Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 11

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

The result of the debate was strong consensus keep. Xoloz 03:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1992 Hungarian Grand Prix

I dont see how this race is notable from any other race --205.188.116.136 03:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Grand Prix races are notable enough in my book. As well, many other Grand Prix's have articles. Capitalistroadster 03:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Looks like it would be helpful and intresting to people that follow Grand Prix races. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Part of a series on Grand Prix racing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Please don't nominate random a random article from a series like this. CalJW 13:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above and stop afd spam. Trollderella 16:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep only if I could create pages on notable Nascar races as well like Daytona 500 races --JAranda | watz sup 20:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Real race, real article. Ejrrjs | What? 01:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above, and ask if there is such a thing as a Speedy Keep? -slowpokeiv 01:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 1TouchTone

This is spam. The guy even put referral links into the article so he can tell how many signups he gets through Wikipedia. Hopefully zero. This company is just a VOIP reseller. Rhobite 01:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Per nom. Jasmol 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, ad FRS 03:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert for commercial service. ERcheck 06:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam. Burn the spammer! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice. If any passing admins think they can consider this article vandalism and speedy it, I imagine there would be general rejoicing. — Haeleth Talk 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. HGB 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Ads. *drew 02:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 16:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2012 Summer Olympic development

This page was created by a user who seems determined to prevent the main article, 2012 Summer Olympics, from being a comprehensive main article about the 2012 Summer Olympics. This is surely exactly what one would expect it to be, and I am unable to fathom why anyone would oppose it. The nominated article was set up after a belated concession that it was no longer appropriate for the article about London's bid to be the principal article and to be updated rather than 2012 Summer Olympics. But there is no need for it. The main article should cover all the key points, including development between 2005 and 2012, and break out articles should only be created as required - a point which we are nowhere near reaching for coverage of the development. A great deal of valuable information on other aspects of the 2012 Olympics was deleted from the main article when this one was created - as it had been deleted before - so that it was once again only in the bid article, which less and less people are likely to visit as time goes by. The main article should cover all the main aspects of the London Olympics, and I think that completely removing coverage of things like the budget and the transport situation from the main article is quite unreasonable. It is not in line with normal practice of having a comprehensive main article on a topic, and it reduces the clarity and accessibility of wikipedia's coverage of the 2012 Olympics. CalJW 02:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

For a list of reasons to keep, please see the talk page. violet/riga (t) 23:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete CalJW 02:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. "A great deal of valuable information on other aspects of the 2012 Olympics was deleted from the main article when this one was created - as it had been deleted before - so that it was once again only in the bid article, which less and less people are likely to visit as time goes by." is totally incorrect - no such content existed in the 2012 Summer Olympics article and saying that is biasing this vote. Further, "I think that completely removing coverage of things like the budget and the transport situation from the main article is quite unreasonable" is wrong, as nothing was removed from the article. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge appropriately with 2012 Summer Olympics. However, we can do without the comment by a Lord Redesdale that Morris Dancing be included in the opening ceremony. Capitalistroadster 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The 2012 Summer Olympics article should be about the Olympics and not be swamped by the development or detailed specifics of the games - brief details should be included in that article, but it should be no more than an overview. The details of this article would not fit into any other one. This is a bad faith AfD from a user that disagrees with the arrangement but has refused to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, the arrangement is:
    • 2012 Summer Olympics is the main Olympics article
    • London 2012 Olympic bid contains the full details of the plan and organisation
    • 2012 Summer Olympic development shows all the changes to the original plan, along with other important announcements.
  • violet/riga (t) 09:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • • In my opinion these comments are not consistent with violet/riga (t) actions. I would ask users who are in doubt as to how to vote to visit the history of the article to look at the scale of the deletions which s/he has made from the article s/he now admits should be the main article. Main articles usually cover all the aspects of a topic, not just a few of them. Break out articles are usually written when length demands it, and at least a précis is left in the main article.
      • There is no justification for the personal attack. I am not acting in bad faith and have not refused to discuss the matter. violet/riga made no attempt to discuss matters with me before this nomination, and now, apart from the personal attack here, s/he has made another personal attack on my user page. These are not welcoming invitations to discussion. I am the one who has initiated discussion with my lengthy explanation of the reasons for nominating this article. I have seen swathes of an excellent article deleted and I have restored them, that is all. The main issue is that (t) does not seem to wish Wikipedia to have a thorough main article about the 2012 Summer Olympics. CalJW 13:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • That's rubbish. Those comments are consistent, and you have not attempted discussion prior to this nomination. You reverted lots of hard work without any discussion and called it the "devestation" of an article, which is frankly offensive (thus starting my dislike of your behaviour). The content removed from 2012 Summer Olympics is a seperate issue to whether this should be deleted or not, and it is all present in London 2012 Olympic bid anyway. Stop trying to act like you are saving our coverage from vandalism - all the content is present and much of it written by me anyway! violet/riga (t) 14:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
          • violet/riga seems to have a sense of personal There is more of the same on my talk page and on the main article's talk page. And this user is an administrator! I did not remove "hard work" as stated, I simply rearranged material in a way I consider to be better. violet/riga seems to feel that s/he has the right to do that, but people who disagree with him/her do not. CalJW 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
            • You reverted what I did without discussion and have now nominated something I've worked on for a long time for deletion. violet/riga (t) 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
              • • I restored a good main article to its prior state, which had stood for several months with just minor incremental amendments. I would do the same if someone removed major subsections of United States and I spotted it. I copied the content into the main article. It isn't relevant whether you put a lot of effort into creating a separate article as no-one owns a wikipedia article. The issue is what is best for Wikipedia. CalJW 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
                  • Your account of things is somewhat skewed. Anyway though, that is about a totally different article to this one, so we shouldn't keep discussing that here. violet/riga (t) 18:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge relevant sections to 2012 Summer Olympics, agreeing with CR. There is enough detail here to make such a move worthwhile, although I agree in principle with CalJW's well-stated point in his nomination. Dottore So 11:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I did the merge at the time of the nomination, though I doubt that it has survived this long. In any case, the text is in the article history, so the material is preserved and the desirability of retaining it need not inhibit deletion. CalJW 13:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per CalJW. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: As there are still 7 more years before the event surely it's obvious that there will be more and more developments - it would need to be split off in the near future anyway. violet/riga (t) 15:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Violetriga. We have articles on minor Pokemon characters, Gundam weapons, and all kinds of Harry Pottercruft; surely we'd have room for news related to the most prominent worldwide athletic competition. --Idont Havaname 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that a breakout article might be appropriate at some point, but there is no need at present as the article is not up to the size limit. This article is part of an attempt to prevent the main article covering the whole of the topic in the way that any other main article does. We should continue to expand the main article until it hits the size limits and then create break-out articles. Even then the main article should contain a précis of each break-out article. That is normal practice. CalJW 17:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No - when it is obvious that an article is going to be overwhelmed by one part (in this case, announcements and developments) it should be split out. It's hardly the most important aspect of the Games and any really crucial developments will be noted in the article. Why merge it back in only to demerge it later on? violet/riga (t) 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment In response to the previous comment, I should have made it clearer that even when more breakout articles are required, this should not be one of them. The title is poorly chosen. It is not a natural subsection of the main article, and this is reflected in the fact that violet/riga has chosen to subdivide it for the sake of clarity. More appropriate break out articles would cover natural main subsections of the main article such as transport and facilities. CalJW 22:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There are too many things that won't fit into another article that would have to remain in 2012 Summer Olympics, bloating it. violet/riga (t) 22:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- main article will inevitably become big, and to me it seems sensible to keep that as a crisp summary, with the minutiae of developments in London on a separate page. (but may need a better title) mervyn 20:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If this continues it will end up with hundreds of factoids. This way of presenting information is hard to follow, and is not a proper article in my opinion. Honbicot 20:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the main 2012 Olympics page. Yes that article may become too big one day, but I do not feel that the whole of the conetent on this page is suitable to be absent from the main article, not do I agree that over time that this will be the best way to split up the main article. It is best to wait until the main article does reach it's limit in size and see what is the best way to split it up then rather than second guessing what the best course of action will be. Evil Eye 20:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

*Reluctant Delete, as long as another page or pages is/are quickly developed with relevant info in them so that the 2012 Olympic page does not become too bloated. My only problem with this page is its unilateral status, and the fact that its just a series of bullet points. This needs to be done collaberatively and properly Robdurbar 09:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• The 2012 Olympics should be written in the style that VioletRiga has in mind, but I think he has gone over the top in his removal of info from the main article. Also, Im not sympathetic with the bullet point style of this article; however, I'm going to say Keep, as long as the aritcle is improvedRobdurbar 09:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The bullet points will more than likely be flattened into real prose, but I was wanting to get some more details in before doing that. violet/riga (t) 10:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As best I can tell from its current content, the intention of this article seems to be to present information on the games in a chronologically sequenced format. It seems to me that this is an entirely desirable piece of organised data for Wikipedia to have. Obviously we also need an article in a more narrative form, and it seems to me that trying to have both in the same article would be less than desirable. So lets have two interlinked articles, one (this) in chronological sequence, the other (2012 Summer Olympics) in traditional narrative form. -- Chris j wood 12:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Odd title. I guess it's a version of "History of the 2012 Summer Olympics" but they haven't happened yet and I don't think they'll merit a "History of" article when they have. Carina22 15:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Any Olympic Games is really made up of three phases. There is a bidding phase lasting several years, then there is a development phase of seven years, then two weeks of phrenetic sporting competition. Frankly I think phases 1 and 2 are much more interesting than phase 3, but that is my POV. In the case of the 2012 games, we are already through the bidding phase and several months into the development phase, so it is way too simplistic to say they 'havn't happened yet'. As for your thoughts on whether they merit a history article, that is your POV. If there are enough people interested enough to write a good article, they merit that article. -- Chris j wood 16:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2Six

I can't find any information demonstrating that this is a real biking term, nor is the group mentioned very noteworthy (one article in biking magizine, website) Interactii 17:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity neologism. I have never seenthis term used on any of the mountian biking newsgroups I frequent, or in any of the (many) biking magazines I read. There is an outside chance it has some currency in the States, but references other than the named group's own material are elusive. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Don't Delete Google "2Six". Then go to the first website that comes up, that is the website of the 2Six Stallions. Then if you still need further proof, google "2Six biking" and the first hit is a the website of a reputable mountain biking magazine, "Decline," while the second is a UK bike forum. As for the groups members, I shall deal with only one, Kyle Strait. He is a talented young mountain biker who has appeared in biking DVDs and he even has a biography on the Red Bull Website (http://www.redbullusa.com/article.action?documentIntID=1070309642716-1812641887). eatr 21:38, November 2005 (EST)

Don't Delete The main reason for deletion appears to be that it is not a common term. However, it is a valid term, as pointed out by eatr, and I believe the point of an encyclopedia, online or not, it to inform people, and help them learn what certain words or terms. As the 2Six Stallions gain more coverage (trust me, the article in decline is just part of it), people might wonder what the name means. A reputable online encyclopedia like this would be a place people might look. And not just Americans are familiar with the term. I am Canadian, and I knew about them far before the decline article. In fact, the debate about the group has spread to a very Canadian site, www.nsmb.com .

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Xenosaga. —Cleared as filed. 05:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abel (Xenosaga)

A character from a videogame. Except he doesn't actually appear in the video game in question. And some fans wonder if he has anything to do with another character from a different video game. We ask ourselves, does this meet the WP:FICTION guidelines?

Note that this page has a disambiguated title, but it has no incoming links, so the likelihood of even fans of the series finding this article is minimal. I also don't see that there's anything to merge, or anywhere appropriate to merge it to; do we really want a List of characters who might have appeared in Xenosaga if they'd made the cut? — Haeleth Talk 00:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Change vote to redirect, per William Pietri and Phil below, since it appears there is in fact a relevant place for this information, and indeed it looks like someone's gone ahead and merged it. Thanks for pointing that out, guys. — Haeleth Talk 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge into Xenosaga but I'm not sure it's even worthy of a mention there. Turnstep 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikicities Xenosaga Characters or merge the tiny differences to existing page Side_Characters_(Xenosaga)#A. --William Pietri 01:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 07:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Pintele Yid 08:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain. I have been working on merging copied articles into the xenoculture lists. if anything, merge relevent content into Side Characters (Xenosaga)#Abel and turn the article into a redirect --Phil 12:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Side Characters (Xenosaga)#Abel and redirect the original article, as per William Pietri and Phil above. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 13:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect I've been redirecting all these mini articles that have been merged with the main pages, which is every single Xenosaga article outside of the lists, main characters, and the animation page. Deckiller 00:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Deckiller. HGB 10:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect --TimPope 21:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Deckiller. *drew 22:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Active radio

Can't find any evidence of significant audience. No alexa rank for www.activeradio.co.uk, and this google search: [1] Kappa 02:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. There is hardly any content or context here either, so I wouldn't protest if someone speedied it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• As you wish, so it is done: Predicate nominative: a fact is not an article. Geogre 22:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as vanity article

[edit] Alex Beattie

Member of Combuster, who are up for AfD. Likely vanity (edited by User:AlexBeattie). Punkmorten 16:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as non-notable and vanity. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 16:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete NN-bio, vanity and Complete Bollocks(TM) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete. -Doc ^ask? 10:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Woznica

Article claims he is a medical researcher and "world renowned revolutionary", but googling finds nothing but a few mentions in school sports results, therefore delete as a hoax. AJR | Talk 01:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as hoax. Unlikely anybody involved in the Russian revolution is currently working on an AIDS cure. --William Pietri 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Google for alternate spellings also failed. Turnstep 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete clearly a hoax. (That or I must have missed his name in my history books). --Bachrach44 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as silly vandalism as outlined in WP:CSD category G3. Silly vandalism is a joke page. As this man is credited with responsibility for the Russian revolution, the Cuban revolution and the Stalinist purges as well as cures for the Spanish influenza it is clearly nonsense. Capitalistroadster 04:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per nominator, it concerns me that hoaxes are allowed to last here for even five days while this is sorted out when it is surely a hoax. Yamaguchi先生 08:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AlPhAbEt

Non-notable, original research. Was deleted on de: already [2].--Gwaihir 01:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems a genuine article about a real language. See also [3]. Turnstep 02:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Google searching very difficult, due to the common name. Turnstep 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. If you search Google with 'alphabet' and 'queack', there are four hits, identical copies of this article on [4] and [5], and talk pages to go with them. - Dalbury (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Sure, but that presumes a lack of articles that don't mention 'queack.' It's possible that there are articles about this language out there, but is, frankly, very improbable. Guess it serves the author right for choosing such a bad name :) (compared to, say, "Gamizeta"). Turnstep 18:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete searching for "AlPhAbEt programming language Niehage" in google (no quotes obviously) yields only 4 results. Wikipedia is not the right place to house every single home-made esoteric language ever. esolangs.org is. --Bachrach44 03:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Bachrach44. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Bachrach Dottore So 11:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. A programming language should at least have a review somewhere before being included in Wikipedia. Also 4 Google hits seem to be a new all-time-low-mark even on AfD. --Pjacobi 13:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, NN, I suspect a hoax. - Dalbury (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, direct copies or translations of primary sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If anyone wants to make a case for notability, they are welcome to write an original encyclopedic article and cite the copy of this on esolangs.org as a source, but I wouldn't want to bet on any article on this subject surviving AfD; it's just not widely-enough known, even within its field. — Haeleth Talk 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, appears to be original research. HGB 11:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. *drew 02:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as a mix of nonsense and non-notable biography. --Allen3 ^talk 01:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Weinstein

Looks like nonsense to me. It certainly doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Mummer 20:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article doesn't have much context or make much sense, I can't verify any of it. Claims seem unlikely to be true anyway... first man in New Hampshire? First male florist? --W.marsh 20:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Remove the unverifible content and it's purely NN. PJM 21:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and if you take the "first man in New Hampshire" as an obvious hoax statement about someone purported to have been born in 1927, I'd say this could go speedy as nn-bio due to the one claim of notability being obvious nonsense.--Isotope23 21:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• This has now been nominated for speedy deletion as patent nonsense. PatGallacher 23:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arash Eghbali

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 11:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Obviously non-notable. Two google hits. Swegner 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as not suitable now for an entry here - though I wish him all the best in life. --Bhadani 14:23, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete A7, A1. --JJay 18:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carina22 16:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Authentic_source

Neologism. While this is close to gibberish, underneath lays a vanity neologism - in searching around I can't find any cites for the phrase used in this fashion. --moof 12:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologistic dicdef padded out with vanity, per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 12:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Boys 3

This movie doesn't exist - IMDB doesn't mention it. A Google search gives links to some fansites speculating if the movie would be made or not made and some websites mention it as TBA (i.e. To be announced) or rumored. Gurubrahma 14:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it's a real movie, wait until IMDb has something and/or Google News has a story announcing it. --Idont Havaname 15:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT Jkelly 17:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal balling. I don't rely on IMDb to be an accurate indicator that a film exists, but if it isn't even listing a rumored film, that says something. Wait till it's announced. 23skidoo 17:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Might warrant a sentence or two on the Bad Boys[2] page, but not a whole article this early on. Turnstep 18:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT... man I hope they leave this series in its well deserved grave.--Isotope23 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No IMDb entry. *drew 03:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bajawalla

Band vanity, non-notable... has only one EP out and doesn't seem to be on a label. Fails WP:Music. W.marsh 00:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable vanity.Jasmol 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 01:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pintele Yid 08:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet another one. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It's just an advertisement for the band. -- Frekja 18:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bajsakinkonen

Dicdef of a swedish neologism, and as if that weren't enough, the article admits "It is now an extinct word, and is not commonly used in the Swedish language". 64 results on google, most are mirrors of WP (this article is 5 months old). W.marsh 01:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per dicdef especially Turnstep 01:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef.--Isotope23 14:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. PJM 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 19:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I put the original "cleanup-verify" tag on. Samw 01:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HGB 11:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balladeus

Band vanity. Non-notable... not on AMG, has 1 album out but no label listed so would seem to fail WP:Music. W.marsh 01:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure "band vanity" applies here. This a Flemish group, with articles on the Dutch, Polish and Esperanto Wikipedias (and yes, I realize that does not justify an article on the English Wiki, in and of itself). I can't really tell how notable they are, because very few of the Web sites that mention them are in English. I don't think you can rely on allmusic for judging the notability of music from non-english speaking areas. They may well be quite notable in Europe, but as I can't document that, I won't vote. I do worry about musicians and groups being dismissed as "not-notable" because they are not well-known to English speakers. - Dalbury (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Good points... thanks for bringing them up. I should have checked/noticed that. The closing admin may want to relist this to get more opportunity for consideration.--W.marsh 05:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN per WP:NMG. PJM 16:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain per Dalbury, and because my Flemish is not good enough to read most of the comments about them, although I would point out that their first release was only in 2004, and they are a folk group - these tend to struggle to gain much notice outside a rather narrow community. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Boldly into the breach, then, I'll go ahead and vote to delete, not because the band is or is not notable, but because the claims of the article are unverifiable at present for the voters. I think that a help from the author would be welcome, as there is no particular desire to restrict coverage to Anglophone bands. If English-speaking and -reading voters can't verify, though, there isn't much we can do. Geogre 22:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. *drew 02:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Geogre. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Banaana King

Vanity article about a series of drawings of the "Banaana King" made by some 9th grader. Not notable. W.marsh 03:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. --Nlu 03:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nominator. --Bachrach44 03:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• I think this is hilarious! A fairly bright 9-year-old, too. Still, delete. jnothman ^talk 05:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• comment It's a ninth grader - they should be about 14-15 years old. --Bachrach44 16:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete - nonencyclopedic; something for a blog. ERcheck 06:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 17:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 02:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbrath

Free MMORPG in development, but just 300 members, barely 1,000 downloads of the game, 800 results on Google for Barbrath. Might be an interesting project, but not notable enough for a encyclopedia article yet. W.marsh 22:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable game. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Turnstep 15:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 13:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BaronVonShnider

Bio of a guy who made some fan maps for Warcraft 3 and was in a clan... and that's about it. W.marsh 23:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as nn-bio. Making maps is not a claim to notability. Jkelly 02:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Turnstep 02:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. - Dalbury (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Thue | talk 10:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm tempted to speedy it. -R. fiend 12:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BarTowel.com

Probable advert, Alexa rank 1,705,900, forum has 500 members. Fails WP:WEB proposed guidelines. W.marsh 19:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB--Isotope23 21:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Website vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. NN 500 member forum. PTSE 17:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. *drew 05:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bbw art

This article provides no context- it it talking about porn, fine art or something else- there are no examples given. Google is a little more informative, is seems to be some sort of neolgism describing amateur art featuring large women. Non-encyclopedic, delete--nixie 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Article moved to BBW art as that's its name. jnothman ^talk 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete because it isn't an art form, just a fancy name for BBW porn (pictures, explicit drawings and sketches). If you want to an article about large women in art, perhaps it should go in Rubenesque, which currently redirects to BBW. -- Kjkolb 11:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is that a bit off? A reference to Rubens, and the historical depiction of the fuller figure, to a term coined by modern-day fat fetishists? It's a bit tawdry :-/ - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nugatory treatment of an art movement viewed from the wrong end of the historical telescope, as Kjkolb notes. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and redirect Rubenesque. Jkelly 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Rubenesque currently redirects to BBW, so that would be a double redirect. -- Kjkolb 03:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, has no relevance and not encyclopaedic Stifle 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite. Get someone who knows what they're writing about to put together an article at Rubenesque, focusing on the historical aspect of it. Redirect this to Rubenesque, and add a paragraph, no more, on the modern 'interpretation' of Rubenesque that is BBW art. I will also support a delete move. Saberwyn 23:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 02:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 01:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin George Lascelles

I'm bringing this here after originally having put a nn-bio tag on it. The tag was removed by an anon, replaced by another editor, and then removed again by User:Philwelch with the edit summary "royalty are notable". The article, as it now stands, is a couple of lines of genealogical information. My impression is that our standards for inclusion of biographical articles are fairly demanding, and this article does not meet them. If there is some precedent for keeping all articles about nobles, I am unaware of it. Jkelly 17:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; there is also an ongoing discussion on people related to Napoleon Bonaparte, for example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerome Napoleon Charles Bonaparte. A relative of a notable person is not notable by themselves, and this person here appear to be notable only as a distant relative of King Edward VII. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Royalty may be inherently notable but distant relatives without title are not. Swegner 18:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This person's notability is questionable. He is not, however, so blatantly non-notable as to be a candidate for speedy deletion. So I let this AfD resolve itself as it will. — Phil Welch 21:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• This man is not in line to inherit the Earldom of Harewood, due to illegitimacy, as mentioned in his father's article. Therefore, his notability rests on the identity of his antecedents alone. That is not enough for me: delete. Sliggy 21:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Would have tagged it as A7 myself- but hey, I'm not a Brit. --JJay 23:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think he counts as royalty. Carina22 16:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. *drew 04:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bicuriosus, Heterocuriosus, Homocuriosus and Noncuriosus

These 4 articles, Bicuriosus, Heterocuriosus, Homocuriosus and Noncuriosus, are scientifically suspect. Google searches on all 4 terms return only the Wikipedia pages and nothing else. Without any substantiation available, I ask for a DELETE Wahming 09:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. 10:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:V A1kmm 10:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. I asked the original editor about them right after they were created. He said that he got the information from speaking with "a shrink for kids." This makes me think that, at best, it's original research on the part of the "shrink." Joyous (talk) 12:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Deletiosus per Joyous . BD2412 T 14:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. I was going to nominate them myself when they were originally created, but Joyous had only just asked their author for verification, and it seemed unfair to nominate without giving them a chance to support the article. Since they have not done so, the articles should go. — Haeleth Talk 18:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Joyous.--Isotope23 21:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research/unverifiable. --Carnildo 00:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, original research. I got 2 google hits for Bicuriosus. Punkmorten 00:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• undecided, I'm the original author of these entries. I've been trying to find the source for my friends information and have found nothing. I have no objections to them being deleted. Although i believe they have been published i do not know the location. I will do nothing to resist the deletion.

• Delete If this is intended to be humorous or an example of humorous, it should be labelled as such. It is very easy to be "sarcastic" w/o labelling it and then make all sorts of innocent claims when challenged.--71.193.3.242 20:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. *drew 03:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Binaria

Delete for same reasons as King Andy above. Lots of hits on google but none seem related to the topic. Unverifiable. JJay 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 01:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ncsaint 01:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxes. — Haeleth Talk 17:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 17:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep!!! For same reasons as king andy... is legit... you think otherwise then just get a clue in life already!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.223.90 (talk • contribs).
• Delete The only references to Binaria and King Andy I can find appear to be in the two Wikipedia entries. If this is real, we need much better information, otherwise kill it. --StoatBringer 15:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. *drew 02:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blockheads comic

Non notable website. Hosted on someone's AOL page. Obscure indeed, also non notable. - Hahnchen 22:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. feydey 23:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dragonfiend 17:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. Turnstep 15:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Self-promotion, nn. *drew 12:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to blue rinse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue hair

A slang dicdef. Possibly a neologism too. Thue | talk 22:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, but clean up. The article goes beyond a dicdef, although it it still a stub. Also, the term has been used often enough, and for long enough, that it isn't a neologism. Still, it needs some work; for one thing, the author seems unfamiliar with the concept of blue rinse. Doctor Whom 23:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Redirect to Blue rinse, but mention in that article that "blue hair" is an alternate term. Beyond that, I see nothing in Blue hair worth merging. Doctor Whom 18:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Is "blue hair" used more often than "blue rinse" in the States? (yes I just created blue rinse, because it needed doing and because this article's tone disparages older women, so I didn't want to move this one). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 23:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• I, at least, have heard the term "blue hair" much more often than "blue rinse." Doctor Whom 18:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this term is actually "blue rinse", as in the blue rinse brigade, but that would be a dicdef anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to blue rinse, it's a better article. feydey 00:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to blue rinse. Capitalistroadster 00:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment FWIW: I don't have an opinion on this and I changed neither this article nor the Blue rinse article. What I DID do is create an article on bluing (fabric), the product, and I think the blue rinse article should maybe be merged into THAT article. But thats a different issue I guess. Herostratus 06:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speaking as the creator of blue rinse and a mergist, I support that if you can make the two work together well. There are obvious parallels, after all, and a common root and aim. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

On consideration, I vote redirect blue hair -> blue rinse. And pending blue rinse/bluing (product) merger negotiations, maybe Justzis you could add a link to bluing(product) to blue rinse if you get to it.Herostratus 06:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bobby Perée

Apparently unverified, listed as CSD but not. — Phil Welch 03:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If this obscure beverage existed, there would be at least some mention of it through a Google Search. Searches for both names reveal absolutely nothing. --86.131.48.130 10:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Hoax. Not a proper speedy, except that it is a knowingly false article and therefore vandalism. Geogre 22:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Rogerd 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Xoloz 03:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carina22 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. *drew 02:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brent saner

He is not very well known as a poet, is he? --Aleph4 14:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete First collection is "pending completion". Note to closing admin: don't forget to delete the picture too! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. This is the creator's only Wikipedia contribution. Turnstep 18:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unpublished poet - scarcely unusual! Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. --JJay 18:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. *drew 03:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton East / Brighton Central Cricket Club

Advert for non-notable cricket club. jni 08:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad for social cricket club in Melbourne. Not involved in Melbourne club championship which would make them notable. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 10:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 10:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Possible copyvio of http://www.bebccc.org/clubinfo.html (mostly the same). I don't know how to mark a copyvio that's already AFD. I'd suggest merge to Brighton, Victoria, but after removing the irrelevent trivia, we are left with "Brighton has a cricket club". --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. pfctdayelise 01:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 02:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gaius Cornelius 21:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable -- Ian ≡ talk 04:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, ads. *drew 03:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BumsCorner - entertainment disheveled

Non-notable website. Article is nothing but unencyclopedic speculation. jni 08:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speculative, nonsensical and notability not established. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JZG and nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 20:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn site, unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 22:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN website. *drew 03:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ceraolo family

Hoax only 118 unique google hits for Ceraolo family mafia non of them Related Delete --JAranda | watz sup 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 21:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 03:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 12:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical vomit

Band vanity with a myspace.com home page. Same anon has been spamming existing articles with info about his group. - Lucky 6.9 19:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. An nn-band speedy tag would have come in handy here - maybe one day. PJM 20:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 21:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete worful band vanity Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. *drew 05:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chi behesh begam ba un kaleye kachalesh

Wikipedia is not a collection of Farsi proverbs. The article doesn't even supply a translation. Punkmorten 17:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, WP:NOT a Farsi phrasebook. Jkelly 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; does not assess notability; unverifiable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Swegner 18:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Incomprehensible. --JJay 18:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 04:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Kabureck

Delete. Doesn't seem notable according to Google - only 15 displayed hits, which is not much for somebody who's still alive today. --Idont Havaname 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: SOme of those hits are for a "junior in engineering" at a college - which may well be significant. What is significant however is that I have a small penis and enjoy Hentai porn - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Usually, students even at the college level are not considered significant enough for inclusion here; see WP:BIO for more details on that. --Idont Havaname 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Reads like a vanity article except for "Not much is known about the background..." which is probably a Red Herring. Schmiteye 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the name and gas turbine returns the coveted zero Google hits, utterly improbable for someone genuinely notable in the field. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clearly nn.jucifer 21:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless sourced. Ejrrjs | What? 01:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Lowder

Not notable, a google search of '"Chris Lowder" temporary flight restrictions' yielded no results. - Akamad 21:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see anything either. NN. PJM 21:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not Delete Chris Lowder is quoted several time in the members only section of AOPA website and in July 2005 issue of Flight magazine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.237.5.178 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris singletary

Delete - Found only one article on Google. That was more informative. Schmiteye 02:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks real assertions of notability, not even on Google. Also advertisement. Punkmorten 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nn. Ejrrjs | What? 01:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn, borderline speedy (A7). MCB 23:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. *drew 03:27, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:50, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of the Choclate Bunny

Non-notable fictional religion mentioned in few lesser-known short stories. Delete. jni 12:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - nonsense fictional religion. Besides, it even has the word "chocolate" spelled incorrectly. --Hurricane111 15:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Hurricane111. --Idont Havaname 15:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. PJM 15:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable fancruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ditto Swegner 18:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - poor grammar and spelling. --mokwella 7:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. *drew 03:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was "zOMG Delete!!1!1". - Mailer Diablo 17:53, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combatant (computer game)

Delete: WP not a crystal ball. Given the users contributions (213.249.155.233 (talk • contribs)) likely a hoax. Wikibofh 15:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete per nomination. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 15:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Please don't delete per nomination. 17:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

"zOMG Keep!!1!1"

(sorry im proably definatly doing this in the wrong way , I apologise I don't know the procedure, but I know the person who is programming it ., his name is Mark Hodghton and the article is not a hoax (he wrote it up at school for ICT and for form time and could do with it staying there) ,the game its self is very near to completion according to him , and everyone here is looking forward to seeing it . I've got a demo and everything he lists is there is there !

• Comments for User:Paladin2005:

1. You don't have a /sig so you should sign your comments to talk pages with the default ~~~~ instead of copying my sig format and timestamp.
2. You have only two edits to date, and both of them are to this AFD page, thus your vote is unlikely to be given serious consideration.
3. Having read your explanation, I'm changing my vote to "Delete – vanity"

— FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I saw that game, it is real! It's a 2D shooter kinda like Worms in Real Time. Don't delete the article, this is real. Signed: Jarl_Frank

Please don't delete this - he has worked very hard designing the game

• Delete I'm sorry, but how hard you friend has worked is irrelevant because the game is 1) not yet complete and 2) not notable. It might be appropriate to have an article if and when it becomes notable in the future but not before then. To Freakofnurture: play nice to the newbie and give them the benefit of the doubt. To the newbie: Please sign your posts with four ~s. See How to edit a page. Swegner 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete according to verifiability concerns and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. We are not a crystal ball and we do not have any verifiable information as to whether this game will be successful. Until we do, we cannot have an article. Best wishes on its success. Capitalistroadster 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete plus applause for the excellent sockpuppet graphic :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with a heart. This looks like a sincere effort by a couple of young people. It just isn't ready for an encyclopedia. Start a web page and post to game sites when it's ready. Best wishes to both of you. Durova 21:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok we submit, you can delete it, my friend says he will repost it once he has finished it and says thanks for the encouragement .

• Delete, with delete feydey 00:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Applause for the sockpuppet graphic. Such is the joy of editing in Wikipedia. -- Perfecto  02:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete If the game takes off at all (and good luck with it), it may become notable enough for an entry here. Wikipedia is not the place to publicise projects under development. --StoatBringer 15:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet to be released, nn. *drew 03:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Combuster

Do not meet WP:MUSIC. Google search for band name + name of their EPs give no relevant hits. Punkmorten 16:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as non-notable. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another non-notable band. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another nn group entry. feydey 00:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN band vanity ("undeniable good looks"!), author should look up "their/there" in dictionary... Pete.Hurd 00:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN band. *drew 04:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiration against dancers

This is difficult to describe. It's about a supposed phenomenon apparently motivated by vengeful feelings or prejudice towards people with good dancing abilities, by the owners or operators of clubs. The only reference given is to a conspiracy wiki. The entry in question describes, in heavily teutonic-flavored English, an incident in which the author was banned from a club after dancing on the bar. This entry is in turn apparently a mechanical translation of the same account in German, on a German conspiracy wiki. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a personal whinge dressed up as a sociological article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unverifiable conspiracy theory. —Cleared as filed. 15:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy if possible. It may be worth moving this to BJAODN. --Improv 15:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. PJM 15:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable at best, not a well-known conspiracy. Note I have also removed the wikilink to this article from Nightclub Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Conspiracy theory. *drew 03:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but consolation prize for great use of pictures. --Last Malthusian 09:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton Mouth (candy)

Possible hoax. — Phil Welch 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If it's a hoax it's a pretty well crafted one. It's vaguely reminiscent of my own Midwestern grandmother's homemade dessert, which doesn't appear on Google either. Still, it's up to the article's creator to prove that this is real and noteworthy. Durova 04:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Dottore So 11:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm the author. I really hate to see this page go ... really :-( but I understand the reasoning. I repeat below what I wrote in response to the original deleter on the disambiguation page I made. No need to reread if you saw it there already. And to repeat, I AM NOT A LIAR!! Bye, for now cotton mouth candy (if anyone wants it to stay I'd be happy ... no?, ok then). I repeat, it is sad to see a piece of midwest history rejected just because it is not on google ... guess I'm getting old. Disambiguation post:

• • Ok, this is fair. I wanted to understand why the original deletion, thanks for taking the time to explain. I understand I should in theory know all the rules before I post, but a little common courtesy is not too much to ask from society I hope (??). I resent the implication it's a hoax or lie. I am a respectable person, but didn't understand that when I added a page it needed to be google verifiable. See it from my uninformed point of view ... I grew up with this stuff when I lived in the U.S. in midwest states like Wyoming and Montana. We made it for people when they had dry mouth from allergies or medical treatments (now there are many over the counter alternatives). In fact, I added the page because I was looking for it on wikipedia because of my allergies, not to make a "joke" or "hoax". I thought I could help some people. In the process I even learned to merge some pages that needed it and fixed a bad link from the Garage Band section of all places. I am friends with studsmc, and we collaborate on many pages in our field of work ... I don't think that is wrong (she is also familiar with cotton mouth candy). In fact, I will delete the page if I can figure out how and move it to my user page until I can find a way to verify. Please any of you who are interested, look at my user page (it might take me 24 hours or so to get it on there). I will put up a picture of my ingredients and the two bottles I currently have right here by my computer (it's no joke!!). It is not medicine so you can make it yourselves for fun too! I will repeat this on the original page and agree it should be deleted. By the way, there are many things, you youngsters ;-) might be interested to know, that are real even though they are not on google searches! Don't assume and infer people are liars because you can't google it. I understand the problem, though ... and don't forget, much can be avoided by a little niceness from person to person (it might not even kill us :-o ). Oldness makes you ramble too, sorry. Superclear 06:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • And a relearning xp for all ... Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers, Wikiquette, no personal attacks, and civility before making a recommendation as to whether the article should be deleted or not, or making a comment.

• • In the past now, but being accused of pulling a joke or hoax is what made me upset in the first place, even though my page should be deleted.
    • I don't see anything inappropriate about calling an article with no Google presence and no citations a possible hoax. Other editors cannot intuit the difference between unverifiable genuine information and hoaxes. I hope you post this information to a personal website. It seems like the kind of Americana that ought to be preserved. Best wishes. Durova 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Thanks Durova. My objection was that the first time it was deleted it just disappeared with no mention of why on the discussion page (there was not even a afd discussion like this time ... just gone). The edit title didn't say possible hoax, it declared as fact that it is a joke or made up ... an arrogant statement by a anonymous user who clearly didn't read some of the common courtesy Wikiquette I have now become familiar with. The second time the same anonymous user deleted it they suggested it might be a joke or made up and sent a discussion of why it was deleted ... that was understandable to me. Although I would still prefer something like "Sorry, but my research couldn't verify this content, so in accordance with wikipedia policy I will mark it for deletion. If you have refereces we can take it off the delete list". I hope wikipedians aren't generally this antisocial, or many nontechnical computer users will just not bother helping. Please see my user page for a description and picture of cotton mouth candy/product whatever!! Superclear 14:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Sadly a lot of us end up valuing convenience over politeness (and I use the inclusive pronoun deliberately); it's a lot easier to write "hoax" than "information that I tried to verify and failed, and which also looks unlikely based on my own personal experience". And given the amount of hoaxing and vandalism that does go on, a lot of us find it hard to remember to assume good faith.
        • That said, it's good to see you've userfied the information. You might also consider adding it to the Wikibooks Cookbook, if you haven't already; that's the appropriate Wikimedia place for recipes. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for now, as unverifiable, userfied, and author-requested deletion; and here's hoping someone finds references for this, because I for one would welcome a verifiable article on the subject. — Haeleth Talk 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Haeleth, I appreciate (and understand) your comments, thanks. I might indeed add to the cookbook someday. Probably not appropriate to push this on the deletion page, but anyone who wants, please have a look at my user page (I just now really expanded) in case you or someone might want to make some cotton mouth for yourselves. Thanks everyone. One nitpicking point. One comment says unverifiable which is not necessarily true, it is just not verified!
• Delete. Unverified. *drew 03:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism (soul)

Redundant, already covered at Creationism (not sure why they'd create this article). Deco 07:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, because it is redundant. NatusRoma 07:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. Anville 10:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant stub Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete since it is redundant. *drew 03:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP (and redirect to Race and crime). -Doc ^ask? 22:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criminal Blackman Myth

non-notable theorey jucifer 21:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete - non notable theory. Most of the google results are to wikipedia itself and to wiki's clones. jucifer 21:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect I'm not familar with this particular name for the phenomenon, but it is heavily discussed in criminal law under a variety of headings. Redirect to Race and crime will do. Xoloz 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Good idea. I change my vote to redirect.jucifer 05:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daggerspine

Insignificant gaming cruft. Individual game servers are not notable and the current contents are mostly junk written by vandalous anons. jni 06:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if that's necessarily the policy of wikipedia as I'm not well-versed but if action is taken to stem the vandalism then I don't see why it can't stick around. I have edited out the crap and left only useful information, but it's entirely possible the vandalism may be too persistent in which case I support deletion. GTMusashi 3.42 AM, 11 November 2005

Vandalism alone should not be considered a reason for deletion, even when it is persistent. Your improvements are well and good but I still question whether the topic itself deserves to be included to Wikipedia. jni 08:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Smerge into World of Warcraft; we definitely don't need a list of all clans on the server, nor half this article. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Send the 1st two sections to World of Warcraft if they want it, DELETE everything else. Wahming 10:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Let it stay. This article was just recently noticed by the Daggerspine community, so certain misfits will try to tamper with it for attention. In a few days, however, they'll get bored and move on and the article can remain intact. Just wait it out and the entry will achieve normality. 63.101.88.100 12:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Chase

It's not the vandalism at issue. It's whether this article should be here.

• Delete. Individual game servers are not notable. The risk of vandalism is not a valid reason for delaying deletion. Vandals would grow bolder if they thought they influenced our decisions. Durova 13:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete individual game servers are not notable, and none of the information is the least bit encyclopedic whatsoever... lists of players and guilds, complete with external links?! What the hell? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This kind of information really does not belong in a general-purpose encyclopedia; it belongs on one of the game websites. I can’t imagine why those who are interested in the details of the game would come to the Wikipedia to read up on it. They are much more likely to go to one of the game servers or game websites, where they could surely find much more complete and up-to-date information. ♠DanMS 16:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WoW gamecruft.--Isotope23 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trivial gamecruft. MCB 22:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Trivial Carina22 15:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamecruft. *drew 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Cathy

I couldn't verify this with google, sounds bogus. A prank. feydey 00:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense. Jasmol 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 01:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. And to think I wasted a "move article to proper namespace" for this. 23skidoo 01:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Agree this warrants Speedy as G1. --JJay 01:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Bogus. Don't forget to delete the Dear cathy redirect too. Turnstep 01:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. PJM 05:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - nonsense!! ERcheck 06:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy {{nonsense}}. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy this and the image, since it doesn't have any licensing info. jni 08:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as speedy Pintele Yid 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Either it's a neologism, in which case it needs to be deleted, or it's completely bogus nonsense, in which case it needs to be speedily deleted. Either way, it needs to be deleted. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, falls short of verifiability. HGB 10:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. *drew 02:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 22:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DeSio

Page is a genealogical entry. Rholton 15:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — per WP:NOT, although somewhat interesting. — RJH 16:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Is there anything salvageable here? No incoming links, no references, but obviously a lot of effort went into the article. Jkelly 17:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Swegner 18:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable and verefiable, but needs to be wikified.jucifer 21:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Devsigner

Original research? — Phil Welch 04:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete 48 results on Google, top is a marketting firm called Devsigner. Neologism or spam... take your pick. Either is not notable. --W.marsh 05:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 19:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ads. *drew 03:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy - recreation of previously deleted content. --Celestianpower ^háblame 22:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Difference between Pokemon and Digimon

idiosyncratic non-topic (comparisoncruft), POV, OR... Savant1984 22:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a re-creation of Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon (VFD discussion). —Cryptic (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dinoaudition

That was a really cool trick. A pretty good joke. No google hits. Interactii 04:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• clear hoax... it's not just evolutionary theory that thinks dinosaurs aren't around and audible. BJAODN?... naah. Delete. jnothman ^talk 05:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no google hits for the term, obviously fabricated. --Bachrach44 16:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Concur not quite funny enough for BJAODN KillerChihuahua 19:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete made me chuckle but looks like a hoax. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 19:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete but copy to WP:BJAODN for it's quite funny -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 13:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It should have been SD'ed.
• Delete. Nonsense. *drew 02:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 19:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DJ Jurgen

Vanity page of NN disc jockey. Has only one album release by minor label. No incoming wikilinks. No hit, no concert tour, no awards. -- Perfecto  02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. -- Perfecto  02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notable trance/house DJ, important in that scene as far as I know. He's on AMG, has 1 album and 4 EPs on notable labels (Inluding Positiva which is part of EMI). His website claims 6 albums but I don't see label information for them. Also produced the minor mainstream hit "Better Off Alone" per article. His own "higher and higher" #34 billboard dance hit in 2000 per AMG. I think all of that evidence together meets WP:Music, but it's kind of close so I'm making this a weak keep. --W.marsh 03:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as this is a notable DJ with a billboard charting dance hit. Yamaguchi先生 03:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep has at least one solo album and an international hit. "Better Off Alone" was in the top 100 hits in Australia for 2000 see [6]. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. "Better off alone" is by Alice DeeJay and there are 35 listings of it in AMG -- can you verify that the Aussie hit is by this artist? "Higher and Higher" is indeed #34 in Billboard though. So that's one hit.-- Perfecto  04:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He produced "Better Off Alone" which marks towards his notability. Capitalistroadster 04:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • For the record he COWROTE Better Off Alone... both the music (by Jurgen, Pronti, and Kalmani) and AND the lyrics (by Jurgen). Alice Deejay was merely a studio vocalist he hired to record this track. After it hit the charts bigtime she decided to go solo.  ALKIVAR™ 07:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • proof that it was by him first: Promo version of "Better Off Alone" PHOTO of Label to First Commercial Release of "Better Off Alone" just for reference. I can probably dig through my crates to find the Alice Deejay Promo and the DJ Jurgen Promo version (I usually date my records by "official release" date) If you reaaaally want me too  ALKIVAR™ 08:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep I nominate many music articles for speedy delete but this one seemed like it would be at least borderline passing for notability ranking. Jasmol 04:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• EXTREME KEEP this is a WTF nomination, Jurgen besides being a really nice guy (yeah so I know him big damn deal) is a multi-multi-platinum selling producer. Besides his work with Alice Deejay, he has also worked with Oakenfold and PVD in the studio. If anything this should be beefed up bigtime. His Discogs entry is quite long, and his tracks have gone very very far worldwide.  ALKIVAR™ 07:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then please add the WTF information on your friend onto the article. Thank you. -- Perfecto  14:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Based upon what Alkivar just said, this nomination should probably be closed. The notability of this person cannot be disputed. Yamaguchi先生 07:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Thankfully, notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 16:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster and Alkivar. Hall Monitor 19:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above comments and with due regard to systemic bias. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but let's add some more info? -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 13:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitri Leybman

Claims to be Village Voice critic, but Village Voice archives turn up no articles by Dmitri Leybman. Nothing from google except for an Indiana high-school student by the same name who submits reviews on Amazon. Delete as hoax and borderline A7 speedy JJay 00:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 00:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. Can't believe I didn't catch this myself. -R. fiend 00:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Part of a series by this student, apparently. Turnstep 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pintele Yid 08:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom (and even if verifiable still delete per WP:BIO) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 20:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:Bio. HGB 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. *drew 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecleave

The current incarnation of this attempt at advertising (it was already speedied once in a different form, which was a copy-and-paste copyvio of their own website) claims to be using the text it copies from this press release with permission. The company appears to be non-notable, and a confirmed AFD deletion would allow the speedy'ing of future attempts at re-creating this ad. WP:NOT a soapbox or an advertising outlet. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 01:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, ad FRS 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as adv. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Searching for multiple independent published works that deal with this company turns up a scant few articles ... but they all turn out to be simple reprints of company press releases, too, just like this article. Press releases sourced from the company itself do not satisfy the WP:CORP criteria. Other people have to publish material about the company. There's no evidence that this has happened. Delete. Uncle G 11:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, press releases full of promotional talk don't make for a good basis for an encyclopedic article, no matter how much permission someone has to use it. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete spam Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, primary sources like press releases are unacceptable material for an encyclopedia. — Haeleth Talk 17:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertisement. HGB 11:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ads. *drew 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Elgin, Quebec. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elgin quebec

Content duplicated at Elgin, Quebec. Sulfur 05:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to correct title. Note that both articles appear to be copy-pastes of the website main page provided at Elgin, Quebec. Saberwyn 06:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above vote mdd4696 01:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Endian Software

Non-notable software company. Only a few hits on Google (and many of those are irrelevant). Delete unless User:Rsaborio can establish the notability of his company. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. ERcheck 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 20:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 03:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Erich haubrich

Probably a hoax, and at best completely unverifiable. - Squibix 19:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Squibix 19:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified. *drew 05:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Lady Helen Taylor. —Cleared as filed. 16:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Estella Taylor

Not notable PatGallacher 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I will explain my reasons for calling for deletion, to some extent this is a test case to establish the threshhold of notability. This person is less than a year old, her only claim to notablity is her relationship to royalty. How close to royalty do minor figures have to be to be regarded as inherently notable? I would be prepared to regard all grandchildren of monarchs as inherently notable, but I draw the line there, this child is only the great-great-granddaughter of King George V of the United Kingdom, she has no title, not even e.g. "Lady" or "the Honourable". Some might point to her place in the succession to the British throne, but many of the people above her are still young and likely to have children, she is likely to drop many places in her lifetime. How high up a line of succession is inherently notable? I know her brothers and sisters all have entries, I am trying to establish a precedent. PatGallacher 11:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Lady Helen Taylor (her mother) she can have her own article once she's done something more notable than being born.Doc ^ask? 13:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect as per above. Baby Estella is notable, by dint of parentage, but not so much as to deserve her own article at this point. Eddie.willers 16:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 29th in the order of succession is high enough for me. CalJW 14:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What is your cut-off point then? We also have to consider the issue if, once people are high enough in the order of succession to make them notable, do they cease to be notable as they drop down the list, or do they remain notable for the rest of their life? PatGallacher 14:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this is verifiable, we don't need to draw the line, frankly, nor use AFD to make a point. We have plenty of room for anyone that we can write a verifiable, factual article that is not original research on. Trollderella 16:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This last comment is contrary to a well-established Wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia." If we don't draw the line somewhere then who all is notable in this context? The first 1000 people in line to the British throne (and every other throne)? All the verifiable descendants of e.g. Alfred the Great? PatGallacher 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Notability is not part of deletion policy. What terrible thing would happen if we had well writen, verifiable articles on all the descendants of Afred the Great, merging them when there was not enough to say to warent an article? Who would care, except the occasional person who would actually want the information, and look it up, either praising us because the obscure information they wanted was there, or cursing us for throwing away something they wanted for no good reason? Trollderella 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I suggest you read WP:BIO. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've read it. The first paragraph says "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." Trollderella 02:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Actually, I agree with Trollderella this is verifiable and notable (if trivial) info and thus should be included on WP. But, an article is unneccessary, this is a sub-stub with no hope of expansion for the forseeable future (unlesss birth weight and date of first tooth are included!)- thus merging the info, with a retained redirect is appropriate at this time.Doc ^ask? 17:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Merging is fine, but there is a common misunderstanding of the phrase "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information". It means that unstructured, uncontextualized lists of facts are not what an encyclopedia is. It does not mean that articles about real people, that are verified, and within an encyclopedic structure should be deleted simply because someone is not interested in them. Trollderella 17:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Besides - it would disrupt the series on Line of succession to the British throne to delete the 29th in line. Trollderella 17:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Trollderella is persuasive here, but it's a tough call. Consider the reader: is it more useful to them to follow the link to this stub than to find the information in the parents' article? On the other hand, 29th in line to the throne is closer than you'd expect (albeit with zero realistic chance of making it to Westminster Abbey). - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - British royalty is inherently notable, plus the presence of an "Order of Succession" template gives this interest from a trivia perspective, too. If she was, like, 120th in line I'd say she'd be nn, but she's in the top 30. 23skidoo 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect, as above. -R. fiend 18:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The young lady is in a line of persons to inherit the English throne, and is thus a significant royal. The article should not be removed. (UTC)
• Delete Claim to fame is being born to a family of minor nobility and pissing in her diapers. There is absolutely no worthwhile claim of notability here. If we include her we might as well start adding famous actors/actress's children as well. Apple Martin is easily as notable as Estella Taylor, as is Coco Arquette. At best this should redirect to her Father... That being said I also want to say that I completely disagree with nominating for AfD as a test case or as an attempt to set precedent. That is getting pretty close to WP:POINT in my opinion.--Isotope23 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• "Notability is not part of deletion policy". I beg your pardon? It is well established that notability IS part of deletion policy. If you look through AFD archives you will see that there have been several cases where accurate and verifiable articles about people have been deleted because the person is not notable, we have e.g. the "average professor test" of notablity. "There is a common misunderstanding of the phrase 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information'. It means that unstructured, uncontextualized lists of facts are not what an encyclopedia is. It does not mean that articles about real people, that are verified, and within an encyclopedic structure should be deleted simply because someone is not interested in them." Sorry, but my understanding is that that is exactly what this statement can mean, it raises some fairly fundamental questions about the Wikipedia project if it does not. The line of persons to inherit the British throne includes ALL the legitimate Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714), there must be several hundred such people, do they all deserve a Wikipedia article? (Plus all the similar people in other kingdoms?) 23skidoo at least recognises the problem, he/she would be prepared to treat the top 30 in line of succession as inherently notable but not the top 120; fair enough but where would he/she draw the line between 30 and 120? PatGallacher 23:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed you may have it. Notability is not part of deletion policy. It never has been. People have deleted things for various reasons not supported by policy. That's a shame. It doesn't make it policy. Can you write a verifiable article that is long enough not to be better off merged into another and is not original reserach? If so, then write them. I imagine that the world will continue to turn. Trollderella 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. The only way she'd inherit the throne is if someone went on a massive assassination spree. Being "in the line of persons to inherit the throne" isn't a very good qualification: the rules of succession are very well-defined, and you could probably work out the line of succession out to several thousand places. Line of succession to the British Throne lists only the first 887 claimnants, and those who have articles do so on their own merits. --Carnildo 00:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to her mother. Nn. Ejrrjs | What? 01:17, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge to her mother. Feel free to take this as delete if it builds consensus, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merging is certainly an option if we keep it, and not a bad one, but what is being voted on here is deletion or not. We cannot merge without keeping. Trollderella 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not want my vote to be counted as a keep unless it is also part of a consensus to merge. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • That's the great thing about merging - anyone can do it, and it doesn't require a vote! Merge away, and save a VFD nomination! Trollderella 02:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • ...well, yeah, I know that. I wasn't the one who nominated this. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Erm, ok! I find the 'merge, or delete if other people want to delete' vote a little confusing though! Trollderella 02:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Well, personally, I vote that way when I feel the redirect and/or information would be of little value, but if others disagree, I more strongly feel that it doesn't belong here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to her mother; Estella is a baby and isn't likely to do anything worthy of getting listed in an encyclopedia for a few years at least. Per A Man in Black, feel free to interpret this as a delete if necessary for consensus. --Metropolitan90 02:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to her mother. My opinion is that separate articles should be included for the Her Majesty's grandchildren but no further down the line. Any other descendants can be listed on their parents' pages. Only if a royal this far down does or says something notable should he or she get a separate article. I know this is arbitrary, but any limit would be. Logophile 02:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Member of the royal family, at least informally. Carina22 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eupolitique

Seems like nothing but self-promotion of a racist website. Interactii 03:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Perhaps more nonsense than racist (but certainly both). Jasmol 04:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy. There is too much of this anti-French rubbish creeping on to Wikipedia. Kill it now! Keresaspa 14:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as failing WP:WEB - I NPOV'd the content, which made it fractionally shorter :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Just an advertisement. Non-encyclopaedic. --Frekja 18:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Single sentence, ads. *drew 02:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Falling Apart: Final Fantasy VII

This film doesn't exist, and is not being made. It was just some internet rumour. Delete.--Undc23 11:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. WP:NOT a crystal ball, and if this film actually existed, I'd know about it! (December 20, 2005?) Reads like an ad anyway. Wcquidditch | Talk 14:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons above. PJM 16:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax/rumor/prediction. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax which has attracted forum attention sadly. [7]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Final Fantasy was a Heaven's-Gate sized financial debacle. Not only is the title unknown, the "Falling Apart" portion of the title also seems to be a bit of sarcasm laid at the feet of the producers. Jtmichcock 04:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Uh. This is (supposedly) part of a (real) series of spinoffs from the game, Final Fantasy VII. This series of spinoffs has already produced one reasonably successful film, Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Then why is it that the subtitle, Falling Apart preced the Fantasy name when all other versions have this apear after the title. Check out the film's entry Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within. I'm picking up quite a bit of sarcasm over here. Regardless, this is a rumored game only and uis removable on that basis. Jtmichcock 05:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. *drew 03:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as blatent spam. --Carnildo 01:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Financial Inc., Financial, Inc, Financial Inc, Alaska Business, Alaska Financial

Blatant spam. Blatant in the sense that it makes absolutely no pretence to be anything else. All pages are identical content, created by Jasonevans2000, listed in the articles as a director. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Alaska Business could be redirected to Economy of Alaska, though. If such an article existed. Jkelly 17:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Laughably blatant spam. Swegner 18:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. This practice is becoming increasingly common as Wikipedia "catches on" as a guerrilla marketing method. -- IslandGyrl 18:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Can this be speedied as vandalism, or is that being overused as a catchall? ^_^ — Haeleth Talk 18:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Good point. Perhaps "blatant spam" should be a speedy criterion? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All.--Isotope23 21:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frob

Neologism, dicdef. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 20:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 21:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Hardly a neologism, since it originated in the 1950s. As one of the oldest bits of "hacker jargon", this term occupies a place of honor in the Jargon File, and it has encyclopaedic potential. Anville 22:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Agree with the content of Anville's comment. Not completely sure whether it deserves its own article. BTW Frob is used in mathematics for "the conjugacy class of Frobenius elements." The word persists in hacker circles, but may have declined in use since the sixties, and has never crossed the chasm into ordinary parlance. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Anville is 100% correct. This word is part of hacker/programmer parlance (perhaps not common, but certainly in use), and as such deserves inclusion. Piperatthegates2 09:42, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). The unsigned vote is by Turnstep and counted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frozenbyte, Inc., Shadowgrounds

NN game company with one product. Fails WP:CORP. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I think that these articles would be valuable if they were expanded, although it may be some time before that can happen. --mdd4696 01:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It doesn't look like that one product has been released yet. they can get an article when they become notable. - Dalbury (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of Google hits*, referenced in other places [8]. Even if the release date on the page is wrong (November 11), seems to do no harm to keep as a stub, as it is sure to be expanded (or recreated!) as people buy the game.
  • *Even a restrictive googling of "frozenbyte shadowgrounds" returns 10,000 hits.
  • Comment. Lots of hype does not necessarily translate to being notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The game was just released three days ago. And Google hits are not always very meaningful. Google gives over 5,000 hits on my name (after I factor out the other people who share it), but that doesn't make me notable. - Dalbury (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fur Will Fly

A webcomic, found here. The main site that it's linked off, has an Alexa rank of roughly 250k, and that is split across several comics. The furwillfly.com domain itself has no alexa data. A google search for "fur will fly" does not give any sort of critical commentaries or reviews by established magazines, even in the webcomic community. No assertion of notability found. - Hahnchen 22:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: First of the author's 3 webcomics. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Does everything this author does turn to gold? Ram may be notable and the author might be notable for being booted off graphicsmash, but going on this comic's own popularity, I don't think it is. That's all. - Hahnchen 12:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, as per Hahnchen. The "First of the author's 3 webcomics" may be evidence for merging this article with which ever, if any, of the author's other comics is notable. Dragonfiend 17:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't read this strip, but I've certainly heard of it, and know that it's both well-known and well-regarded. As a side note, Hahnchen, you should stop mentioning Alexa when you're trying to delete articles. You've been made aware that it's meaningless many times. Factitious 01:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge into Depauw University. - Mailer Diablo 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Glambi

Art piece NN outside of Depauw University, Indiana with one newspaper reference. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge or Keep. Kappa 02:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the DePauw University article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Zoe. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Depauw University per User:Zoe. The text needs work. I corrected one bit of misleading reference, but there is more to do. - Dalbury (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN addition. Lawn ornaments can be classified as art depending on the intention but they remain lawn ornaments (and, of course, being classified as art is not in-itself an inclusion claim). Marskell 23:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Depauw University per Zoe. HGB 11:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Depauw University - -reejer.19:44, 14 November 2005 ZULU
• Merge into Depauw University - wadmeat.19:44, 14 November 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was Redirect to Mental Block. - Mailer Diablo 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenfield Park Junior High

sub-stub about a fictituous school in a TV series. All the relevant information is already in the wikipedia entry for the show. Bluap 12:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mental BlockDoc ^ask? 13:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mental Block. (The information has already been smerged there.) --Idont Havaname 15:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all schools. I mean Redirect as indicated.--Nicodemus75 16:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, this AFD was not necessary. Trollderella 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirects do not require AFD. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per WP:FICT, no AFD necessary. Silensor 21:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Halo vs Unreal

POV, original research, idiosyncratic non-topic Savant1984 04:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like fancruft. Durova 04:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This would be useless comparisoncruft (we don't need articles comparing every FPS ever) even if it wasn't bordering on gibberish. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Incoherent, POV... nothing salvagable. --W.marsh 05:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Game review, original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR, POV and (worst of all) gamecruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; POV original research should always be discouraged, and we are not a site for game reviews. --Idont Havaname 15:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's next? Differences Between Pokémon and Digimon? —Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, I know of at least once (and possibly twice) that comparisons along those lines have been deleted on AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, media reviews not encyclopedic. Gazpacho 03:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Game review. *drew 03:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hannah Jane Cooper

My utmost condolence to this tragedy. However, the main article pages should not be used for oblituary purpose. If the author wishes, this can be moved to the user's page. Hurricane111 15:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It's always sad when a kid dies, but one of the few things specifically not allowed in WP are memorial articles (WP:NOT) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — RJH 16:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with sadness, per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sad, but doesn't belong here Swegner 18:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete Wikipedia is not a memorial, but I would encourage the author to userfy this article if they wish. My condolences. Youngamerican 21:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfyas the user is a registered user and not an anon IP. --Gurubrahma 06:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and userfy per nom. *drew 03:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Add some of this content to Tyrone Power, Sr. and create a redirect there. Rx StrangeLove 18:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Littledale Power

I created the page. He was the father of Tyrone Power, Sr. and grandfather of Hollywood star Tyrone Power but I have only found two plays/performances that he appeared in the London Times which weren't really that significant. Guidance needed on whether it should be kept. Thanks Arniep 22:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Concert pianist, father and grandfather respectively of the two Tyrone Powers - I'd say that's probably good enough. Better than some nonentity porn star, anyway. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 23:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

comment I think the concert pianist was not him but another H Power possibly Henry, I haven't found any evidence this Harold Power was a pianist, there is nothing in the London Times about him being a pianist which you would expect if he was notable. Arniep 23:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Googling has Tyrone power as the son of "consert pianist Harold Power" on several sites. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• The ODNB writes about Harold and his wife (in the article on the son - there is no article on Harold himself) that they were "mildly successful entertainers, who in 1877 crossed the Atlantic to seek their fortune with American audiences." I'd say the family as a whole is interesting enough to make this worthy of keeping in some form, but possibly merged with either father or son, or into an article called Power (family) or something like that. Tupsharru 07:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the truth is people don't really no much about his father. They did travel to the U.S. in 1877 but by 1881 they were back in London. I don't have any evidence that Harold Power really performed in anything significant after his marriage, in the 1871 British census he was a Wine Merchant, in 1881 a Mine Agent, and in 1891 a Mining Engineer all three times in London and he died in London in 1901. He may have played the piano but maybe its significance was exaggerated to make him seem more interesting for bios of his grandson Tyrone Power. Arniep 11:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'd support a merge along those lines, althoguh Tyrone Jr. is probably going to merit an article of his own. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 12:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Harold should probably be merged with Tyrone Power (1795-1841) to begin with. If that gets overloaded with genealogy, a separate article on the family could be created too make navigation easier. Tupsharru 13:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Will you WP:Be bold or shall I? ;-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

We might as well let the article have its five days on AFD before doing anything. Tupsharru 16:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I would definitely like to keep separate pages for all the Tyrone Powers as they were all famous in their own right. I would personally be in favour of deleting the Harold page. I would mention a bit about Harold's career on his son Tyrone Power, Sr.'s page and create a clearer family tree outline on Tyrone Power (1795-1841) which would give Harold's date of birth and death. Arniep 18:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That sounds uncontroversial to me. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 20:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I forgot to vote, please delete with reference to my above proposal. Thanks Arniep 13:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I support the above (i.e.merging without loss of encyclopaedic content), including a delete if necessary, although as far as I can see leaving a redirect behind would not hurt. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Head and Hand Theatre

Can this be speedied? The article just links to a dead end ghost site. Unverifiable and unnotable. - Hahnchen 22:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable web comic. feydey 23:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article also appears to be vanity (the only editor of this article has only edited this article). Dragonfiend 17:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heart impaled

NN band, not on allmusic.com, available for download at various sites devoted to unsigned bands. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. BD2412 T 14:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 03:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 03:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jacob Good

Not notable restaurant, promotion. feydey 23:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jasmol 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as NN. WP is not a poor man's web hosting service. Turnstep 02:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: What makes a restaurant notable? Doing a quick Google search shows that this restaurant has had some great reviews. However, as written, this article reads like an advertisement ... lacking a clear indication of notability. ERcheck 02:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. *drew 12:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. Wikibofh 18:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JCH Robotics

Malformed afd nom. I added the afd2 template--Shanel 03:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• This is for a home-school robotics team, notability not established. --Alan Au 03:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Not established? --Energysword 03:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oh... sorry. I'm new and it was my first article. (as you can tell)--Energysword 04:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Go ahead and delete it.--Energysword 04:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, notability not established and original author wants it deleted. --Idont Havaname 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I want it deleted.--Energysword 22:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Author-desired deletion = CSD. I'll do the speedy delete. I'm sure we wish them well, but the topic is not encyclopedic at present. Geogre 22:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Henry (band)

Vanity - according to band's own webpage, there isn't even a lineup, let alone notable recordings. ~CS 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per nom. Jasmol 01:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN band vanity. Cnwb 01:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, hopefully we can speedy these someday. Turnstep 01:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another one. Surely it is time to get {{db-bio}} extended to cover bands? Almost all of these nominations are deleted nem con. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:Music. HGB 11:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. *drew 02:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. 4 merge/8 delete so it's tricky, I am calling this a delete for three reasons. First the article is extremely short, almost a A1 "little or no context speedy", as Haeleth said, the article doesn't say what the building is used for. Second, there is very little reason why "Jorgenson Hall" should redirect to Ryerson University when there are a load of other Jorgenson Halls around the World. Finally, I looked at the Ryerson University article and concluded that merging this there would just clutter up that article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jorgenson Hall

Delete article about generic building at Ryerson University. Mindmatrix 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — Indiscriminate factoid. — RJH 16:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Trollderella 17:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable mortar. What makes this noteworthy? Dottore So 17:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Trollderella. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What is there to merge? This article doesn't even say what the building is used for! — Haeleth Talk 19:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge the fact that it was built in 1971 and has 14 storeys. Kappa 20:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Ryerson University and leave a redirect. Vegaswikian 07:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN Pete.Hurd 22:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn.  Grue  19:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. *drew 04:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete as a copyvio or otherwise. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JusticeDesign

Advert for non-notable company. Delete. jni 10:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Perhaps should be judged by WP:WEB, looks to be a website-only business. Jkelly 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. They are currently participating in an exhibition at the Manhattan Museum of Modern Art, which some may consider sufficient notability; however, they don't appear to be major participants (they're not mentioned by name on the exhibition's page [9]), so it probably isn't enough to justify an article. — Haeleth Talk 18:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as it is a copyright vio, see [10] and [11] - Akamad 07:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: speedy delete for copyright violations only applies to commercial content providers. This is promotional literature and people don't pay to see it. It should go to copyright problems instead. -- Kjkolb 08:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• I have removed the speedy delete nomination and placed copyright vio notice as suggested. Akamad 08:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katheryn K. Russell

Non-notable professor jucifer 21:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - profesor who fails the "professor test". Low google results. Perhaps vanity. jucifer 21:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. Easily verifiable but I need more info to decide on notability. Do we actually have established criteria for notability of academic people (professor test)? - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Nah, check WP:BIO and Wikipedia talk:Criteria for inclusion of biographies/Academics (and please weigh in, as the discussion has gotten stale), but if you can find a reasonable number of publications by an academic, s/he is likely ultimately to be kept. Tupsharru 07:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I've read through that and I'm even more confused than before. The problem seems intractable. I've wrote some academics stub myself; Óskar Halldórsson, Hermann Pálsson], Sigurður Nordal... I'd say Nordal is definitely notable - he's in Britannica, for one thing. In my opinion Hermann Pálsson is notable too but Óskar may be more marginal and I'm not sure if I'd create a stub on him if I'd been thinking about it today. Nevertheless his is a name you'll see come up in a "History of Icelandic Literature" type of work - even if only for his research on Hrafnkels saga.

But it really depends on how deep a coverage of the relevant subject we have. Once we have a deep coverage of the Icelandic sagas it will be very useful to have articles on the academics who have contributed most to their study. Because that's a field I know well I feel I can make reasonable judgment calls on what biographies to include at each stage.

But in the field of Katheryn K. Russell I'm completely lost. So I guess my vote is: "Leave it up to people who know something about that field." - Haukur Þorgeirsson 11:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep — Based on a google search she seems to be fairly well published and frequently referenced by others. — RJH 17:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Citations seem notable enough; just over the bar, but keep when in doubt. Xoloz 03:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with school article. Rx StrangeLove 19:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kgsm

Vaguely promotional entry for a non-noteable college radio station. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with the college entry. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Concensus seems to be that radio stations get an article. The fact that this station is webcast only at this time might change my vote to a Weak Keep but I don't see a reason to drop this artilce. I did a little cleanup. Vegaswikian 08:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: (a) this is a college radio station; consensus there seems to be merge to the college entry (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1449 URB); (b) this is a webcast only; consensus there is to delete unless substantial audience can be verified. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with the college entry. I didn't intend for this to be promotional, and the new history section I added makes it more like an article than an advertisment. This article would be better fit with the article for GAC than as its own article, at least until it is not only webcast.User:Boon0044 8:52, 12 November 2005 (CDT)
• Merge with the college entry. *drew 04:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  21:56, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King Andy

Not an expert, but this looks to be a hoax. Can't verify through google, and cited sources (checked through Amazon search) do not reference King Andy JJay 01:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 01:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JJay. -- Ncsaint 01:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a hoax, of course. "King Andy" in Greece, c 1090s? LOL. Lived 1077-94, ie. did all that by the age of 17. Amazon has a "look inside" feature for The Western Way of War. There is no Andrew, Andy or King Andy in its index (yes, I did feel ridiculous checking). encephalon 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Addendum: I see JJay checked too. :) encephalon 03:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxes. — Haeleth Talk 17:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's such a good laugh I am tempted to vote for keep. Tintin 21:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 11:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It reads legit enough, and there really isn't any proof against it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.223.90 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC).
• Keep. It seems legit. Why delete it if you have no proof against it. I say keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.196.223.90 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC).
• Delete. Hoax. *drew 02:40, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete as copyvio. — Phil Welch 03:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kobayashi (band)

Non-notable band (and therefore violates WP:MUSIC). Created by vandal. --Nlu 02:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In light of Capitalistroadster's discovery that it's a copyright violation, will also add speedy delete tag. --Nlu 03:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: "...a performance at the 2003 Montreal International Jazz Festival in front of five thousand delighted spectators, and a showcase at the 2004 Canadian Music Week in Toronto." Kappa 02:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This may or may not be notable but this is a copyvio of the band page see [12]. Reporting it now. Capitalistroadster 02:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KOOL Radio Tower

nn radio tower Delete --JAranda | watz sup 05:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable as written ERcheck 06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of masts. Gazpacho 06:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have placed it in the local category, which is the best way to draw it to the attention of the users to whom it is most relevant. CalJW 13:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per Gazpacho. -R. fiend 18:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep in the local category. Kappa 00:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move. I think this should be moved to the name of the station and used as the basis for an article about the station. How can the tower be important if the station using it is not? Vegaswikian 07:43, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if article on the station is not created before end of AfD, but merge and redirect if an article for the station pops up before this vote closes. Youngamerican 05:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lan Wars

Totally unverifiable and non notable. I can't find the comic online. Searching for "Lan wars" flannigan gives 1 link to a wikipedia mirror. - Hahnchen 22:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Akamad 23:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jasmol 01:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury (talk) 03:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I have added a link to the entry, sorry for the inconvenience. -Guy Flannigan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.17.65.144 (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom. *drew 12:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs in triple meter (1990-1999)

See also List of songs in triple meter (2000-2009). Listcruft. If the goal is, as the author said in this afd, to demonstrate a musical trend, then such a trend can be noted in existing articles, such as the triple metre article. This list, and its subsequent placement as a link in multiple band articles, is overkill. Jersyko talk 15:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, it seems like this would be a useful resource for musicologists. - SimonP 15:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, this is a good point, though I doubt that the list could ever be complete enough to be a useful resource. In any event, placing links to this article in such articles as Death Cab for Cutie or Built to Spill, as the author has done, seems no different to me than putting a link to Bands whose names start with D or Bands who use whole notes in such articles. While I understand that my arguement here is a bit of a slippery slope/exaggeration, my basic point is that triple meter is a much too common identifying feature to be a useful descriptor. - Jersyko talk 15:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Simon, have you checked Triple metre? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Just zis Guy, you know? wants this list gone so badly that he's taken to soliciting other users to change their votes? Hilarious!--Hraefen 07:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • While I admire what was already there, Triple metre did not include any information about modern pop music until I put a single line in there just moments ago. Jacqui ^{★ 03:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete per nominator. --Idont Havaname 15:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. These music lists are maintained, and people find them useful. Trollderella 17:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete trivial list —Wahoofive (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per arguments in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Songs_in_triple_meter - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 17:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP. Lists don't have to be complete to be a useful resource. Kappa 20:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, I agree generally, but I still fail to see how this is a useful resource, or at least any more so than the faux lists mentioned in my above comment would be given the common nature of triple meter. - Jersyko talk 20:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (does the article creator get a vote?) This is a good resource for musicologists and musicians and doesn't need to be complete to be so. It says right up top that it should not be thought of as complete. All it needs to do is give modern examples of what some think of as a quaint and boring meter. But "My Name Is Jonas" is not quaint. "Judith" is not boring. Every band page where I placed a link had few or no links in 'see also,' so it's not as if I'm crowding those sites. And while triple meter is not uncommon per se, it is not as ubiquitous as detractors of this article would have others believe. For anyone who claims this, please, on your next visit to this afd page, write in three examples that would fit this category. Be honest. Don't go surf the net looking. Top of your head. How about two? One? I only know of a few bands who do more than, say, a fifth of their songs in triple meter. If you can actually think of a number of examples, why not add them and make this page better rather than trying to delete it. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a better resource with theses lists on it. I don't know of anywhere else with anything like this and I have looked. Especially a resource with linked text like wiki. I also don't think it's fair to judge this article on what was said in an afd for another article with different criteria i.e. no date parameters where these are neatly defined by decade. Take the article for what it IS, the way a user would see it, not for something written in an afd for editors/contributors, etc. And while I understand that Jersyko's examples are intentionally hyperbolic, I'm going to respond anyway. You can't hear a band and say 'These guys sound like their band stars with a d' and saying that a band uses whole notes, half notes, whatever, is like saying they use sound to make music. You CAN listen to music and tell that it is in triple meter. There are certain bands that use triple meter and most avoid it like the plague. As Trollderella points out...these lists are maintained.--Hraefen 00:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. In fact I think this is speediable as a re-creation of content previously voted for deletion. Also, based on the contributor's explanation above, this is essentially original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Dpbsmith. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 12:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• What has to be done to make this 'not original research?' Do I have to provide a link or paper resource for every single song noted? Do I have to go one step further and show that I also got these songs from a list that already exists in published form somewhere? Does it matter that many modern bands never write their songs down in a way that people would consider standard notation? And if so, does this forever prevent these songs from being treated in any kind of analytic way on Wikipedia? I'm being serious here. I want someone to justify this to me because I don't agree with it.--Hraefen 12:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You're trying to document the existence of a trend where no notice of this trend has been taken outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to initially publish new ideas. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 13:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

No original research is a longstanding Wikipedia policy with broad consensus. What you need to do is write an article on the renaissance of triple meter in U. S. popular song, or the musical virtues of triple meter, submit it to a journal of musicology or Rolling Stone or something like that, get it published, and wait for other people to pick up on the idea. When it becomes generally accepted and someone can cite a couple of good sources, then someone can write an encyclopedia article about it.

Wikipedia is not an online magazine like Salon. It is not for publication of original research and essays, even if the ideas in them are meritorious and well-supported. It is an encyclopedia, a secondary reference.

The reason for this policy is that unlike print publications, anyone can contribute to Wikipedia, so readers cannot trust in the authority of Wikipedia's authors. Nor can readers trust consensus judgements of WIkipedians on the merits of a new idea. On the other hand, it is possible for Wikipedians, even WIkipedians who disagree about the validity of an idea, to agree about whether the article cites sources that show that the idea is well established and widely held.

A sensible idea ("triple meter has been undervalued and is experiencing a resurgence") with no source citations is not a Wikipedia article.

A cockamamie idea ("the earth is a hollow sphere and we live on the inside of it") with plenty of citations showing that this is a real idea that people have and still do really believe in is a valid Wikipedia article.

You can't use Wikipedia to promulgate new ideas, not even the worthiest. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Dpbsmith (talk) 14:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't actually see much evidence that it is more common in popular song now than it ever was - maybe the author's favourite bands just reached the ballad phase :-) As it is, triple metre is and always will be uncommon in rock anthems and much more common in ballads. It is no more or less common in modern classical music than that of the Renaissance as fars as I can tell - I have in my hand the score for Karl Jenkins' The Armed Man; it has movements in triple metre and some in duple and some which switch between the two. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

And yes, if someone challenged one of the entries, claiming it was really in duple meter, I'd expect you to have evidence to back up the listing, something better than "I listened to it and it sounds like triple meter." List of works in irregular time signatures has been a regular battleground on this point. Verifiable in this case does mean that you need to find printed sheet music to back up the listing, and if it doesn't exist, then it's original research and doesn't belong on WP. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete OR, listcruft. Xoloz 03:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• OK. Again. I'm not trying to PROVE anything. I just want an admittedly incomplete list of songs. PLEASE stop inferring things from a prior afd where I said I was tracking a trend. I just want an incomplete list of songs and if I have to provide documentation for them I will look for that documentation. But if someone is going to try to delete this on some other grounds, well, that would be wasted time. What kind of documentation is acceptable? A link to a guitar tab page which indicates meter? I need to know what the wiki community finds acceptable. I'm sure many of you hate List of works in irregular time signatures as well, but until I see that page on the afd page (and I don't want to), I really feel as though these lists are being held to a standard much higher than that one and many others. And as far as being a battleground...irregular times are much more complicated and hard to figure out. I don't see these lists being nearly as contentious. Now, just for good measure...I'm not trying to PROVE anything...an incomplete list is just an incomplete list. Please consider it as such when voting on this page.--Hraefen 18:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then what, exactly, do you mean when you worry that deleting this page might "forever prevent these songs from being treated in any kind of analytic way on Wikipedia?" What sort of analytical article were you contemplating? Dpbsmith (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Analytic was kind of a sloppy word choice, but I couldn't think of a better one at the time. All I meant was that if there is a song that I can't find documentation for (which very well could happen), does that forever prevent that song from being written about in the areas of meter, or key, or instrumentation, etc. Even if it's not contentious for someone to say that a song has a guitar, piano, bass and drums, does some source need to be cited for that? I'm not trying to change the way wiki articles are created, validated, etc., I just want to know what the standard procedure is and then work within it. I don't think it will be that hard to do if everyone can understand that this is only a list...nothing more, and I'll give documentation where I need to--Hraefen 21:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is cool. There are other Coldplay songs in 3/4 I'm pretty sure on their new album. I'll add them if I can find them.Monkey500 22:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as violating the spirit of CSD:G4, re-creation of deleted content. And, substantively, for the reasons stated in that AfD. MCB 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why is everyone so hung up on what was said in an afd? A list is only a list. I'm not asserting anything regardless of what I wrote in a prior afd. So, do people's reasons for making an article determine whether that list/article is valid? No. The content alone is what matters and everyone needs to remove their ego from this discussion. From the wiki policy on original research "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." So, if I provide sources, this is not original research. I made an example of this. (2000) "3 Libras" by A Perfect Circle [13] Is this acceptable to those of you citing the charge (one of at least three trying to be used to erase this article) of no original research? --Hraefen 23:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, that's a weak citation, but certainly it is a citation. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In the last AfD, many people said that they would support a list like this, even if not that one, so I don't see how people think this should be a speedy. And this is most certainly not OR (see Hraefen's comments re: that). Personally, if I were a musicologist doing a project on modern music in triple meter, I would find this useful. Jacqui ^{★ 03:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
  • I assure you that musicologists, like other professional academics, rely on serious publications for their information, not pop-culture phenomena like Wikipedia. Also, they're expected to do their own research; copying out of the encyclopedia is frowned upon in the academic community. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I suggest you cite that claim. Jacqui ^{★ 06:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
• I think that Wahoofive is taking the definition of 'musicologist' a bit too literally. This list could be helpful to musicians, music enthusiasts, deejays, 'real' musicologists, music professors and teachers, high school band teachers, music buffs in general. And anyone using wiki as a research tool knows that you don't cite wiki in a college paper or submission to a critical magazine, or anything 'official' really. It just helps get the ball rolling.-- Hraefen 06:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, maybe. Not clear why any of these people you mention would have any use for this list. It's not like conductors need to make a balance between duple and triple meters in their programs. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, well, I don't see the use for a lot of pages around here. But that doesn't mean that someone else may not find it useful. Should I go close the National Library for the Blind because I'm fully sighted? C'mon now. Jacqui^★ 02:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I've heard the "somebody, somewhere might find it useful" argument before. I don't think there's a single person on the planet who'd find this list useful. —Wahoofive (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, I do. And it's just one person's word against another's. Guess we're at an impasse, then. Jacqui^★ 23:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've started to add the albums on which these songs are found. That's a primary source if I ever heard of one. The burden of proof should stop there. I should lot be limited in adding to wiki based a user's ability or inability to inspect and interpret that primary source.--Hraefen 07:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What? That's about as valid a citation as saying President Bush is an alien, and providing a link to the White House as evidence. We're talking about interpretation of the music, and the fact of what album it's on is no evidence whatever. It doesn't change original research to ask readers to do their own original research to back it up. It's the assertion that a song is in triple meter that needs citation, not the song's existence. Any article on anything could use such an argument. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ok. This is copied straight out of Wikipedia:No original research (section 1.1) and anyone can go look if they want. "However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged." A song is a primary source if I'm talking about a song. How can a source get more primary than that? If it states right in the Wikipedia:No original research policy that it's ok to collect together primary sources, I don't know where the charge of original research is coming from. Wahoofive's president/White House analogy, upon further reflection, is just absurd. Few people have access to either the president or the White House, but anyone with a library card or internet access could find most of the songs on this list. Do I have to walk to their houses and hand them a mix tape of these songs? Plenty of articles cite only a book which is shelved in a library somewhere and trying to force me to do anything more is silly. Would you ask the writer of an article on The Great Gatsby to cite anything but that book as a primary source? What else would there be that is considered primary? People who can't interpret that primary source (i.e. can't read English/ don't understand time signatures) should respectfully bow out of the argument. And why is all this fuss being made about verifiability when no one has even claimed that one of these songs is not appropriate to this list? And even if someone does eventually do that, is that so bad? Isn't that what happens all over wiki? I don't know if I've read a talk page on an article more than a month old which had nothing in question. Isn't the 'sifting and the winnowing' just part of wiki? People are always going to disagree about certain things, but I think Wahoofive is really overestimating how contentious this list will be to anyone who would care enough to add to it or watch it (as I have said I will).--Hraefen 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You may be right about the overestimating part (I certainly have better things to do than try to challenge every entry on that list), but I just deny that every person who listens to a song will agree what meter it's in. Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source. WP:V says "One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." While the songs may be published, the assertion that they are in triple meter is not, unless you have sheet music or other documentary evidence. —Wahoofive (talk) 06:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep This is not only a cool idea that makes you relisten to "Hooker With a Penis" with the family around the fire but it also serves to provide a musicology-based list that doesn't require a great deal of music based knowledge to internalize. Jdowen0902 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Well. I think it's ridiculous that you wouldn't consider a song a primary source, but whatever, I see I'm not going to change your mind. I think if a user cares enough to read a list, you kind of assume a certain level of knowledge and interest in the subject. Enough for them to seek out an album to try to disprove something which seems wrong to them. There are many lists which are not held to this standard. But, this is a list of songs, and I have been finding out that they are primary targets of deletionists (and some of them undoubtedly deserve to be deleted). For instance, the List of English words of Etruscan origin does not contain on it (or anywhere on wiki as far as I can tell) etymologies for the words 'ides' 'element' and 'style.' It simply has a disclaimer at the top of the page which says that there are competing theories for some of the words. Now, I'm not trying to use the "there's a less-than-perfect page on wiki so why have any standards?" argument, but I'm just pointing out that anyone who cares about a page/subject will contribute critical discussion, as has happend on the Etruscan site. People who care will always be questioning. This doesn't really seem like a fair compromise (to me), but why don't we simply tag the whole list with a 'factual dispute' tag that I've seen on many pages and also encourage users to note any disagreements they have on the talk page (and to add and edit boldly of course)? I think it's silly, but I prefer it to seeing the lists deleted. That will also allow me time to find secondary evidence. I'll try to find secondary source evidence for everything, but a good place to start would be with a song which has been contested. It's surprisingly hard to find sheet music for many modern bands, especially when their albums are not platinum-selling. I'm really excited to see what this list could become after people of all musical tastes have the opportunity to add to it.--Hraefen 00:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't want any tags permanently affixed to the article. If we keep it, we keep it. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Let's just delete anything to do with modern music if this is deleted. Seriously, not everyone who posts something on here has unlimited access to actual, proof-laden factual information to back up every single list or article that is posted. Are we to deprive people of useful information just because there's no re-typed history of renaissance examples of triple-metered songs posted before a list? Let's say I'm a DJ and I'm thinking of putting together a playlist for a wedding and I need songs that would match up well. A waltz would most certainly match up to a song in triple meter over a song in standard 4/4. Where would I find a list of songs I could play? Wikipedia? Maybe not if such a list is deleted.--kle5i5 13:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Edwardian 23:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Teen Models

This is what categories are for, alhtough I might nominate such a category for deletion as well. WAvegetarian 00:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this list. It appears to be created by the photographer anyway - SPAM. glocks out 00:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable list.Gateman1997 00:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Linuxbeak | Alex Schenck 01:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep, categories can't do this properly. Kappa 02:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Urk. I find myself in agreement with Kappa. Categories are not the same thing as lists. Keep. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per Kappa and Zoe. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Models? Move to List of teen pornstars. Edwardian 05:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC) Abstain. Edwardian 22:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd rather not with Jessica Biel on that list. Posing nude and for porn are to entirely different things. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The list has been significantly updated since I originally voted.Edwardian 22:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move per Edwardian. These girls aren't models because they rarely have any clothes on. Well, maybe a very loose interpretation of the word "model", but only if you think the phrase "nude model" isn't an oxymoron. -- Grev -- Talk 05:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As someone who has worked as a nude model (for life-drawing classes for art students) I take extreme offence at the suggestion that it is an oxymoron, and even more extreme offence at the suggestion that it is equated with pornography. Please check your facts before trying to express an opinion. Grutness...wha? 02:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move, per above, but... "nude model" an oxymoron? And every art student who's ever done a life drawing class is a walking contradiction? What do you call someone who, let's say, posed for Rodin without clothes on? A porn star? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Since the entry has been updated a lot, that vote makes sense no longer; change to delete as silly and unmaintainable. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; listcruft. Logically, no one can remain on this list for more than 600 days. Will we have to edit it on their 20th birthdays, since they will no longer be teen models? :) --Golbez 06:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just like child actors they remain teen models. It can also mean a person who started modelling (or in the other case, acting) in their teens/child years. For example Shirley Temple can still be referred to as a child actress. -Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment They don't seem to be nude models Tiffany Teen and Next Door Nikki both say they are non-nude models. So moving them to List of teen pornstars does not applie here. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk. 07:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pintele Yid 08:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Golbez. I would also recommend Phil Flash for deletion. Zunaid 08:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Article on Phil Flash has since been speedy deleted Zunaid 10:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Golbez. There's nothing here worth keeping or building on. Dottore So 11:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although the first few porn model articles appear to be promotional in nature. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete listcruft. And surely being a teen model is sufficiently common that most of the models listed will also fail [{WP:BIO]]? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more indiscriminate listcruft.--Isotope23 14:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete open-ended list, with a virtually endless number of candidates for inclusion. - Dalbury (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for many of the reasons above - listcruft foremost. PJM 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this odd list looks verifiable. Trollderella 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unmaintainable, and this list appears to be all over the place, from well-known actors to "non-nude" adult site models. I favor a category over this. Alternately, a list of teen models who went on to become famous actresses, etc. might be worthwhile. But as it stands, the focus on this one is far too broad. 23skidoo 17:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Golbez -- Frekja 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently non-maintainable. Noteable teen models have their own entry anyway, such as Twiggy. WP is not a modeling agency. KillerChihuahua 19:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this unmaintainable list. Isn't every internet model under-40 classified as a teen? Marskell 23:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if this refers only to current teen models then it will be difficult to maintain, if it includes former teen models then I assume most models do start their career in their teens. "Model" is a legitimate category which covers this. This is unlike "Child actor" since many actors only become established as adults. PatGallacher 23:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly useless list. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unmaintainable --Rogerd 17:13, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft at its cruftiest. Reyk 03:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unmaintainable. HGB 11:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or include anyone who has had their photograph taken between age 13-19? -=# Amos E Wolfe ^talk #=- 13:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Categories are better, and lists liek this attract too much subtle vandalism. -R. fiend 15:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Surely most models start in their teens. Next we'll have Category:Twentysomething sportspeople. Carina22 15:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nice list.  Grue  19:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unmaintanable list. *drew 02:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unmaintainable and non-encyclopedic. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Little America Records

Not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article just says it's a record label founded by two redlinked guys. Unless they've released a few notable albums, or the founders are notable, we should probably delete it. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn/vanity/advert. MCB 22:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete -Greg Asche (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lluvy Gomez, Noelle Staggers, Sarah Dankleman, Brandy Rusher

Four contestants eliminated from America's Next Top Model. Being on a reality show is not notable enough. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, people in the public eye, we should let the public look them up. Kappa 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BIO. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hasn't half of the US population been on some sort of a reality show by now? Jasmol 01:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:BIO. - Dalbury (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all nn as individuals. I would support an article on failed contestants, though, with these being redirects. Youngamerican 05:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Note notable enough to have their own pages yet. Turnstep 14:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. *drew 12:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas Oil

DELETE Original article was an advertising for a motor oil. Advertising was later edited out by others, current article consists of name of motor oil and person who created it. Somewhat irrelevant in an encyclopedia, I feel. Wahming 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Company exists and appears notable (lots of coverage of sponsored motor racing events etc. - anyone know if it's publicly quoted? Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but improve and NPOV it. Notable company whether or not started in bad faith.jucifer 21:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established by Jzg. Gazpacho 03:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Whittaker

I actually just about remember this woman (God help me) but I feel she falls well short of either WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC since her recording career was pretty much stillborn and her "modelling" career consisted solely of displaying her charms in a tabloid newspaper. Perhaps there might be a merge possible to an article on Page 3 girls, but as a stand-alone entry this is scraping the barrel. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep a borderline case, but she did just about have a significant profile. I would not regard every page 3 model as inherently notable, but I remember she was one of the best known during the 1980s when page 3 (and controversy around it) was at its most prominent. PatGallacher 11:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion that the ones who were tolerably well known be merged into Page Three girl or a new article on Page Three girls; there are a few who achieved minor celebrity as part of Page 3 but failed to establish any outside of that context. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dottore So 11:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard of her and I've never bought the "tabloid newspaper" in question in my life, though it happens to be the best selling English language newspaper in the world. Some Page 3 models are very famous in the UK. If we keep minor American porn stars, who have no mainstream fame, we should certainly keep this. CalJW 13:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ah, the old "some cruft means all cruft" argument :-) I think the minor porn "stars" shoudl go too, FWIW. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: notable model. May not be known that much outside the UK, but Wikipedia shouldn't regionalize. 23skidoo 17:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Er, Skidoo? I am British. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 15:26, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep One of the better-known Page 3 girls. --StoatBringer 15:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Hear, hear. President Lethe 21:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Bland

Vanity / non-notable. A google search for '"Mark Bland" wrestler' returns 140 results, with the most relevant relating to Wikipedia. The article is poorly written and adopts an informal tone. Not every professional wrestler needs an article, and I see nothing marking the career of this particular wrestler as worthy of an article. McPhail 22:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. I coldn't find anything that wasn't a mirror of Wikipedia. - Dalbury (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article came off a red link in the Randy Orton trivia section, but the link only came about due to the creator of this article making the name a link... if you get what i mean --- Paulley 17:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that my article should be deleted from the Wikipedia. I am not a vain person in the least bit. I have had a very sucessful run as a pro-wrestling trainer and eventually trained a WWE World Heavyweight Champion. If you are the coach of a sucessful football team that wins a national championship, they don't erase you from the story because you didn't step on to the field. Originally, I didn't post this article at all as Randy Orton will personally attest. The original article was poorly written and had gramatical errors all over it. I have a masters degree in Teaching and decided that if some wanted to write about me in the first place, I might as well do the story justice and correct the errors. At the same time put a bit more depth to the article. If you guys wanna erase it, go ahead. Like I said, "I didn't write it in the first place, I just corrected it." I do apologize for being successful in Pro-Wrestling and Television. By the way, I was a television show host for a show called Audaphobia that ran on the WB Network in 2004. So between my two careers in entertainment, I personally don't feel that it is quite off the mark for someone to have put me in wikipedia. I mean, nothing personal, but I have done 2 things in this article alone that most people will never do in their entire lives, and be successful at a high level.

I will say to McPhail. I think your Randy Page is quite impressive and I like it's depth. As I have told you before, Randy also thought it was very in depth and justified. I think their needs to be some kind of gatekeeper to keep irrelevant information out of the article though. The OG Stevie B name in the first paragraph is a little over the top. I have wrestled Randy hundreds (not kidding) of times and you don't see me going out of my way to name every single guy I have worked in the past 10 years. Anyway, I think your article is great.

In closing, I can prove anything I said here or on the MARK BLAND article page. It's not a problem at all. My email is markbland@charter.net. I live in St. Louis (actually St. Charles, MO ) Missouri, not more than 2 minutes from Randy's gated community. If you want to erase the article about me, go ahead, it's not a big deal to me. I appreaciate you guys taking the time to read this. s968339 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kirill Lokshin 03:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merchandise Building

Delete article about generic building in Toronto - it was a merchandise building, newly converted to lofts. Mindmatrix 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A local landmark, and an architecturally interesting structure. - SimonP 16:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Trollderella 17:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable mortar. Dottore So 17:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; seems to have some kind of notability (it's sort of borderline). I have made some light edit on the article. The building itself is ugly. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - ugly but notable. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete - I still can't figure out how people are coming up with the idea that this building is notable, but you may ignore my vote if one of them actually adds this mysterious claim of notability to the article. — Haeleth Talk 19:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• It was built in 1930 and considered historically significant enough for there to be intervention to prevent demolition in 1995. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The only reference this article links to doesn't even list it among notable buildings of Toronto. It's an old commercial building converted into residential lofts. Although it comes from the Art Deco period it's not a very good example of the style. No significant events happened here. The world has many non-notable buildings. This is one of them. Durova 20:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this landmark. -- Perfecto  03:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I'd vote keep if there was something in the article to establish landmark status. I should note that it is not even included the a landmark category. Vegaswikian 07:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete does not establish notability Pete.Hurd 22:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Building is noteworthy and notable example of urban gentrification on one of the largest scales ever seen in the loft movement. Jtmichcock 04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Granted, the article in its current state does not suggest that the building is noteworthy. However, it is notable. First, the Merchandise Building is a landmark, and arguably the most noted example of loft conversion in Toronto. Second, downtown Toronto was once the retail capital of the country, containing most of the Eaton's and Simpson's factories and mail order warehouses. In an age when Canada was mostly rural, when Canadians did far more of their shopping through catalogues than today, and Eaton's and Simpson's between them controlled more than 70% of all department store sales, this building was a hub serving Canadians from coast to coast. It is the last remaining of the Eaton's and Simpson's warehouses/factories in the core. Third, this building is at the vanguard of the green roof movement in Toronto and Canada, with a 10,000 square foot green roof -- it was the first significant green roof on a residential building in Toronto. Skeezix1000 14:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmmmm...the housing cooperative that I live in is currently working on a 22,000 sq. ft. green roof which, when done, will be AFAIK the largest residential green roof in at least Ontario and quite possibly all of Canada. Does that mean my building merits an article, too? (I'm genuinely curious.) Bearcat 00:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, if someone can cite a source that it's the largest, IMO it merits an article — once the roof is finished, of course. :) -- Perfecto  01:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metrobilly

Neologism. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 18:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nonsense neologistic dicdef. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This page has been deleted at least twice as nonsense. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --W.marsh 20:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. PJM 21:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. *drew 05:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus (infested by socks, but omitting them, was no consensus anyway). Hedley 23:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Middlebrook

Apparently NN academic, but not speedy material as some claims to notability are made. Some evidence to support that, but distinctly weak; I didn't find any publications with mainstream poublishers, and my Googling leads me to believe he falls short of WP:BIO. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable, and genuinely interesting and useful. He is poublished within his field. Trollderella 16:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Could you just point me to a link, please? Obviously I've fallen foul of the Googlespammers as the ones I found were all crap. Thanks - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Try typing '"Peter Middlebrook" Afghanistan'. Trollderella 17:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Keep it is, then, and move to the correct name. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep Verifiable but borderline on notability. As for being published, I only found a few minor articles. Swegner 17:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clear vanity (see original contributor), and seems to have only published an online book. Don't think he clears the bar. -R. fiend 18:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or rather userfy, for now, as he fails WP:BIO (no mainstream publications, no more notable than the average academic). If he's really "leading", then he'll get an article in due course, when there are verifiable reasons for one. — Haeleth Talk 18:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

There are already verifiable reasons to keep. Political economy of Afghanistan is not a mainstream topic, that's not a reason to delete it. Trollderella 02:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Genuinely interesting and useful, although not mainstream, there are some interesting articles here. He appears to be published within his field of speciality, and his work is referred to in other online Encyclopedias. User:Amba.Tadaa 06.00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Tends to be very little coverage of non European and US political economy analysis, so this work is refreshing. I find many references to his work through Google. User:Ravi.Khan 07.12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Don't see what the problem is, political economy of Afghanitan is an important subject, with fe current Wikipedia citations. He is widely published - from what I can google!!!. User:A.Masefield 08.42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Here come the socks! Anyone care to guess how many edits the above three users have? Changing my vote to strong delete now. -R. fiend 11:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was EXTREME BRAIN-EATING SPEEDY REDIRECT. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 04:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mindflayer

There is only one branch to this disambig page. glocks out 00:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• redirect to Illithid. Kappa 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• redirect per Kappa Canderson7 02:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• redirect per Kappa. Jasmol 02:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• I've had a peek through the history, and there was originally 'some' need for a disambig, a band which has since been deleted shared the name. Now that they've been nuked, there is only the one mindflayer and no more need for a disambig. Delete or redirect as appropriate. Saberwyn 03:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Illithid per Kappa. Illithids wrock!!! BD2412 T 03:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mini punch

Very non-notable. Gets 811 google hits, and it's not clear that many are related to this. If there's an automotive analogue to List of sexual slang, then I'd prefer to merge to that. Interiot 18:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anville 21:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense - speaking as a long-time (now lapsed) Mini owner Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — probably a private joke. -- JimR 05:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 05:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monster (Mortal Kombat character)

Was tagged for speedy, but doesn't really qualify. What we have here is a subliterate rambling on something from Mortal Kombat. "Character" is a bit of a stretch as characters tend to have character, which it seems this does not. Maybe if rewritten it's suitable for a merge somwehere. But to have articles on stuff like this when we don't have any on many, many major characters from significant works of fiction (nor on many major works of fiction themselves) is stupid. -R. fiend 17:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge if anyone can verify that this "hidden" character genuinely exists. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; a hidden unplayable character deserves a hidden unreadable article. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Paolo Liberatore. BD2412 T 20:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Paolo Liberatore's excellent analysis.--Isotope23 21:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Bravo, Paolo!  RasputinAXP  T C 20:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Paolo. *drew 04:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedily deleted. Enochlau 04:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monster (Mortal Kombat character)

Why is this page on Wikipedia again? Speedy Delete. (Notorious4life 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC))

• speedy deleted as a recreation - this probably didn't need to come back here... CDC (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 18:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools

Non-encycloedic. Too many publications run too many top ten/hundered lists - such lists are highly subjective and POV. The lists are available on Newsweek's website: 2003 and 2005. Wikipedia doesn't need them. Delete. See also: India Today's top 10 colleges of India. utcursch | talk 05:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This is almost certainly a copyright violation. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003). Tagging for now. The page itself seems to have been created just to provide links to likely copyrighted lists copy-pasted into WP. This page is itself not a copyvio, clearly, but it is a deletion candidate. I'd vote to delete, as it does not serve a purpose on the encyclopedia at present. encephalon 07:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not encyclopedic, useless dump.  Grue  14:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, expand. Even if the actual lists are deleted (which I take no position on), it is still noteworthy to report that this major publication compiles such a list, and that they use a particular formula (which is subject to dispute) to generate their rankings. BD2412 T 15:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• So put a para in Newsweek which describes it. Just about every publication on the planet publishes a top 10/20/50/100 (depnding on how much blank paper they need to fill) list at least once a year, either as a silly-season filer or to pad out the Chrstmas "special" when there is no actual news to report. There is no practical limit to this cruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • True - the Newsweek article is so short that a merge would be harmless, and indeed probably helpful. That need not be decided in AfD, however. BD2412 T 20:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Questionable nomination made to support nomination of India Today's top 10 colleges of India in an attempt to counter claims of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • False. Assume good faith: I nominated this for precisely the reason stated, and no other. In fact I am against all such lists, also for the reasons stated. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As usual, I can't even tell what the hell you are talking about. Unless utcursch is your deletion sock-puppet, you didn't nominate this for deletion.--Nicodemus75 21:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, I nominated a different bit of listcruft - easy mistake to make, there is so very much of it around. It matters not: the argument is the same. This is second-hand reporting of someone's space filler. Your inability to understand me remains an unsolved mystery, as I am usually considered quite lucid. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 22:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above and stop afd spam. Trollderella 16:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as pointless. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep (or merge per Just zis Guy, you know?) as a notable publication. The individual lists, however, must be deleted, since they are not appropriate for Wikipedia regardless of their copyright status. — Haeleth Talk 18:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete It appears this was created to wikilink to individual pages that reprint the lists from Newsweek... Bad idea. Writing an actual article here about the Newsweek list and externally linking to the Newsweek website containing the lists... Good idea. Will change my vote to Keep if this happens.didn't sign my vote...--Isotope23 03:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Valuable information for anyone wanting to attend university in the USA. Big Booger 01:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)]

• Delete: Go to the magazine, if you want to read the magazine. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information and not a reprint service. Geogre 04:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete 2nd hand reportage, non-encyclopedic list cruft Pete.Hurd 22:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. flowersofnight (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless it is determined that it is in violation of copyright, in which case it needs to be removed. There appear to be a large number of other lists on Wikipedia which are copied from outside sources, so we should not single this one out solely because it is related to education. Yamaguchi先生 08:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yamaguchi, this is not a list, this is an article about Newsweek's list, which also provides links to the lists, so there is no question of copyright here as the information is original and licensed under the GFDL. Silensor 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This article is not comparable to India Today's top 10 colleges of India or the other Newsweek lists which are being inspected for copyvios. Silensor 17:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a disambig page for two copyvio lists... why do we need it?Gateman1997 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reprint, seems pointless here. *drew 03:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 18:41, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005)

67 KB page. Space filler. Non-encycloedic. Too many publications run too many top ten/hundered lists - such lists are highly subjective and POV. Wikipedia doesn't need them. Delete. See also: India Today's top 10 colleges of India. utcursch | talk 05:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC).

• Comment Somewhat useful in determining notability for HS articles when they come up for AfD (which is often). Is there a good place to move this? --W.marsh 05:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The lists is available at Newsweek's available here [14] - this will solve problem of determining notability of schools. 203.76.181.38 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • That anon was me. utcursch | talk 05:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doubtful copyright situation since the list is not discussed in any critical way- the criteria for compiliing the list aren't even described and as the nominator points out it is unencyclopedic.--nixie 05:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh yes! I just noticed that there is no 2004 list on Newsweek's website. And there is no 2004 list here. This is a copyvio as well. utcursch | talk 06:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per WP:NPOV. Please don't assume wikipedia users have internet access. Kappa 06:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ha, Kappa, wonderful, that goes in my Doc's list of 10 top WP humour!--Doc ^ask? 09:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not as silly as it sounds; Jimbo Wales recently announced plans to try to release a version of Wikipedia on disc for use in underprivileged areas. I still voted delete on this though. flowersofnight (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep technically this is not a copyvio, we specify source, and a list of school names is not copyrightable data. Had we included other original content from the article THEN it would be a copyvio, a pure list is not copyrightable.  ALKIVAR™ 07:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. This is most likely a copyright violation. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003). Tagging for now. encephalon 07:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - We should probably instead refer this to the fair-use Wikiproject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per vote above. CalJW 13:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If this list were put directly on Wikipedia it would be deleted as inherently POV. Having it published first by a magazine without an NPOV rule does not address that. It's also going to change year by year. If a school comes high in the rankings, let them say so in their article, but I see no purpose in redistributing listcruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio nonencyclopedic pile of schoolcruft.  Grue  14:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hi there. This is your friendly neighborhood IP lawyer. Listing the names of the schools can not be a copyvio, because Newsweek is simply taking a set formula and applying it to publicly available facts about the schools in question. See Feist v. Rural. The formula itself is merely an idea, and is not subject to copyright; only the expression of the idea can be protected, and the listing here does not duplicate the expression because it differs significantly from the layout of the Newsweek list. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991). I've maintained such a list - indeed one more similar to Newsweek's own - in my user space for quite some time without fear of legal action, because I'm quite confident that this is no copyvio (and even if it was, it would easily qualify as fair use). No vote on the article itself. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Questionable nomination made to support nomination of India Today's top 10 colleges of India in an attempt to counter claims of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not an attempt to counter claims of systematic bias. Had I known about existance of "article"s on Newsweek lists earlier, I would have nominated them for deletion along with the India Today list. utcursch | talk 04:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as above and stop afd spam. Trollderella 16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete subjective, non-encyclopedic and possible copyvio, plus available elsewhere. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete: this is a primary source, and it is therefore simply not appropriate material for Wikipedia. We have an article on the lists in general: the lists themselves should merely be linked externally from that article. Consider transwiki-ing to Wikisource if we really have a legal right to duplicate this material - and if they'll take it. — Haeleth Talk 18:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft.--Isotope23 21:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 03:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Per above and below, specific reiteration of a meaningless list. Geogre 04:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or defer this nomination for deletion until the questions surrounding the legality of this document are resolved at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 11 by the appropriate personnel. Bahn Mi 09:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete non encyclopedic, 2nd hand reportage, list cruft Pete.Hurd 22:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We're not here to reproduce Newsweek's original research. flowersofnight (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if it's not a copyvio it just redundant. Foofy 23:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless it is determined that it is in violation of copyright, in which case it needs to be removed. There appear to be a large number of other lists on Wikipedia which are copied from outside sources, so we should not single this one out solely because it is related to education. Yamaguchi先生 08:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. A 60% delete vote, combined with copyright issues - leads me 'play it safe' -Doc ^ask? 18:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003)

48 KB page. Space filler. Non-encycloedic. Too many publications run too many top ten/hundered lists - such lists are highly subjective and POV. The list is available on Newsweek's website: 2003. Wikipedia doesn't need them. Delete. See also: India Today's top 10 colleges of India. utcursch | talk 05:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, per WP:NPOV. Please don't assume wikipedia users have internet access. Kappa 06:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Er, how are they reading wikipedia then? Do libraries keep a printed version? Is it available on CD? Am I missing something here? 84.65.193.133 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Not yet. See WP:1.0 and the donations page. Kappa 19:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep technically this is not a copyvio, we specify source, and a list of school names is not copyrightable data. Had we included other original content from the article THEN it would be a copyvio, a pure list is not copyrightable.  ALKIVAR™ 07:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Believe it or not, it is copyrightable. The organization of list in Newsweek's -- it ranked them. Copy the ranks, you violate the copyright. Xoloz 03:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I suspect that this is easily a copyright violation. The list is the product of Newsweek's data-gathering, analyses, and considered opinions. It is not a list of simple facts, such as, say, a list of the tallest mountains in the world; I agree that that sort of thing is not copyrightable. This list, however, is Newsweeks's, a product of their work, and as such eminently copyrightable. There are many instances of similar lists which amply demonstrate the point. For example, the ISI Science Citation Index, published every year, is a list of science journals in ranked in order of impact factor. The list is a product of ISI's analyses, and the copyright is jealously guarded (they actively ferret out and shut down any lab website that rips off a copy and publishes it on the net). US News and World rankings, same thing—their lists are all copyright. One good hint that you're doing something wrong by copy pasting this on WP: does the publisher charge readers for access to the list? If so, how can we imagine that something is not seriously wrong with taking that material and unilaterally publishing it under GFDL on our website? This is not our material to take. encephalon 07:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "does the publisher charge readers for access to the list?" - no, it's available free at [15]. Kappa 14:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - We should probably instead refer this to the fair-use Wikiproject. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless it is decided that it is a copyright violation, which is probably is. POV is not relevant because the policy is about Wikipedia expressing a pov, not recording the povs or well known commentators or organisations. This is not some minor random, list, it is a well known list produced by one of the top three weekly news magazines in the United States. CalJW 13:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Same comments as for other lists: if this were put directly on Wikipedia it would be deleted as inherently POV. Having it published first by a magazine without an NPOV rule does not address that. It's also going to change year by year. If a school comes high in the rankings, let them say so in their article, but I see no purpose in redistributing listcruft. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete lol, what a waste.  Grue  14:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Hi there. This is your friendly neighborhood IP lawyer. Listing the names of the schools can not be a copyvio, because Newsweek is simply taking a set formula and applying it to publicly available facts about the schools in question. See Feist v. Rural. The formula itself is merely an idea, and is not subject to copyright; only the expression of the idea can be protected, and the listing here does not duplicate the expression because it differs significantly from the layout of the Newsweek list. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991). I've maintained such a list - indeed one more similar to Newsweek's own - in my user space for quite some time without fear of legal action, because I'm quite confident that this is no copyvio (and even if it was, it would easily qualify as fair use). No vote on the article itself. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • IANAL, but I am not sure your judgement is correct in this case. For example: Kregos v. Associated Press and Eckes v. Card Prices Update both show that the non-protection of facts is narrowly drawn. In the first, it was held that the selection of which baseball statistics were important was a sufficient creative step to merit protection even though the stats themselves are clearly unprotected facts. In the later, a list of what are "premium" baseball cards was considered protected because of the editorial nature of what is "premium". The Newsweek list would appear to be an original expression of what are the best High Schools. What facts were used in doing this is indisputably an editorial judgment. If they had been touchy-feeling about it and merely selected "premium" schools in a subjective way, it would obviously be protected ala Eckes. Your argument rests on the position that because they used an algorithm, which relied upon some selection and weighting of facts, then the resulting ranking should be regarded as uncreative. I would instead defend the notion that such an ranking is the expression of an idea for how schools should be ranked and thus should be subject to protections. Dragons flight 22:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Kregos was not merely about the formula, but about the arrangement of the presentation of the nine categories of information that went into the formula. The AP in that case was presenting a table pretty much the same as that devised by Kregos. Had the AP merely listed the "winning" teams according to the formula (without arranging them according to the formula) they would have been off the hook. Also, I argue fair use in the alternative. This is a relatively non-creative work, with zero commercial value (it's available for free on the internet), being used for a purely educational purpose (on a non-profit, ad-free informational website). The version on my user page incorporates substantially all of the information on the list, but the version in the article uses only the names of the institutions and their order (and augments it with something Newsweek lacks - links to articles on many of the actual schools). BD2412 T 01:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Since they get ad dollars when someone looks at it, it obviously has at least a little more than zero value. But in terms of fair use the criterion with the biggest problem is the "amount and substantiality of the portion used". Aside from not explaining where the ranking came from or the score, our use is total. In most contexts our list can effectively replace Newsweek's list, which is not the intention of fair use. Dragons flight 02:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Fair use is a balancing test - three factors leaning strongly one way can outweigh one leaning the other way. BD2412 T 03:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
          • For "purpose and character", one also asks whether the use attempts to supercede or replace the original, which we fail. As an effective replacement, uses such as ours also destroy any future market value the item might have had. Since for practical purposes it would appear to have very little value, that makes this criterion largely irrelevant but can't really help us, either. So, by my count I'd say there is roughly one factor in favor and two opposed. Dragons flight 03:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I suppose I'd argue that since we provide only the school names and not the equation, we are actually driving interested consumers to visit Newsweek's website (or look for the magazine) to get the complete picture. BD2412 T 04:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
              • In an abundance of caution, however, I've yanked my own version of the list. BD2412 T
  • Comment. BD, thanks for weighing in. As I said when tagging the articles for copyvio, this is something that needs to be looked into and determined by WP's higher-ups. Lawyers being lawyers (:-)), I'm reasonably certain that one of your colleagues could put forward a good case that this is a copyright violation—indeed, Dragons flight's comments indicate this is clearly not an open-shut case, but open to some interpretation. FWIW, my reading of Feist v. Rural suggests to me a different interpretation than yours as far as this Newsweek list is concerned.

In regards to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data.

This seems to indicate that the names of the schools are not Newsweek copyright (obviously), but the creative choices Newsweek made in producing a ranking are copyrightable by them. The ranking is a creative invention of theirs—they did not simply publish the names of schools as in a directory. Note also that the WP users who placed this list on WP under GFDL did not "take the [list] and rearrange" it: the entire list is simply reproduced verbatim, and even indicates in the title that the list is Newsweek's. It doesn't seem legal to me to take their list—published in their commercial magazine and website—and simply publish it on our site under a free licence like GFDL. I also don't buy the argument that they are providing the list free: MSNBC-Newsweek get serious ad revenue from their website.

Now, whatever the truth of the matter, these issues are not our prerogative to decide. It should be up to WP lawyers to decide if they think lists like these are acceptable for WP. If they decide the risk is not worth it, we shouldn't accept them; if they decide they are quite prepared to defend it, WP:Copyrights may be amended to indicate the acceptability of such lists. But it is not something that we should be judging on an AFD, IMHO—the very idea is surreal, and I'm rather perplexed at (unqualified) keep votes being made after the Copyvio issue was raised (is the expectation that, if most people said "Keep, this is not a copyvio per XYZ anonymous editor", the closing admin should go "Ok, it seems there is a consensus that this is not a copyvio, so keep" (!?)). As it stands it seems a delete consensus is likely in which case the issue is settle with respect to these particular lists; the question whether similar lists are permissible, however, must be decided and WP:Copyrights amended accordingly. encephalon 07:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Please see this discussion on the village pump about similar lists. Dragons flight 07:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Very nice post, Df. Good of you to write that. :) encephalon 07:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Smerge into Newsweek; no need for a separate article. Compare U.S. News and World Report's mention of their college rankings. --Idont Havaname 15:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Questionable nomination made to support nomination of India Today's top 10 colleges of India in an attempt to counter claims of systemic bias.--Nicodemus75 16:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as above and stop afd spam. Trollderella 16:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Since quite a few people have voted to delete this, it is not "afd spam" as you have said. --Idont Havaname 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete subjective, non-encyclopedic and possible copyvio, plus available elsewhere. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: even if we have a right to use this material, it is a primary source, and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for copy-and-pasted primary sources. Write an article discussing lists of top schools if you think the topic needs discussion at all. And note that even if this is kept, it must be moved to a title that mentions that it is a list of U.S. high schools. It is absolutely, utterly unacceptable to present these claims in any way that could possibly be taken to imply global coverage. — Haeleth Talk 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Haeleth. —Cleared as filed. 20:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per BD2412 and the established legal precedent of Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. Silensor 21:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft.--Isotope23 21:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delele, listcruft easily obtainable from Newsweek if needed.Gateman1997 23:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Haeleth. Not particularly encyclopedic. And really to maintain NPOV we would need to have everyone else's top-ten list, too. DES ^(talk) 01:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a copyvio. Delete on other grounds, namely clutter. Are we gonna have a list for every single year Gamaliel 03:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: A specific year's specific listing by a specific magazine that will necessitate the previous year's, the next year's, the next, etc. The information is stranded, too granular, and of no significance whatever. No need to merge. As mentioned above, an account of that magazine's rankings achieves, at best, 2nd hand reportage. This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Geogre 03:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or defer this nomination for deletion until the questions surrounding the legality of this document are resolved at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2005 November 11 by the appropriate personnel. Bahn Mi 09:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: copyvio is not (for me) the problem. The problem for me is that (as stated above) this is a mirror of a primary source, and the primary source is likely POV at that. Also, there is practically no limit to the number of similar articles which could be culled from the myriad of papers and magazines which print top ten lists of just about everything as space fillers. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete as per Geogre. Pete.Hurd 22:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Copies of primary source materials don't belong on Wikipedia, regardless of copyright status. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have formed no opinion on whether this is copyvio or not, but it shouldn't be AfD'd based on that. If it is copyvio, certainly delete it. Otherwise, keep. -Greg Asche (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep on what grounds, please? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 14:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• • On the grounds that none of the delete arguments have convinced me, and I'd prefer to err on the side of caution. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need this, it's just restating something Newsweek already did. Foofy 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep unless it is determined that it is in violation of copyright, in which case it needs to be removed. There appear to be a large number of other lists on Wikipedia which are copied from outside sources, so we should not single this one out solely because it is related to education. Yamaguchi先生 08:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• "...so we should not single this one out solely because it is related to education." It wasn't. Please read what the nominator wrote. encephalon 09:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I understand what the nominator wrote, I am merely stating an observation. Yamaguchi先生 15:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete as nonsense. DES ^(talk) 16:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octodecillion

Nonsense page. Article author has deleted the {{nonsense}} flag once already, so I wanted to make a more permanent notification. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 15:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ondrej Krško

A computer programmer whose only claim to fame is creating the Robot Karol programming language (also on VfD). Less than 30 unique non-Google hits. --Carnildo 20:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable creator of non-notable programming language.--Isotope23 21:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• I believe that's non-Wikipedia mirror hits Carnildo is referring to. Delete. --Michael Snow 03:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 03:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Orange R

This is an article about a non-notable high school newspaper. Swegner 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, really low level claim to notability... too low in my opinion for inclusion.--Isotope23 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Roseburg Senior High School. Kappa 00:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 05:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pan Aryanism

Lengthy POV screed about white nationalism. Maybe there's a worthwhile article that can be written in a NPOV about "pan aryanism", but this article isn't it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 21:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV Essay.--Isotope23 21:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete soapbox, pov, not an faq, etc. Youngamerican 21:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

redirect per DanMS below. I could see someone searching the phrase "Pan Arianism" in an attempt to locate information contained in the White nationalism article. I would, however, recommend to the closing admin to go ahead and delete the article for the reasons I previously gave and, furthermore, to prevent bad-faith reverts to this article. That would make it easy for a sysop to speedy this article if it ever reappears in the article namespace. Youngamerican 03:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above; looks like a FAQ copied from a message board. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete only 500 google results.jucifer 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Youngamerican. Durova 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The attempt to impugn my motives changes my vote to strong delete. This is a POV rant, poorly written, absent of links or references, and unworthy of scholarly attention. A genuine NPOV article on the subject might be worth including if the writers demonstrated notability, which they do not. Durova 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, faq, not encyclopedia format, numerous other problems. If rewritten in a non-POV way, it might be salvagable, though not necessarily. I'm not going to do it. Vonspringer 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.81.126.251 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 November 2005.

• Redirect to White nationalism. I read both this article and the White nationalism article. Pan Aryanism is well covered in the White nationalism article. This separate article on Pan Aryanism adds nothing (in many paragraphs) that is not essentially covered in the White nationalism article. I think a redirect is appropriate due to the fact that Pan Aryanism is mentioned in the White nationalism article. ♠DanMS 01:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How can there be"scholarly references" when PA is a brand new ideaology? If any of you think your such high powered scholars, please register on our site and level your criticisms. http://www.panf.info. I promise that unlike this place, you can speak freely as long as you do not disrespect White females,use slurs against White nationalities,or advocate non defensive violence agaist an actual real-world person.

PA is bearly mentioned in that article. It does not set forth the actual standards we use to identify who is White. It makes a complete mistatement that implies that we think that all people from Iran, Syria Lebannon and Turkey are White, than says we dont consider ANYONE from the Southern ME White. That is untrue. Yes most people in those first countries are White, and most from the latter are not, but there are exceptions in both instances Why is it that you are fearful of a comprehensive article on PA? Moreover, kindly specify what is "poorly written" about it? Finally, why should my questioning of your motives effect your vote. Dont you think that is childish? If You want the FAQ format changed, I can do that, though I dont see your point You act as if the typical article in Wik. is drafted like something out of Harvard Law Review. Please try to be more realistic- Diabloblanco, Chairman PANF

• Response to the above. The problem with this article is that it reads like a screed from the organization’s informational pamphlet and it is written is such a manner as to try to persuade readers to the organizaton’s point of view. In the Wikipedia that is what is called “POV” (point of view) and that is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. An article on an organization must objectively describe the organization with no attempt at persuasion. Outside criticism of the organization should be included for balanced information. Your entire article could probably be scrubbed and reduced to about two paragraphs if written objectively. The entire FAQ section should be removed or reduced to about one paragraph. You must include sources of information and external links where possible. The article needs to be “wikified”—written in proper Wikipedia page format. The spelling, spacing, and sentence formatting need to be cleaned up and corrected. More information about the organization—or movement, or whatever it is—needs to be given. For example: How long has the organization existed? Who founded it, where, and when? How many members does it have? What notable persons are members? What kinds of activities has it participated in? What kinds of outreach does it have? What is the source of funding? What kinds of media attention has it received? Given these stated corrections, the article MIGHT be worth keeping as an objective description of the organization.

And finally: (1) Do NOT edit this AFD page other than adding your own comments, and (2) sign your entries with four tildes (~~~~) after your entry. Unsigned entries have little credibility on these pages. ♠DanMS 20:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine". — RJH 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RJH. -- SoothingR^(pour) 20:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you simply speak of changing the tenses from "we" and fitting the format to conform to your standards, that can certainly be done I can also include the sites URL,as well as URLS from "Anti PA" sources,both inside and outside of WN, together with sources (Such as the works of Dr. Coon as well as sites such as DODONA and Racial Reality (the latter BTW is non-Racist)from which PS racial theory derives However, I do not know how to write an article that might not influence someones opinion, and with all respexct, neither do you or anybody else The fact that you percieve the article as promotional may simply be due to the fact that nearly all writing about White nationaism is done in a fashion that denigrates it and without the slightest pretense of objectivity Given this, an actually neutral description may seem "promotional by comaprison. Finally, I HAVE NOT edited this page, merely added comments as per your rules67.81.126.251 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Diabloblanco, Chairman, PANF67.81.126.251 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The parts about religion, and where you state "race should come first and you should support the self determination and survivaL of all Whites no matter where they live." aren't just POV, they're plain and out discrimination. Also, it is ok when articles influence someone's opinion, it is however not ok when an article on Wikipedia clearly states the opinion as being the objective truth. Wikipedia is here to educate people, not to brainwash them. -- SoothingR^(pour) 07:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename it Pan-Aryan National Front. Since http://www.panf.info is the only site that follows the "Pan Aryanism" politics, I suggest we include the "Pan Aryan" info in a article that talks about the Pan-Aryan National Front, since we already have articles about other White nationalist discussion boards such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network. Diabloblanco, you said that the statements about Pan Arayanism in the White nationalism article is incorrect, if you find something wrong with the statement why don't you edit and correct the misstatement? Afterall, anybody can edit Wikipedia. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 05:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. FAQ with pov content. *drew 11:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Panther Pit FootBall Juniors

This is a vanity page which serves no purpose Shonufftheshogun 01:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 20:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 17:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Carina22 15:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge with Pearland High School. - Mailer Diablo 18:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pearland marching band

Advertisement for the school's marching band program, which I doubt is notable. Nightwatch／respond 22:14, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Jasmol 22:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the school. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pearland High School. Kappa 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per above. Sliggy 01:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the school. *drew 12:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Petru

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 11:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Nothing salvageable. A paragpraph (probably snipped from somewhere), without any context. Jkelly 17:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Jkelly. Xoloz 03:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Reads like a copyvio. Is this a review (by the author) of an art exhibition? Unencyclopedic, no context. MCB 23:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No useful context. *drew 03:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 18:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AgdsDFsfg and Pirate Island

Article appears to be a hoax. Searching turns up no sign that it has any basis in reality. Even if it weren't a hoax, the secret organization is unverifiable and the article is speculative ("Captain Hanrahan plans to release a book outlining and detailing the goals of Pirate Island. The book will be titled, Pirate Manifesto, and will be released in July of 2010"). —Cleared as filed. 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Thue | talk 21:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 03:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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