Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 19 - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomstoner (talk | contribs) at 05:27, 19 February 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:27, 19 February 2006 by Tomstoner (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< February 18 >
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

February 19

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 16:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Inherently funny word

No word is inherently funny, it is culturally constructed. This article is biased in concept and largely original research in execution. Plus, it doesn't include "pig" which I think is hilarious, but it does include "giggle" which is not even mildlly amusing, conjuring thoughts of vacuous gum-chewing schoolgirls on buses. If anyone can find me an article in any paper encyclopaedia, however big, on "inherently funny word" I will withdraw this nomination. Unless it's the Encyclopaedia Cruftannica. In which case we'll have found a copyvio. Survived VfD back in 2004 on the grounds that it was funny - as far as I can tel this is no longer policy, I checked WP:FUNNY and found nothing. Guy 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Based on some of the references, it seems like this article could exist, albeit in a possibly different format. The fact that funniness if social constructed, for me at least, increases the need for an article which discusses that, provided it can be referenced. savidan 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I don't find the words in the list funny, therefore they are not inherently funny, therefore the article is false and it must be deleted. --Ruby 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Everything that is unreferenced should of course be removed, but the use of certain words as "inherently funny" by comedians (and the response of their audience) can be documented, and probably there is some more research on humor that can be cited to source this article better. The intro might need a complete rewrite, though. Kusma (討論) 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but not as is. This article is one of the centerpieces of wikipedia's humour section alongside Unusual articles and List of unusual deaths, but it's a messy article and needs work. Somebody needs to give it a thorough cleanup. Add some sources, and delete everything unsupported by references. Night Gyr 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep with ref's -Who said this word is inherently funny and what not. -AKMask 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - for some reason the idea of this article gets under a few people's skin. But it's a legitimate concept to discuss. Unfortunately, it's also a concept that draws a lot of fly-by edits (I know something funny - let's add it!), hence the messiness. - DavidWBrooks 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whether there is any such thing as an inherently funny word is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Otherwise one could make the same case for deleting Ghost. The point is that certain words have been characterized as being inherently funny, as the article documents quite well. Unusual articles like this are part of what makes Misplaced Pages cool. dbtfz 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, and smak JzG will some inherently funny word like Pantyhose, bubbly or giggles... because he I feel he may have skiped a couple steps. You know, some wise men once said to me, if you think it need verifying, then put the verify sign on it. Don't just delete it. If you think it's NPOV then put that one on it too. And only delete it if you really want to. However I may be swayed for other reason to delete this. For example this may simply be an enumaration of several words. However considereing we have a definition for funny page,Funny little itinerant blip, Funny little ugly fat fellow, Funny wagon (what they will soon be putting me in if I continue leaving such odd comments to JzG and he continues on with a double standard, while they bring me to the funny house)... but then again maybe this will all be a Funny story from a funny man from Canada hey! That will add his french Funny foreign squigle when he write it in his funny book talking about funny business experiences with a guy name JzG. Or perhaps instead... keeping it all withinfunny fantasy that is funilly enough not the funniest joke but may add some smiles and funny faces. (Darn! I couldn't find inherently funny word though!)--CyclePat 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
You can't verify a word being inherently funny, because funny is a subjective concept to start with. Oh, and pantyhose is not funny at all. Unlike trouser, which cracks me up every time (and leaves others utterly bewildered). See what I mean? Guy 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
commnent prove it. And once you do. Add that fact to the article with you source. --CyclePat 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It a number of people lack the required sense of humour. But I doubt even they can deny that, for example, banana is a word used often in jokes and the like (without a suitable context, just because of the word and nothing else). Basically the word has to be trivial in meaning (and thus it's meaning isn't funny at all), it usually sounds "awkward" or "foreign" or plain silly. And if you mention it at one point in a conversation for no reason at all it should be funny. Replacing it with textdocument or something equally mundane should not be (as) funny. In any case, there's comedians who believe in them...there are plenty of other people who "believe" in them, and hence it should be pretty obvious that an explanation is required for those that come across it without knowing what it is. Not to mention many, many articles reference it for good reason. Rygir 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is neither Original Research - all of it is what other people have said are inherently funny words - nor POV. A fine example of a slightly off-the-wall topic being handles very well. Batmanand 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encylopedic and more of an opinion peice. TVXPert 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This has to be one of the five worst articles I've read on Misplaced Pages, and I hated it before it was brought here. There's no excuse for this kind of garbage. It's original research, it's stuff made up in school one day, it's not notable, it aims to be a how-to on stand-up comedy. This is a pile of reeking garbage that would make Satan weep. It makes this encyclopedia look like it was written by moronic nosepicking fourth-graders. I can't emphasize enough how bad this is. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kusma. Siva1979 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete original research/essay format. not encylopedic. Ncsaint 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep - this article is highly misleading. If the article can differentiate between "inherently funny words" as an attempt to be funny. There is a huge different between that and scholarly language and psychology journals stating that this concept is true. So, I believe the subject may have been broached by enough comedians to merit its inclusion as a well known joke... but as a truly scholarly subject I have seen no evidence yet... and if this article doesn't differentiate between the two then it's seriously misleading. gren グレン 18:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - bad title, smells like original research, POV, and in general unencyclopedic. Renata 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Kusma. Rufous 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as a perfectly valid article that may need some cleanup and verify, but in no way merits deletion. Turnstep 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:V. —Ruud 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, how is any of this information useful/meaningful/relevant in a non-original research/POV way? None of these words are "inherently" funny except to English-speakers, anyways. What do I need an encyclopedia article to argue for the idea that the word "bassoon" is "inherently funny"? Incredibly stupid article (even if it were retitled "funny words" or "words used frequently by comedians.") Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Delete! or, alternatively, merge - sillyness. They're not funny, maybe some of the material could be merged to an article such as humour...But on its own... no. -- Greaser 06:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep — but remove anything that is original research or unreferenced, of course. -- Jao 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Kept before, keep it again. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep since a) this has been kept before and b) it's just perfect fodder for WP:UA and c) there may be good sources to support this, if not on academic level then on, um, some comedic level. Though, the article definitely may need cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but somehow this article needs to be 'steamlined' and broken into a few sub headings. Inherently Funny is a legitimate comedic concern and valid considertion for many comedians. Steve Allen has written on the subject and I recall Milton Berle mentioning it as far back as the 1960s. Cincinatti is a funny word, Dallas is not. Maybe "k" is funny by association: Shecky Green, Red Skelton, Danny Kaye, Ernie Kovaks. At any rate, the concept deserves some more research and citations. John Sinclair, Salt Lake City (har!)
  • Trivia: I have seen somewhere that Jimbo Wales locked this article for a few hours for the purpose of using it as a demonstration of Misplaced Pages on a TV show. (I'll be happy to try to source this if anyone thinks their vote is affected by it. It looks to me as if this is going "no consensus".) No vote from me. AndyJones 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete "Funny" is entirely a POV. If it weren't, "table", which I've always considered an extremely funnt word, would be on the list. :Denni 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
comment: Yesterday's Globe and mail, february 20, 2006, page A14, Section, Social Studies (A daily miscellany of Information by micheal Kesteron (MKesterton@globeandmail.ca)) cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:
"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."
Again, Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly have are opinions from people. (POV's) Inherently most articles are full of POV's. Does that give us the right to delete them? I don't think so. --CyclePat 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
comment: perhaps, "table" is a funny word for you, but if you have not written a published book or can't find a published book on that subject (ie.: on the inherent funnyness of that word) than it wouldn't meet the wikipedia standard of inclusion based on the WP:NOR (Misplaced Pages No original research... and if that is or was the case then we should nullify this entire process, start an entirelly new deletion process with those accusations.) --CyclePat 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here, but there are no sources attesting to the inherent funniness of words mentioned in the article, "weasel", for instance, which, IMHO, makes most of this article OR. If this article is to be kept, it needs serious editing and sourcing. Denni 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but edit drastically. It should exist where 'Inherrently funny word' is a quote rather than a topic, as comedians have spoken on this subject and given examples. I suggest it should begin with something like 'An 'Inherrently funny word' is a concept which has been proposed by many comedians, including (etc), and featuring words like (etc)'. No word is inherrently funny, it's all relative. --Luke44 21:41 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep Interesting article, though per Luke44 and others it could use a little cleanup/organization. OhNoitsJamie 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep nice article.  Grue  21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article holds a great deal of information on a concept which clearly has been addressed many times in popular media, as seen in the number of sources it cites. It doesn't try to establish a deffinative list of all "inherently funny" words, although the opinion of profession commedians could probably be taken as expert opinion, and thus qualify for inclusion, as has been done. If someone feels that the article is trying to create an inherently incomple and potentially POV list, then it could be cleaned up, but since it is clearly a subject that has been addressed there is no reason to delete it. After all, there are articles on consipracy theories, alien abduction and pseudosciences that may not actually physically exist, but the idea is prevalent enough that in can be reasonable addressed. After all, all of these quotes are verifiable. I've read Dave Barry's piece where he claims weasel is an inherently funny word, for instance. He certainly qualifies as an expert, and thus it's not OR. Icelight 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I am not a member of Misplaced Pages. I'm pretty sure I signed up for an account before, but I don't remember my user name or my password. I have to say that I have the exact opposite opinion on this article that Mr. Brian G. Crawford has. The argument here seems to be that, if this article concerns the subject of silliness, then the article itself must be silly. Nothing is empirically funny, at all, ever. It is -ALWAYS- culturally constructed. That is the nature of humor itself. The fact is that humor is difficult to analyze because you don't know whether something is funny until it makes you laugh. "Inherent funniness" is the concept by which something is simply considered funny, and therefore preferable to things that are not funny. In the satirical online game, The Kingdom of Loathing, the clothing choices for player characters are "pants" and "hat". I am not aware of an official stated reason for clothing being limited to those items, but it is my opinion that experts on humor will agree that "pants" and "hat" are the funniest names for articles of clothing. Certainly, some people may argue that "socks" is funny or that player characters should be allowed to choose "galoshes" or "underpants" or something similarly silly. In this respect, humor can be considered entirely objective. Some people may not find any words to be inherently funny at all, just like how I am fairly sure I have not laughed at an episode of "Seinfeld" at all, not even once. Those who want this article deleted seem to be convinced that humor is not worthy of intelligent analysis because of its subjectivity or its strong ties to the culture of those involved with both producing the humor and laughing at it. I myself firmly believe that it is because of these things that humor is a worthy topic of discussion. There won't be articles discussing in detail every form of humor in legitimate mainstream paper encyclopedias, because humor is a very difficult topic. However, if this article ends up being deleted (being edited to conform to a higher standard of quality is quite acceptable) it will severely hurt my faith in humanity. I just thought I'd throw in my own two cents. --65.13.17.229 07:00, 24 February 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 Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Moinho da fonte

From WP:PNT, untranslated for two weeks. Entry from there follow. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Story in Portuguese about a town. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:25, 3 February 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 Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sakir kocabas

Untranslated for two weeks at WP:PNT. Entry from there follows. No vote. Kusma (討論) 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

found in Category:Cleanup from November 2005 I don't recognize the language --Melaen 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
probably Turkish--Carabinieri 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Definitely Turkish. Appears notable. ColinFine 14:20, 3 February 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 Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Danny gotimer

bio of nn skateboarder, reeks of vanity savidan 00:12, 19 February 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 Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Save Our Animals

Original research. Also reads like a high school essay. And appears to be a copyvio OscarTheCat 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: verify: I wonder if this is just a case of verifiability... again! In that case add the verify unsourced template and see you later.--CyclePat 02:51, 19 February 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 speedy keep. Jaranda 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Bennie Joppru

But there is no importantance to him — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talkcontribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above users and not listed at AfD; I've fixed the formatting and listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 19 February 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 slightly more in favour to keep than delete. A lot of the keep votes had alternate suggestions (keep with cleanup, keep or merge, etc.) but really we only debate keeping vs deleting. Improvements are up to the community. Ifnord 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

First Family of the United States

I'll be blunt. The article is redundant of Barbara and Jenna Bush, First Family, and Laura Bush, and not to mention, is unsourced as is. In addition, unless the author intends on writing a "First Family" article for Washington through Clinton, the article, as it stands now, is simply another Bush family article, making it redundant with Bush Family. I am not taking away from anybody's notability or anything like that, I am simply pointing out that this article is simply redundant with already existing, sourced articles. Jay(Reply) 00:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per Jay --Ruby 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I completely understand. I am writing the Clinton section of the article right now, actually. The article is NOT intended to be a Bush family chronicle; I am trying to compile data from ALL of the First Families. I hope you'll consider not deleting this article. Thank you. History21
  • Keep/Clean-up Should focus on the institution of the first family, significant acts of various members throughout history, not one specific first family. But the institution deserves an article. -AKMask 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, there has to be something there, at least a disambig or redirect, fight out on the talk pages or make a request for comment. Kappa 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep/Rename: To be technically correct I think it should be First family of the United States of America but that's me. Oh! and keep the content. --CyclePat 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:Yay!!! It now appears as if this article will be kept, and of course I am very happy with that. For those who say it should be deleted, I can only state that the First Family of the United States has been a distinct institution for two centuries. Some First Families (in particular the Kennedys) had a significant inpact on the popular culture of the day. To those who support me in keeping the article, I must say that I agree with your assertions that more should be included about the security the First Family receives, the privileges they are privy to, etc. I would welcome inclusion of that within this article, because, frankly, I don't think I could cover it all on my own. However, I feel strongly that te biographical information as pertains to each First Family's time in the White House should STAY, and I will reinsert any biographical info that is unnecessarily deleted. The idea of a one-sentence summary of each First Family is a bit far-fetched. If people wanted mediocre knowledge on the topic, they wouldn't come to Misplaced Pages. We should be detailed. And for all the "editorialising" I have done, I feel that the article is very neutral. Based on my descriptions of two Republican and one Democratic First Family, can you really guess what my political views are? I note Clinton's infidelities and the Bush twins' binging in a purely factual manner. So, that is what I have to say, and I will check in here from time to time to see what everyone else thinks. Thank you. History21
  • Comment: If you continue to expand it the way you're doing (there's even a note on the page "NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE EXPANDED BY ITS ORIGINAL CREATOR." which I don't think is usual practice), it's going to be extremely long WP:SIZE. Not only is it redundant (duplicating material for people most or all of whom have their own entries on WP, none of which you've linked), it is internally redundant e.g. noting each person in a family "ceased to be First" whatever on a certain date. Schizombie 20:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have told you, I feel that this biographical information is important, and I intend to expand it because I know a good deal about it. However, I feel that others SHOULD come forward to help with more general information about the institution as a whole. I can, of course, research the Secret Service. Yes, yes, I'll do that. Alright, thank you all again. History21
  • Delete anything that needs to be said about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. Which needs completely rewriting by the way as is describes any country other than american as "foreign" which is a useless (and possibly offensive) term in an international encyclopædia. Jcuk 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: What? It is a Brit, isn't it? And do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family? Honestly, the idea that the American First Family could simply be included in an article that describes the families of heads of state in general is itself rather funny. I mean, come on, I don't really think anyone is pretending that Cherie Blair yields the same kind of inflence as Laura Bush. The American First Family, whoever its members are at any given time, is the most powerful and influential family on Earth. Let me put it this way: if George W. Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. If Laura Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it. When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just illustrating a fact. I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married. And yet, EVERYONE knows about the American First Family. That's just the way it is. As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you? History21 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • "do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family?" ? no
  • "When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it." Who?
  • "As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you?" They have it. Bush Family. Anything else that needs saying about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. --Jcuk 10:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Whoa, There. This article is not about the Bush family, it is about the First Family of the United States, an institution far more influential than any other similar body on the face of this planet. And who are you to redirect this article into First Family when voting on it has clearly not stopped? Far more people voted to keep than to redirect, and I am reposting this. Give me one good reason why the First Family of the United States doesn't deserve its own article?The preceding unsigned comment was added by History21 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2006.
  • Comment: I agree it shouldn't have been redirected without this discussion being closed. History21 undid the redirect, and I've reverted it to the last most complete version prior to that redirect. The number of people voting to keep is not the sole basis of whether an article is deleted or not AFAIK. The main reason to delete it is that there are already articles covering some of the families and all of the individuals. Another lesser problem is a US-centric systemic bias overstating the importance of members of the "first family" beyond the President and First Lady. Another problem is length; if the article covers all the so-called "first families" as the intention was stated, it could grow to be about 40,000 words in length.Schizombie 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or rewrite completely. The information about the Bush family is redundant, and an article with this title should focus on the institution, not on specific families. One immediate step to improve this article would be to remove all but the first paragraph. Kusma (討論) 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite and include information on all the other presidential families. Cut down info on Bush and Clinton families as it duplicates existing articles like Barbara and Jenna Bush etc. -- Astrokey44|talk 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: The article, as it presently stands, is repetitive of quite a few already well written, adequately sourced material on Misplaced Pages. From what I see now, in an attempt to have the article kept, the author is adding unsourced, inaccurate paragraphs every now and again to expand the article - not good news. A majority of keep votes are under "extensive rewrite" or "rewrite completely." I am not saying that an article of such a title should not exist, for the institution is rather important. I am just saying that as it stands now, the current article under the title "First Family of the United States," per all the delete votes and keep+rewrite votes needs to be scrapped, and rewritten from a much different approach. Deleting the article removes the histories, to prevent reversion - a rewritten article under the title "First Family of the United States" would have no need to be reverted to what currently sits under that name. --Jay(Reply) 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think we would just add a new section at the top. Kappa
  • Comment: We'll keep the anti-American nonsense to a minimum, shall we? While I'm sure that the hegemonic empire on your southern border causes you great pain, it is not my fault that our own officials carry more sway than your own, and acknowledging the fact is not "foolishness." Yes, the American First Family is known across the world. Is this really a surprise? Come now...think. History21 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Just my guess, but I bet there's a significant percentage of Americans who don't know Mrs. Bush's first name, and I'd bet even money that at least half of Americans could not name the two (?) Bush juniors. Certainly, people around the world know there is a First Family, but beyond that, they are mostly blissfully ignorant. I'm not sure where your leap of interepretation came from that I was dismissing as foolish the fact that your officials carry more sway than ours. What I was dismissing as foolish was the statement that "everyone knows about the first family". Clearly, this is hubris. Denni 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
  • "*It is a Brit, isn't it?"
  • "*When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it."
  • "When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES."
  • "I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! "
  • "I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married."
  • "Hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum."
    --Jcuk 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How's about using proper grammar? (Notice the apostrophe in "how's.") When referring to an American, we use capitals. Don't ruin a (I'll admit) fairly clever attack against me by using flawed punctuation. It just really, really upsets me, almost as much as the still silly assertion that the U.S. First Family does not merit its own article. By the way, I must commend you for using my own statements to demonstrate my "american nonsense," alluding of course to my own use of "anti-American nonsense." That was quick. Your astuteness however, does not make up for the fact that everything I said was true. Sorry. That it was true. For you, anyway. History21 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oh, and another thing that really grinds my nerves: "hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum ." should clearly have a question mark on the end of it! Oy, vey! Periods, my dear British friend, mark the end of a statement, and question marks the end of either a direct or indirect question ("How's about doing this?" It's not exactly a command, more of a suggestion, if you can even call it that). Okay, I feel better now. I wonder if I would get in trouble for vandalizing posts by making them conform to English language standards? Hmm... History21 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Where is Roosevelt, or a, the other 20 or so families? -QDJ
  • Comment:Holy bonkers. I just typed that. Side note, how do you set up the link to your page and all? -QDJ
  • Comment: The absence of material on all the "first families" is not a reason to delete it, IMO. However, adding the missing families would not make for a reason to keep it either. It's still redundant, something that hasn't been addressed yet. How do you write about a president's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that man or the one on President of the United States? How do you write about a first lady's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that woman or the one on First Lady of the United States? How do you write about the significance of other members of the family as members of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the articles on those people? A more valuable endeavor, IMO, would be to create articles for the redlinked "Non-spouse 'First Ladies'" and "White House hostesses" from the FLOTUS page. Schizombie 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No, no The First Family is a significant institution by itself. As a collective unit, it is more important than any royal family could ever hope to be. And regarding Denni's comment that many Americans aren't familiar with our own First Family; I feel that any American who didn't know the First Lady and First Daughters' names would have to be almost clinically retarded. People in this country may not be able to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but they're pretty well schooled on the members of the President's family. History21 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)History21
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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, improper nom, WP:SNOW Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Junior Ioane

who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talkcontribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 19 February 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 Speedy deleted as short article lacking context and non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pierce Mathwig

Delete:nn bio. But raised a smile! JackyR 00:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ahmad Treaudo

who — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talkcontribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 19 February 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 Speedy keep, seemingly improper nom, WP:SNOW. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

C.C. Brown

too little info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talkcontribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Marcus White

Who is this guy he is not a football player — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talkcontribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

* Speedy keep per related nominations, and endorse speedy closure with a few more speedy keep votes. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Abstain. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Why is this a speedy keep when it seems to be about a non-notable PHD student who is a member of a band of questionable notability The Special Patrol Group? --Martyman-(talk) 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete possible speedy. This is an article about a student who plays for a Aussie rock group who I doubt meets WP:NMG. I suspect the people voting keep think are discussing the NFL player. No Google hits at all for "Marcus White" "Special Patrol Group". .

Capitalistroadster 03:56, 19 February 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 Speedy Keep as invalid nomination. Capitalistroadster 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Terrence Murphy

too vague — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talkcontribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Ifnord 21:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Kurt Wise

Noted only for being a creationist and for teaching at a notable college --Ruby 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: If 'he' were to try and suppress my views I would holler like hell ( whoops ... A Freudian slip there!!) So why should I want to suppress his?--Aspro 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete all articles. Mailer Diablo 01:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs

All of the articles on Beyonce's singles contain information about their most notable remixes and alternative versions. This article, as with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Kelly Clarkson Remixes and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Mariah Carey remixes, fails to establish the notability of any of these remixes or if they were officially commissioned by Beyonce's record label. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. Extraordinary Machine 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Extraordinary Machine 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The Leisure Coffee

No references, no google , unverifiable. Kappa 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete and support moving all WP lists here. :) - ulayiti (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Keepers of Lists

Somewhat well-known website, but does not appear to meet WP:WEB criteria for notability Choess 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Lighten up! It's a frivolous and humorous suggestion, not a real proposal - GFDL prevents any such action. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Matt Seager

Unverifiable see WP:V. Kappa 01:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Stanek

  ATTENTION!

If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up.

The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Misplaced Pages editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Misplaced Pages are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely.

You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy for more information.

I don't see the sense in arguing over this page. Let's delete it, and move on.

I propose deleting Robert Stanek page to end controversy, and move on to other pages. My vote to delete the rest of the Robert Stanek pages as well. Eakers4 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Delete it all, and lets move on to more important stuff. Eakers4 01:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete all I agree. It's not worth fighting over. It is a shame wikipedia seemed to be a cool place, but everyone's so hateful. Next thing you know they'll be yanking the Chris Paolini pages. Soulrunner 01:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today. Moe ε 01:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Changing vote to Keep per Alkivar's vote. Moe ε 03:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep guy is himself notable, his books are not. He has worked for 2 major publications and has clearly made a name for himself as an astroturfer.  ALKIVAR 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Yeah, this is where I get ambivalent. On the one hand, he's not a major writer, as far as can be determined. On the other hand... at least three admins here have said "oh, him" or words to that effect, which does suggest he's got at least some recognition... Shimgray | talk | 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep I strongly suspect that the user nominating this article for deletion is a Robert Stanek sock, as is Soulrunner. Now that the Ansible controversy is mentioned on the page, there is a reason to keep it. Stanek may not be notable for his fantasy novels, but he is notable for his suspected shenanigans. Zora 01:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Alkivar. This person has apparently done something real (ie, contributed to the shelf on the computer bookstore that will, in immortal words of _why, crush us all one day) besides being just loud and notorious. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Per nomination. If it stops the bickering. Jnb27 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep per Zora. Like it or not, Stanek is notable for the allegations of sockpuppetry in marketing his works, whether they are true or not (he said carefully). —rodii 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Why wasn't this deleted already? 4.230.105.246 03:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Enuf already Bcbuff 04:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 4 edits total to Misplaced Pages, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete Tired of seeing it. Agreed 69.213.249.15 should be banned along with 69.216.236.40 at the least. This kind of crap shouldn't go on at wikipedia. 172.156.172.88 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry I should be honored, I guess... Mind enlightening me as to just exactly what I've done to merit being banned? Please be specific, and cite exact transgressions. 69.213.249.15 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Not being on the dfcsociety.org web site isn't definitive - it does require that you be in the society to be listed there, and there is a fee for membership. As proud as he seems to be of the award, though (since it seems to be mentioned prominantly in every bio I've seen), you'd think he'd be a member. There is a list available from another group of DFC recipients, but it requires proprietary PC-Only software to access. Someone on a PC might want to check it out. It's at 69.213.249.15 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the lot! All the controversy is crap and shouldn't be included at any rate. Deepd 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 5 edits total to Misplaced Pages, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I stated in the AFD for Ruin Mist, Stanek is an oddment. Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Misplaced Pages are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. Ironically, if this article is kept, it should be for those very reasons, but should be rewitten to reflect the fact that his only "fame" is through this astonishing spamming campaign, for which he (or someone who is a big fan of his) has far more talent than he does for writing fiction. In some areas of fandom, the verb "to stanek" is starting to mean "to overhype junk writing ("e.g., to say "Tis Perry Rhodan book is brilliant" would be to stanek). If you're looking for some references for all this, BTW, I can proffer , , , , ... overall, I'd favour a delete, though On second thoughts, the gratuitous self-promotion is probably worthy of an article - but if it is kept, it may need serious edit-protecting to stop the Stanek supporter(s) from bowdlerising it. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (vote reconsidered and changed Grutness...wha? 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC))
  • Keep as per Alkivar. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - so many anons wanting it gone makes it rater suspect. Note to other admins: If this keeps on getting keeps from real users we should speedy keep it. gren グレン 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why is it that content disputes get dragged into AfDs? The article is a mess at the moment, so fix it. The subject of this article seems to me to be notable, so what about the article is against the policy? Batmanand 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep at least for now. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zora. --Siva1979 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable online jackass/thug. Monicasdude 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as a biography on a non-notable author for a vanity press who's too dumb to know that Slavic languages are not Romance languages. Batmanand, if you feel so strongly that it needs kept, I suggest you try to fix it. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Fiction shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 5/5/2005, 5/27/2005, and 6/2/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 7/1/2005, 6/2/2005, 5/27/2005, and 5/5/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Kids shows the books one or more of on the bestseller list on 6/24/2005, and 6/23/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Mystery shows one or more of on the bestseller list on 9/2/2005. 4.154.208.199 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • LAUGH Let's see, that's on his publisher's web site? Just how difficult is it to be on your publisher's best seller list when you're the only author they publish? Synthfilker 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment What is being referred to is RSS newsfeed which requires a subscription to the feed. I archived the feeds referenced above: 1. Any one can subscribe to a feed and get archives. 4.154.212.74 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it's the feeds at Audible. So this is audio books. rodii 19:49, 23 February 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 redirect. Shanel 01:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

God Save The Manics EP

Delete, article already exists at God Save the Manics Davis "Suede" Hurley 01:36, 19 February 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 already redirected. Shanel 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Citizenship in the World Merit Badge

It's not clear what this article is about. It's ungrammatical. Nothing links to it. Bcrowell 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

A redirect is fine with me. I'm not quite clear on how it can have text and still be a redirect, but I'm happy with any solution that doesn't just leave it as a dysfunctional, unintelligible article, which it no longer is.--Bcrowell 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
My text is meant to be temporary, just to let people at this AfD know what the context is. I expect it to go *poof* as the article is redirected. -- Jonel | Speak 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that redirect, User:Jonel :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 19 February 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 speedy delete. Shanel 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The diamond sea


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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

List of UK railfan jargon

Delete Not encylopedic, dictionary definitions WestchesterGuy 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, but if you want to know why trainspotters talk excitedly about spamcans and hoovers, this is where you will find out. Guy 22:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • The non-existence of reliable sources would be grounds for deletion (WP:NOT a publisher of first instance) but oin this case there is plenty of evidence of currency of these terms from other sources, even though they are not cited. Terms like "hoover" are common currency in railway modelling and railfan magazines; these are not available online, but "teh Intarweb" is not the world, somethign we often forget when we can't find somethign on Google. Part of the point of Misplaced Pages, for me, is to bring stuff which you'd otherwise have to visit the library to find, onto the web. In this case the article is substantially more useful than things like the lists of hacker jargon, since there is already an authoritative source of hacker jargon at the Jargon Files, and all we're doing is mirroring it and sometimes adding unverified cruft. Some of this information is hard to find. But then, I'm a reformed trainspotter from before the days of Google, when you had to be inducted into the brotherhood before you knew what the f**k they were talking about... Just zis Guy you know? 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Most if not all of the problems with this article can be rectified with a little TLC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are several webpages dotted around the internet with slices of jargon, some with just one or two entries some with more. There is no central respository. As Slambo said, other lists of jargon are accepted, even when we are duplicating effort. This and the US railfan jargon article were recently spun out from the main railfan article as the two lists were starting to take over. There is also no point in merging the two lists as rail terminology is probably the area where British and American English are the most different. Thryduulf 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Just because there are some fan sites on the internet doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedia, especially when people say it doesn't fit its guidelines. JAA01A 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Automobile ownership

"Prod" tag removed with the reason "legitimate disambiguation page". I disagree. This is not a disambiguation page in the way that I have seen them used on Misplaced Pages. This page is more of a Category - or more accurately, a sub-Category of Category:Automobiles. This is not an encyclopedia article. CrypticBacon 02:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as well-meaning but misguided. dbtfz 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC). Change to weak keep in light of recent revisions. Still seems like a strange topic for an article, but what the hay. dbtfz 17:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • expand and keep: nice category... or list of articles. This appears to be a draft that may have room for expansion. I like it. If worse come to worse, merge with automobile. However I can see much regional differences, Canadian ownership, US ownership, photo's scans, how to? Where to go? etc.. --CyclePat 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
it disturbes me to see that this should probably be an article stub with clean-up tage and attention... not a dissambigation. --CyclePat 03:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - has some potential. Should probably be kept iff changed to an article about automobile ownership rather than a list of links. Current content is not helpful, especially given Category:Automobiles. -- Jonel | Speak 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment As of right now this article has been greatly expanded to take on a different form. However, I am still unsure if it meets quality standards. My main point of contention is that even though the information is helpful and true, it is not encyclopedic. This article is analogous to "Dog ownership" or "Goldfish ownership", with seperate paragraphs on 'selecting your pet', 'feeding your pet', 'grooming your pet'...etc. Vote for Delete, but merge and/or redirect. CrypticBacon 04:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KeepThis deletion proposal was based on the disambiguation page by the name of 'automobile ownership' I have took time to expand the page into an actual article and request that it be kept and expanded. Tutmosis 16:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There are many people who would like to research this topic and who are courious what an ecyclopedia entry concerning it may state. It is useful and informative adn will cater to the needs of quite a few visitors. Besides the deletion request was based on a small dismbig I created. Since then, however, the article has evolved into a real article that is of use to Wiki visitors. Signature 17:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep This topic has potential, but in the present incarnation appears to require more substance, including the personal pros and cons of actually owning the thing as well as the social and transportation ramifications of private car ownership. Ramayan 22:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment A bit of an odd entry. Possibly more suited to wikibooks? --Interiot 00:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Current article has some merit, certainly doesn't violate major Misplaced Pages policy nor satisfy deletion criteria. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment This article has definitely improved since I nominated it. However, yes, it still feels like an extremely bloated dicdef ("Automobile Ownership is the sum of all the aspects associated with owning an automobile."?) Wikibooks seems like a good place for this article - it is more of an instructional manual or help page for those interested in the topic than it is a true encyclopedia article. This article also flirts with original research. If we allow this page, what it to stop us from creating pages on pet ownership, home ownership, or stock ownership? All of these seem like they would be either disambiguation pages, Categories, or Wikibooks. My vote (not a "real" vote since I'm the nominator) is transfer the material somewhere then redirect the page to Category:Automobiles. CrypticBacon 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Simply within my municipality I can think of much documentation that exist on vehicle registration. I myself have dedicated the last 2 years of my life on how to register a motorized bicycle in Ontario. I have official documentation (published and a lot un-published). There are government publications, books, official correspondances, etc. that exist on how to, what to. There are laws that exist (official publications). I think I could easilly make an encyclopedic article on vehicle registration here in Ontario let alone the rest of the world. Heck I think I could make an article on registration of motorized bicycles registration... oh wait I have made something like that it's called Electric bicycle laws. (not quite the same but it does cover registration!). Wikibooks may be an interest place to expand the article once it becomes to big. (they allow that!) They however don't allow original research (though they are less strick about it at the current moment). If you are interested in starting a book please contact me for I've started a book called How To Ride The Bus. However, on this subject, I consider starting a book at this momment, a type of fork. --CyclePat 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Kappa 02:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Universal testicularism

Delete as non-notable nonsense. This link should tell you all you need to know about this article. - CorbinSimpson 02:15, 19 February 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 Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Clinton Desveaux

Delete. Vanity page for a blogger. Google doesn't show any actual published writing. Watchsmart 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Shanel 01:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A Thousand Eyes

Unverifiable offshoot of AfD candidate The Leisure Coffee. Album by a group with exactly zero relevant Google hits. (of the four hits for "the leisure coffee", all are about ... well, coffee.) No vote. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Jeniferever

Under the guidelines of WP:MUSIC this band is not notable. No full lengths albums according to the article.

Comment: WP:MUSIC "Has released two or more albums on a major label..." ---J.Smith 02:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Then why do we have a very lengthy Arctic Monkeys article, when they have 1 album. It's not a hard-and-fast rule.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hermiverous

Delete 0 google hits, Possibly a made up word Joelito 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Cobalt Agent

Dubious claims to notability; however, really nothing there. James084 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Megaplx 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Sources have been added throughout the article and references are at the bottom of the page.

But sadly it is still not notable. GeorgeStepanek\ 07:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Megaplx 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) So a website like www.angrypatrioticbastard.com wouldn't be notable because it isn't in the top 100,000?

The problem I see is that the reference section just doesn't make sense to me. Follow WP:CITE... And unfortunatelly, this seems to be an inherent problem for most articles here at AFD. If we simply put ""unsourced"" and guided new commer to wikipedia we would be developing a friendlier place. And we would be making much more productive and credible articles. The links that are provided, I feel, are no different than linking to google and then saying "search." It is imparitive to have a well sourced article. After that... you have to deal with notability. Obviously if your article is well sourced this shouldn't be so bad. However some less notable people have been removed from wiki. Good luck! --CyclePat 20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Megaplx 10:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC) The page was simply added for the information. It was not intended for "pagerank boosting." This is my first article, so I am open to suggestions for improving the article.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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 02:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bloredom

Appears to be a protologism/neogolism with 34 google hits, delete per WP:NEO. Hansnesse 03:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Me. Mea Culpa. Ifnord 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Giftware

Neologism? Hoax? I gets tons of Google hits for giftware, nothing to do with software - just crappy stuff you give to people. Add search of "giftware" and "software" and I still get lots of hits - about software to find crappy gifts. Ifnord 03:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You found the reference I couldn't. Withdraw my nomination. Ifnord 03:44, 19 February 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 nomination (by me) withdrawn, no remaining votes for deletion. Chick Bowen 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Brigadier General Dennis Hejlik Dennis Hejlik

Listed at copyvio, but taken from a public domain .mil site. Still, it's hardly an encyclopedic article; it's just a resume, and doesn't indicate that this is more than just a distinguished but hardly historically significant officer. My vote is for deletion. Chick Bowen 03:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC) After very impressive rewrite by Jonel, nomination withdrawn. This is the right way to use public domain material. Chick Bowen 16:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my vote -- lots of things aren't historically notable. Most athletes aren't, schools aren't, the news of the day isn't, on a long enough timeline, few if any of us are. But that doesn't mean these things shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. An officer of general or admiral rank is encyclopedic imho. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd sure like to see this article become something more than the cut and paste it currently is. However, if nobody loves this article enough to fix it then I would say Delete and hope that somebody adds a much better article later. James084 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to update my vote to Keep. Jonel has shown the article a lot of love and I agree that flag officers are notable. Thanks Jonel for your work! James084 14:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I would concur with the above suggestion. James084 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree that flag officers are notable. Keep. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Paperclay

Advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Jim62sch (talkcontribs)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

First Union Jam

Non notable, returns 64 hits on Google. Jtrost ( | C | #) 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
Babajobu 11:19, 25 February 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 Speedy delete by User:Essjay Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

?-?

Some type of game, originally under CSD G1, but moving to Afd. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

)

I have no idea what he just said, as of "CSD G1" or "Afd".

I don't think I'm asking too much to leave such a simple game in a wiki page.

I think people are forgeting what wiki is.

And the Nothing begins to grow...

--Cacumer 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wiki games like this are OK in the Misplaced Pages: namespace, but should not be in the main (article) namespace. -- Daverocks (talk) 04:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to wikipedia:?-?. Thanks for the suggestion. But I think it would be best, in that case, to use redirect, since I already started the game like that. I just hope people will be able to understand or at least respect that. Keeping in mind the basis of what wiki really means. I'll be happy to delete the article from the main namespace if it is voted forward that direction, but I hope I won't need it. Thanks. --Cacumer 04:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per nom. I hesitate to use the redirect either, since as much as is possible, encyclopedic content should be seperated from namespace (except where absolutely necessary). --Hansnesse 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete, and re-tagged as such. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
can he do that, again? --Cacumer 05:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:28, 19 February 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 no consensus. – Sceptre 12:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4 (film)

  • Comment: No. They never officially announced a fourth film, only the possibility of doing one. There's no concrete plans on doing a fourth film and everything in this article is nothing but speculation and gossip. It's the same reason why every single article on Batman Begins 2 gets deleted. Jonny2x4 20:54, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Even in the absence of an official announcement, it seems fairly clear that there are well-established and credible plans and expectations for this movie to be done. The article states (I'm assuming truthfully, until someone changes it) that "Producer Paul W. S. Anderson has signed onto the project and may write the script", so obviously there is at least a hypothetical project within the studio for him to sign onto. And if nothing else, it appears that the plans themselves for this movie are notable enough for an article (i.e., the article can be about present plans and verifiable reports instead of about a nonexistent future movie). –Sommers 21:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Sonys has confirmed possible creation of the film as the script details of Extinction still stand to lead into the forth film. If the plot details have changed for the third film somebody please provide a source, otherwise the film is still in early pre-production stages. P.S. why was this article was nominated twice for deletion when you cant even prove the film wont be made? Empty2005 08:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • ...when you cant even prove the film wont be made? You've got it precisely backwards: you need to prove it IS being made. And your use of weasel words isn't doing that. --Calton | Talk 08:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Re-Up Records

Non notable Jtrost ( | C | #) 04:09, 19 February 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 speedy delete - patent nonsense / non-notable group. Rhobite 05:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Deadly elite

This organisation isn't notable. Bobby1011 04:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete as unnecessary dicdef. - ulayiti (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Course of action

See edits to article. Cask05 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: I might not be able to prove that this article should be kept but I sure may be able to prove why it shouldn't be deleted. This article is sourced. This article respects No Original research policy. This article is a true article not a hoax. This article is suitable of wikipedia. This article passes the test of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC,WP:FICT because it doesn't fall within those categories. This article doesn't seem to be a copyvio. This is not a category gone awry. This is not a redundant stub or template gone awry. This can definatelly be more than a dictionnary article. (ie.: the addition of various historic military examples, other examples, etc, digrams, images. etc...), this article is not a source text either. Conclusion: This article doesn't need deletion... as per WP:DP it needs {{attention}} or perhaps, because there are already some excellent references and sources, simply some {{cleanup}} and {{stub}} to expand it! I think the nominator should be slaped for failling to notice that there are two collumns in WP:DP. One is delete nomination the other is "Problems that don't require deletion." Hastily jumping into such deletion process has not saved anyone here, any time. Summary:page doesn't seem to violate any deletion policy rules. This article should be kept (as per my above vote). --CyclePat 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: b.t.w. google only give http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Course+of+action%22&meta= 10'100'000 hits for the term "course of action." --CyclePat 02:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep as #1 hit well above any 'notability' threshold. - ulayiti (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

When I'm with You

There's already an article for the band, the song was not notable Jim62sch 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Intercom pages

Poorly written article, apparently created for advertising Choess 04:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Telephhone Sharing

Poorly written article, apparently to advertise Intercom pages Choess 04:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Skater fashion

This article consists of Original research. The author lists what he holds to be the most popular dress of skaters and categorizes them into classifications layed down arbitrarily by himself. Bobby1011 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

2639

Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball Bobby1011 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. It's implausible because there's not a significant demand for information on the year 2369 at this time, and it's unlikely that anyone will get to the target article through the redirect. That said, obviously your edit was in good faith, and I'm not adverse to having it stand, but consensus is running towards deletion, and speedy deletion at that. This is why I hoped you might come by and offer reasons why a redirect would be better than deletion :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
First off, thank you for realizing the redirect was in good faith. Hypothetical: If the creator of 2639 were to have simply created a redirect, instead of posting a bunch of gibberish, what do you think would have happened? Would it have gone up for AfD or simply been left alone? I venture that if I were to go and created "8675" as a redirect to 87th century, no one would really have a problem with it. Sure, the chance of that redirect being useful is slim, but nonetheless it is a sensible redirect. It's not as if the redirect is misleading or unthruthful. CrypticBacon 08:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
All of the above is true. I did say that I wasn't adverse to letting it stand. I still think it's unlikely to get much use, but if it does, then so much the better. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

:Keep Mostly it indicates astronomical events to happen then. Maybe the Moon will be destroyed by aliens or a rogue black hole will disrupt the course of planets, but generally you can estimate the time of conjunctions or eclipses centuries in advance.--T. Anthony 07:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Nevermind I was reading the redirect to the 27th c.--T. Anthony 07:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 02:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fayette county productions

Group of kids calling themselves a production company. No noteworthy projects or productions. FCYTravis 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


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

The result of the debate was delete. Babajobu 11:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

StillSmallVoice Network - Nottingham, UK

University Christian club. Demonstrates no particular notability outside Nottingham University. FCYTravis 05:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Disagree slightly, as it is known around Nottingham (not just the university), and several of the speakers and organisers who have been there are notable in Christian and non-Christian circles at a national - and international in some cases - level. Many are prominent in international political, social justice and fair trade movements also. The scope of the network extends well beyond that of a "Christian club." I haven't yet had the opportunity to provide links for many of the organisations who have been represented by and at the network.
  • It has further novelty as - to the best of my knowledge - this is the first organisation of it's kind in the UK. A further reason it has been listed is as the name of the society doesn't immediately suggest what it is.
  • This entry mirrors those of some other UK Christian Student Societies in terms of its notability such as the Christian Union movements, or indeed the entries of churches or their pastors. I'd suggest that it needs to be considered at a similar level as all of them as it is just as arguable that they are not notable outside their immediate cachement area. I'll try and move it to a more appropriate category if someone can tell me how! Any further thoughts? irish_admiral 13:41, 19 February 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 redirect to Underwater basket weaving as it's already been merged. - ulayiti (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

    Underwater Basketweaving

    Non-notable. Delete. Neutrality 05:21, 19 February 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.

    Patrick Byrne

    Delete. Vanity page. Does not meet criteria for notability. Tomstoner 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)