Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 February 19

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Adrian~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 02:40, 19 February 2006 («+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Thousand Eyes}}»). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 18 >

Purge server cache

February 19

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

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

Inherently funny word

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

  • Comment: Based on some of the references, it seems like this article could exist, albeit in a possibly different format. The fact that funniness if social constructed, for me at least, increases the need for an article which discusses that, provided it can be referenced. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't find the words in the list funny, therefore they are not inherently funny, therefore the article is false and it must be deleted. --Ruby 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything that is unreferenced should of course be removed, but the use of certain words as "inherently funny" by comedians (and the response of their audience) can be documented, and probably there is some more research on humor that can be cited to source this article better. The intro might need a complete rewrite, though. Kusma (討論) 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but not as is. This article is one of the centerpieces of wikipedia's humour section alongside Unusual articles and List of unusual deaths, but it's a messy article and needs work. Somebody needs to give it a thorough cleanup. Add some sources, and delete everything unsupported by references. Night Gyr 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with ref's -Who said this word is inherently funny and what not. -AKMask 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for some reason the idea of this article gets under a few people's skin. But it's a legitimate concept to discuss. Unfortunately, it's also a concept that draws a lot of fly-by edits (I know something funny - let's add it!), hence the messiness. - DavidWBrooks 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether there is any such thing as an inherently funny word is irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Otherwise one could make the same case for deleting Ghost. The point is that certain words have been characterized as being inherently funny, as the article documents quite well. Unusual articles like this are part of what makes Wikipedia cool. dbtfztalk 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and smak JzG will some inherently funny word like Pantyhose, bubbly or giggles... because he I feel he may have skiped a couple steps. You know, some wise men once said to me, if you think it need verifying, then put the verify sign on it. Don't just delete it. If you think it's NPOV then put that one on it too. And only delete it if you really want to. However I may be swayed for other reason to delete this. For example this may simply be an enumaration of several words. However considereing we have a definition for funny page,Funny little itinerant blip, Funny little ugly fat fellow, Funny wagon (what they will soon be putting me in if I continue leaving such odd comments to JzG and he continues on with a double standard, while they bring me to the funny house)... but then again maybe this will all be a Funny story from a funny man from Canada hey! That will add his french Funny foreign squigle when he write it in his funny book talking about funny business experiences with a guy name JzG. Or perhaps instead... keeping it all withinfunny fantasy that is funilly enough not the funniest joke but may add some smiles and funny faces. (Darn! I couldn't find inherently funny word though!)--CyclePat 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can't verify a word being inherently funny, because funny is a subjective concept to start with. Oh, and pantyhose is not funny at all. Unlike trouser, which cracks me up every time (and leaves others utterly bewildered). See what I mean? Guy 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
commnent prove it. And once you do. Add that fact to the article with you source. --CyclePat 04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It a number of people lack the required sense of humour. But I doubt even they can deny that, for example, banana is a word used often in jokes and the like (without a suitable context, just because of the word and nothing else). Basically the word has to be trivial in meaning (and thus it's meaning isn't funny at all), it usually sounds "awkward" or "foreign" or plain silly. And if you mention it at one point in a conversation for no reason at all it should be funny. Replacing it with textdocument or something equally mundane should not be (as) funny. In any case, there's comedians who believe in them...there are plenty of other people who "believe" in them, and hence it should be pretty obvious that an explanation is required for those that come across it without knowing what it is. Not to mention many, many articles reference it for good reason. Rygir 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is neither Original Research - all of it is what other people have said are inherently funny words - nor POV. A fine example of a slightly off-the-wall topic being handles very well. Batmanand 11:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encylopedic and more of an opinion peice. TVXPert 14:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This has to be one of the five worst articles I've read on Wikipedia, and I hated it before it was brought here. There's no excuse for this kind of garbage. It's original research, it's stuff made up in school one day, it's not notable, it aims to be a how-to on stand-up comedy. This is a pile of reeking garbage that would make Satan weep. It makes this encyclopedia look like it was written by moronic nosepicking fourth-graders. I can't emphasize enough how bad this is. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Come on, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. Turnstep 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Siva1979Talk to me 15:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research/essay format. not encylopedic. Ncsaint 17:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep - this article is highly misleading. If the article can differentiate between "inherently funny words" as an attempt to be funny. There is a huge different between that and scholarly language and psychology journals stating that this concept is true. So, I believe the subject may have been broached by enough comedians to merit its inclusion as a well known joke... but as a truly scholarly subject I have seen no evidence yet... and if this article doesn't differentiate between the two then it's seriously misleading. gren グレン 18:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - bad title, smells like original research, POV, and in general unencyclopedic. Renata 22:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma. Rufous 23:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfectly valid article that may need some cleanup and verify, but in no way merits deletion. Turnstep 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OR, WP:V. —Ruud 01:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, how is any of this information useful/meaningful/relevant in a non-original research/POV way? None of these words are "inherently" funny except to English-speakers, anyways. What do I need an encyclopedia article to argue for the idea that the word "bassoon" is "inherently funny"? Incredibly stupid article (even if it were retitled "funny words" or "words used frequently by comedians.") Please Don't BlockPlease Don't Block
  • Precisely. Not only is tenoroon much funnier, so is bassinet. In my opinion. and there is no way this can get around the fact that it's entirely based on opinion. Guy 13:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! or, alternatively, merge - sillyness. They're not funny, maybe some of the material could be merged to an article such as humour...But on its own... no. -- Greaser 06:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — but remove anything that is original research or unreferenced, of course. -- Jao 12:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept before, keep it again. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since a) this has been kept before and b) it's just perfect fodder for WP:UA and c) there may be good sources to support this, if not on academic level then on, um, some comedic level. Though, the article definitely may need cleanup. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but somehow this article needs to be 'steamlined' and broken into a few sub headings. Inherently Funny is a legitimate comedic concern and valid considertion for many comedians. Steve Allen has written on the subject and I recall Milton Berle mentioning it as far back as the 1960s. Cincinatti is a funny word, Dallas is not. Maybe "k" is funny by association: Shecky Green, Red Skelton, Danny Kaye, Ernie Kovaks. At any rate, the concept deserves some more research and citations. John Sinclair, Salt Lake City (har!)
  • Trivia: I have seen somewhere that Jimbo Wales locked this article for a few hours for the purpose of using it as a demonstration of Wikipedia on a TV show. (I'll be happy to try to source this if anyone thinks their vote is affected by it. It looks to me as if this is going "no consensus".) No vote from me. AndyJones 20:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My vote is unlikely to change, but I would be curious to see more details about this. Turnstep 02:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I think this is all I ever knew. It just stuck in my mind for some reason. See the penultimate item and its edit summary. (Possibly that item will have been pushed to the next page by the time the AfD closes.) AndyJones 09:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Funny" is entirely a POV. If it weren't, "table", which I've always considered an extremely funnt word, would be on the list. :Denni ☯ 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Yesterday's Globe and mail, february 20, 2006, page A14, Section, Social Studies (A daily miscellany of Information by micheal Kesteron (MKesterton@globeandmail.ca)) cited Harold Geneen in his Though du jour and stated:
"The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. Keep in mind that facts are seldom facts, but what people think are facts, heavily tinged with assumptions."
Again, Hard facts are really rare. What we most commonly have are opinions from people. (POV's) Inherently most articles are full of POV's. Does that give us the right to delete them? I don't think so. --CyclePat 01:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: perhaps, "table" is a funny word for you, but if you have not written a published book or can't find a published book on that subject (ie.: on the inherent funnyness of that word) than it wouldn't meet the wikipedia standard of inclusion based on the WP:NOR (Wikipedia No original research... and if that is or was the case then we should nullify this entire process, start an entirelly new deletion process with those accusations.) --CyclePat 01:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you're driving at here, but there are no sources attesting to the inherent funniness of words mentioned in the article, "weasel", for instance, which, IMHO, makes most of this article OR. If this article is to be kept, it needs serious editing and sourcing. Denni ☯ 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit drastically. It should exist where 'Inherrently funny word' is a quote rather than a topic, as comedians have spoken on this subject and given examples. I suggest it should begin with something like 'An 'Inherrently funny word' is a concept which has been proposed by many comedians, including (etc), and featuring words like (etc)'. No word is inherrently funny, it's all relative. --Luke44 21:41 22 February 2006 (GMT)
  • Keep Interesting article, though per Luke44 and others it could use a little cleanup/organization. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nice article.  Grue  21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article holds a great deal of information on a concept which clearly has been addressed many times in popular media, as seen in the number of sources it cites. It doesn't try to establish a deffinative list of all "inherently funny" words, although the opinion of profession commedians could probably be taken as expert opinion, and thus qualify for inclusion, as has been done. If someone feels that the article is trying to create an inherently incomple and potentially POV list, then it could be cleaned up, but since it is clearly a subject that has been addressed there is no reason to delete it. After all, there are articles on consipracy theories, alien abduction and pseudosciences that may not actually physically exist, but the idea is prevalent enough that in can be reasonable addressed. After all, all of these quotes are verifiable. I've read Dave Barry's piece where he claims weasel is an inherently funny word, for instance. He certainly qualifies as an expert, and thus it's not OR. Icelight 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a member of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I signed up for an account before, but I don't remember my user name or my password. I have to say that I have the exact opposite opinion on this article that Mr. Brian G. Crawford has. The argument here seems to be that, if this article concerns the subject of silliness, then the article itself must be silly. Nothing is empirically funny, at all, ever. It is -ALWAYS- culturally constructed. That is the nature of humor itself. The fact is that humor is difficult to analyze because you don't know whether something is funny until it makes you laugh. "Inherent funniness" is the concept by which something is simply considered funny, and therefore preferable to things that are not funny. In the satirical online game, The Kingdom of Loathing, the clothing choices for player characters are "pants" and "hat". I am not aware of an official stated reason for clothing being limited to those items, but it is my opinion that experts on humor will agree that "pants" and "hat" are the funniest names for articles of clothing. Certainly, some people may argue that "socks" is funny or that player characters should be allowed to choose "galoshes" or "underpants" or something similarly silly. In this respect, humor can be considered entirely objective. Some people may not find any words to be inherently funny at all, just like how I am fairly sure I have not laughed at an episode of "Seinfeld" at all, not even once. Those who want this article deleted seem to be convinced that humor is not worthy of intelligent analysis because of its subjectivity or its strong ties to the culture of those involved with both producing the humor and laughing at it. I myself firmly believe that it is because of these things that humor is a worthy topic of discussion. There won't be articles discussing in detail every form of humor in legitimate mainstream paper encyclopedias, because humor is a very difficult topic. However, if this article ends up being deleted (being edited to conform to a higher standard of quality is quite acceptable) it will severely hurt my faith in humanity. I just thought I'd throw in my own two cents. --65.13.17.229 07:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC) [Some guy named Dave][reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moinho da fonte

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

Story in Portuguese about a town. Dr Debug (Talk) 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Get it off my English encyclopedia, even it it's translated --Ruby 00:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. My first reaction was "hahahaha". ITS ISN'T EVeN IN ENGLISH!!! --Jay(Reply) 00:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - use db-notenglish tag. --OscarTheCattalk 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: {{db-notenglish}} only applies to pages that exist in other wikimedia projects, such as pages that were cut and pasted from another language wikipedia without translation. There's no speedy deletion criteria for articles that are in another language, they'll get afd'd unless they fall in some other csd. - Bobet 01:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears to be a real article about a real place (not a story). But it should be deleted if left untranslated. Dlyons493 Talk 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delelete Unfortunatelly... --CyclePat 01:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 03:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Puff piece. This "A população subdivide-se na minha familia e nos meus vizinhos naturais" means "The population is divided between my family and my fellow Portuguese neighbors." Jim62sch 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Wow. It's... NOT IN ENGLISH!--SeanMcG 04:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sakir kocabas

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

found in Category:Cleanup from November 2005 I don't recognize the language --Melaen 13:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
probably Turkish--Carabinieri 13:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Turkish. Appears notable. ColinFine 14:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands its copyvio from[1]. If cleaned I'll reconsider. Dlyons493 Talk 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Same as above, not to mention language issues. --Jay(Reply) 00:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as coopyvio. --Terence Ong 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio Jim62sch 04:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD A7.--Alhutch 00:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Danny gotimer

bio of nn skateboarder, reeks of vanity savidan(talk) (e@) 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to the article, his greatest success was riding for "Sevenfold Skateboards", which also does not google well and does not suggest that he meets WP:BIO. Kusma (討論) 00:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kusma --Ruby 00:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, same as above. --Jay(Reply) 00:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 08:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our Animals

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

  • Delete per nom. --Jay(Reply) 00:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Read the first few sentences of the "article." It's the epitome of why WP:NFT exists. --Kinu t/c 01:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No footprint on Alexa --Ruby 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: verify: I wonder if this is just a case of verifiability... again! In that case add the verify unsourced template and see you later.--CyclePat 02:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 7 websites link to there website [2] (per google). Seems like a nn-org to me. ---J.Smith
  • Delete as nn. --Terence Ong 03:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Jim62sch 04:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Avery W. Krouse 05:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Jaranda wat's sup 02:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bennie Joppru

  • keep if he's current on the team and there is more content. Tawker 04:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above users and not listed at AfD; I've fixed the formatting and listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No vote, all athlete articles get kept anyway --Ruby 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Kappa
  • Keep Jim62sch 04:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 04:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepers--SeanMcG 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but who cares if the nominator is a vandal? Let's talk about the article, not the personalities. Batmanand 11:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 15:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was slightly more in favour to keep than delete. A lot of the keep votes had alternate suggestions (keep with cleanup, keep or merge, etc.) but really we only debate keeping vs deleting. Improvements are up to the community. Ifnord 19:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First Family of the United States

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

  • Delete per Jay --Ruby 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I completely understand. I am writing the Clinton section of the article right now, actually. The article is NOT intended to be a Bush family chronicle; I am trying to compile data from ALL of the First Families. I hope you'll consider not deleting this article. Thank you. History21
  • Keep/Clean-up Should focus on the institution of the first family, significant acts of various members throughout history, not one specific first family. But the institution deserves an article. -AKMask 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there has to be something there, at least a disambig or redirect, fight out on the talk pages or make a request for comment. Kappa 01:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename: To be technically correct I think it should be First family of the United States of America but that's me. Oh! and keep the content. --CyclePat 02:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Perhaps even merge First Family to the new name. --CyclePat 02:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Common, it's redundant! ---J.Smith 03:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: So next time a wikipedia user types in "First family of the United States" they should be invited to create a new article? Kappa 03:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to First Family. --Metropolitan90 03:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. Cut back on the biographical articles and just outline the members of the first family under a particular present with wikilinks as appropriate. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Clean-up Jim62sch 04:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. --Terence Ong 04:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Efforts better directed towards expanding existing articles than creating redundant ones.Schizombie 04:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Neutralitytalk 05:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand to include multiple first families, etc. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 06:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but radically rewrite. This article should be about the concept of a First Family, what privileges they have, how they are protected, what legislation has been enacted around them etc. It should not be biographies of the current or former First Families (except maybe as a small section of "notable (incidents involving) First Families". But that is content dispute; this article is perfectly keepable as an article. Batmanand 11:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Re-write, expand, and source! TVXPert 14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rewrite to reflect the institution, rather than the people. Natgoo 17:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant per many other articles. Contains a lot of assertion and apparent editorialising, looks a lot like a POV fork. If kept, should be reduced to a one-sentence summary for each family with links to the main articles. Guy 18:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Yay!!! It now appears as if this article will be kept, and of course I am very happy with that. For those who say it should be deleted, I can only state that the First Family of the United States has been a distinct institution for two centuries. Some First Families (in particular the Kennedys) had a significant inpact on the popular culture of the day. To those who support me in keeping the article, I must say that I agree with your assertions that more should be included about the security the First Family receives, the privileges they are privy to, etc. I would welcome inclusion of that within this article, because, frankly, I don't think I could cover it all on my own. However, I feel strongly that te biographical information as pertains to each First Family's time in the White House should STAY, and I will reinsert any biographical info that is unnecessarily deleted. The idea of a one-sentence summary of each First Family is a bit far-fetched. If people wanted mediocre knowledge on the topic, they wouldn't come to Wikipedia. We should be detailed. And for all the "editorialising" I have done, I feel that the article is very neutral. Based on my descriptions of two Republican and one Democratic First Family, can you really guess what my political views are? I note Clinton's infidelities and the Bush twins' binging in a purely factual manner. So, that is what I have to say, and I will check in here from time to time to see what everyone else thinks. Thank you. History21
  • Comment: If you continue to expand it the way you're doing (there's even a note on the page "NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE EXPANDED BY ITS ORIGINAL CREATOR." which I don't think is usual practice), it's going to be extremely long WP:SIZE. Not only is it redundant (duplicating material for people most or all of whom have their own entries on WP, none of which you've linked), it is internally redundant e.g. noting each person in a family "ceased to be First" whatever on a certain date. Schizombie 20:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have told you, I feel that this biographical information is important, and I intend to expand it because I know a good deal about it. However, I feel that others SHOULD come forward to help with more general information about the institution as a whole. I can, of course, research the Secret Service. Yes, yes, I'll do that. Alright, thank you all again. History21
  • Delete anything that needs to be said about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. Which needs completely rewriting by the way as is describes any country other than american as "foreign" which is a useless (and possibly offensive) term in an international encyclopædia. Jcuk 22:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What? It is a Brit, isn't it? And do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family? Honestly, the idea that the American First Family could simply be included in an article that describes the families of heads of state in general is itself rather funny. I mean, come on, I don't really think anyone is pretending that Cherie Blair yields the same kind of inflence as Laura Bush. The American First Family, whoever its members are at any given time, is the most powerful and influential family on Earth. Let me put it this way: if George W. Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. If Laura Bush does something notable, you all hear about it. When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it. When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES. I'm not being arrogant, I'm just illustrating a fact. I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married. And yet, EVERYONE knows about the American First Family. That's just the way it is. As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you? History21 00:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "do you all refer to the Blairs as the First Family?" ? no
  • "When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it." Who?
  • "As the most significant and powerful family on the face of the Earth, I think they deserve their own article, don't you?" They have it. Bush Family. Anything else that needs saying about the american first family can be said in the First Family article. --Jcuk 10:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whoa, There. This article is not about the Bush family, it is about the First Family of the United States, an institution far more influential than any other similar body on the face of this planet. And who are you to redirect this article into First Family when voting on it has clearly not stopped? Far more people voted to keep than to redirect, and I am reposting this. Give me one good reason why the First Family of the United States doesn't deserve its own article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by History21 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 20 February 2006.
  • Comment: I didn't, somebody called neutrality did. See my reasons above for why this article should be deleted. Jcuk 23:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree it shouldn't have been redirected without this discussion being closed. History21 undid the redirect, and I've reverted it to the last most complete version prior to that redirect. The number of people voting to keep is not the sole basis of whether an article is deleted or not AFAIK. The main reason to delete it is that there are already articles covering some of the families and all of the individuals. Another lesser problem is a US-centric systemic bias overstating the importance of members of the "first family" beyond the President and First Lady. Another problem is length; if the article covers all the so-called "first families" as the intention was stated, it could grow to be about 40,000 words in length.Schizombie 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rewrite completely. The information about the Bush family is redundant, and an article with this title should focus on the institution, not on specific families. One immediate step to improve this article would be to remove all but the first paragraph. Kusma (討論) 17:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rewrite and include information on all the other presidential families. Cut down info on Bush and Clinton families as it duplicates existing articles like Barbara and Jenna Bush etc. -- Astrokey44|talk 22:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article, as it presently stands, is repetitive of quite a few already well written, adequately sourced material on Wikipedia. From what I see now, in an attempt to have the article kept, the author is adding unsourced, inaccurate paragraphs every now and again to expand the article - not good news. A majority of keep votes are under "extensive rewrite" or "rewrite completely." I am not saying that an article of such a title should not exist, for the institution is rather important. I am just saying that as it stands now, the current article under the title "First Family of the United States," per all the delete votes and keep+rewrite votes needs to be scrapped, and rewritten from a much different approach. Deleting the article removes the histories, to prevent reversion - a rewritten article under the title "First Family of the United States" would have no need to be reverted to what currently sits under that name. --Jay(Reply) 00:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not possible to keep up to date and already covered in other articles. Stifle 21:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone knows about the First Family? Hoo-wee, this stinks of arrogance. Delete American foolishness. Denni ☯ 01:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are we going to totally delete the contents of this article and substitute something else in January 2009? Carlossuarez46 02:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think we would just add a new section at the top. Kappa
  • Comment: We'll keep the anti-American nonsense to a minimum, shall we? While I'm sure that the hegemonic empire on your southern border causes you great pain, it is not my fault that our own officials carry more sway than your own, and acknowledging the fact is not "foolishness." Yes, the American First Family is known across the world. Is this really a surprise? Come now...think. History21 03:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just my guess, but I bet there's a significant percentage of Americans who don't know Mrs. Bush's first name, and I'd bet even money that at least half of Americans could not name the two (?) Bush juniors. Certainly, people around the world know there is a First Family, but beyond that, they are mostly blissfully ignorant. I'm not sure where your leap of interepretation came from that I was dismissing as foolish the fact that your officials carry more sway than ours. What I was dismissing as foolish was the statement that "everyone knows about the first family". Clearly, this is hubris. Denni ☯ 01:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  • "*It is a Brit, isn't it?"
  • "*When Barbara and Jenna Bush go out drinking, you all hear about it."
  • "When one of the Blairs does something notable, NO ONE CARES."
  • "I don't even know who Tony Blair's children are! "
  • "I couldn't tell you if Jacques Chirac even has a wife, let alone the woman's name if he is married."
  • "Hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum."
    --Jcuk 09:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How's about using proper grammar? (Notice the apostrophe in "how's.") When referring to an American, we use capitals. Don't ruin a (I'll admit) fairly clever attack against me by using flawed punctuation. It just really, really upsets me, almost as much as the still silly assertion that the U.S. First Family does not merit its own article. By the way, I must commend you for using my own statements to demonstrate my "american [sic] nonsense," alluding of course to my own use of "anti-American nonsense." That was quick. Your astuteness however, does not make up for the fact that everything I said was true. Sorry. That it was true. For you, anyway. History21 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and another thing that really grinds my nerves: "hows about keeping the american nonsense to a minimum [sic]." should clearly have a question mark on the end of it! Oy, vey! Periods, my dear British friend, mark the end of a statement, and question marks the end of either a direct or indirect question ("How's about doing this?" It's not exactly a command, more of a suggestion, if you can even call it that). Okay, I feel better now. I wonder if I would get in trouble for vandalizing posts by making them conform to English language standards? Hmm... History21 00:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Where is Roosevelt, or a, the other 20 or so families? -QDJ
  • Comment: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Kappa 20:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Holy bonkers. I just typed that. Side note, how do you set up the link to your page and all? -QDJ
  • Comment:With four squiggles, like ~~~~. I've left a welcome message on your talk page which should clarify. Kappa 20:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The absence of material on all the "first families" is not a reason to delete it, IMO. However, adding the missing families would not make for a reason to keep it either. It's still redundant, something that hasn't been addressed yet. How do you write about a president's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that man or the one on President of the United States? How do you write about a first lady's significance as a member of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the article on that woman or the one on First Lady of the United States? How do you write about the significance of other members of the family as members of the "first family" in a way that it covers things not covered by the articles on those people? A more valuable endeavor, IMO, would be to create articles for the redlinked "Non-spouse 'First Ladies'" and "White House hostesses" from the FLOTUS page. Schizombie 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, no The First Family is a significant institution by itself. As a collective unit, it is more important than any royal family could ever hope to be. And regarding Denni's comment that many Americans aren't familiar with our own First Family; I feel that any American who didn't know the First Lady and First Daughters' names would have to be almost clinically retarded. People in this country may not be able to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, but they're pretty well schooled on the members of the President's family. History21 01:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)History21[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, improper nom, WP:SNOW Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Ioane

who? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Subject is clearly encyclopedic. Chick Bowen 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment player is referenced on nfl.com site [3], have updated article accordingly. Unsure whether this means worthy of a keep (this ain't proper football :-) ). --OscarTheCattalk 00:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another athlete article that is destined to be kept --Ruby 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, having a hard time assuming good faith on this nom. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as short article lacking context and non-notable biography. Capitalistroadster 03:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce Mathwig

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

  • Speedy Delete yup, non-notable. Would suggest a speedy db-bio. --OscarTheCattalk 00:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Per nom. I question even if it qualifies as a bio, but still, delete. --Jay(Reply) 00:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - CSD A7, tagged as such. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: A7. Notability not asserted, and it's probably non-existent anyway. --Kinu t/c 01:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Ahmad Treaudo

who — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AfD is not for expansion. Chick Bowen 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable as article currently stands. --OscarTheCattalk 01:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is simply a stub. As a side note, I find questionable the recent unsigned, unreasoned AfD postings. --Jay(Reply) 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All athlete articles get kept, as surely as all school ones do --Ruby 01:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. 20,000 Google hits on a member of the Atlanta Falcons team. It's a valid stub and satisfies WP:V. Antandrus (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, would be speedy keep but a good-faith vote to delete has been made. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable gridiron player. Would have been speedy keep if not for good faith delete vote. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jim62sch 04:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 04:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Siva1979Talk to me 15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He's on the practice squad, not the team. Is this a relaxation of notability standards? Is he the athletic world's non-notable equivalent of an understudy who never gets onstage? Monicasdude 16:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep he is a memember of the practice squad of the team, still not in the team yet, Most players who are in the practice squads don't normally go higher and normally get released, clearly bad timing for the AFD, possible delete later if he gets cut and don't play a pro game. --Jaranda wat's sup 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep on the verge of NN. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --James 01:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy keep, seemingly improper nom, WP:SNOW. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C.C. Brown

too little info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey 2006 (talk • contribs)

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AfD is not for expansion. Chick Bowen 00:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. AND please, the lister, stop listing stubs and so forth here for expansion. --Jay(Reply) 01:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All athlete articles get kept --Ruby 01:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Marcus White

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

Comment: This AfD was created and edited by the above user and not listed at AfD; I've now listed it. No vote. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • EXTRA STRONG SPEEDY KEEP nominator of AfD is a vandal, nuff said. Moe ε 01:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Verify and keep: and the unsourced template. Wait a week. Then come back for deletion if it is still unsourced. --CyclePat 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why is this a speedy keep when it seems to be about a non-notable PHD student who is a member of a band of questionable notability The Special Patrol Group? --Martyman-(talk) 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possible speedy. This is an article about a student who plays for a Aussie rock group who I doubt meets WP:NMG. I suspect the people voting keep think are discussing the NFL player. No Google hits at all for "Marcus White" "Special Patrol Group". [4].

Capitalistroadster 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- --Martyman-(talk) 03:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really see anyone looking for an article on this guy anyway. I could be wrong. Check back in 20 years. Jim62sch 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Terence Ong 04:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 06:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems non notable member of questionably notable band ...maelgwntalk 10:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per maelgwn Sliggy 14:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable! TVXPert 14:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ---Siva1979Talk to me 15:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. Intentions and credentials of nominator not relevant. Ncsaint 17:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Martyman --Ruby 18:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Googling for the name plus the supposed claim to fame yields precisely zero hits. Guy 18:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here worth keeping. VirtualSteve 21:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN. Cnwb 22:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn, note that the keep votes are because of the nominator --Jaranda wat's sup 02:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't particularly care, I was actually brought here by a vote recruiter. Cyde Weys 06:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambi 04:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Roisterer 08:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terence Murphy

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

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

Kurt Wise

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

  • Delete insufficiently notable although he gets a few Google Scholar hits for Baraminology and some 100 Ghits for same. Dlyons493 Talk 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If 'he' were to try and suppress my views I would holler like hell ( whoops ... A Freudian slip there!!) So why should I want to suppress his?--Aspro 01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to supress his views, I want a WP article about a non-notable teacher to go away. --Ruby 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is notable enough for Richard Dawkins, perhaps the world's most prominent evolutionary theorist, to write an article about him and his views. (See the link in the article.) dbtfztalk 01:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Dawkins article does it. -- Jonel | Speak 03:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jim62sch 04:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable young earth creationist, and highly notable for actually having a relevant degree. JoshuaZ 05:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unusual story of a creationist with a background in paleontology -- I think he's notable as a result, especially if he's written about by evolutionists. -- Samir ∙ TC 08:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Samir. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per most other keep comments. Monicasdude 16:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Notable in that many anti-creationists question the credentials of creationists. Here's one with a degree in science from a prestigious university. Logophile 15:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He's the only person to earn a Ph.D. under Steven Jay Gould and still believe in a young age for creation. Just because he does not covet the spotlight does not make him and his accomplishments not notable.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

List of Remixes of Beyonce Songs

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

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

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

  • Delete all per nom. I agree with the precedent established in the previous AfDs, in that this is listcruft, and all useful and verifiable information should be and is already located at the respective artist pages. --Kinu t/c 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least some of them are remixes by notable musicians. Kappa 01:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not every remix of every song by a notable musician is worthy of mentioning in an encyclopedia. Some of the songs themselves aren't even notable enough for their own articles, but that's another matter. Extraordinary Machine 17:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't make a comprehensive encyclopedia of songs without at least mentioning notable remixes. Kappa 17:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, don't delete this. I worked hard on them. Researching for hours. PLEASE DON'T DELETE THEM! Wait, if I edit and put a section for unofficial mixes/versions, will please keep this one.Hill03 2:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Fine, I don't care. I might as well forget about being here. I come here to give helpful info. But every single time I contribute it's deleted..Hill03 2:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or, at the most, merge with related articals. ---J.Smith 02:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll give you my stupid contact if anyone wants any of these list. TV.com user tooty33. Hill03 2:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all per nom. Who cares about remixes? Jim62sch 04:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, remixes are not notable. --Terence Ong 04:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. And whining? Pish posh. --Avery W. Krouse 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nomination. If any have achieved chart success or anything to make them have notoriety other than dance floor airtime then merge them with the single/artist's page. -- Greaser 10:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom. TVXPert 14:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per kappa. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If verified, the content should be incorporated into the text of a comprehensive discography and placed in context, but a stand-alone list is not encyclopedic. Monicasdude 16:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Listcruft, not encyclopedic, anything notable here can be mentioned elsewhere. ergot 18:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Notable remixes is probably good research but should be placed in a comprehensive discography as per Monicasdude. VirtualSteve 21:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as remixes of notable artists are notable. Also, these are far from "indiscriminate" lists. Turnstep 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all If you want to have lists of remixes, list them with the orignal songs instead of a useless list. UncleFloyd 03:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as lists apparently created just for the sake of having such lists, i.e. listcruft. Stifle 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Beyoncecruft. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

The Leisure Coffee

No references, no google [5], unverifiable. Kappa 01:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Kappa --Ruby 01:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The AFD notice has been attempted to be removed by anon IP. --lightdarkness (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Probable hoax. Their last album was "The Sock Put-its" and they are working on a 19 minute epic song in response to "Stonehenge" by Spinal Tap. Thatcher131 01:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: only on the principal that we should follow wiki process by putting up WP:V unsourced first. Give the editors time to find something. Etc... etc... Seeing as this is a new article I assume these may be new editors. So I would sugest we not be so WP:DENSE and follow wiki policy to make wiki a friendlier place not a discouragement. --CyclePat 02:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as blatant hoax. "M.R Smith, previously a wandering Eucalyptus tree salesman based in Mexico and the United Arab Emirites, stowed away in the hold of a huge drug-paraphenalia smuggling ship, to The Gold-Paved streets of London Town, where he survived for two weeks by eating his own shoes and hat." dbtfztalk 02:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. A band that would pass WP:NMG would turn up in a Google search. It's bullocks. PJM 04:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Jim62sch 04:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Avery W. Krouse 05:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu t/c 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. as a hoax. feydey 13:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. TVXPert 14:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Real band...the lack of internet reference is explained — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.192.96 (talk • contribs)
    • Unfortunately reality is not enough, verifiability is essential. There's also the question of WP:MUSIC. Kappa 01:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So even if the band is real, if there is no internet proof, it's not considered Wikipedia material?
      • Just because a band is real doesn't mean it necessarily qualifies for having its own wikipedia article. It also must be notable. See this link for what is required for a band to be notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:MUSIC --Xyzzyplugh 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Knowitall 18:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable band. OhNoitsJamieTalk 04:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Keepers of Lists

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

  • Keep, "somewhat well-known website". Possible merge into List of list websites. Kappa 01:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alexa rank about 300K, no vote --Ruby 02:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, since there is some notability. --Terence Ong 04:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This website was mentioned in the 505 Weirdest Websites book. I will not create a page containing every website in this book as I do not have the time, but if someone else has that book, we might want to think about merging it with that. smartyshoe 14:02 February 19th 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable and indiscriminate. There's no knowledge here, only noise. BrianGCrawfordMA 15:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kappa. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not appear to be a notable website (high Alexa count, low inbound link count) and article is trivia. Although this does raise an interesting possibility: perhaps we can move all the listcruft off WP to this place, which seems to exists precisely to host the most trivial, and cruftiest lists imaginable. Guy 18:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Guy. Not at all notable. Amcfreely 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, funny, but not notable. Renata 23:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge per Kappa. Turnstep 23:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Guy I don't think they (the people who work the website) would be too happy about that. A matter of fact, you'd get in big trouble. I do not own the website, but contact the people who do. It is an interesting possibility, but I doubt it will work.
  • Delete, and transwiki all the lists from WP there. Stifle 21:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Angry response to Stifle For the second time, WE CANNOT MOVE OUR LISTS THERE. First off, I don't even know if making links there is possible, second of all, you may contact the head of the site at admin@keepersoflists.org asking if it is okay, but I seriously doubt it. DO not contact me, I am not anyone with authority. Smartyshoe 21:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lighten up! It's a frivolous and humorous suggestion, not a real proposal - GFDL prevents any such action. Just zis Guy you know? 22:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 21:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

Matt Seager

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

  • A Google search finds several different Matt Seagers, but none of them appear to be porn stars. Delete as per WP:V unless reliable sources are provided to verify the article. --Allen3 talk 02:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep delete: article was just started. This appears to be a bad faith nomination because Kappa skipped a few step. One, add the Verify template. Two... Keep your cool. Three... comme back tomorow or in the next few days. (And if you're not purely evil you will have given a notice to the user that started the page). ;) Comme back in a week. I've come back... changed my mind I have scene no attempt to ameliorate this article. It is unsourced. I now agree that it should be deleted. Even speedy delete. --CyclePat 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fairly obvious hoax. dbtfztalk 02:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing on IMDB --Ruby 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unverifiable, likely hoax. --Kinu t/c
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unverifiable. Since extensive attempts have been made at verifying it by several voters, that is unlikely to be fixed by waiting. Guy 18:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I usually procedurally keep new articles that get AfD'ed without a chance to develop, this one had at least enough time to cite a source or two, and didn't. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and dbtfz. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Robert Stanek

  ATTENTION!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Isn't that kind of a non-sequitur? What's the connection? Has anyone proposed yanking the Chris Paolini pages? —rodii 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  • Keep per Alkivar. This person has apparently done something real (ie, contributed to the shelf on the computer bookstore that will, in immortal words of _why, crush us all one day) besides being just loud and notorious. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and verify: This process appear to be "out of process". Just put a verify sign up and come back in a couple days. --CyclePat 02:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep per Zora. Like it or not, Stanek is notable for the allegations of sockpuppetry in marketing his works, whether they are true or not (he said carefully). —rodii 02:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it Per nomination and AfD. What's going on here is it not right. It would seem there are better things to do with your time. Jnb27 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and verify. There's almost certainly something funny about this AfD. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete Per nomination and previous AfD held today for Ruin Mist. Enough already with the personal attacks. 172.164.196.220 03:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with inclusion of the Ansible controversy and history on Amazon.com and Usenet. It's Interesting that those who created the page and the astroturf are now calling for its deletion. He and/or his fans have made their bed, now they're going to have to lie in it. 69.213.249.15 04:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) Grammar edit 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Delete it. 69.213.249.15 should be banned already, along with the rest of them. 165.247.191.244 04:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Inquiry I should be honored, I guess... Mind enlightening me as to just exactly what I've done to merit being banned? Please be specific, and cite exact transgressions. 69.213.249.15 04:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not being on the dfcsociety.org web site isn't definitive - it does require that you be in the society to be listed there, and there is a fee for membership. As proud as he seems to be of the award, though (since it seems to be mentioned prominantly in every bio I've seen), you'd think he'd be a member. There is a list available from another group of DFC recipients, but it requires proprietary PC-Only software to access. Someone on a PC might want to check it out. It's at [6] 69.213.249.15 05:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC) typo fix 69.213.249.15 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC) new perm ID Synthfilker 02:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot! All the controversy is crap and shouldn't be included at any rate. Deepd 04:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User has 5 edits total to Wikipedia, counting this --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ansible scruff should be removed at any rate 172.147.251.178 05:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laugh. This is one of the funniest, oddest AfDs in a while. rodii 05:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Irrelevant Napols 05:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)User's first edit to Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 06:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I stated in the AFD for Ruin Mist, Stanek is an oddment. Stanek is infamous throughout science fiction publishing. What tends to happen is that a completely non-notable book is put out in the Stanek name, and then hundreds, if not thousands, of positive reviews begin to flood web-based reviews websites. Oddly, these reviews are all identical. Now, I'm not saying that Stanek himself has anything to do with these reviews, any more than I'm saying that the sudden flurry of Stanek-related articles on Wikipedia are anything to do with him personally, but the long arm of coincidence stretches only so far. Ironically, if this article is kept, it should be for those very reasons, but should be rewitten to reflect the fact that his only "fame" is through this astonishing spamming campaign, for which he (or someone who is a big fan of his) has far more talent than he does for writing fiction. In some areas of fandom, the verb "to stanek" is starting to mean "to overhype junk writing ("e.g., to say "Tis Perry Rhodan book is brilliant" would be to stanek). If you're looking for some references for all this, BTW, I can proffer [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]... overall, I'd favour a delete, though On second thoughts, the gratuitous self-promotion is probably worthy of an article - but if it is kept, it may need serious edit-protecting to stop the Stanek supporter(s) from bowdlerising it. Grutness...wha? 05:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) (vote reconsidered and changed Grutness...wha? 22:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep as per Alkivar. Capitalistroadster 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - so many anons wanting it gone makes it rater suspect. Note to other admins: If this keeps on getting keeps from real users we should speedy keep it. gren グレン 09:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is it that content disputes get dragged into AfDs? The article is a mess at the moment, so fix it. The subject of this article seems to me to be notable, so what about the article is against the policy? Batmanand 11:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. Dlyons493 Talk 12:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zora. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable online jackass/thug. Monicasdude 16:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a biography on a non-notable author for a vanity press who's too dumb to know that Slavic languages are not Romance languages. Batmanand, if you feel so strongly that it needs kept, I suggest you try to fix it. BrianGCrawfordMA 16:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think of it as consumer protection for fantasy-literature readers. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article exactly as it is, and keep it protected. ergot 18:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in a form that Stanek will hate. The more he hates it, the better the article will be doing its job of documenting a man whose vanity exceeds even that of a certain Southern Baptist preacher. Guy 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until at least this sock-puppetry subsides. Amcfreely 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with a laugh at this AFD... I will just pop in to whoever closes this that anon's votes dont count and the users in single-digit edits probably shouldn't, either. -AKMask 01:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable wannabe and obvious astroturfer. Book articles are probably fancruft though. Haikupoet 02:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This author's fame (or perhaps infamy) deserves note, if only as consumer protection. --Calton | Talk 03:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable guy. This is a rather funny AfD, with anons telling us that we should "delete it, and move on", and that they're "tired of seeing it". You're obviously not tired of telling us about it. Grandmasterka 08:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable in a bad way, but still notable. — Rebelguys2 talk 23:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree notable for being offensive, but that's still notable. Georgewilliamherbert 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in current form--aka a way Stanek won't like. I've been lurking around observing the bruhaha over Stanek for awhile now and it seems to me he has become notable for his astroturfing and trickery, if not for any of his writing. ArrowHead 00:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no one is entitled to a controversy-free article. Carlossuarez46 02:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Fiction shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 5/5/2005, 5/27/2005, and 6/2/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Science Fiction and Fantasy shows one or more of the books on the bestseller list on 7/1/2005, 6/2/2005, 5/27/2005, and 5/5/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Kids shows the books one or more of on the bestseller list on 6/24/2005, and 6/23/2005.
  • A search of the RSS archive for Best Sellers in Mystery shows one or more of on the bestseller list on 9/2/2005. 4.154.208.199 23:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • LAUGH Let's see, that's on his publisher's web site? Just how difficult is it to be on your publisher's best seller list when you're the only author they publish? Synthfilker 01:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You gonna give us a source, or do we just have to take your word for that? --Calton | Talk 00:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is being referred to is RSS newsfeed which requires a subscription to the feed. I archived the feeds referenced above: 1. Any one can subscribe to a feed and get archives. 4.154.212.74 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RSS newsfeed from what?? Amazon? Stanek? The NYT? My mom? rodii 19:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's the feeds at Audible. So this is audio books. rodii 19:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was redirect. Shanel 01:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God Save The Manics EP

Delete, article already exists at God Save the Manics Davis "Suede" Hurley 01:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to God Save the Manics. Seems like a no-brainer. dbtfztalk 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a duplicate of existing content and an implausible candidate for redirect. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God Save the Manics. Capitalistroadster 04:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God Save the Manics. That's why I put the merge tag in there in the first place. Strange to bring it to Afd and bother everyone. Just be bold and redirect if that's what you want. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to God Save the Manics. --Terence Ong 12:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Terenceong. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was already redirected. Shanel 01:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citizenship in the World Merit Badge

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

  • Redirect to List_of_merit_badges_in_the_Boy_Scouts_of_America -- the lack of context makes it a candidate for CSD/A1, but a redirect may also be appropriate. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Same user authored Citizenship in the World Merit Badge Merit Badge, which I just put in the prod queue. --Lockley 02:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Jonel has worked on it, in context it now makes sense, keep or redirect. Cheers Jonel. --Lockley 05:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lockley --Ruby 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete half baked original research. Go back to drawing board 201.121.165.129 03:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America) (note - this is where the page Adrian mentions itself redirects). Both are This is an actual merit badges awarded by the Boy Scouts of America. While certainly not deserving of an articles of their its own, it is certainly conceivable that someone might look for them it here. -- Jonel | Speak 03:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Edited upon realizing the "other one" was not Citizenship in the Nation Merit Badge as I somehow misread it, but really just a mangling of duplicating the Citizenship in the World Merit Badge. Support the prod-ing of the meritbadgemeritbadge. -- Jonel | Speak 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - following my comment above, I cleaned the article to give some context and grammar. Still think it's undeserving of separate article and continue my recommendation of redirect. -- Jonel | Speak 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is fine with me. I'm not quite clear on how it can have text and still be a redirect, but I'm happy with any solution that doesn't just leave it as a dysfunctional, unintelligible article, which it no longer is.--Bcrowell 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My text is meant to be temporary, just to let people at this AfD know what the context is. I expect it to go *poof* as the article is redirected. -- Jonel | Speak 05:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that redirect, User:Jonel :) Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America), per Adrian Lamo. PJM 04:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Jim62sch 04:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Redirected to Merit badge (Boy Scouts of America) -- if anyone has a problem with this, or a better idea, please let me know :) . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might have waited more than 5 hours from the original nom before removing the AfD notice, but seems to be harmless in this case. Turnstep 00:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I call 'em as I see 'em, and I couldn't see it being controversial on this one. If it seemed otherwise, I woulda proposed it first. Thanks for the feedback tho :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. :) I'm perfectly happy to support this redirect, for the record. Turnstep 04:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Shanel 03:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The diamond sea

  • Non-notable band. DELETE. Georgia guy 01:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete -- CSD A7, tagged as such --lightdarkness (talk) 01:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unfortunatelly not notable, however I suggest we transwiki to wikimusic. Oh! wait wikimusic don't exist. never mind. --CyclePat 01:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unfortunatelly. And transfer to wikimusic. Oh wait that don't exist. Never mind.--CyclePat 01:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if they become famous they can rewrite the article. --Tone 02:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Currently working on their first record, the article says --Ruby 02:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

List of UK railfan jargon

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

  • User accidentally transcluded debate from first nomination. Fixing now. Fixed. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's better to have one list of dicdefs than many stubs about each dicdef --Ruby 02:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. This was debated last month and closed as Keep. Article spun out from Railfan after discussion. The nom who is new to wikipedia must provide a better justification to reopen this debate. -- JJay 02:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as previously kept article with no new rationale for deletion. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. WP:WINAD. I'm somewhat hesitant due to the rather recent debate, but there were few contributors in that debate & I think both this and the US list should go. If not transwikied, I still think it should be deleted. --Karnesky 09:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My vote reasoning remains unchanged ("Pages like this have wide and longstanding precedent; see Computer jargon (created September 30 2001), List of baseball jargon (March 11 2003), List of lumberjack jargon (November 4 2003), Mathematical jargon (October 5 2004) and Poker jargon (April 18 2001) for other examples of this type of article. If this article is deleted for the reasons stated in the nomination, then all of these need to be deleted for the same reason."). Since I don't see afd nominations for any other jargon pages, I don't see a valid reason to remove this page. Slambo (Speak) 11:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment I am going to call for those pages deletion, as they don't belong. Will this make you happy? Frühstücksdienst 03:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If they are deleted, then I will change my vote, but not until the policy is evenly enforced. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Slambo. Batmanand 11:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Terence Ong 12:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencylopedic, unsourced. Perhaps merging with railfan ariticle would be better? TVXPert 15:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I guess, since I know many of these phrases from my trainspotting days. Guy 19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have any of you read Wikipedia guidelines? Wikipedia is not a dictionary. BrianGCrawfordMA 21:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information, but if you want to know why trainspotters talk excitedly about spamcans and hoovers, this is where you will find out. Guy 22:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keepJcuk 23:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Slambo. Turnstep 00:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, just read the damn guidelines. I am also voting against the US version, too. FunkyChicken! 01:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a dictionary entry. Calsicol 01:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just citing policy, which notes that a dictionary entry is more than just a single dict def. Let's handle one AfD at a time! --Karnesky 13:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nomination. UncleFloyd 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete violates article guidlines, and per nomination. NYTVGuy 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Useless, needless, and seems to go against the policies of the Wikipeida. ShyLou 17:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • -Note: User's fourth edit. -- JJay 18:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, unencyclopedic and indiscriminate. -- Krash (Talk) 18:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because not sourced. Keep with sources. Pavel Vozenilek 20:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lack of sources is not sufficient grounds for deletion. There are several Featured Articles that lack sources, even (although their featured status is coming under review, they are not being considered for deletion because of it). Slambo (Speak) 12:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The non-existence of reliable sources would be grounds for deletion (WP:NOT a publisher of first instance) but oin this case there is plenty of evidence of currency of these terms from other sources, even though they are not cited. Terms like "hoover" are common currency in railway modelling and railfan magazines; these are not available online, but "teh Intarweb" is not the world, somethign we often forget when we can't find somethign on Google. Part of the point of Wikipedia, for me, is to bring stuff which you'd otherwise have to visit the library to find, onto the web. In this case the article is substantially more useful than things like the lists of hacker jargon, since there is already an authoritative source of hacker jargon at the Jargon Files, and all we're doing is mirroring it and sometimes adding unverified cruft. Some of this information is hard to find. But then, I'm a reformed trainspotter from before the days of Google, when you had to be inducted into the brotherhood before you knew what the f**k they were talking about... Just zis Guy you know? 13:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Most if not all of the problems with this article can be rectified with a little TLC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are several webpages dotted around the internet with slices of jargon, some with just one or two entries some with more. There is no central respository. As Slambo said, other lists of jargon are accepted, even when we are duplicating effort. This and the US railfan jargon article were recently spun out from the main railfan article as the two lists were starting to take over. There is also no point in merging the two lists as rail terminology is probably the area where British and American English are the most different. Thryduulf 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just because there are some fan sites on the internet doesn't mean it belongs in an encylopedia, especially when people say it doesn't fit its guidelines. JAA01A 18:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per guideline violations. WashingtonWillie 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Useful glossary. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't care how useful it is or how many other web sites have lists, since it violates established Wikipedia policy it should be removed as soon as possible. ConeyCyclone 18:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my earlier votes on Marijuana & US railfan. Thanks Slambo for pointing out the consistency in keeping this list. Carlossuarez46 18:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT and others. Toasthaven2 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article violates the Wikipedia guidelines why shouldn't it be deleted? Those who want to keep it must want to kill the Wikipedia by subverting its rules. That is just wrong! WestchesterGuy 21:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only reason I haven't AFD'd the precedents I mention in my vote reason is to avoid making a WP:POINT. If this article is deleted, the others should be too for the same reason. Slambo (Speak) 21:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I don't think your vote should count. It seems not to make any sense, as you seem to think that just because other things are, this should be. It needs to go just like the others! Frühstücksdienst 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: User's second edit since August 2005. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It goes against the rules so bye-bye. And all the other jargon lists should meet the same fate. Frühstücksdienst 03:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think people are voting for keep for this because they like the article but it violates at least two Wikipedia guidelines. Just because something is useful or essential should not be kept if it violates established policy! Frühstücksdienst 14:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Believe it or not, we actually agree on part of this debate - pages that violate WP policy should be deleted. My vote reasoning points out established precedents for articles of this type. If they are deleted as well and the policy is evenly enforced (it doesn't look likely with the vote counts there right now), I will then change my vote. Yes, I am a railfan, but that in itself is not the reason for my keep vote. Slambo (Speak) 14:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precedents need to be changed and the articles need to be deleted. You have a vested interest as you seem to be a member of the Trains WikiProject, but the article should be deleted since it goes against policy, as all the other ones like it. Frühstücksdienst 14:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • And that's exactly the reason I mentioned them in my vote comment. If they are deleted and the policy is evenly enforced, then I will change my vote. Slambo (Speak) 14:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JJay. Kappa 14:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

Automobile ownership

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

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


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

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

Universal testicularism

Delete as non-notable nonsense. This link should tell you all you need to know about this article. - CorbinSimpson 02:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result of the debate was Speedy deletion by User:Neutrality Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Desveaux

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

  • Delete per nom. --Ruby 02:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete:Interesting character. Considering my origin. Would like to meet him some time. Unfortunately this doesn't seem like a notable person. And there has been a sign up requesting verification. Unfortunate that whoever wrote this didn't put their sources. --CyclePat 02:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom Jim62sch 04:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

A Thousand Eyes

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

  • Delete. 5 google hits for "The Leisure Coffee" none of which are relevant. Monkeyman 02:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now Déja vu. But in 10 days delete if no source is added. I also think it is good faith to put the verify sign up first. (new article, giving new editor time to find his way) --CyclePat 02:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've contacted the author on their talk page. They'll have ample time to look into this while this AfD runs its course :) . Adrian~enwiki (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. It's bogus. PJM 04:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Kinu t/c 06:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. feydey 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Monkeyman --Ruby 18:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --† Ðy§ep§ion † Speak your mind 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_19&oldid=40229191"