The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep and clean up. A bit bloated and some unencyclopaedic language, but hardly irredeemable. It's hard to say where the POV is as well. Every kid's show has anti movements, but Barney's must surely be the biggest. --Last Malthusian16:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is not the function of an encyclopedia to merely reiterate, but rather to explain. Thus, it is not encyclopedic to say, "Anti-Barney humor: here are some Barney jokes." Instead, it would be "anti-Barney humor originated as early as the first year of "Barney and Friends" and continued into such films as "Death to Smoochie" and others." This is the former. Well, explaining that there is anti-"Barney and Friends" humor is self-evident. Are there references to the concept elsewhere? Are there things that need to be explained? Geogre17:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I am a bit biased about this I will admit (I am the articles father), but one thing I can't denie any longer is that it does need cleanup, but it is a true pop-culture phenomina, which probably isn't apparent to people who didn't go to elementary school in the 90's like I and many other people involved in the movement did. Protozoic Waste
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Given that it is now relatively easy to make a fanfic film and distribute it over the internet, some statement of why this is a particularly notable fanfic film is really required to justify an article. This merely states that it exists. Average Earthman09:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've seen it and it's terrific- I found it on Kazaa acually. It isn't very widespread yet but it's growing... Klingonpixie 10:55, 24 November 2005 (Note: This user's first edit)
Keep. It's different from the one in Wired, actually a much smaller fanfic film, but it's really excellent. Worthawholebean 11:38, 24 November 2005 (EST)
Weak keep, or more precisely wait and see. If it's notable enough to be appearing in Wired, and particularly if the article on it is as major as Jtmichcock implies, then it's possible that this is something which is becoming widely-enough known to break through the fancruft threshold and deserve an article. So I'd say we should keep it for now, and if in a couple of months everyone's forgotten it again, then we can bring it back to AfD and reconsider.
In particular, note that its appearance in Wired makes it verifiable and not original research, and the article is written with a textbook neutral point of view: that means it passes all the fundamental tests. I wasn't aware that having been filmed by highschool students was a criterion for deletion.
(After edit conflict, I note that we have a voter above claiming that this is not the film featured in Wired. That would change my opinion: can anyone verify?) — HaelethTalk16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search for "Star Trek: A New Beginning" has 10 unique links see [1]. No Google News returns for it either [2]. I could find no trace of the Wired article either in the results or on its own site. Therefore, it is just a non-canonical film made by two high-school students. While it is good that they making their own films, it isn't notable at this stage. Capitalistroadster17:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen this film. It is becoming something of an internet phenomenon in my school (no relation to the school of these students). Perhaps it will become more popular globally with time. --Qilai888801:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This film is popular in Korea to. The visual FX are really good especial for high school students (view the preview for yourself) --Kimsungli08:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article or not, why should notable fan-fiction be excluded from wikipedia by principle, especially since other Star Trek fan films have a place on wikipedia, notable and otherwise. --219.79.40.4510:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we write about things that exist, not things that people hope will exist. We are not a PR firm here to publicize somebody's fan crap.
...I think that this fan film does exist...which is why there is an article about it and an option to download it. I'm not sure that these students believe that wikipedia is a PR firm so much as they feel their film deserves representation on wikipedia (did they even write this article or did someone else?). It is inappropriate for you to call this "fan crap". Have you seen it yourself? It is quite good. --Drno00707:32, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason that this is my first post and that my only edits pertain to this article is that this is the only article I have felt inspired to edit. I am not a "sock-puppet", but I do feel that this film, at my school alone, is so popular that, at the very least, it should be allowed in Star Trek, other storylines, and it would be prudent to give it its own article. --Qilai888809:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there is a Wired article about it -- which doesn't seem to be true -- doesn't make a high-school film worth an article. --Calton | Talk00:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems to me that the fact that this film's makers were high school students is being held against them. On the contrary, I think its more impressive that a video like that could have been made by high school students and for only $5.00. That is what I believe makes this notable. If it is really expanding in popularity, wikipedia will look foolish if this article is removed if there is the possiblity it might have to be reinstated. --Noah21106:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't think this is a copyvio or advertising for that matter. "Assistand teacher" is a well-established, as far as I know non-profit, programme in most German universities. It can be part of the formal training for future teachers. Many students go abroad in English-speaking countries as assitant teachers, so it might be a good idea to have an entry for this.
Keep Thanks BorgQueen for the revision. Seems like an adaquate topic for an encyclopedia, and I believe further revisions will prove this article a welcome addition to Wikipedia. --JJLeahy23:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Being an University exchange programme, Assistant teacher is no advertising! Nobody makes profit with it! All the information provided is taken from official pages (like the Goethe-Institut and the British Council)out of the public domain. Therefore it is not justified to delete the article.84.173.136.12710:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)dichse[reply]
For those who want the article to be deleted: What could/should I change in order to save the article? Just tell me! This was my first attempt to write an entry for Wikipedia! Give me your reasons-give me a clue!!!Thank youDichse11:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)dichse[reply]
I just attempted a cleanup, trying to make it sound less promotional. I think the article name should be rather "Assistant teacher programme of the Educational Exchange Service" (or attach any other relevant institution's name) since the term Assistant teacher is only meaningful in that particular context. Otherwise the term will be too general, leading to misunderstanding. And it is not a good idea to include how much the person gets paid, etc. If this article eventually gets deleted I suggest you start a new article with the name I recommended above, keeping in line with the layout convention, etc. --BorgQueen13:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete as there is first of all no copyvio on this page as this would require a copyright in respect to the passages which might be taken from other pages. An "assistant teacher" in the sense dicussed on this page is part of the so-called Comenius assistantship of the European Commission, which is a solely non-economical exchange programme which began in 1995 intended to enhance intercultural understanding within the European Union. The "salary" paid is no more than a usual scholarship in an European exchange programme supporting the mobility of young people.--Lebkuchenbäcker21:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, improve; this describes a documented position and government-backed training program of apparent cultural note in Germany. MCB05:20, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Might qualify as Vandalism:Spam, given the external link. I though you could speedy obvious vanity but I guess not. Also might be a "Very short articles providing little or no contex"wikifunBanana0413100:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Buster wears white socks, but he's not a mouse. (Where's the site for Mouse and the Trapps?) Not really spam, but definitely advertising. Geogre11:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This alleged Wiccan Tradition does not seem to be notable. In fact, it does not seem to exist outside of being a phrase that refers to a school of thought within the Celtic Wicca group of traditions. I would also like to add 'patent nonsense' due to the lack of any apparent adherents of Arthurian Wicca as a religion rather than a school of thought, but the absence of evidence proves nothing, so... if anyone can provide evidence for this religion being in any way notable *as a religion*, or even existing beyond a few people, I am quite willing to listen. P.MacUidhir00:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Nothing in the current article is verified, or easily verifiable. "Arthurian Wicca" gets 129 hits on Google [3]. Small, but notable, Wiccan traditions with little web presence get four or five times that [4][5]. Of the Google hits, many of them seem to be referring to a book titled Morgan LaFey's Book of Spells. That said, I wouldn't want to see a precedent set whereby Wiccan traditions that exist mainly on the web get kept and Wiccan traditions that exist mainly in real life do not, but surely it is reasonable to expect some reference in Wikipedia articles to secondary, or failing that, primary sources. Jkelly00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points, and especially so on the point of setting that sort of precedent which you mention here. At the same time... if a particular tradition is notable, though without a significant Internet presence, it makes it difficult to know the extent and popularity of their tradition unless they happen to come to Wikipedia or know someone that does do so. Since Arthurian Wicca has exactly one proponent for the article, with a grand total of two edits to it, I am not particularly encouraged to give the benefit of the doubt and lend it credence. Since that same contributor is only an IP address, we also do not have the option of asking them to provide some background data (if it exists at all).--P.MacUidhir(t)(c)01:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If it develops as a fully formed discipline with adherents and theology, then it can be a section of Wicca. If it gets as big as a phenomenon as Wicca, then it should have an article on it. At this point, it's just a term. Geogre11:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I don't know if more future decades entries exists, those were the ones I could find.
Basically, same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2110s since pretty much the same.
and int continues on and on and on...
Not much of these "decades" exist already. For instance, 2610s is a redirect to 27th century (and it's the only decade with an entry).
The information found in the few existing is a duplicate of what is found on each year entry. For instance
2134 Comet Halley makes a return to the inner solar system - the previous return would be in 2061.
is content which already belongs to 2134 (which redirects to 22nd century)
so the only new content is
The Decade as a Whole. This decade is expected to be called the "twenty-one thirties".
Delete them all and speedy recreations of decade articles way into the future - there might even be a case for protections. Nothing useful can be said about them this far away. Capitalistroadster01:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Delete, although predictable events such as astronomical forecasts are at least legitimate (i.e., these are not Star Trek events).
Delete and protect: These decades have been deleted on multiple occasions, which means that our goof troop authors have some dedication to miscreation. If we fill them with astronomy, we're going to have them come along and overwrite the content with the usual "This is the year that Jimmy will die in a bizarre accident involving a roll of toilet paper!!!!!" Geogre11:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to century. Perhaps a policy is needed for when the events in a decade pass some threshold count, then create a decade page (or category). --StuffOfInterest19:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all future years with two or less unique pieces of unique content (like the Halley's comet factoid), and merge the unique content where it exists. -Sean Curtin01:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary unless verifiable events can be added (astronomical) or as a fictional element in some sort of TV canon. --Drno00707:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Very very strong oppose, there are astronomical events predicted on these dates (not mentioned on the article but obviously something will happen). These "future" artilces are usefull no less than for example 2010, instead of waisting AfD space why not expand them? Besides, they will only be recreated. Additionaly we could get a bot to create "stub" years ready to be expanded. Please use AfD strictly for articles that have no way of being encyclopedic, in 150 years the article 2160 would be a rather large article, although none of us likely will be around :(. You know this really feels depressing... --Cool CatTalk|@16:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
...which you have done. Now we wait for someone to expand it into a reasonable article (e.g., discussion of marketing schemes, examples of incidents of conflict), or to merge it to web hostingdomain name, or to put HTML links again. -- Perfecto15:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, free hosting and a free domain name are two entirely different things as explained in the article. Still, there's a lot of spamming at work, I suspect. Can someone check the source of the singx.com site and see if the displayed date isn't generated based on today's date. If it is, they're conning their customers. (I'm not even talking about registering somewhere else to be eligible for one. I doubt anything would be forthcoming). - Mgm|(talk)08:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don’t see much point in this article. In essence, all it says is that you can get a domain name free but that in return the providers will put advertisements up on your website. Without a list of free domain-name providers, this article is useless, and we definitely don’t want to have such a list on the Wikipedia. •DanMS20:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Domain name. Subject worthy enough of mentioning somewhere in Wikipedia. External links should appear here as long as they aren't too trivial or narrow in scope. This criterion will prevent article from turning into a spammers' portal. Good example: www.dot.tk. Let's not submit ourselves to the spam hysteria -- fear of spam is as an "irrefutable" and all-encompassing excuse, as fear of terrorism or pædophilia, for example. -- 6birc17:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kappa. I have copyedited the article, except for the last sentence of the first paragraph, to have a more encyclopedic tone, so it reads OK now. As for spam: If there turn out to be spam issues too difficult to dial with, THEN let's delete the article, but for now, as I said, keep. :) --Unforgettableid | Talk to me07:08, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge, assuming it's even worth noting within the context of the comic's article! —HorsePunchKid→龜2005-10-24 02:20:51Z
Delete: A single joke from a single issue of a single comic? No. Far too minor for merge and redirect. This is per precedent, by the way: for a while there, we had kiddies creating articles for every single joke on every single episode of "Crank Yankers" (prank phone call show in the US). They'd watch the show with the keyboards in their laps, I gather. Geogre11:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment Saw this while looking through speedy tags. I suppose his claim to fame would be designing these collectible pins. That's just enough for me to consider it an assertion of notability, and therefore should be evaluated through the normal AFD process. Somewhat silly given that it's obvious this article is going to be deleted, but there you have it. I'm removing the speedy tag to let the AFD run its course. · Katefan0(scribble)05:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Some Magic: The Gathering rules variant that someone came up with. There are many fan-created variants without any official sanctioning support from Wizards of the Coast. In the 11 years I've been playing this game I've become familiar with many well-known fan-made formats (which are mentioned in the "variants" section of Magic: The Gathering) but have never heard of this one. In any event, I don't think any unofficial rules variant for Magic is encyclopedic enough to warrant an article. Andrew Levine00:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, there may be a reason for it to be here; it will never become sanctioned due to all-out wackiness but it may end up gaining popularity. Stifle19:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete this article. It is well-written and informative. Type four is quite popular where I live, and deleting an article that presents potentially useful information seems rash. Also, I'm fairly certain that the article's author did not "come up with" this variant, as it is fairly widespread and has been around for quite some time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johankian (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A character from the wondrous mystical realm of Magic: The Gathering. The total extent of fictional works featuring this character is a few paperback novels in which he plays a supporting role (Amazon.com sales rank for a typical entry: 288,507) and maybe two dozen game cards with him in the picture (out of 7,500+ cards that have ever been published). Andrew Levine00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Urza shoud remain seperate, as he is the main character for most of the Dominaria-based cardsets and backstories. But that is not the debate here. Create and Merge To a list of minor M:TG characters. Saberwyn11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The novels are non-notable (see Amazon sales rank, as it's a pretty good notability criteria, at least for in-print books) and if created would surely be redirected to their respective sets. A single supporting character from them is even less notable. Andrew Levine03:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Merge wouldn't be evil, but it is the corporate interest of card game makers to get as much "synergy" as they can by having the novel, the card, the TV show, the film, the comic book, and the action figure going and to multiply these as rapidly as possible (possible = times kids get allowance). This is a bit player in every respect, and the character is known and referred to only within the context of players/watchers/sufferers of that game/book/phenomenon. There is no need to explain these minor characters to a curious world, as the world is not curious, having never heard of them. Geogre11:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep merge all MTG characters? You must be crazy. They are more notable than your average elementary school would ever be! Grue 19:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article does need a lot of work, and so do many other MTG articles, but I don't think it needs to be deleted/merged. Tahngarth 6:32, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Not NPOV; Not in encyclopedia format; wikipedia is not a webhost. Also not significant; less than a dozen members, none of whom are known. Voyager64000:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not only is the current content a vanity post, but the name collides with other Red and Blacks that might be sought by "brigade." Think of all those universities with "Red and Black" this and that (U. Georgia, e.g.), then Stendhal's novel, then derivatives of his novel's revolutionary calls. Geogre11:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A powerful wizard from the mysical world of Magic: The Gathering. I'm pretty sure she appeared in just one paperback novel (Amazon sales rank: 229,775) and that's the extent of works of fiction she's been in. She's mentioned in the name of a few Magic cards (less than 0.5% of them). A very minor fictional entity. Andrew Levine01:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Except that most of the players of the game are scarcely aware of her existence or her backstory. Magic is not primarily played for the storyline. Also, as far as I can tell, she appears on not a single card. Andrew Levine03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Again, if anyone wants to go to the trouble of creating a corral for these critters to bob around in, I don't object, but this is such a small time phenomenon that when you learn the name, you essentially know what there is to know. Geogre11:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As with Grev. Note: the statistic about the # of cards Serra's name has been on is not very useful measure of importance. (I am used to be a player of Magic)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: In the absence of a holding pen for these entities, we are asking for name collisions and essentially putting the information out of reach. The true context here is "minor characters in Magic the Gathering Game/Book/TV show/doll collection/virus/corporate phenomenon." If a person wants to know the secret history without the joy of reading the books, then she can learn it in a tabular list of all these creatures and thereby compare her to the other mystical wizards and mighty warriors and valiant queens. Geogre11:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another Magic card, easy to look up at [gatherer.wizards.com]. Maybe it wouldnt've been deleted if it were on Wikibooks, but Wikipedia's standards are higher. --Unforgettableid | Talk to me07:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - just another Magic card, easy to look up at [gatherer.wizards.com].
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The logical redirection for this is to S Corporation, a type of corparate organization in which the company'ss income is taxed as personal income of the owners. It is not anticipated that any further voting will be otherwise. Klonimus01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I think the information here should be preserved but moved into the main article 'Mario Kart DS' with a minimized or removed diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelestar (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable, band vanity; no Allmusic entry, although there's apparently a song of the same name (by another, more notable band). --Alan Au01:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as garden variety band vanity. Fairly well-written by new user with no prior edits; let's not teach bad habits early on. :) - Lucky 6.901:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mistitled band article on an act that is unsigned and undistributed. We wish them well, but Wikipedia is inappropriate for such articles. Geogre17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Belarus is a fine nation. This is a guy who lives there and has a blog. No other notability claims are provided, really, except that he provides information technology. There are many such folks. Geogre17:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Did anyone research this nomination? Mikhail Doroshevich gets over 90,000 Google hits. He appears to be a legitimate and rather prominent advocate of IT information freedom in Belarus. He played a notable role in lifting a government ban on Wi-Fi. UNESCO publishes his study on IT policy in Belarus. His reputation extends beyond Belarus. I found a Russian news site that quoted his opinion on Russian e-mail surveillance. DoWire.org lists him among the Internet's best blog and news feeds. Durova18:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I didn't do the research, no. With a rewrite, I'd certainly reconsider, and I hope the other voters above would, too. Geogre20:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: The rewrite adds some, but it still looks like a blogger article, whereas this is a person whose blog is the least important thing about him. I want to change my vote, but I can't yet, and this is not in any way to slight the work Durova has done. Geogre02:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article a little bit. It's still a stub but now it shows why he's more notable than a vanity blogger. Durova21:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. If it's a vandalism magnet then we should have more people watching it. This is a useful article documenting internet culture. This has been nominated for deletion before. See Talk:List of shock sites/delete for the previous VfD discussion. Rhobite04:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep YUCK! And shock sites are apparently a pheonomena. Why are there two sections- Shock sites and Other shock sites Sethie06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone else pointed out, this list is about the only place (other than gradually hearing the stories over time) where people can find out about these sites without having to visit them. I've seen a couple of these pictures, and they're disgusting to say the least. But no one is being forced to click on them here, and as I said, this list serves an important purpose. --69.249.85.23403:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've yet to see a single valid argument for deleting this, other than that someone disagrees with its moral content. I for one find it interesting, and I don't appreciate being told what I can and can't learn about. --194.200.167.6912:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you read my nomination? Did I even mention morality? It's a list of non-notable websites with spammy external links. It has gone worse since the last VfD nom. It receives a dozen anon edits a day. If everyone here wants to keep it, then can someone here clean it up?! You guys want a pet dog but you don't want to clean up after it. -- Perfecto17:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry for inferring that your problem was more with the content than the presentation - that's what most people object to. If you care enough about this, though, why not clean it up yourself? It really does seem to be affecting your peace of mind.
Delete: Fails the standards specific to list articles by 1) being inherently POV and 2) inherently incomplete. There is no way to be complete with such an article, and the judgments are always going to be personal. Finally, aside from the criteria that apply to lists, Wikipedia is not a web guide. It is not the function of this encyclopedia to make one's browsing easier. Geogre17:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I'd never heard of these before visiting Nevada-tan, and I'd much prefer to be able to understand without actually having to go to the sites. This list does have a purpose, I agree. Jacqui★16:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable examples into Shock site, creating a comprehensive descriptive article. That will be far more useful to people who want to learn about these sites and understand the phenomenon than the present unmaintainable list is. — HaelethTalk16:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is so useful in helping us to understand internet culture. It might need to be cleaned up in some areas, but so do many others. --80.3.43.1014:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a very useful place to find out about shock sites, so that i do not get caught out- admittedly i have used one to catch out a friend, but only to return the favour.- It should possibly be cleaned up though --80.44.230.3314:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we don't delete articles for being a vandal magnet or being in a deteriorated state unless it fits speedy criteria. Most of these sites get a lot of attention on the net and are well-known. I don't see any valid reason to call them non-notable, although some individual entries may be removed on those charges. - Mgm|(talk)21:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want to actually see these sites, but I'd like to understand the reference. It's better than googling on a phrase mentioned by a friend to actually find the real page. Please, as a public service. --69.241.232.3522:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this useful page about a widespread phenomenon: Wikipedia is nearly the only place where these sorts of sites are described in a clear impassive manner. This was one of the first Wikipedia articles I ever read, and I appreciated its existence then as I do now. - squibix04:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a lot better to read a textual description of a shock site than have to view it in person. This is an informative article which provides useful information for internet surfers. --Timecop12:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Fuck morality, fuck notability, and fuck cleanup. --Phroziac
Keep - This page taugh me a lot about some of these pages, alternate aliases, how to prevent some issues, and how to identify any that I've been tricked into seeing. Eclipsed Moon20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This page categorizes a particular type of website that however profane must be documented. The purpose of Wikipedia is to compile knowledge, censorship hinders this. Kip04:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Geogre. This is not a censorship issue; I have no problem with the nature of the content, but the list is inherently POV (there is no accepted definition of "shock site") and inherently incomplete. MCB05:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Silly neologism, not at all in widespread use. I vote to delete if notability cannot be established. —HorsePunchKid→龜2005-10-24 03:03:37Z
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While the article contains some factual content, it is generally of a superficial nature and not helpful. Also, the last clause is clearly opinon and does not belong in a factual article. The article is largely irrelevant.
Well, there appear to be three actresses named Haven -- [8], [9] and [10], so we may need a disambiguation page, but deletion is inappropriate just because the article is superficial. Weak keep, but extensive cleanup is necessary. User:Zoe|(talk)04:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not noteworthy at all. Eug 10:35, 24 Novemhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=Haven+Porn&btnG=Searchber 2005 (UTC)
Delete: Particular article is superficial beyond compare and poorly written. The subject of the article is an average performer in adult films. She has not achieved crossover success, and so there is no reason to be trying to duplicated IMDB here. Further, there isn't much biography to be written about someone so young. Geogre17:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Given that there are nearly 4.9 million Google results for Haven porn see [11] and nearly 7000 images after removing safe search, it appears that she is notable within her field. Capitalistroadster17:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That 4.9 million is highly suspect. The very first page of that Google search contains a hit from the phrase "I haven't seen a lot of porno." I'm sure the true number is much, much lower than 4.9m. If she had a name that was not a common word (and part of a common contraction as well), this would be a lot easier. Turnstep03:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the pornographic film industry is taboo, it’s actually quit large. I do not see her as being less notable then a minor character actor. The article being a stub is not a reason to delete. Seano123:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOT a publisher of personal essays. I still have no clue what this article is supposed to be talking about. "Microdj" returns 702 google hits, many of which appear to be the user profiles of a forum user named Microdj. "Microdjing" returns zero hits. If this is an authentic phenomenon, I can't find any websites to support it. Rampart05:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, as per nomination. It doesn't even have anything to do with the metric system. A company could sell something with a label that says "1 pound" and then change it to "15 ounces" and it would be the same "rip-off". -- Kjkolb13:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MergetoBWMA and replace with redirect. GMR is a crusade of this group; see their homepage.
Keep (Okay I made the article) I know this article might not be NPOV yet> I clearly stated it as a term used by BWMA and other supporters of the English (Imperial) System. If it needs a more appropriate title I will change it, but it contains some valuable information. And while the above contributions are useful I would atleast welcome a change to counter such claims.
Sherurcij,
It's not about getting more pringles in the can...It about the economics and strategies private corporations will apply when there is disruption such as that caused by a country when going fully metric. The people are Losing their pringles. I know you probably won't care that the people are being cheated...It's understandable...It's not your money.
Kjkolb,
You are absolutely right in your above post. It's exactly the same except for the fact that the people might not catch that they are being cheated. In that lies the worth of this article.
Comment: I've added to the article and strived to make it more NPOV can someone take another look? Chooserr
Sorry, no. Where are the references to price surveys showing that the prices did not drop? Whose prices are we talking about anyway, the manufacturer's, the wholesalers', or the retailers'? As it stands the article is just an advert for an activist's web site. Most grocery stores in the US now have per-unit prices on their tags, so this wouldn't even work on someone who's paying attention. And if it did work, it would be no different from any other product downsizing. Gazpacho23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; even still, it's unsourced original research, and unverified that companies even do what it is they are accused of in the article. The external link yields a 404. MCB05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems like a non-notable bio. Claim to fame could also be made for innumerable other "youngest person to have $medical_procedure performed on them", yet most/all of them would be nn aside from their medical history. Deletion or maybe merge with sex change; I'm not sure. PeruvianLlama(spit)07:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable: only one Google hit for "Nikola Pathmanathan", and that's from a Wikipedia mirror! The comment on the pictures ("Made it myself") suggests that the contributor is a personal acquaintance of the subject, which would make this vanity as well as unverifiable. See also Ryan Pathmanathan and Gerrard Vipulananthan, by the same author, similarly illustrated with personal photographs, similarly weak in terms of claiming notability, and similarly difficult to verify; anyone feel like AfD-ing them? — HaelethTalk18:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should have been speedied, as the other two have already been, for failing to allege notability. Probably an attack page, like the other two were. User:Zoe|(talk)22:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. It's nonsense. Even if the person exists, they are not notable, and the article is just a joke, literally. Is there even a debate over this? It's obvious garbage. Rediahs07:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why not speedy it as well? It was clearly uploaded for the hoax. Gazpacho
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I love MUJI: I've got a desk full of MUJI office supplies, I'm drinking my coffee from a MUJI coffee mug, and at home my books are stacked on MUJI bookcases. But this is NOT an encylopedia article, it's a promo from the Christmas sales campaign. Delete. Calton | Talk07:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want it to be deleted, then go ahead. What I actually wanted to do was to put up a page about their Christmas campaign, something I found unusual and unique. I started the page without any promotion for that company in mind, but more of an encyclopediac article. I have tried my best to talk about the campaign too. For the record, as much as I love MUJI, I do not work for them nor have anything affiliated with them except being a loyal customer. And since Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia that informs the user as many things as possible, I didn't see why a page about their Christmas campaign didn't belong here. And trust me, the last thing I would do is to spend a good time putting up pages promoting for some company. Le Petit Vagabond
Guy, their Christmas campaign isn't unique, not in a country full of Christmas campaigns. Unique would be what Barney's New York is supposed to have done one Christmas, which was dress up a display window to look like Sigmund Freud's office and hire an Freud impersonator to sit in it. (Well, that's David Rakoff's story, at least.) --Calton | Talk07:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Erm. Bitch? Well, if you don't like such curt replies, neither do I, so maybe you can give some better reasons that just listing crap here. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepetitvagabond (talk • contribs) 05:43, 25 November 2005
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete (Edit conflicted): Subliterate indeed. But it does seem to be a game, [13] or something. If someone knew what it was and was willing to do a rewrite that would be ideal, but unless someone steps forward... --PeruvianLlama(spit)07:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Dicdef, not sufficiently notable by itself to merit its own article, and adequately covered in Press Your Luck. It appears to be a user's first article so I'm real sorry about this, and please believe me that it's not personal. TCC(talk)(contribs)07:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. This is a useful redirect, too, since I believe one of the versions of this game show was in fact renamed Whammy. 23skidoo17:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Marginal notability. In my opinion deletable but not speedy, and I want to hear what other folks think. Moderately strong delete. --Nlu08:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think it's quite obvious that the person who put this up is the one and only Jesse Katen himself. Being published once by the Ithaca College Journal on Sex, Gender, etc. and being the student of somebody else who could barely be considered encyclopedic herself, does not constitute even the smallest iota of fame. This page is vanity and a waste of space. --JHMM1316:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two minor claims to notability, neither of which amounts to much: (1) Author of an article in the Ithaca College Journal of Race, Culture, Gender, and Ethnicity, and (2) Founder of a dance school, of which there are thousands in the world. •DanMS21:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep 61,000 Google hits suggests some notability; and shows that the site is widely discussed. WP:WEB says "Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. This is only to be brought into consideration if no other means of justifying a website's article can be found." (my emphasis). Andy Mabbett12:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article describes an alleged field of Artificial intelligence which is not generally accepted. Indeed the only proponent of such a field is the original author of the article himself. I have added a {{disputed}}-Tag half a year ago, and so far nobody has edited the article. Silvestre Zabala11:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per nom, although perhaps there should be more Wikipedia articles about things that have not happened, will not happen, did not exist and are not true. Think of the possibilities! Peeper14:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we could also have articles about Harry Potter 9 and someone who will not be the next American president, but if they're not planned there's no verifiable info to make an article with. (Note: This nomination shows me we shouldn't ban anons from nominating. Well done!) - Mgm|(talk)21:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: probably a hoax and certainly unverifiable. The case Philip Baird Shearer describes, while a genuine case of someone being killed using a rug, bears little resemblance to the act described in the article: the historical case involved the victim being rolled in a rug and trampled to death by horses, while the article describes beating people to death actually with a rolled-up rug. — HaelethTalk18:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete article. Even if Philip recreates it (though he should preferably use a different name), better not to have the history polluted with hoax material. Mozzerati23:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Non-existent French king, more like. Unable to find any reference to this so-called legend on-line. Certainly no indication of a Hudson I ever being monarch of France. 23skidoo17:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If he were king of France, he would be notable as per WP:BIO as far as I am concerned. However, he wasn't King of France. A Google search came up with nothing verifying the claim see [15].
Nor did Google books come up with anything useful see [16]
Nor did Google Scholar come up with anything useful [17].
In short, there are severe verifiability problems with this article. Capitalistroadster18:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this were a mythical figure the article could at least cite the source of the myth. Looks like a pedestrian rehashing of the St. George myth. Durova18:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even a plausible hoax; any such folk-hero would certainly have been worked into the Arthurian cycles, and it goes without saying that no such hero was. I hope nobody spent too long trying to verify it... — HaelethTalk18:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Since the article makes claims of the subject's notability - even as outrageous as they are - it is not eligible for speedy deletion. PJM03:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I am not even convinced that this is a real term that is in use. Google provides only three hits for “advanced email service provider” (in quotes), two of which are Wikipedia mirrors. I’ll be glad to change my vote if proved wrong. •DanMS21:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article Untrihexium should be deleted. The article indicates that element 136 is the "last chemically stable element" according to classical physics, because electrons in element 137 would travel at the speed of light. In fact, the last chemically stable element according to the Bohr model is element 137, as is correctly stated in the article Untriseptium. (They can't both be the last chemically stable element!) That electrons in the 1s state of element 137 have a velocity less than the speed of light in the Bohr model is easily verified, using the equation in the Untriseptium page:
This formula can be verified in any indtroductory physics textbook that includes modern physics, such as Giancoli. 67.186.28.21215:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and correct if in error. An incorrect statement about a real element is not reason enough to delete the article. BD2412T 16:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Delete I didn't notice the redirect. Perhaps the nomination doesn't explain things well enough to nontechnical people. This is not "a real element" in normal sense. It's a prediction. Element 137 is theoretically significant. Element 136 is an insignificant prediction. The editor who created this article made a mistake. There's nothing worth keeping because fixing the error renders this very non-notable.
The heaviest element found in nature is uranium, element number 92. The heaviest element the IUPAC recognizes as created in the laboratory is meitnerium, element 109. That's only 17 elements created in more than 60 years. We're not likely to see 136 or 137 in our lifetimes. Durova23:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: Untripentium does NOT have an entry; it redirects to Systematic element name. Untrihexium, like Untripentium, does NOT exist; if there's nothing theoretically interesting about it, and experimentally it doesn't exist, there should be no independent entry: only a redirect. 67.186.28.21221:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that an element is theoretical does not make it non-notable, if the possibility of its existence is seriously discussed in the relevant scientific community. BD2412T 03:51, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Other theoretical elements with similar atomic weights do not receive Wikipedia articles. Only 137 is theoretically significant. Durova10:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is element 136 is discussed at all, experimentally or theoretically, in the scientific literature? I have not been able to turn it up in my favorite database (Ingenta). 67.186.28.21215:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put it another way: if the theoretical existence of element 136 has been discussed in the literature, that information is not contained in the current article on element 136. If the demonstrably erroneous information is removed from the article, the article will have zero information content. 67.186.28.21215:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is getting increasingly weird. We have a separate article for a planet that isn't even from a Star Wars video game, this is a planet that was cut from a Star Wars video game. Most of it is speculation based on incomplete game files, as well as a link to a mod in development. Meanwhile, many more notable Star Wars planets don't even have separate articles.
Delete as essentially non-notable; there's no need to cover cruft that wasn't even mentioned in the noteworthy work it was cut from. If someone wants to add a one- or two-liner to a list of Star Wars planets, that would probably be all the coverage this planet needs. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge - Please DO NOT DELETE this information. I just stumbled upon this information and am pleasantly surprised to see these fascinating details about one of my favorite video games of all time: KOTOR2. Please note that I am unopposed to this information being transferred to another page. 67.80.175.154 05:22 EST, 27 November 2005
If you're looking for "esoteric" information that only poses interest to KOTOR II players, you can consider using a specialized encyclopedia, like the Star Wars Wiki (where the content of this article has already been transwikied). - Sikon13:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment No, but they have been "on a national concert tour over notable musical venues in at least one large or medium-sized country" - i.e. Norway. [20] - and their records have been noted in VG and Dagbladet (Norwegian newspapers) and also on Panorama.no. Sam Vimes16:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This was linked from the article Omar Rodriguez-Lopez as a movie that he will produce in 2006. The Rodriguez-Lopez article indicates that the movie has been postponed indefinitely, and this site says that "either no one knows anything about this project, or they just aren't willing to say." The songwriter did drop an album in 2005 that claims to be the first half of the movie's soundtrack, but we already have an article for it here.
Whether the movie is true or not, I'm nominating this article for deletion because it is non-notable and future-predicting. An article is warranted when and if the movie comes out. -D. Wu16:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Notability shouldn't be conflated with verifiability. The issue here is not notability but verifiability. If there is no available knowledge on a subject, because it doesn't yet exist, then the article is unverifiable. However, there is (and has been for several years) knowledge about the movie A Manual Dexterity to be had. Wikipedia can certainly cover the reports from sources that such a movie is planned, and by whom, even though there is nothing known about the movie itself. See here, here, and here, for examples. But this article contains nothing of use, is completely unsourced, is partially speculative, and is at the wrong title anyway. Delete. Uncle G21:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable record label; only press releases I could find were on sites that let anyone issue a "press release" for advertising purposes. [21]Jasmol16:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable and an advertisement. eCourier (that article, written by the same person, also contains blatant bias) is a marginal start-up company, and its delivery mechanism surely does not warrant its own article. Google test returns no relevant hits for AIBA or A.I.B.A. The article claims that the algorithm was created in part by MIT, but I could find no evidence of this fact. -D. Wu16:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete- Unfortunately not a speedy. The article does attempt to assert the importance of the subject, but not successfully. Reyk21:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I did some cleanup on this article a couple days ago, but was pretty skeptical about its usefulness. I turned it from advert crap to just plain old, regular crap. But still, it should be chucked. Youngamerican02:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
1) No claim of notablility2) No allmusic.com 3) some google hits, but all in norwegian so unable to verify 4) no google hits for scrotumrock (ewwww) 5) substandard article. NOTE: this band MIGHT meet criteria for inclusion if they have toured in important venues in Norway per CFD. Unable to verify this. A Norwegian speaker could. Perhaps instead of delete article should be written in Norwegian and included in Norwegian Wikipedia? (Extra delete points IMO for playing non-esistant genere "scrotumrock") -- Herostratus19:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm Norwegian too and I've never heard of them, our local "trubadur" seems to be more notable than these guys, and I'm not entierly sure he's quite ready for a Wikipedia article either (released 9CD's the two most popular of wich sold about 1500 copies each). --Sherool(talk)19:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I checked them out and they do seem to have a good win loss record. No website, no major tournaments though. I'd compare their level of notability to the number one or two team of an amateur softball league. Not encyclopedic. Durova18:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Advertisement/promotional brochure. This entire article reads like a product promotion. The product itself may be noteworthy but this article is nothing more than promotion. DanMS18:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Wikipedia is woefully short of articles on the history of non-English-speaking countries, so it would be a pity to lose this one. It despreately needs clean-up, though. I have started, and request the help of others in making this a keepable article. This is an episode of Somali history, so it need not be merged, espeically when both articles are lengthy. Ground Zero | t23:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: appears to be at least partially a copyvio from [24], but I think that section can be edited out with no great loss to an otherwise legitimate historical article. MCB07:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as probable hoax. I found nothing about this guy by Googling except various mirrors of Wikipedia. If the article is taken at face value, he was a precocious child who was the principle aithoor of a collabrative book at the age of 12 or so. Finally, if you reverse the letters of the two names, you get Chris Hayman, which I suspect is the name of the twit who wrote this hoax. If deleted the entries for this hoax in the December 3 and Jesuit High School, New Orleans articles that point to this article need to be deleted as well. Caerwine19:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. No AllMusic entry. 160 Google hits, ALL Wikipedia mirrors. OK, Mr. Hayman, the jig is up. You’ve had your fun, time to go. •DanMS22:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does anyone have any evidence that there is a system called the PlayStation 1 that is distinct from the original playstation. If not then this article should be deleted. Foogol19:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but do those results say that PlayStation 1 is actually a distinct videogame system from the original PlayStation which this article is implying? I doubt it. Foogol20:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RedirecttoPlayStation. The article actually describes PSone, which is practically the same machine as PlayStation but in a different form factor. However, when people specifically say "PlayStation 1", they're usually referring to the original PlayStation. Or, if they say "a PlayStation 1 game", it means it runs on any hardware compatible with the original PlayStation. And people usually seem to expressly say that; Saying "a PlayStation game" will make people say "for which PlayStation was it made for?" (Thank you, Sony, for your fine unambiguous product naming.) It's a common unofficial name. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is an opinion piece written in the first person, with the author asserting that class sizes at Clarion University should be limited. This is canonical soapbox material. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It is an encyclopaedia. The fact of the article being written in the first person I take to be a strong indicator that there is no widespread movement with this platform that has been the subject of independent news coverage and been the subject of commentary, and that thus there is no encyclopaedia article to be had here. Delete. Uncle G21:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This is nothing more than website promotion. No notability for this website is asserted. One among thousands of dating websites. DanMS20:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Because he used departured in a sentence.. AAARGHH!
Delete — listed as a former member on the band's page (with an umlaut in Näslund). Doesn't appear to have made a notable contribution. — RJH01:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actually, it was never a podcast. It was just pre-recorded for on-air play. There was never an MP3 download due to its copywritten music content ;) Anyway, I'm abstaining from this vote --Kevin McManus00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I appreciated being called "what looks to be a respected Wikipedian". However, I'm not respected, I'm a bit of a nuisance, albeit rather a jocular one, from time to time. Well-spotted Catbar. --Wonderfoolt(c)12:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete vanity. If the guy's ideas ever show evidence of being taken up by anyone outside of Barrie, I'd be happy to let him back in the Wikipool, but until then... Bearcat11:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I believe this article deserves an up or down vote and a chance to be sourced & NPOV'd.
Nominator votes Weak keep. Article obviously needs improvement, but just cancelling without a vote or chance to improve it seems too much like censoring an unpopular POV. FRS22:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable. A Google search turns up 12 unique hits, most of which seem to be in various forms of pornographic stories. Revived23:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Canadian soldiers are not an exception to the rules that soldiers are not notable. Especially ones that die in traffic accidents. There are over 40 nationalities in Afghanistan multinational force. Williamb23:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It may not strike someone as a notable death, but Canada very rarely loses soldiers in any circumstances. He's our first loss in 3 years; a single death makes national news here, folks. Please keep that in consideration. Radagast17:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This seems to be an article about some anti-cheating group in the MMORPG RuneScape. I personally play RuneScape, and as much as I hate cheaters, I don't think that the RCIS is notable enough. There seems to be no relevant Google results. Perhaps it could be "userfied" instead? Maybe if a Wikipedian is in this group, they could move it to their user space. --Ixfd6423:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — A small, independent group looking for game cheaters? It's unclear to me why this is notable or encyclopedic. — RJH01:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A7 Speedy being the first Bangladeshi to settle in Dundee may be an assertion of notability - although it doesn't meet WP:BIO. Being his grandson isn't nor are there any other assertions of notability. Capitalistroadster00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
00:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
