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


NOLM

"A new acronym that sweeps the internet on 12/14/05." Neologism. — A.M. 05:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Boon-Dog

Was tagged {{nocontent}} by User:Jwestbrook. Moving here for vote. Jamie 05:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 21:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Caferu

Was tagged {{db|Unverified, not significant, nothing links here.}} by User:Hu. That's not a CSD, so moving here for a vote. Recommend delete, as dictdef. Jamie 05:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete WhiteNight 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Capitães do mato

Was tagged {{db|empty, since it doesn't even define the subject. I would've moved some to the article of the person named, but there's no article on him and he doesn't exist on google.}} bt User:Bobet. Not WP:CSD so moving here for a vote. Jamie 05:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Something odd about this article. It reads like a little chunk copyvio'd from somewhere -- no hits on Google but could be from a book. Literate but inconsequential and context-free, like a fragment ripped from Palmares (quilombo), Capitão do mato or Jürgens Reijmbach (should be Jürgens Reijmbach not "Jürgen" apparently). What little info is there certainly doesn't belong under that title, presumably the plural of his job title -- and just possibly a chapter heading in some book? Flapdragon 13:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 15:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sandor Woren

Non notable. AFAIR, unsuccessful political candidates are generally viewed as nn. No other claim of notability is made. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Coffee 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

European women

This article is completely nonsense, and the entire topic is insignificant. It should be deleted. King of Hearts 05:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Gyal

Dictdef. Jamie 05:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Comments by persons believed to be affiliated with this corporation have been disregarded as non-objective. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:46, Dec. 25, 2005

Piga Software

NN company. Was speedy, but bringing here for a vote. Recommend delete Jamie 05:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment: Actually, notability is an important developing policy at Misplaced Pages for products: Misplaced Pages:Notability (companies and corporations). Yes, it is not quite "policy" yet, but the ball is in your court: You need to explain why a non-notable download site should be kept, which you haven't. You haven't claimed any positive reason for keeping the article (a double negative is not sufficient). You will notice that in the developing policy notability is the critical issue for products and services: Criteria for products and services: A product or service is notable. If you continue reading, you will find that this site doesn't come close to meeting any of the criteria. Further, you haven't addressed the issue of using Misplaced Pages for self-promotion. Hu 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Notability distinguishes interesting articles from self interested articles. Garglebutt / (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: The above vote to keep by Graham Wilson (G.W.) is by the other party in the site (undoubtedly a family member due to the same family name as Hamish Wilson), so it works out to be more self-promotion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng 00:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thomas Frischknecht

Not much here. His name, his website and the stub notice. --Schmiteye 05:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Games Design Doc

plus Art Poduction Plan, Concept Doc, Games Proposal and Technical Document added by RHaworth 10:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NN, and WP:NOT a crystal ball. Jamie 05:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy kept as redirect. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 05:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Article for deletion by consensus of a few editors on the Hindu-Arabic numerals talk page

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

The result of the debate was delete, extra weight being given to a delete vote by a notorious inclusionist, and subtracted from several weak/conditional keep votes. Prepetual cleanup tagging is also a factor. See you on WP:DRV, or better yet, go to the sandbox and re-write this as a good article. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 11:03, Dec. 25, 2005

Jewish-Arab conflict

I beleive this should be deleted as this is not a distinct recognised "event", and that the (single) author has a NPOV agenda. Jgritz 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There's only a single reference on google to the 623-627 timespan from a single article replicated throughtout various sites. The article is here - http://www.cooper.edu/humanities/core/hss3/kuntzel.html Jgritz 06:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you translate it for us so we can compare? Jgritz 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I'd quite like to see that as well. Palmiro | Talk 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The first version of the Jewish-Arab conflict article was pretty much translation of part of the Hebrew article. Toya 14:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, if that is the case, I guess I'll be discounting remarks along the lines of "it's in the Hebrew WP" in future. I just hope someone sorts it out there. Palmiro | Talk 18:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So? Go and vfd that to. I wonder why nobody vfd'd the one in Hebrew Misplaced Pages? --Striver 11:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've heard that the Hebrew version is inherently biased against Islam and Muslims and especially Arabs, however, not being fluent there was no way of commenting on it. I guess this proves it. --Irishpunktom\ 17:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
How does this prove a bias? -- JJay 20:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The existence of one bad article is hardly sufficient grounds for inferring "inherent bias against Islam and Muslims", I feel! Palmiro | Talk 02:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I speak Hebrew, but not very well, so I am unable to fully comprehend the Hebrew version of the article, so I can't comment. But, think logicaly for a minute. The conflcit is between Israel and the Arab world. The only country in the world which speaks Hebrew as their national language is Israel. Wouldn't it make sense that people involved in the conflict would write with a bias? However, I personaly have a pro-Israel bias, but that's irelavent. This article isn't about the Israeli Palestinian conflict, it's about a fictional event which apparently no one here has ever heard of except for the author. Almost every keep on this discussion has been becuase they didn't know about the subject, and learned from the article. But this article is totaly wrong. Can anyone here honostly say they can confirm anything this article says? Tobyk777 04:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ten past seven

per WP:Music nn band. Durova 06:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Coca-Cola Groups

Original research (see WP:NOR), unverifiable (see WP:V). Chick Bowen 01:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I Have updated it and cleaned it up. I think it is ready to go. I have showed it to the democraphic it is supposed to see it and they agree with its facts and would like it to stay up.

I have actually gotten a member of the group to look at it and make sure it is factually correct. He has and I feel becaue he is the leader of one that it must be up now.

I will continue to add more info as I find it in already written readings. This is not my own research. I have read a few books written by people from the cult on this.


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

ZeroSpyware

"The article is nothing but an advertisement for a commercial product.DeleteTheRingess 06:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

List of RWD passenger cars made after 1980

Misplaced Pages is not a collection of lists. Also, with the rear wheel drive vehicle category and the rear wheel drive article itself, this article is basically redundant. --ApolloBoy 06:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Futallaby

Author says it's not notable. So... yeah. Ashibaka tock 06:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Eating out of Tempurature

Non-notable neologism for being too lazy to use the microwave. Zero search results, even when spelled correctly. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:02, Dec. 15, 2005

  • Delete. Although I am myself a college student, and do this regularly, I have not heard of the term, even if spelled correctly. Roman Soldier: if you wish, you may recreate the article with correct spelling, and list your old article under speedy deletions. — TheKMan 07:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but someone might be curious as to what a 'Full English breakfast' contains; 'Eating cold food' is self-explanatory and unencyclopedic, if you ask me. I say delete. - squibix 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no one else wants this page, I put the material on my User page, where you have no right to delete it. :p

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

GlobeOp Financial Services

Just another financial services company. Could not find anything with Google to indicate anything especially noteworthy about this one. howcheng 21:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 23:36, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Owen× ☎ 19:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sheeple

Neologism that belongs on wiktionary, image is pure POV for BJAODN  ALKIVAR™ 07:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral - do hear this a lot on the websites I frequent but I really can't decide if the article deserves to stay. That pic, on the other hand, is hilarious, if a bit POV. --Cyde Weys talk 08:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • These questions should help you to decide: Can an encyclopaedia article about sheeple (not about the word, but about the actual concept) be written? Is there anything that sources have said about sheeple, in addition to describing them as believing whatever they are told? Uncle G 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep: term definitely used contemporary politcal discussions. On the other hand, the article is little more than a dictdef with an hilarious image. Jamie 09:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: this is not a spur-of-the-moment humourous article, its history goes back to Oct 2004. Jamie 09:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Regardless of the creation date, do you see the content as anything more than a dicdef? If not you should be voting transwiki to the Wiktionary (which is where dictdef's belong).  ALKIVAR™ 09:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
        • That's a tough call. We have other articles which are not much more than dictdefs for words with (minor) cultural significance. Sheeple could possibly be expanded to explain its significance in the context of (inflamatory) American political discourse. But that's pretty weak, which is why I voted weak keep. Jamie
        • No, xe shouldn't. Transwikification of this article is not a valid option. Any opinions that that this article should be transwikied would have to be discounted. Uncle G 14:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is a word/term (frequently) used on AfD --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
But Wiki should surely be its own glossary --SockpuppetSamuelson 14:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete As Just zis Guy, you know? pointed out, it would be transwikiable if wiktionary didn't already have it (thanks, Uncle G), and that's a subset of deletion. And, in answer to Uncle G's question about whether or not an article could be written on the concept of "sheeple", I believe the answer is... no. And even if it could, there's no reason to keep an article about something else under that title until it does get written. It's not like we need to keep articles' seats warm for them until they arrive or something like that. The Literate Engineer 19:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
No, Uncle G is (as usual) right. It can't be transwikid because Wiktionary already has it: . I didn't check (I was in a hurry). - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 00:02, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • You made your point, but two biased POVs don't make an NPOV. Sources need to be cited and this article needs to be cleaned up and expanded, but the term definitely exists. Requesting a deletion because of POV in an article is silly. --Peter McConaughey 13:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as {{nn-bio}}. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-15 09:56:25Z

Joanna Robinson

This is a Misplaced Pages:Autobiography. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Unforgettableid (talk • contribs)

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

The result of the debate was delete all. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

House Palpatine, House San Maarten, House Schultz

Fallacious article, there is no such thing Lacerta 08:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Confirmed via Google. --Unforgettableid | talk to me 08:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Possibly originated from a misunderstanding of this: http://www.lanceandeskimo.com/duneguy/quizd.html --Lacerta

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 12:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Amerispanic

Non-notable and nothing but a definition - Rudykog 09:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Calvin and Hobbes. howcheng 17:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Stupendous Man

This and all other comic stubs are much to insignificant to be listed in their own article. There is already a discription of Stupendous Man in the Calvin and Hobbes article.--FelineFanatic13 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, I agree it is to insignificant to stay -Frogman1326
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 -Obli (Talk) 23:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Gay Nigger Association of America

This organization appears to be not notable. At best, this article is just describing a non notable thing. At worst, this article could be encouraging the trolls. Either way, it should be deleted. Boatfarm 23:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted per WP:NOT and WP:IAR. No sense wasting AFD space on this. FCYTravis 09:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Toilet paper soccer

Content indicates due to recent creation of game it isn't notable. Possible WP:VAIN. --Whouk (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

BFC Computer Help

Non notable message board. Woohookitty 09:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Misplaced Pages:Copyright problems. howcheng 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Francis J. Pierce

Not sure if this passes Misplaced Pages is not a memorial test Also, all of the text comes directly from: http://www.michigan.gov/dmva/0,1607,7-126-2360_3003_3012-8021--,00.html . Since it's governmental, are there any copyright issues? I tagged it but left the text intact, just to play it safe. Janet13 09:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • According to the Michigan web page, it's copyrighted, so let's let the copyright process take care of it. I've blanked out the content like it's supposed to be and I'm closing this AfD. howcheng 00:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 19:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Party foul

A drinking slang term which is dicdef at best. Has no potential to be a full encyclopedia article. I say delete it, though I would also be okay with moving to wiktionary. Parallel or Together ? 09:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 15:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghorban Tourani

Recently-ish killed Christian minister in Iran. I speedied this originally as there was no assertion of notability - now there is (questionable) notability asserted per some media attention. Google pulls 47 hits, just 2 with quotes for Ghorban Tourani - Ghorban Tori pulls more. But with due respect, every murder victim is not inherrently notable - while this case may be slightly different, I do not believe it is enough. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Not delete 1) Notability - Google actually scores for "Ghorban Tori" 633 hits, a search including his middle name "Ghorban Dordi Tourani" further 35 (for "Ghorban Tourani" alone admittedly only 2 dt a initially publicised misspelling) 2) International importance - The current regime in Iran has a history of persecuting the Christian minorities, but had ceased being very aggressive about it after a murder wave in the mid nineties. This has been now under the new president rapidly worsened. His murder happened to co-incide with a new attempt by the EU to engage Iran on Human Rights, was widely reported and led to diplomatic protests. 3) Importance for Iranian/Middle Eastern Church - huge. The first Turkmen martyr amongst other things. In summary: the man is notable and important enough to warrant an entry unless Misplaced Pages wants to be centred on what and who is important in the West. Refdoc 10:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Further comment: The google count is still rising (now at 677 for "Ghorban Tori" and 41 for "Ghorban Dordi Tourani".Refdoc 07:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Yet more comment: The google count for "Ghorban Tori" is today 12.700. Do not tell me that this is not the result of some notability. Refdoc 22:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Further comment: There is something like systematic bias operating here - a Iranian internal news is going to be of little newsworthiness outside and subsequently not easily found in search engines like Google. Christians in Iran are ignored/persecuted minority - furtther pushing such news down the list of priorities. In view of these two points I would think that any internal Iranian news which "made google news" - even if limited - is notable by definition. Further - it made secular news papers like the Swedish Dagen. Refdoc 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng 17:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hikaru Koto

Barely asserts notability (although that might be the wrong word to use here). While I have to resign to the fact that Wikipedians appear to view significant porn actor/esses as notable, this one isn't notable enough. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Amazon Fug

Non-notable (even says so in the article). RobertG ♬ talk 11:03, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a redirect with no imaginable use. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 14:19, Dec. 17, 2005

December 21, 2003

This redirect (technically a triple redirect since the page that it redirected to was merged into Brett Favre, which is the only article that linked to it) is actually a malformed date. Speedy Delete this. - Jokermage 11:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete, then redirect (plausible search term/accidental link target) as it is agreed there is nothing here to merge. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 12:43, Dec. 25, 2005

Yus (letter)

This article is a stub that is redundant to the much superior Yus. pfctdayelise 11:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Nearology

slang neologism with 116 google hits. delete or transwiki if wiktionary wants it. BL kiss the lizard 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The tolling gang

Completely non-notable (four Google hits including three from urban75.net and thetollinggang.org) Flapdragon 12:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete - Another founding member, and signatory to the statement used here. Considering it's a bulletin board which is less than a month old, I can't see any reason for it having a Misplaced Pages entry atm. Bristle-krs 18:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - another member here. It is not yet a significant site. Tho it will be. Belboid


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

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng 00:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Simon schaffer moved to Simon Schaffer

Just being a professor at a university does not make one notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Did a quick google search, but does anybody else know if this person is notable? If it does stay, it needs to move to Simon Schaffer and some serious additional information. Parallel or Together? 12:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirect to pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. howcheng 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcano-ciosis

Neologism, google shows only WarCraft references (it is akind of a password there). Delete abakharev 12:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:25, Dec. 26, 2005

Halo2forum

Unexceptional game forum, delete--nixie 12:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was closed. - Mailer Diablo 13:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:PSIplus.png

This image is now in commons, please delete PSIplus 13:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

San Diego Bike Club

Delete. Not notable except for one famous member. — Fingers-of-Pyrex 14:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 09:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Italian Surnames

It's an unwikified (and hardly worth wikifying) string of Italian names and surnames, with no source and no information that cannot be found in other articles. Probably an example of what Misplaced Pages is not. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I'm Italian. I was planning to add what regions the names are from. I was planning to add a much more extensive list of names. And I was intending to add famous people for every name possible. Kindof like an extensive list of Italian orgiginated surnames, who they belong to... etc. I do not have so much time on my hands just recently as i planned to so until I do... which will unfortunately never happen. I agree that this list is going nowhere. --Alexbonaro 08:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you could collect the information you need elsewhere, and then propose it for reference. Even then I'm not sure if such an annotated list would be considered encyclopedic by other editors. Check the Wiktionary. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 16:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to PlanetSide. There is probably grounds enough for deletion here, but there is some sense in a redirect to PlanetSide, as a common mispelling. -Splash 23:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Pulsed Particle Accelerater

As much as I love PlanetSide, I really doubt we have need for more than the main article. This page is not a good candidate for a redirect as it is misspelled. You can call me Al 14:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. - Mailer Diablo 13:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Bjornar Simonsen

This Wikipedian is an International Counselor of the Korean Friendship Association (KFA). Unfortunately, the article talks mostly about his disputes within the Misplaced Pages community about North Korea. Fplay 15:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

RESOLVED: I am going to remove my AfD on this guy for now. He has already indicated that he is indifferent to the page, which he did not create it. Also, I removed the stuff about the Misplaced Pages fights that went on. It was a little too self-referential. I may put it up for AfD again if nothing else of note can be said about this guy. -- Fplay 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 07:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Woostercollective.com

User:BenAveling tagged speedy delete for spam, but that's not a criteria. Created subpage for that user. Enochlau 11:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per whoever tagged it as a speedy. Stifle 23:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep woostercollective is a major street art website and the article was created for this http://en.wikinews.org/Legal_Sony_graffiti_advertising_backlash .anyway if it could be keeped for a couple of weeks until the story has finished that would be good. After that i suppose i dont really care.i suppose i really created it for the opposite reason of spam to allow people to see what the site about with out visiting it. It is also for some dead links on other pages street art]being one of them.

Note: relisting 16/12/05, which is apparently the 15th for y'all. I never before believed that AfD was holding us back ... fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. FireFox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

CGI Filmmaking, The Creation Of Ghost Warrior

This is a real book, and it may even have some notablity, with 15 reviews on Amazon; however, the article reads like an advertisment and was created by User:Keaze, whose only edits have been to this article and articles about the book's author (Timothy Albee) and his film (Kaze, Ghost Warrior). - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but so are 600,000 other books; are they all notable and encyclopedic? Should we, say, have an article on Apples of Gold: A Six-Week Nurturing Program for Women, to pick an example at random? - squibix 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Apples of Gold has just four very short reviews on amazon, so it's not much of a comparison. Regardless, I couldn't find any guidelines on notability for books. You have not made a case for non-notability in the general sense. If the only problem is that the article reads like an advert, then slap the {{advert}} tag on it, or rewrite it yourself. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep, go discuss this at the ArbCom election talk page. Titoxd 17:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Vote

Open ballots are the tools of tyranny and dictatorships. We used to have a secret ballot. Whatever happened to "this year's election will be held using the Special:Arb-com-vote software" ?

The page isn't being used. It's principally blank. --Victim of signature fascism 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
It's being linked to from the talk page as an example of what a vote would look like. We don't delete proposals; discuss it at the talk page instead. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be AFD'd. We already know what Special:Arb-com-vote looks like. --Victim of signature fascism 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
-Ril-, you're missing the point here: the point is that this page is being used for discussion currently (check out the main talk page and the page's talk page); if you disagree with using open voting in the election, bring it up on the talk page (which several users have already done) instead of trying to get this deleted. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Space Flag

NN vanity. Article is about a flag to be used by earth colonies in outer space. This is a personal project by a space enthusiast from Australia with no official sanction from any organization. External links are to the creator's website and an article the creator wrote about the project for another publication. Most google returns are about computer coding and incidental occurrences of "space" and "flag." Durova 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Harro5 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Devar-toi

notability Melaen 15:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

John I. Wilder

non-notable blogger. Laura Ingalls Wilder is notable, John Ingalls Wilder is not Melaen 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

IMGrammarBot

bot un-notability Melaen 15:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. FireFox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

CGI Filmmaking, The Creation Of Ghost Warrior

This is a real book, and it may even have some notablity, with 15 reviews on Amazon; however, the article reads like an advertisment and was created by User:Keaze, whose only edits have been to this article and articles about the book's author (Timothy Albee) and his film (Kaze, Ghost Warrior). - squibix 14:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but so are 600,000 other books; are they all notable and encyclopedic? Should we, say, have an article on Apples of Gold: A Six-Week Nurturing Program for Women, to pick an example at random? - squibix 15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Apples of Gold has just four very short reviews on amazon, so it's not much of a comparison. Regardless, I couldn't find any guidelines on notability for books. You have not made a case for non-notability in the general sense. If the only problem is that the article reads like an advert, then slap the {{advert}} tag on it, or rewrite it yourself. | Klaw ¡digame! 15:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng 16:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Emily R. Gillis

Non notable.. Delete -- Eagle 06:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep - no consensus. FireFox 22:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Finbar Madden

Secondary school teacher, notability not asserted Demiurge 10:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


I have cleaned up this page, it should no longer be nominated for speedy deletion. Finbar Madden clearly meets the criteria for inclusion.


May i refer you to Misplaced Pages:Criteria for inclusion of biographies

It says one of the criteria for inclusion is:

  • Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more.

Clearly Finbar Madden fufills this criteria. A quick search on amazon will show you he has sold considerbly more than 5000 copies of three his books on this site alone. For this reason and after cleaning up the page i strongly recommend it is not deleted. N mcdermott 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Apologies i misread the sales rankings/figures, but clearly having four books published more than meets the criteria, therefore nomination for deletion removed. time for this targed campaign against johnfullerton to stop.

  • Delete per Malthusian and Guy, per the subject's utter lack of notability, and per the authorship by User:Johnfullerton who has previously given us problems . — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:49, Dec. 26, 2005


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Not an incomplete nomination, but one that became orphaned when the article was moved without updating the AfD link. See the original AfD. Owen× ☎ 00:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Fritz-Ellis House

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Green Shirt Thursday


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

JoltForums

JoltForums are a small group of forums--there are only 18 registered members. the joltforums page was created by Zakerius in august 2005 and hasn't been edited since (except to add the deletion notice). Zakerius doesn't have a userpage and his only activity was to create this one page. the page seems rather useless to me. danhash 04:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Knifesite

Not notable. -- Eagle 06:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

delete - non notable and advertisement, WP:ISNOT a link repository. -Drdisque 06:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by BanyanTree (Special:Undelete/Logical_psycho). howcheng 00:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Logical psycho

AfD - nn vanity

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. howcheng 16:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Marcas O'Murchú

Non-notability under Misplaced Pages:Notability (music) - plus probable WP:POINT by poster after the John Fullerton afd (attempt to hype the notability of teachers at a Derry school). Tearlach 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I feel Marcas meets at least three Musical Notability guidelines:
  • Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show. He has performed on TG4, a national station in Ireland, and has also introduced a number of programmes.
  • Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or the local scene of a city. The Belfast Telegraph describe him as one of the "country's finest musicians".
  • Has been the subject of a half hour or hour broadcast on a national radio network. “Turas” on RTE-Raidio na Gaeltachta is an hour long radio programme of Irish music and conversation between 3-4pm each Friday afternoon from June 17, running until September, presented by well-known flute player, Marcas O Murchu. - ]--Johnfullerton 11:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Marcas clearly fulfills these three guidelines, of which he only needs to fulfil one. I don't understand why the deletion box has been put back in place.--159.134.206.12 14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The Seattle Raptor

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was nn, advert. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

WPKN

This looks too much like an ad to me. I don;t think it can be edited to npov either. Nazgjunk - - Signing is 11:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedied. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IllumiRate

web page un-notability, also the article's author stated on the talk page that it should be deleted Melaen 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Jewell

un-notability, vanity Melaen 15:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Three established users agree that this should be deleted. Thus, the chorus of unsigned votes, by anonymous users, with strikingly similar IP numbers, have been summarily disregarded. To them, I can only advise getting an account, making a few constructive edits and getting a feel for what is and is not encyclopedic. WP:NOT is a good place to start. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:00, Dec. 26, 2005

Panyet

Dictionary definition of an invented word, unworthy of Wiktionary. Pablo D. Flores (Talk)

  • Delete, neologism. — JIP | Talk 18:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article admits that it originated as slang and Google fails to generate relevant hits (surnames, Portugese texts). Durova 18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep well written article and one which deserves to be seen. Neologism it may be, but additions like this are essential to the English language.
  • Keep it does actually get several surname hits on Google, while I'm not quite sure why it must appear in Portugese - the chap is Greek after all. Neologisms appear every day on product labels in English, most of them meaningless compound words. This is at least derived from a name, and references a common experience. Perhaps we should give this little word a chance in the big wide world and see how it fairs!
  • Keep it makes more sense to let the English decide what enters their language than an Argentinian and a Finn. It's quite a handy word, might start using it myself.
  • Keep this is the kind of logic that would still have us communicating in grunts. "Panyet" is a valuable addition to our empoverished language, and I for one shall be lobbying the OED for its inclusion in their next edition. I just hope nobody else does so first — that would be deeply ironic!
  • Keep isn't 'Wiktionary' a neologism (see 'meaningless compound words' above; wiki-dictionary or wikiary would be tolerable). Perhaps that should go too.
  • Keep This is a fine example of the way in which English grows and develops, one of its greatest strengths. Perhaps the article could be updated to make this clear? Am I the only one who finds this sort of thing exciting?
  • Keep "Pinky chocolate fudge dumping" and "rusty trombone" are both to be found on Misplaced Pages. I'm pretty sure you'll fail to find either anywhere outside Roger's Profanisaurus - as an example of slang they're more or less unbeatable. Why on earth wouldn't "panyet" be suitable?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:01, Dec. 26, 2005

Datatecture

"This is a very pov article that reads almost like a commercial for the website it links to. The author did not provide any evidence that the word was first used by the man mentioned in the article. They also did not provide any evidence that the term is now commonly used.DeleteTheRingess 19:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Note: relisting 16/12/05, which AfD thinks is still the 15th. Hrmph. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as per User:Uncle G/Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day#That_infamous_game. Uncle G 21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages race, Wikirace, Misplaced Pages Race

All self referential, and non-notable. RobertG ♬ talk 15:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete by UninvitedCompany (CSD A1 -- "no context"). howcheng 00:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Forum-website

Discussion board with 119 members. Enough said, I think. Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Virocommunications

No google hits, almost nonsense, but no speedy i'd guess. feydey 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng 16:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Holly Piirainen

We can't possibly put an article about every crime. Google shows 233 results . ^demon 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was redirect to immigration. howcheng 16:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic migrant

This issue is substantially covered in immigration and in a year has remained a useless and unnecessary stub. Redirect to immigration. SqueakBox 16:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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


Picture

I think that there should be a photo for this topic. There are many pictures included in newspaper articles on the current economic migrant crisis in Europe that would be great for this page. Please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kerrih1126 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -R. fiend 19:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gabe Contreras

Non-notable drug smuggler. Google shows 0 google hits.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC) May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-Adolescent Narcissism

I can't find any proof that this really exists. Google doesn't even show a handfull of hits. Were this a real term, I believe it would be more well documented on the web. ^demon 16:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete as complete bollocks. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:03, Dec. 26, 2005

Farditmitts

Seems like non-sense Computerjoe 16:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Well that's nice and open-minded of you Joe, by that reasoning you should trundle off to the Christianity, Scientology and Santa Claus pages and have a go at putting them up for deletion as well. I'm sure people affiliated with those concepts won't be offended at being labelled 'non-sense' either. ZeRo 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, promotion, see www.farditmitts.com where it says: I just read an article on the BBC that says that wikipedia, the open source online encyclopedia, is as good as the encyclopedia Brittanica. And since it has always been an ambition of mine to get farditmitts recognised as an official word I thought what a better place to start than to get it listed in the worlds biggest freakin encyclopedia? -feydey 16:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Explain Please. What is the matter with you people? Your like evil librarians on speed... What exactly is so wrong with the above exerpt that would deem this entry worthy of promotion for deletion? ZeRo 16:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Only Google hits for the term are the creator's website. Neither notable nor encyclopedic. Durova 16:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being complete vanity and nonsense. --Apostrophe 16:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair Enough so if I can gather a group of people together who can verify the existance of farditmitts, confirm their use of farditmitts on a daily basis and show their support for a wikipedia entry on the subject everything will be o.k? By the way is this actually a 'discussion' or just a virtual pitstop for power tripping, stuck-up, kill-joys? I mean does anyone actually ever come back to defend their comments once they have made them?
  • vanity? and nonsense... Nonsense, yes, nonsense in a way is the definition of the word farditmitts. But if you want to delete something because it's definition is nonsense you'd better go and delete this one as well: Nonsense. As for vanity, I don't know wot you mean by that and if your going to be as 'responsive' as the other people that have posted so far, I guess I never will. ZeRo 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Dicdef doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages. A concept or term should have an impact outside of it's adherents or at least have a large number of such adherents. DeathThoreau 17:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Comment Not once did I mention or promote farditmitts.com, infact I would incourage you not to go there.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibson and dj show

no pertinent google search result with "Gibson and Dj" PBS -- Melaen 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Killgasm

non notability, vanity Melaen 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd 21:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Henry Walton Smith

opened a newsagent shop doesn't give any notability--Melaen 16:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Luminaire

Advertizing, non notable Melaen 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete, then restore four most recent revisions. Mindmatrix 21:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Martirano

non notability, vanity Melaen 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I went to high school in San Clemente with this guy. He was kind of nuts. Good guitar player though wayverunner

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 RHaworth (author request). howcheng 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

axani.co.uk

should not have been created here Owain 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. bainer (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Creighton Lovelace

Was tagged as speedy, but claims notability, so User:Kappa removed the tag. Original reason given was "not notable". howcheng 00:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete An otherwise completely non-notable local pastor whose only tenuous claim to fame is some media attention for a sign he put up by his church for a few days? Sounds too non notable for a Misplaced Pages article. --Wingsandsword 01:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mário de Andrade

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Privet Drive Networks

non notable Harry Potter community Melaen 16:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

R. D. Augusto

poet without having published a single poetry book Melaen 16:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

B-Town Project

Band vanity (created by User:B-Town Prophet). And truly horrible. Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 19:20, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Quarter Past Punk

Non-notable/vanity - Rudykog 17:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Children and divorce

Not an encyclopedia entry, unlikely it can be salvaged. Not enough to interwiki. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

CORPLISH

Not patent nonsense, but essentially nonsense anyway. A humorous neologism for a well-understood concept. Nice try, but not quite, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 09:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Watch

Subject of this article is a nn subpage of Daniel Brandt's website which already has an article; FRS 16:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC) Recommend protected redirection of this page to Daniel Brandt to keep all the eggs in one basket. --FRS 16:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral this might be worth an article separate from Daniel Brandt. But the current article is highly POV and reads more like a blog entry than an encyclopedia article. CarbonCopy (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite per CarbonCopy. See if enough can be written for a real article, but I suspect not. Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unnecessary at this point. This website just isn't that important. But recreate as protected redirect to Daniel Brandt, per nominator. u p p l a n d 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Daniel Brandt. Already has adequate mention in that article. --Carnildo 20:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep obviously and portion from Daniel Brandt should simply point to this. Necessary to keep to conform to WP:NPOV which entries relating to this are having major problems complying to. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • In what way does NPOV necessitate that Misplaced Pages Watch must get its own separate article? NPOV requires that things be described fairly; you're going to have to draw the connections if you want to substantiate your claim that "Misplaced Pages Watch described in Misplaced Pages Watch == good and fair; Misplaced Pages Watch described in Daniel Brandt == bad and POV". Given the bad-faith "hide the content" games recently played with Wikifiddler, I must agree with FRS; Protected redirect to Daniel Brandt. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess the problem here is that we've claimed that Daniel Brandt is notable. Now, within the activist community and the conspiracy theory community, he is, and has been for the past 20 or so years. However, those are seriously underground communities, and its really only through Google Watch that he got any interest beyond those very underground communities, where most people's names are never released to the public. Thanks to Google Watch, his name was released, he was interviewed, etc etc. Yahoo Watch was really just a tag on to Google Watch, while Scroogle was almost always mentioned alongside Google Watch as they compliment each other. So then the issue is Misplaced Pages Watch. It is, in a lot of ways, just a tag along for Google Watch, because he created it claiming that Misplaced Pages is an agent of Google, and that everyone here is a CIA agent (or at least enough CIA agents to force us all to be brainwashed in to going along with the CIA agenda). All CIA agents put up your hand so that we know who you are! Come on, anyone? But see the big issue here is this - is Misplaced Pages Watch just Daniel Brandt? If it is, then merge and be done with it. If not, then don't. Whilst he does go on about his personal views, its not just about him, because he mentions all sorts of other people that were affected by Misplaced Pages, and it has been contributed to by more people than him. Is it notable? I've counted 15 international news sources that have mentioned it. By my mind, that makes WP:WEB quite happily. Sure, most of them are in some way related to the Seigenthaler affair, but not all. So the issue is that - if we wipe this, then can we justify keeping things like Daniel Brandt? We can hardly suggest that he as an individual is more notable than his pieces of work. Or do we think that Bill Gates is more notable than Microsoft? Maybe we should merge Microsoft in to Bill Gates as well. And Windows and everything else as well... Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Just another bit. Google Watch Watch has its own page, with less media coverage, and is a much smaller site - on virtually the same topic. So if this gets deleted, then so should that one. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, no. It does not have its own page. It has a redirect to Chris Beasley. Which you know, because you were the one who created the redirect. Less than twenty-four hours ago. What exactly are you trying to achieve here? I'd hate to think that you created a redirect from Google Watch Watch to Chris Beasley just so you could argue that we have to keep Misplaced Pages Watch for consistency, but I find it hard to construct any other explanation for you creating it and then misdescribing it here as an article rather than a redirect -- without disclosing that it only exists due to you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I put in the redirect, but I didn't write the Chris Beasley article. I for one think that it should be Google Watch Watch with a redirect from Chris Beasley (i.e. other way around to what it is now) but hey, either way. And if Google Watch Watch has next to no media coverage, then Chris Beasley has even less. Outside of Google Watch Watch he is unheard of. Anyone who votes delete on this should put Google Watch Watch/Chris Beasley up for deletion, because there is no way in hell that that is more notable than Misplaced Pages Watch. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 12:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
        • You're not answering the question. You're saying that it is unacceptable to have Misplaced Pages Watch described at Daniel Brandt and have a redirect pointing to it. You seem to be claiming that for consistency, Misplaced Pages Watch has to have its own article, Misplaced Pages Watch, because after all, Google Watch Watch has its own article, doesn't it? But in point of fact, this is not the case, and you know it's not the case, so it seems that what you're trying to claim now is that Google Watch Watch is automatically so much less notable than Misplaced Pages Watch that if Misplaced Pages Watch doesn't get a separate article, Google Watch Watch shouldn't get any coverage -- a premise that I find extremely specious, to say the least. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
          • What? Anyway, this web site has had major international news coverage and meets WP:WEB. And yes, Google Watch Watch does have its own article, and has for quite some time. As stated elsewhere, Google Watch Watch is NOT a site - its an article. Yes, that article has been referenced elsewhere, but that's just it - its an article. Now, if Misplaced Pages Watch was only 1 article, sure, same deal. But its not. It currently has 4 articles on the site. Granted that's not a lot, but Google Watch was notable when it only had 4 articles on its site too. Misplaced Pages Watch is a site. Whilst it started off quite personal, it has grown beyond just his personal campaign. Anyway, please stop adding "Outing" to the Daniel Brandt article. Your reasons, that it is "proving" that he is hypocriticial is POV. You might think he is hypocritical, but that's just your opinion, and it doesn't belong there. Instead of just having "Outing" in there, you should write how some people think he is hypocritical. Not everyone does. Most activists would think that he is far from hypocritical. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

*Frankly, I am weary of Brandt's hatemongering and disrespect for our body of work. He has no compunctions about tarring us all with the same brush because of whatever indignities he has been subjected to. The best we can do is report each and every facet of his efforts, provided they cross pre-existing criteria for inclusion. Heck, let's make him a Featured Article candidate. Why? Because we can. Because it's fighting dirt with a big vacuum cleaner. Because it's a little bit zany and more than a little, as the French call it, bartesque. Keep/Rewrite --Agamemnon2 07:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC). Having been blackballed by Mr Brandt, I hereby shut the hell up about the topic. Changing vote to Abstain. --Agamemnon2 19:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Wales says:

I copied the below subsection from User talk:Jimbo Wales. WAS 4.250 17:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Are personal attacks now acceptable?

Suppose I were to send a hoax email to the subject of a Misplaced Pages article, and then write up the results (haha! got him!) on the talk page and in the article. The subject of the Misplaced Pages article also happens to be a Wikipedian.

Would that be: (a) good traditional encyclopedia research, or (b) an egregious personal attack?

I say (b), but the Misplaced Pages community (including several admins) says (a).

Oh, and the article subject/Wikipedia user happens to be very unpopular (in fact has been blocked from Misplaced Pages). Does the answer depend on that? Should it?

See User:Grue/Brandt for details. Mirror Vax 22:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No it is completely unacceptable behavior. Very disappointing. We are Wikipedians and for me that means something.--Jimbo Wales 19:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you think that I should include "Attacks on Misplaced Pages Watch" as a sub section? Happy to remove that. Can also include another section "Criticisms of Misplaced Pages Watch" as well if you like. I see that Jimbo's comments have been quoted in the Daniel Brandt article as criticisms of it. Are there any other published comments criticising it? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 08:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete And while we're at it, destroy the Brandt article too. (unsigned anonymous comment 14:48, 21 December 2005 86.137.180.163)
  • Keep This is becoming a part of Misplaced Pages history, and Mr. Brandt has thrust himself into the public spotlight because of it. He fights for privacy, but revels in the attention. I believe that this page, with a bit of work could become a great summary of a controversial event in Misplaced Pages's history. --DaiTengu 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Thomas and Friends - Season 1. howcheng {chat} 17:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Trouble in the Shed

Are individual Thomas the Tank Engine stories really that notable? It is doubtful this will ever be more than a stub. You can call me Al 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I've merged all of the Series 1 episodes into Thomas and Friends - Season 1, and put redirects on all pages except this one, since Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion advises against putting a redirect o this page untilt he AFD is over. So there you go. Would the last one to leave please slap a redirect up, assuming that is the verdict. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk)

Good work. - Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and move to House of Fools (band). howcheng {chat} 18:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

House of Fools

Vanity, besides the Russian film is much more well known. Maybe the band info could be moved to House of Fools (band) or a disambig page could be made? - FrancisTyers 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Living in spain

WP:ISNOT a FAQ (explicitly). Just zis  Guy, you know? / AfD? 17:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Buying Property in Spain

This article is a FAQ, and contains original research Varco 17:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Goods and services

This page can't ever have any content that wouldn't end up in either good (economics) or service. Recommend changing it to a redirect and replacing links to goods and services with goods and services Scott Ritchie 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1LIFE

Personal essay, not encyclopedic content. Content appears to exist at author's userpage. Delete. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 18:00, Dec. 15, 2005


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Phase kings college london

plus Octane, kings college added -- RHaworth 08:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's an article about a party in London. Encyclopedic - no. feydey 18:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Gaston Lagaffe

No one in the United States has heard of this comics character. Delete as non-notable. — JIP | Talk 18:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong Speedy Keep Well-known and very famous character with many published books and a half-century of success. Google score is 300,000+. While it's true that he's essentially unknown in the US, that's due to the lack of translated material available (as opposed to, say, Tintin). No reason to delete offered. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Bellendross

unverifiable neologism. I see only 1 use of this word outside of Misplaced Pages mirrors, and in that case it's someone's login for a game site. Thus, cannot be verified as far as I can tell. --W.marsh 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Lady Cooper


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

The result was no consensus. WjBscribe 02:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Claudia Ellquist

Claudia Ellquist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Delete See previous nom. GreenJoe 16:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Key words are "could be". That kind of single-party deltion effort cannot be ignored. Not uncivil at all. --Oakshade 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
It's uncivil when you put it in multiple afd's. GreenJoe 16:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No. Information of a possible deletion agenda should not be kept hidden from other AfDs. All editors can make up their own minds. --Oakshade 16:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --GreenJoe 16:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you bringing a straw man into this? I don't see the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or WP:Pokémon test arguments being used here. --Oakshade 16:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey all, regardless of the "agenda" or lack of one on the part of the nominating editor, AfD discussions should focus on arguments about the article and its suitability for this encyclopedia, not how it ended up here for discussion. Sancho 17:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. An unsuccessful candidate for county attorney is not notable. Her co-chair status of the Arizona Green Party (which according to the article has only has 2 county organizations) is not relevant and it's not clear that this party has any affiliation with the national one (If it is affiliated, it should probably be deleted as not notable; I note that there are no parallel articles Arizona Democratic Party (except for a stub with a logo) or Arizona Republican Party and surely someone in Arizona votes those ways). Carlossuarez46 22:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, her political involvement in itself dosn't make her notable, but I think her political activities do. I did some background research on her, and it seems that she is pretty well-known for her anti-death penalty beliefs. *Cremepuff222* 23:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment quite possibly so, but it's not clear from he article, which just says she had them and campaigned on them. DGG 03:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc 13:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

International Masters Publishers

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Betacomix

Creator and only content editor is the guy who runs this site . Misplaced Pages is not self promotion. Site is hosted on a free webhost, and almost certainly does not meet WP:WEB proposal. I am also nominating The Chronicles of megaman, an article about an individual comic on this site. This site is presumably located here . W.marsh 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The Chronicles of megaman

Individual comic on a site that is also up for AfD, Betacomix. Ariticles are both created and solely editted by the guy who runs the site, wikipedia is not self promotion. W.marsh 18:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeltsin (band)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Tom Rasely

Delete, because it's a mess and doesn't seem to fulfil the criteria on WP:MUSIC - Petros471 18:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)*

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd 21:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

ELion

This is a wholly inappropriate topic for an encyclopedia, and I thus nominate it for deletion under the "Idiosyncratic non-topic" clause of the deletion policy coupled with the fact that WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This amounts to a person at Penn State thinking too highly of their school's IT setup and creating a large article about a piece of Penn State trivia. The Literate Engineer 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Seemed pretty interesting when I looked at it, but it needs to cleaned-up (btw, did you check it for copyvio?). For a merger, I was thinking to a page on comparable software or to the University page. Ideally, we should have a page on University accounting software. -- JJay 04:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Social clubs

Problem: Article discussed at length here, I would suggest a deletion or merge. ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2005 (UTC) delete or merge no new points here -Drdisque 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I added most of this information to the club article, though I believe it really deserves its own space. Please let me know what you think.

Pretend you are rural Chineese for a moment - and ask yourself if this might describe social clubs in your culture. The bias is that it assumes a Western (probably North American) experience is universal. --Doc 20:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. This is not a topic of VfD; just be bold next time. mikka (t) 21:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Zorba the Hutt

no useful conent, not encyclopedic enough for a seperate article. Was tagged for speedy delete, but IMO does not qualify. Howver, Delete. DES 22:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 18:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd 21:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ranjith Joy

Vanity page, nn-bio, gets 223 unique Google hits. Blackcap (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 18:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE should have been speedied in the first place. -Doc 13:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Prank ideas

Problem: Vulgar, non encyclopedic dribble. Perhaps a BJAODN would be in order.....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

National Youth Computer Literacy Drive

Whilst this initially appears to be an education initiative further examination of the site appears to be mostly related to recruitment. All Google results are wikipedia related. The entry has been made by the site webmaster. Mozzerati 19:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

SRE

  • Undelete and restore How can a small local band become Nationally known when they cannot advertise or sign with a record company? They get their name out on a free Encycopedia that many people use regularly. It's not advertising because they didn't try to sell anything from Misplaced Pages, and there wasn't an article in its place that was erased, and the empty space hasn't been taken over by a new article, so why not let them have this small page in this huge enyclopedia?
  • Delete ....εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not internationally or even nationally known. Just a small local band. - (Erebus555 19:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC))
  • Delete - Borderline vanity, could have been candidate for speedy delete; in any event, this band does not appear to meet established criteria for notability (see WP:MUSIC). Engineer Bob 08:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc 13:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Internation Mexico Day

Non-notable. --Quasipalm 19:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. howcheng {chat} 18:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Emosnap

NN neologism. Durova 19:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dog Owners Beware

Personal essay, original research, and otherwise unencyclopedic material. Delete. Was listed for speedy deletion, but it did not meet WP:CSD. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Peklo

del A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. contributor's speculations. "Peklo" is simply "hell" in a nubmer of Slavic languages. mikka (t) 16:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

This is based on a theis made back in the 19th century. Have you ever thought of why it got the name hell in the first place.

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 19:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd 21:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Rai (mythology)

del A series of Slavic myhtology by anons. contributor's speculations. "Rai" is simply "heaven" in a nubmer of Slavic languages. mikka (t) 16:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete the Slavic word for paradise from English-language encyclopedia. There is nothing to distinguish the Slavic notion of paradise from that of other peoples. The etymology is fake, Alkonost is a purely Russian development, etc. --Ghirlandajo 13:04, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you know. It seems you have not studied this fairly.

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Harro5 22:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bozaloshtsh

del Nonverifable. The anon is creating Wiendish mythology here, totally unreferenced, taking an advantage this being an unknown area. mikka (t) 16:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

delete original research per referrer. If this is taken from neopaganist manuals, please clearly say so in the text. --Ghirlandajo 13:10, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mikkalai. Several homepages refer to the Bozaloshtsh. What is your problem? Dr. Anthony E. Smith is behind this interpreation of the Bozaloshtsh. Remember it is Wendish - not Russian mythology in this case. See: http://www.pantheon.org/articles/b/bozaloshtsh.html

But on the other hand. I may have been fooled by this Wicca, I'm must admit. see: http://www.heathenfolk.net/forums/view_topic.php?id=599&forum_id=&jump_to=2750 "Now this guy, Dr. Anthony E. Smith, is a prime example of parroting Wiccan doctrine."

LK

Bozaloshtsh's also got an article at http://da.wikipedia.org/Bozaloshtsh (where it should be less of an 'unknown area'). 24.17.48.241 09:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


Please check out: Bonnerjea, B. A Dictionary of Superstitions and Mythology. London 1927

user:konzack 20:23 December 13 2005

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 19:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep has credible sources. Kappa 01:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Relisting due to insufficient votes. - Mailer Diablo 09:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep This whole area seems full of circular references. I can't find a copy of Bonnerjea for example. Has anyone independent seen/read any of these works? There may be a story here, but I sense it is not balanced.Obina 12:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - this article has been on AfD for 13 days now, which seems to be stretching the process beyond what it's meant to be. Clearly there is no consensus to delete, so the article (as ridiculous as it may be) should be unburdened of the AfD notice. The 'not verified' notice should be enough to warm people that this is a potentially questionable article. - squibix 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Emphatic Delete. There's no consensus to delete because it's such an incredibly obscure topic. As one of the few people who actually know anything of pre-Christian Slavic mythology, I have to say this is complete bollocks. The people had no writing. We're not even sure of the functions and relationships between their chief deities. I have never heard of Biren Bonnerjea or his 1921 book before, but in the past few decades made up Slavic mythology has been used to support a huge number of hoaxes in wiccan literature. I'd need to see more modern sources, with detailed explanation on where they found this deity, to change my mind. A single obscure 1921 book isn't nearly good enough. Flyboy Will 23:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with the unverified tag -- Astrokey44|talk 01:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That's the worst possible solution. This entire encyclopedia will go down the drain. Any insane tidbit of idiocy can be kept here, as long as a couple of geocities pages copy it off of each other. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, a secondary repositary of information, which means reputable sources must exists before an article is created. Flyboy Will 02:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Seems to me like complete bollocks. Stifle 13:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Flyboy Will unless proof of given reference text, or other independent source provided. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 13:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Titoxd 21:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Princess Dragonmom

nn band; fails WP:MUSIC. Might be vandalism. Delete this shit. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete for the rationale given at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Super Phone Access Numbers. Uncle G 22:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Virtualphoneline.com

Advertisement, and probably non notable, billions of websites exist, I read nothing that made that one special. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

It's also out and out plagiarism! It's now up for deletion as such. 68.39.174.238 19:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep (nomination withdrawn). howcheng 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Corey Maye

This is a non-notable person. The article was apparently created and is maintained by several bloggers, and links to no other articles in en.wiki. NoSeptember 19:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep this case is having a far reaching effect, I'd usually say delete, but this is much more notable . εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The article as I found it had his name misspelled and his birth date off by 2 years. Thanks to Encyclopedist for catching these errors and correcting them. If we keep this article, then we certainly need to continue to clean it up. Currently it seems to be sourced from a single blog and that blog has not been very precise with factual details. NoSeptember 20:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Clean it up!? Well there is a novel idea... almost makes me wish we had posted it to a forum that allows that to happen in an open manner. If it is deleted no more than 3 days after it is posted in the first place where is the collaboration to come from? Do you understand what the strength of an interactive and user managed Wiki is?
  • Keep as per Encyclopedist. Meelar (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep! Non-notable? The guy is to be put to death, he was not even supposed to be arrested. The original "raid" lacks physical documentation. This is VERY pertinent.
  • Keep as this issue is being followed across the blogosphere.
  • Seems like a keeper to me also --Censorwolf 20:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it should be in the news. It's not. Please don't censor it from here as well.
  • This deserves explanation: Corey Maye is a prisoner on death row in Mississippi. Police officers entered his apartment on a search warrant. He shot and killed one officer. He had no criminal record prior to this event. The police found one joint and/or trace amounts of marijuana in the residence. There was no other associated crime. Maye claims he was sleeping when the police entered and that he fired in self-defense, unaware that the man approaching him was a police officer. His defense attorney had never handled a capital case before. Maye is black and the officer was white. He's garnered some attention in the liberal blogosphere (which isn't encyclopedic, unfortunately). Two legitimate news outlets have covered the story: a local newspaper and the local NBC television affiliate. I checked the websites for Amnesty International and the NAACP: neither site returns any results for his name. After some hard thought I'm voting keep. Two mainstream news sources is enough. This has encyclopedic interest as an example of the United States death penalty system. Durova 21:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Having an explanation was a good idea. People need to realize that a blog is not necessarily a good or credible news source. I expect most of the unsigned comments on this page came here from the blogs. There are literally millions of people in prison and many if not most assert their innocence. Being imprisoned and claiming innocence is not enough to be a notable person. As noted in the nomination, this is a stand alone article linked to nothing else, most likely created by a blogger who desired an article on this person. There seems to be some interest in the case, which is fine by me, but that is a case by case thing. Being on Death Row does not make one automatically notable. NoSeptember 21:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment This looks like an unusual case. I gather that this became eligible for the death penalty because the court found that the shooting occurred in the commission of a crime. This logic normally applies to armed robberies, not misdemeanor drug possession. While I'm no legal expert this certainly piques my interest. So does the defendant's lack of any prior criminal record. Durova
        • Keep It's a capital murder case because the prosecution says Maye knew Jones was a cop. Killing a cop is worse than killing a mere "civilian", you know. Anton 02:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While the story is developing and not all the facts are fully known yet, I don't think this is non-notable. --Error28 21:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've heard about this person many times before seeing his page on wikipedia. Definitely notable. Strong keep. --Pierremenard
  • Keep While merely saying "he should be in the news and he's not" is not a reason to keep an article (I'm glad to see that our recent policy change has um, encouraged, more people to actually open user accounts, the new people need to realize what arguments they need to use, and not use, in deletion votes. This will be instructive). I believe this case is arousing national interest in the U.S. and will eventually be covered by the major media. I know we don't consider blog posts to be serious sources (a policy I think deserves more nuance) but the fact here is that an awful lot of bloggers, people who usually don't agree on much, are picking this case up and drawing attention to it. There is a website devoted to it which has nothing to do with the blog. Eventually the media we consider reliable sources will do stories. I'd rather have the article now than recreate it later. Daniel Case 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: "links to no other articles in en.wiki." Huh? Within hours of the article being added, I spent one myself slavishly going through and linking where necessary. I have since dabbed a bunch. At the time this AfD was posted, there were plenty of links to other articles. I cannot see how I can assume good faith here, given that the many links in the article were present at the time and could not have been missed. I think that argues even more strongly for a keep. Daniel Case 22:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I was referring to other articles that linked to the Corey Maye article (click on "What links here" to see what links to the article). In other words, there are no incoming links, you added plenty of outgoing links. Please don't let your "good faith cushion" run so thin. ;) NoSeptember 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Maye himself is not notable, but then that's partly the point: the guy had no criminal record yet is slated for death after a murder that might have been a justifiable killing. This story has legs, and since when should wiki just follow the MSM? -Leonard 22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Non-notables have a way of becoming notables. Look at Justice Roberts. Leonson 23:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Maye's case IS notable. This is a wrongful conviction that needs to be corrected. This NEEDS to be in the news, and the only way that will happen is if the word is con
  • Comment I think NoSeptember should withdraw this nomination per obviousness. Speedy keep εγκυκλοπαίδεια* (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thats fine by me. I withdraw my AfD nomination and request a Speedy Keep. To those of you who registered just to vote, I encourage you to look around for articles in your area of interest and help edit and improve them, they are easy to find. NoSeptember 00:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 16:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Panocracy

Term fails the google test. Appears to be original research. Article is orphan. Mecanismo 20:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Relisting this to generate more discussion. howcheng 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was Keep (No consensus). --Titoxd 21:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

DXLab

Blatant advertising. WP:NOT a propaganda machine. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

Note to closer. Several pages redirect to this article. If it is deleted they should be too. -R. fiend 20:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't see anything encyclopedic here. WP is already full of insignificant software BS. We don't need any more. -R. fiend 19:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • This piece of "insignificant software" is used continously by thousands around the world to facilitate communications. It is completely free; with no revenue, the term "advertising" has no meaning. I note a WP entry for Linux. --—the preceding unsigned comment is by AA6YQ (talk • contribs)
  • Linux is not blatant advertising, and besides that is actually notable. If you can prove notability and expand this beyond an advert, then we might have something. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete I concur with R. Fiend, although I prefer to look at it not so much as "we don't need any more" but as "we need to reverse the trend". The Literate Engineer 19:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • One can apply the WP:CORP criteria for products and services to softwares. (For example: Hdimage (AfD discussion) fails to satisfy those criteria, whereas grep succeeds.) Searching turns up announcements from the author (and simple reprints) and mentions in discussion fora by pseudonymous people, but also turns up people independent of its creator considering this software notable enough to have written their own, often quite lengthy, reviews of it (by other amateur radio enthusiasts by more amateur radio enthusiasts by Thierry Lombry by John Butcher by Serge Stroobandt by W8BYH) and even to have written softwares of their own to work with it (MMD). Although this is far from what an encyclopaedia article about these softwares should look like, and although an actual book would be a much stronger indicator, it appears from the sheer number of people that have done more than simply include this, and its accompanying blurb from the author, in directories of free software for download and that have actually put up their own reviews, on their web sites for other enthusiasts to read, that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied. Keep. Uncle G 23:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Uncle G's evidence and arguments. This article is not promotional, and AFD is not cleanup Kappa 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per R. fiend. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 08:37, Dec. 26, 2005


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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In Evil Hour

"There is a book called this, in spanish it is called this." is not an article. StealthFox 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 20:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Schnozz.net

WP:NOT a web directory. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)


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