Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< November 17 November 19 >

Purge server cache

Contents

[edit] November 18

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 2110s

Is this article useful in any way? Unless it's useful I'd say delete. Foosher 22:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this is takling about a decade where crystal balls will be replaced by telepathic future-seeing. Harro5 23:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It doesn't even give any information about the decade though. Foosher 01:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, but only because it is empty. The pages 2111, 2112 etc. are not noted for deletion, and I can understand that. This page however does not add anything to it all, especially since it is currently empty, except for some links to years. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 20:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, empty article. Articles are not placeholders. - Mgm|(talk) 10:10, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A heavy, yet melodic band from Huntington, West Virginia.

Bandcruft. Reads like a copyvio, but I couldn't find the source. If kept, should be renamed. Delete Owen× ☎ 03:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

The author has now created Chum (band) with the same contents. Owen× ☎ 14:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The name of this band is called Chum. They released one album on CenturyMedia in 1996 which didn't chart. Have a short allmusic.com article see [1]. Don't quite meet WP:NMG. Reformed in 2004 seeking a contract. [2]. Delete. If kept, should be renamed Chum (band) as this is not the name of the band but the author's description. Capitalistroadster 03:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG as mentioned above. PJM 04:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NMG, WP:Ludicrous article titles and WP:Even if called Chum, we would not need to keep it as the chances of being confused with the dogfood are negligible Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as a copy of Chum (band). Youngamerican 20:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete per nom. Jasmol 01:23, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACI Institute

Article is CLEAR business vanity and possible advertising. There has been no presented reason as to why it should be here. move to delete this article right away. Kiwidude 02:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete private tuition company (not private school) which appears not to be publicly quoted or to meet any other criterion in WP:CORP. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is not a school per se, this is an organization which helps high school students prepare for the SAT exam. Silensor 22:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom FRS 19:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 05:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Edwardian 21:27, 22 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 keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] African Americans in the United States Congress

could be used for sinister purposes by racists. Arniep 23:54, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep Not a valid reason for nomination and obviously a notable topic. CanadianCaesar 00:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Worthy of note. The Congressional Black Caucus article outlines current African American members of Congress. This article is a historic record of African-American members of Congress and contains a good historic section. Capitalistroadster 00:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. WP:POINT Andrew Levine 00:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. —jiy (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as noteworthy topic for research. Jtmichcock 03:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep-I understand the irritation and I embarrassingly did one bad faith nomination myself.(List of agnostics, although it backfired as a bad faith nomination because I started believing what I was saying and now I think maybe it is justified to consider it) It's possible my recent adding of List of virgins could also be deemed bad faith, in that list-deleting frenzy wouldn't have made me think of it, but to be honest even when I worked on that one I thought it really was a very iffy unverifiable list. Anyway try to avoid bad faith noms and this was in clearly bad faith.--T. Anthony 03:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT.
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful list, nomination makes no sense. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, useful, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:14, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] African-Americans in the United States military before desegregation

If this said Jews instead of African-Americans people would delete it for fear it is anti-semitic. Arniep 23:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting to see in one place.--SarekOfVulcan 04:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Interesting list. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, useful, [WP:POINT]]. -- Jake 08:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and ban user Arniep. - Darwinek 10:26, 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 closing afd as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet soup (band)

not notable; vanity page; couldn't find any hits on google for the band. DanielCD 13:41, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anasanism

I can find no outside verification of this; I believe it to be a hoax. Joyous | Talk 01:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete per nom, 0 (that's zero) hits for "Anasanism" on Google. [3] --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 05:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Internally contradictory/hoax: It is a not-religion and not-philosophy, which is to say that it is not anything at all. Just a joke. Geogre 21:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete bad joke: "characterised by a belief in cheese as a holy meal, a supreme being who takes the form of a t-shirt ninj"a FRS 18:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete; unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 06:37, 21 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andrea Eng

A non-notable bio about a runner-up in a beauty contest. Someone would argue if it was listed as nn-bio under CSD A7, but this will not improve and doesn't require an entry. Harro5 10:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


  • Comment. Hi there, I added Andrea Eng to the Chinese Canadian list and created the stub, which needs to be expanded to make it more obvious? Andrea's celebrity (amongst Canadian Chinese at least) is that besides being a former Miss Vancouver, and taking on the role as Miss Universe Canada (I removed the runner-up reference), she is an extremely successful real estate broker and manager (see the external link) in Canada and in Asia. The external link lists her history, awards and honours.Southsloper 11:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Canonically non-notable. Squiddy 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BIO. PJM 12:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as suspected vanity. See her own website (www.andreaeng.com) for an example of vainglorious hornblowing. Eddie.willers 12:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per everybody. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- after reviewing WP:BIO and checking out a good sample of BIO entries, I agree with deletion. Southsloper 18:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Can this be listed for speedy deletion if the author agrees with this? Harro5 20:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:21, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aniashok

Website with no Alexa rank, 372 results for "Aniashok" on Google [4], no media... seems like an ad. Fails WP:WEB if you're into that. If this is notable in India, I can't find any evidence of it. --W.marsh 20:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This website is the first of its kind for an indian couple . this is not an ad. there is nothing sold in this site. not to be deleted

  • delete NN Pete.Hurd 06:02, 22 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 all with List of Mario characters, enemies and items. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anytime Egg

Many separate Mario articles the user has made shall be grouped within this one afd.

Sorry if there is a better method of doing this, all are welcome to fix up my mistakes:

There may be more I lost track.

All the respective articles AfDs link to here.

I have also mentioned this to the articles creator at User talk:81.229.184.249 and it seems User:ZS has before, but the comments were removed by the author. Ian 13 17:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to their associated Mario brothers game. That was the result of the original Angry Sun afd, and 81.229.184.249 overwrote the redirect page. I was going to try and revert at least Angry Sun, but my connection is too slow so I'll leave it up to the admin clearing out the afds. If not redirect, then Delete. --Syrthiss 18:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. No deletion required. Trollderella 20:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Mario characters, enemies and items. - SimonP 22:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. What the hell is this crap? (Notorious4life 05:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Merge (or else Redirect) Mushroom 11:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN, UE --Rogerd 03:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete all, subtrivial gamecruft. MCB 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't merge. Who's going to type this stuff in? And if it's linking, just skip the redirect. --Calton | Talk 07:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into List of Mario characters, enemies and items. Jacoplane 08:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete trivial substubs with no encyclopedic value.  Grue  17:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, it's perfectly good information, but it is a bit silly as individual articles. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:40, 25 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 by RHaworth as vandalism. --GraemeL (talk) 13:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apocalypse Past

Claims to be a sequel to Apocalypse Now. Verify tag has been up for a while and nothing cited. Nothing on IMDB, only results on Google are not related. Article somewhat reads like a hoax, but a vaguely clever one. Still, it's a hoax. Author's only other contributions is stuff like blanking Mariah Carey and writing " IS A BITCH" [5]. This is an unverifiable hoax. --W.marsh 02:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

    • Speedy Delete. It *is* verifiably a hoax, because it is impossible for this person to have so much information about a sequel to one of the most famous films of all time if there's zero mention of it in any form anywhere on the web. wikipediatrix 02:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy, as per previous comment.--SarekOfVulcan 04:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 07:11, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ascendant Justice

I don't play Halo, but I have this feeling that an article about a ship that was destroyed isn't really necessary. For now I'll vote Weak Delete. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 04:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Content borders on incomprehensible, and fails to assert notability of any kind. I wouldn't even have been able to tell that it had anything to do with Halo, were it not for Locke Cole's comment. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is a one-off ship from a licensed Halo novel. Delete unless someone wants to redirect it to the novel it appears in. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete incomprehensible fancruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I fixed it up a bit. I haven't read the novel yet, but the mess that was there was incomprehensible. I think it should either be deleted or linked to the novel's page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onikage725 (talk • contribs).


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

The result of the debate was closign afd as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the Future 4

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can I just vote on this one and consider it applicable to all the others listed by nom in this series? --Syrthiss 16:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • All of these are listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG, and those I've checked had the afd notice in place and pointing at that discussion for its entire length. Is there a reason you didn't just contact the closing administrator and point out that that he'd missed some of the articles? —Cryptic (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Because I was tired and wasn't 100% sure what to do in regards to these articles. I thought relisting them would be simpler, and bring them to the attention of those who properly know what to do. All of the articles pointed to the RyanVG delete debate. Saberwyn 03:02, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 17:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barbara Warner

I submit that this person's middling past success as a political candidate and current aspirations do not rise to the level of encyclopedic, no matter who her father was.

Also, the link to her campagin page suggests to me that this is being set up for promotional purposes, and my first attempt to put this up there was removed, strongly suggesting someone knows I'm right.Daniel Case 04:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Checking the page's history it's evident that your statement that your "first attempt to put this up there was removed" is false. More likely there was a problem with your cache. Perhaps, in future, you should actually make sure that your accusations are correct before you make them?

I suggest you address the article on its own merits or lack thereof rather than attack editors and impugn their motives. My motivation for adding the article is that I read on a discussion board that she was running for the NDP nomination in Toronto Danforth (an important nomination as the riding is currently held by the NDP). Therefore, this makes her notable, at least for the moment (particularly as there are no other candidates for the nomination, at least none that I know of. Therefore: Keep. Homey 04:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for the error and any mistaken impression it might have left, but still on its merits go for delete.Daniel Case 05:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- There's nothing notable here. If she doesn't win the nomination, or does win the nomination but fails to win the seat, then there would really be no point in having this article -- to me, that just proves that this article is premature until this woman has actually been elected to something. Skeezix1000 12:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete until she wins a seat.
  • Delete. Political candidates are not notable in themselves unless they have another claim to fame. Ms Warner doesn't appear to have other claims to fame or notability. Capitalistroadster 18:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is some disagreement on Wikipedia about how to handle politicians — some take the view that a person isn't notable unless and until they win, while others believe that balance requires permitting articles for every individual who stood as a candidate. In this case, however, the facts as we have them are:
  1. Inasmuch as it's looking like the federal election is imminent, it hasn't actually been called yet, and by extension the byelection to replace Marilyn Churley hasn't been called yet since it's conditional on the date of Churley's resignation.
  2. Warner is the only declared candidate for the NDP nomination to date; this doesn't necessarily imply that she's guaranteed to be the NDP candidate on the byelection ballot, as the actual nomination meeting isn't going to happen until after the byelection is called, which also leaves time for other candidates to throw their hats in the ring.
  3. Any number of things could happen between now and the election. Churley could change her mind; the whole thing could be postponed by some last-minute deal; etc.

Accordingly, I really don't see how this could be kept at the present time. Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation if future events warrant. Bearcat 20:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Possible compromise: once she wins the nomination (as she almost certainly will), create a "candidates in by-elections" section on the New Democratic Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election page, and move her bio there. If she wins the seat, return the bio to a separate page. CJCurrie 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, major party candidates, especially ones that have a good chance of winning, are verifiable and of interest to readers. - SimonP 22:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, also strong object to "unless wins" criteria. While there are certainly non notable candidates, there are also candidates who are notable even if they do not win. Stirling Newberry 03:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that there are nomination candidates who are notable prior to the nomination vote. But what is it about Barbara Warner that makes you think that she is notable? I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I am genuinely interested, especially in light of Bearcat's comments on the disagreement on Wikipedia about how to handle politicians. Most of the article as it stands now is about Marilyn Churley's federal candidacy and how she would have to resign her provincial seat once the federal writ was dropped. If Barbara Warner merits an article, then if I declared that I was seeking a major party nomination in my riding, would I also merit an article? Skeezix1000 14:27, 21 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bevrias

The home site for this software is down... and a quote from the second link on the page "to settle any questions. The main bevrias site is down so please be patient. William has simply not paid the bills yet . Also can everyone post more here so we can get active. Thanks all."[6] Makes me think this is a tiny project just getting off the ground. All other links I found were to forums, with very thin postings. Unless someone who is current in the field known more about this, I don't think this is notable. (yet - good luck to them , and all that...)

Delete - as noted.--Bookandcoffee(Leave msg.) 00:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Sad... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a web guide. Only web sites that break new ground, set the trend, or produce effects outside of their own servers should be considered. Down sites can't do those things. Geogre 21:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom FRS 18:17, 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 closing as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Big Kids Pro-Wrestling

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:56, 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 redirect to Binghamton Brigade. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Binghamton Brigadiers

team never truely existed, renamed to Binghamton Brigade after ownership change REF: [7] ccwaters 14:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong redirect If that isn't a redirect candidate, then I don't know what is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong redirect per above --Rogerd 03:51, 20 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 = keep (7/5 - i anon vote discounted).--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 12:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blog award

With prizes being things like $20 gift certificates to amazon.com I really don't think this should be up to debate.. but, alexa ranking of 570,000, no google news. Vanity/advertisement/not notable Skrewler 02:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, notable and verifiable phenomenon. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, this is more worthlessness. --86.2.56.178 03:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Anonymous votes are not counted in AfD. Rhobite 03:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Rhobite, I've removed your strikethrough of another user's vote. Your point still stands, for what it is worth. AndyJones 18:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or at most merge into List of blogging terms. Absolutely non-notable. --Timecop 03:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Depakote 05:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 12:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete blogcruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep this seems like an article about blog awards in general rather than a specific blog award, so concerns like Alexa rank, small prizes, etc don't really apply. Current article needs help, but I'm pretty sure there's an encyclopedia article in there somewhere. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep as per WP:WEB and expand. Various notable organisations such as the Guardian, [8], Reporters sans frontieres [9], the Washington Post [10] and Time Magazine [11] have run blog awards. The Online Journalism Review has run a story on blog awards [12]. Definitely verifiable and of interest outside the blogging community. Capitalistroadster 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep search for "bloggies" (which redirects to blog awards) to find 900,000+ google hits, and 2 google news items. --Quiddity 23:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obvious importance. Some vandal has a thing about blogs, apparently? --Daniel11 01:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable. Turnstep 02:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable. __earth 03:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Cap' and Quid'. Alf melmac 12:41, 23 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. — JIP | Talk 17:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brampton Fire and Rescue

I see no indicatiosn that this fire departmetn is particualrly notable, and therefore this article is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Delete. DES (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Fire departments are inherently notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Voyager640 (talk • contribs). 19:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unless otherwise notable (i.e., for fighting The Great Local Fire of 199x, etc.), I don't think a fire dept. is worth mentioning. There must be (hundreds of?) thousands of such departments across the world, with little to write about them except for their name and service area. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless Kappa finds that's it's been commemorated on a postage stamp, in which case keep. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, fire departments are inherently verifiable, and certainly just as much of interest to readers as our thousands of articles on high schools. - SimonP 22:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. A valid stub. Let it grow. Ground Zero | t 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • To... what? A list of notable fires they put out? *sigh* --Last Malthusian 18:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't personally think local fire departments are inherently notable, but I don't really have any particularly strong feelings about them either way. I would note, however, that the user who created this has an ongoing history of writing about the most absurdly non-encyclopedic topics imaginable, right down to individual bank branches — my best guess is that he genuinely believes that anything that exists merits an article. Accordingly, I'd rather redirect to Brampton, Ontario than delete, because if it's just deleted he'd almost certainly recreate it. Bearcat 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Brampton, Ontario, this article is a stub and putting it in with the city will provide context the best way. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Brampton Fire and Rescue is the fire service in Brampton? You don't say! --Last Malthusian 18:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge (and redirect per GFDL requirement) to Brampton, Ontario to provide useful context to both this and target article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. Even schools are more notable.  Grue  17:29, 22 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Crecente

900 google hits for his name but mostly are from blog incest, a few news articles. This is no tom brokaw, vanity/nn Skrewler 07:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as non-notable. There are only 108 search results that aren't duplicates. I got cleaned up urls for the searches. It's best to avoid browser specific ones as they can cause problems in other browsers. -- Kjkolb 09:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 12:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete apparent vanity, fails the Google test. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rhobite 15:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 04:30, 20 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 nonsense; about possible name of unrest after 2008 Russian elections mikka (t) 01:46, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cabbage Revolution

Neologism, unenciclopedic topic. Delete abakharev 23:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete original research. Harro5 23:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I'm somehow sure that the guy really meant it :). KNewman 23:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism and Original research. --Irpen 00:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Why not Potato Revolution? Delete original research from "certain circles". --Ghirlandajo 01:22, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carcated

Dicdef for a self-made (10 google hits) word. Punkmorten 16:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as a neologism. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:37, 20 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 closing as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Morgan

Unverified content. This article was originally created by an account from which contributions are often vandalism: 212.85.13.142 (talk • contribs). One editor on the talk page claims the subject is a top Cambridge entomologist, but the google search test [13] finds no such person; indeed searching for Charlie Morgan entomologist on Google only returns Wikipedia articles. The article's history shows that it was down for speedy deletion at one point. In any case, the article does not currently appear to be about the entomologist, even if he exists. I suspect a hoax, which will get propogated if it is not nipped in the bud. RobertG ♬ talk 11:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 12:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. Eddie.willers 12:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as hoax. Jtmichcock 12:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as an attack page. Pilatus 14:29, 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. -Splashtalk 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chip Clothier

PLEASE VOTE DESPITE COPYVIO This is an old version of Chip Clothier which is currently a copyvio. Some claiming to be Chip Clothier claims that he posted this with permission. Rather than confirming permission, I am first listing this here. It seems to be a vanity post of a non-notable business person. It was previously speedied, although I don't think it meets that criteria. --best, kevin └KZOLLMAN/TALK┐ 22:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • delete looks like a resume for a not particularly notable buisness person. DES (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 00:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as above Pete.Hurd 05:49, 22 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 to ANSWER Me!. -Splashtalk 22:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate Impulse

470 Google hits; non-notable. x42bn6 Talk 11:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge into ANSWER Me! or Debbie Goad. Don't think that a 4 issue mag stands on its own in an article, but could add more info to the answer me! article. --Syrthiss 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge to ANSWER Me! per Syrthiss. Chick Bowen 18:16, 23 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Howard

I have worries about the verifiability of this person. I have searched Google for him, and although there are several people named "Christopher Howard", I cannot find the person this article refers to. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • delete - doesn't establish notability UkPaolo 13:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless verified and shown to be expandable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. If citations could be provided to verifiable essays/books, would be notable, but my search doesn't show anything supporting notability (i.e. that Howard is non-fictional). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:55, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chum (band)

Unverifiable band vanity. Duplicates the content of A heavy, yet melodic band from Huntington, West Virginia., which (under that ghastly horrible title) was proposed for deletion above. Anville 20:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. I am from Huntington, and while these guys are popular around town, gigs at the Monkey Bar and being played on Live and Local radio shows in a 5th tier American city do not qualify as notable by wikipedia standards. I would even vote delete if these guys were similarly popular in Dayton, Pittsburg, Atlanta, or New York. They do rawk and I hope that they are one day big enough to not be a vanity article, but they just are not there yet. Sorry guys, but keep plugging away and I'm sure we will see you soon. Youngamerican 21:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not quite notable enough although mentioned on Allmusic.com. One album on indepedent label and no indication of national tour yet. Capitalistroadster
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:02, 20 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 17:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Boris

This is clearly a nonsense article which has been deleted five times before. David Hoag 19:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. David Hoag 19:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I do not believe it is nonsense being an avid follower of this religion I wonder why you are stifling my beliefs? You yourself say you enjoy writing articles on little-known subjects is that not true? Why is it that I cannot write one as well on something I believe is very important as it plays an integral role in my life? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Church of Boris (talk • contribs) 19:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Delete. Non-notable/hoax, and possibly a speedy under CSD G4. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Although you may call it non-notable I persist in stating that this page is no hoax. (Church of Boris 19:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Speedy delete. Reposts of speedied pages automatically meet CSD. PJM 19:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I was unaware other such pages had existed and were deleted but I still must say that I believe this page should remain. Church of Boris 20:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Obvious joke, hoax, etc and almost certainly unverifiable. If Church of Boris wants this to be kept he should hasten to provide good, easily and independently verifiable citations that show that this church exists and is notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability isn't even an issue. The article describes a religion; but it cites no sources, and research turns up no sources. There's no evidence that this purported religion has gained any traction in the world outside of its creator, or indeed any evidence that this purported religion exists at all outside of this Wikipedia article. This is original research, and unverifiable.

    Research turns up the fact that there are verifiable churches of Boris about which third parties have published things. There's the Church of Boris and Gleb built in the 11th century at the order of Yuri Dolgoruky in Kideksha. There's also the Orthodox Church of Boris built in 1904 in Daugavpils, Latvia. Unless the article is completely rewritten to be about those churches, delete. Uncle G 21:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment The article doesn't discuss a church building in Latvia or Russia. It's clearly nonsense babble about an alleged religion involving reincarnated cats.
  • If the "Church of Boris" as described exists, the articel needs cite sources that demonstrate this, and show it's notability. Otherwise, Delete. DES (talk) 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If it's really been validly deleted before it can be speedily deleted. DJ Clayworth 22:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The previous deletion was a speedy, giving as a reason (Hoax/prank, just the usual stuff). I thinak that is at best marginally valid, sicne "hoax" is not a reson for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, indeed "patent nonsense" specifically excludes hoaxes. Let's let this AfD run for a bit. DES (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, c'mon people. This is obviously similar to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Turn your funny bones back on and you'll clearly see it is a joke. BJAODN. --Pc13 22:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Flying Spaghetti Monster is a legitimate pop-culture parody. It's a group of people satirizing public policy and political issues. The "Church of Boris" appears to be merely one person typing nonsense into Wikipedia. Therein lies the difference. David Hoag 00:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:24, 20 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. I do not think the basis for deletion given in the nomination and "per nom" vote is correct: it is emphatically not original research, on the assumption that the article isn't completely fabricated. Tregoweth gives no reason for deletion at all: either he is agreeing with the (incorrect) nomination or it is impossible to weigh this one remaining vote (for such it is) against the single keep, who actually gives good reasons for keeping it. There is the reference to non-encyclopedic in the nomination, but this is not given any backing either by the nominator or by the other deleters. Perhaps a better nomination and more persausive deletion arguments in a renomination are required. (Note that during the time I wrote this closure, some irrelevant comments were removed from the bottom of the debate [14].) -Splashtalk 22:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing logos of Hanna-Barbera

Almost completely original research, and not encyclopedic as well.--FuriousFreddy 22:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep As I'm an inclusionist, interested in geeky articles like this. If its possible to host this on some wikicities and link to this from the main page I'd be for it, but since Wikipedia isn't paper, there's no reason to delete stand alone articles that contain information, that interests some people.--Nick Dillinger 09:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. tregoweth 22:25, 27 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 23:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Closing logos of Paramount Television

Almost completely original research, and not encyclopedic as well.--FuriousFreddy 22:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as with Looney Tunes logos. Gazpacho 00:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Save because there are no pictures of these closing logos yet. --User:WikiFan71281
  • Delete. tregoweth 03:11, 27 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cyclical Dumbening

Self-proclaimed original research - squibix 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If anyone can re-write this in a bit more academic style and provide a few refs, then keep. The problem is worldwide. -- RHaworth 17:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the place for this, even if the problem is worldwide. Anville 20:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete original research. - Mgm|(talk) 16:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research/essay. Aecis praatpaal 11:59, 22 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 closing as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dalton McGuinty's Kids' Computer Game

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:56, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Howard

Vanity page. Nevada-California International Consortium, NIC gets 43 Ghits.

  • Delete as per my nom. User has created only one other article so Userfy seems inappropriate. Dlyons493 Talk 20:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete NN Bio. Pete.Hurd 05:57, 22 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 redir to Extinct language. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Language

Non-notable band. No major record label. Delete —Brim 06:23, 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 keep. – Rich Farmbrough 17:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Death by Chocolate

Not enclopedic. The article is too vague; there's no specific dish by this name. Should be broken up, with a stub or dab for the Diane Mott Davidson book, and then separate articles for specific dishes or types (e.g., flourless chocolate cake, molten chocolate cake). Keithlaw 15:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

More evidence: I just pulled out two great cookbooks, Joy of Cooking and Baking Illustrated. The former is something of an encyclopedia of cooking, while the latter is a more recent but very thorough catalog of baking recipes. Neither has a listing for "Death by Chocolate." Both have listings for "flourless chocolate cake." Joy has a listing for "molten chocolate cake," while BI has a listing for "fallen chocolate cake." | Keithlaw 15:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe it is a specific recipe - but I'm no expert. Unless it can be edited to include substantial context and references Delete per nom. PJM 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Death By Chocolate is a general term for any baked that uses a lot of chocolate; everyone has their own DBC cookies or cake or brownies or donuts or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless rewritten to be about the bakery store/chocolatier chain of the same name. 23skidoo 19:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep While there is no specific recipe with this name, enough restaurants have produced dishes with the name that it's become well-known. DJ Clayworth 22:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wrote the stub, so obviously I'm in favor of keeping it. Even so, it's a pretty well-known phrase (341k google hits). It's not a specific recipe, which is why it should be a fairly general article, like snowcone. I think it's well within the scope of the encyclopedia, although I'll admit that it could be expanded.-- stillnotelf has a talk page 02:17, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • My issue here is not that it's not a specific recipe - it's not even a specific type of dish. It's just a marketing term, and not a standardized or trademarked one at that. It can refer to a traditional cake, a layered cake, a flourless cake, a molten chocolate cake (which is more of a soufflé), ice cream, etc. Not to repeat myself, but I think this page should be deprecated to a dab that points to the book, the chain of stores, and to pages on specific dishes that might be called Death By Chocolate. (And incidentally, I couldn't agree less with your contention that you can't make a DBC dish at home. But that's not why I AfD'd it.) | Keithlaw 03:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 05:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Death By Chocolate is a common item on the dessert menu of restaurants and pubs, in the UK at least. A generic humourous term for a cake/pudding which uses a huge amount of chocolate. --StoatBringer 13:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Widely known term CalJW 14:52, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep My wife read the book, she wouldn't want me voting any other way --Rogerd 03:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Keithlaw. Yes, it is a term in use, but there is not really anything encyclopedic that can be said about it -- it has no specific definition except "dish with a lot of chocolate", or in reference to dishes on the menu of specific local restaurants. MCB 07:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no prob with any of the pie articles, there is no definitive pot pie for example, I have no problem with this article. Alf melmac 08:37, 23 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. Robert T | @ | C 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dee C. Lee

Unconvinced about the notability of Dee C. Lee. The article's genuine, but I don't class being a backup singer for Wham and the Style Council, or her marriage to Paul Weller to make her inherently notable for an encyclopedia article. I'd propose a mention in the Style Council and Paul Weller articles, and deleting this article (which if you look at the edit history has mainly been used as an advert for a forthcoming Style Council book. Her date of birth also seems in question, see talk page. UkPaolo 11:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete and merge info into notes perhaps as suggested by nom. --Syrthiss 16:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as D. C. Lee. Member of two notable groups and notable as well for marriage with Weller. I'd heard of her and she has an Allmusic.com article albeit a brief one. Capitalistroadster 18:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Hall Monitor 20:59, 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, if the various sockpuppets and meatpuppets are ignored, no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Democracy & Nature

Vanity page, not obviously notable. Google Scholar shows very few instances of citations from other journals. Editorial board of magazine is trying to maintain control over content, as shown by talk page. SarekOfVulcan 03:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. This seems to be an attempt to end an edit war and disagreement through an afd vote. Not the way to do it. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but I don't feel it's the case. I don't have a dog in this fight: I'm just trying to insure the integrity of Wikipedia. This article came to my attention while I was following RfPP after the Freemasonry edit war, and I was quickly convinced that if the editorial board (all of whom post from IPs, not named accounts) was going to insist on having the article exactly the way they wanted, then it qualified as Vanity. You can do the same external research I did: a Google search on the title shows that most of the top references appear to be just references to the journal's existance, or reprints of articles. A Google Scholar search shows that very few of the articles are cited more than once or twice.--SarekOfVulcan 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not familiar with impact factors outside of the natural sciences, I don't think median citation rates of one or two sound all that bad for a journal with such a focus. Pete.Hurd 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment First, it is the Editorial Board itself which formally requested the deletion of the page when it became clear that Wikipedia could not protect our page from vandalism. But to characterise the page of the journal as a ‘vanity page, not obviously notable’ is only revealing –to say the least--of the philistinism of the author of this comment. D&N was an antisystemic Left journal and citations from other journals are bound to be few and sparse, as it is clear that the mainstream journals (as well as those of the reformist Left) which dominate the field do not bother to deal with anticapitalist journals, particularly today. Had he checked citations made with respect to other serious antisystemic theoretical journals like Anarchist Studies, for example, he would have found even fewer of them! Second, serious research on the significance of a journal obviously cannot be carried out through a Google search, which refers exclusively to electronic citations. Had your ‘researcher’ checked with the authentic Alternative Press Index (only in print form!) he would have seen dozens of citations of abstract reprints from Democracy & Nature. Third, it is an obvious lie that the members of the Editorial Board insisted “on having the article exactly the way they wanted”. In fact, even though it was apparent that we faced a systematic attack by a single disgruntled ex-member of the journal we took on board several of the suggested changes, but clearly we could not accept a blatant distortion of historical facts that he insisted on imposing upon us for his own personal reasons, as a reading of the exchanges in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Democracy_%26_Nature makes abundantly clear. (Member of the Editiorial Board) 11:16, 18 November 2005
  • Keep it!

The Journal contents still very interesting articles of many prolific writers of Left. This is a clear attempt to end the discussion when he/they (Sharek of Vulcan)have no 'arguments' left other then his hatred! R.H.This vote & comment left by anonymous User:195.179.14.235

  • Keep. Journals of this type are inherently notable. No one "owns" a Wikipedia article. If there are issues over the NPOV status of the article, then it should go to Wikipedia's arbitration folks or simply protected. 23skidoo 13:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I dispute that journals of any type are inherently notable - many of them have pitifully small circulation, no academic credibility and they are often short-lived; many of them are vehicles for vanity, either of the editor or the contributors. Whether that is the case with this one I have yet to determine. It certainly looks as if this one may well be notable. Also, while the nomination might be in good faith there's plenty of evidence of bad faith in the edit history, so it might be hard to get to the objective truth. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it!!!!!

Keep the D&N page as it is. The themes and topics are insightful; they offer an alternate perspective not to be found in any other journal. The anti-systemic nature of D&N is refreshing, and provides a valuable research tool. Viji November 18, 2005This comment & vote left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153

  • Delete. A Google Scholar search shows 159 citations, of which 133 are within the journal itself. In the absence of any information on subscriber base, and given that the magazine is defunct, and given the long-running dispute re inclusion or non inclusion of text re the history of the journal, I'd say that the article is substantially unverifiable, and that evidence of notability is absent. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. For your information, among subscribers to D&N have been the following libraries: University of Oregon; Bath University,UK; Chaire De Sociologie University of Paris; Universita di Padova Italy; University of Waterloo-Ontario; Dept of Linguistics, Cambridhe, MA; Univ of Chicago Press;MIT Press Journals; Library of Congress, Washington DC; Dept of Philosophy, Univ. of Texas; Philosophy Dept, Swinburne Univ. Australia --full list from Taylor & Francis/Carfax. Also, the journal is not defunct but has been succeeded since 2004 by the online journal The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy (Member of the Editorial Board).14:46, 18 November 2005
      • The fact that you cite University of Bath rather than, say, Oxford or Cambridge, is interesting (Library of Congress is famously promiscuous in its buying). So, how many actual subscribers were there? Personal and institutional (two numbers) will be fine. Or do I need to walk next door and ask? As it happens I work next door to Taylor & Francis! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it!

I believe that the page should be kept as it is at the moment (with no separate sections for two members of the IAB) because information about a journal of such a scope is of an obvious encyclopaedic value. We should not permit a "disagreement" of a whole group of people with a single person (who hardly used arguments), to influence our judgement. D&N was (and is, in its newest digital form and name) one of the last independent anti-systemic journals. We cannot base our opinion about it in google search, or even on the number of subscribers for that matter, but on the quantity and quality of the condributions and the significance of the contributors themselves!!! And since when an encyclopedia must select its entries on the basis of popularity? User:Dimitri 18:57, 18 November 2005This comment and vote were added by anonymous User:212.205.76.134

      • Here is a more comprehensive list of some of the main subscribers to D&N: UNIV OF CO AT DENVER; WASHINGTON & LEE UNIVERSITY; MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY; BROCK UNIVERSITY,CANADA INDIANA UNIVERSITY; UNIV OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN; SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY; IOWA STATE UNIV; UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH FLORIDA; LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS; UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS; STANFORD UNIVERSITY; SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY; HAMBURG LIBRARY; BERNARD HAMES LIBRARY, AUSTRALIA; UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES; UNIVERSITY OF CANTERBURY, KENT; UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA, PORTUGAL; LOYOLA UNIVERSITY; GODDARD COLLEGE, VT; HARVARD COLLEGE LIBRARY;INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL HISTORY, AMSTERDAM;FORMAZIONE II BIBLIOTECA, PALERMO;WASHINGTON & LEE UNIVERSITY; BROCK UNIVERSITY; INDIANA UNIVERSITY;UNIV OF TEXAS AT EL PASO; UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN;IOWA STATE UNIV;UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS;SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY;BATH UNIVERSITY.

Sorry, Oxbridge is not in the list but the LSE library is included! I wonder however whether you have checked similar details for the other journals hosted by Wikipedia and we are not going to continue satisfying your curiosity(?) anymore...(Member of the Editorial Board) 16:44,18 November 2005

        • If they come to AfD I will ask precisely the same question. The fact that you appear to be relying on sock-puppets to keep your entry on WP also carries certain implications. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for mine given the list of subscribers and list of authors. Content disputes should preferably be sorted out on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 17:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Definitely a notable journal with many notable contributors and editorial board members. If members of the editorial staff really did request deletion because they couldn't control the article content, that's idiotic on their part; but it doesn't make the journal less notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, seems notable enough. I don't think the total number of subscribers is significant with journals like this; it says more that a number of respectable academic libraries use their limited funds to buy it. (By the way - since Oxbridge was brought up by somebody else - it seems that it can be found in the Radcliffe Science Library in Oxford.) --Tupsharru 19:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever! Hasn't anybody else noticed that those who support Democracy & Nature's editorial board almost always write either using no username, or simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards? See especially the Talk pageof the Democracy & Nature entry. This is turning into a game of shadows, wherein those with more time to spare do their best to give the impression of massive support for their viewpoint. And Wikipedia has witnessed previous occurences of such behaviour. DisposableAccount 00:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "simply using an ad hoc username which hasn't been used anywere else in Wikipedia and will therefore probably be discarded soon afterwards" -- like, say, "DisposableAccount"?--SarekOfVulcan 01:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Did it occur to you that most of them (I am talking in particular about members of the Editorial Board and readers of D&N) may have never participated in Wikipedia discussions in the past—something that could explain their frequent editorial mistakes, their lack of experience about user names etc? Does all this mean that there is some sort of organissed campaign, as you imply, or does it simply mean that that the couple of supporters (who may just be the same person using different user names) of the biased ex member of the EB who attempted to vandalise the D&N page and created all this fuss simply have run out of arguments and have resorted now to plot theories?(Member of the Editorial Board)01:05, 19 November 2005
    • *sigh* You know, MotEB, you make it very hard to WP:AGF.--SarekOfVulcan 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • weak keep I don't buy that this journal is NN. Other reasons to delete include that it's the easy way to end an edit war between one or more apparent kooks, whereas keeping will consume admin time and effort for the forseeable future. Deletion for this reason doesn't sit well with me, nor do the hints of editorial board expectations of maintaining control over the content of article. If this journal is notable, then the article will just have to remain an admin pest case Pete.Hurd 06:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • strong keep It is more than obvious that this journal is trully important. It is really depressive to characterize the people behind it as "kooks", when the vast majority side explain again and again its significant reasons of arguing. And the interest in objectivity shouldn't be labelled as "maintaining control over the content of article".User:Thessalon 14:00, 22 November 2005This comment and vote added by anoymous User:213.16.239.19
  • More than obvious? That it is truly important? Excellent, then there should be absolutely no trouble whatsoever in citing references to support that claim: academic journals for the arts, for example, enthusiastically discussing the magazine and its importance to literary culture. Half a dozen or so will easily persuade me. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Half a dozen or so? Are you interested in quantity over quality? It is obvious that the journal is important because of the quality its anti-systemic analysis. Whereas the reformist quantitative Left takes the existing SYSTEM of the internationalzed market economy for granted and would like to improve its functioning by putting a smiley or green face on it. The argument here is whether to keep the D&N page as the EB has written. It is obvious that the comments to keep are emphatically and decisively in favor of the EB. So why keep this page up for now approaching a week? user:john 20:45, 22 November 2005This comment left by anonymous user:67.84.97.153
  • More than obvious? If you are interested in the number of references to the journal check out the Alternative Press Index published by the Alternative Press Center in Baltimore.User:Aruna 21:10 22 November 2005This comment left by anonymous user:67.84.97.153
  • See, it's like this. The world is full of small literay (and other) journals. Some are significant, others are not. Thus far, the proof of this journal's notability has been, to my reading, confined to arm-waving and argument by assertion, so I asked for some externally verifiable evidence in the form of discussions in recognised authorities which themselves recognise the merit of this journal. So, to be absolutely clear, I am quite happy to believe that this might have been a noteworthy journal, but as yet no verifiable evidence has been cited to prove it. Is that really too much to ask? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 11:32, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Last two comments from User:john and User:Aruna were from the same IP.

  • Wow! Brilliant deduction! But john and Aruna are two different people. What's your problem? user:john3:50. 23 November 2005This comment left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153
  • Delete nn defunct journal; if this article is kept it needs to be cleaned up for content. Instead of the current ra-ra blurbspeak, how bout something on why it failed? Eusebeus 09:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep seems reasonable enough journal. Alf melmac 13:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepKeep the D&N page. It has great research information and analysis.user:tommy12:22,Nov 23,2005This comment & vote added by anonymous user:67.84.96.84
Oh, now this is interesting. 67.84.96.84, voting keep here, has a very similar reverse DNS address to 67.84.97.153, voting keep here. In addition, the registered account Tommy hasn't contributed for quite a while, so I doubt this is him. --SarekOfVulcan 17:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep* It would be more useful to the discussion if people like Eusebeus do their research before writing comments so that they do not give the impression that they do not know what they are talking about. The journal is neither defunct nor failed! It simply changed names (as it has done in the past) and form (online instead of printed). If changing a journal to online is considered a failure, then shall we say that Wikipedia is also a failed encyclopedia? User:john 15:00 23 November 2005This comment left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153
  • Keep I know many articles in greek (printed) magazines, here in Greece, reffering to D&N and its articles. Also, I' ve seen references in essays from the Institute for anarchist studies, or the on-line magazine "Communalism" and other sites, especially anarchists ("coalition against civilization" etc). I just want to remind to "Just zis Guy, you know?", that D&N is NOT an arts or literary culture magazine!!! Its a radical political journal, and D&N isn't responsible if radical politics are not so preferable these days! User:B.J.This comment and vote left by anonymous User:212.205.76.134
  • Comment*It is clear that Just zis Guy, you know? has never seen in his life an antisystemic Left theoretical journal, otherwise he would not have asked for some “externally verifiable evidence in the form of discussions in recognised authorities”! Can he describe for our benefit which are these “recognised authrorities”, as fas as journals of the antisystemic Left is concerned? We referred him to the authoritative Index of Aleternative Press but did not pay any attention to it. Similarly, the fact that some of the most significant university libraries in the world are subsuscribers to the journal is of non importance to him. Furthermore, had he gone through the dozens of references in Google (which of course give only a glimpse of the real significance of the journal as they mention only electronic references) he would have discovered that it is a distortion of the truth what was mentioned above by SarekOfVulcan that “most of the top references appear to be just references to the journal's existance”. In fact, many refer to specific articles used by other scholars et al. This is why the journal has received and published so many contributions by important theorists in the Left, who would never have submitted an article to an obscure journal. I am also sure that most other journals hosted by Wikipedia do not satisfy any of the above criteria, not to mention his own criteria. If this is not a biased attitude, I wonder what the definition of bias is…(Member of the Editorial Board)
  • Keep If the administrators have done their homework they would conclude that D&N is notable. Sherlock Hemlock of Vulcan, your claim above that because one address has a very similar DNS address as some other address allows you to doubt the existence of Tommy and by inference the two addresses are one and the same, is illogical. Sherlock Hemlock of Vulcan your ruminations are irrational and since, according to your presupposition that Vulcans can only be rational, your identity is placed into question. Your claim that similarity is identical is senseless.

You should know that “identical” twins are not truly identical, even though they are cloned from the same fertilized egg. Next, since there are no things as aliens (Vulcans) you must be something other. So to identify your self with something that does not exist is a real misunderstanding of your self. Your ego ideal (Sarek) is unreal—-one of wholeness and total rationality. Your image is based on a misunderstanding and therefore, you cannot fit into an ever changing (rational-irrational) world. Identity exists only in the ideal world of mathematics, everything else is difference. Your fallacy consists of, if A is identical with B, then every property that A has B has and vice versa, but you state that A and B are very similar, and similarities are not identical, so you make a false assertion: I doubt Tommy is Tommy, or the person who signed Tommy is not Tommy. The seeming identity of the two addresses has frozen your mind. Loosen up so that you can become more genuine. user:john5:32 (thankstaking day in america) 24 November 2005This comment and vote left by anonymous User:67.84.97.153

  • ' ' ' keep ' ' 'In researching the D&N journal one can find ways to change society. D&N explores beyond all leftist ideologies which are in reality reformist and not revolutionary .In reading the responses and comments I have come to believe that an individual that hides in a fantasy vulcan world is parallel with the capitalist system that also provides society with myths and irrational concepts that distract societies from reality as the present situation in vulcan sarek's life proves.Thus Sarek is unable to differentiate reality from fantasy. This is why He doubts I am Me. In reality I know I am me. Sarek lives through a fantasy world to justify his exsistence.

This is a valid reason why D&N should be kept because it demystifies all ideologies.user :tommy12:19 Nov 24 ,2005This comment and vote left by anonymous User:67.84.96.84

No Personal Attacks, please.--SarekOfVulcan 18:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a bit mystified as to why the personal attacks are deemed necessary. Is it not reasonable to ask for some evidence as to why an article should be included? It seems to me that we're being asked to keep it because it is unverifiable, which is a little odd. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 19:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment. My claim that you may have never seen an antisystemic theoretical journal before was corroborated by the fact that you asked for “externally verifiable evidence in the form of discussions in recognised authorities”. THis was not therefore a personal attack but a very reasonable assumption and as such was read by any unbiased user. Everyone who has read a similar antisystemic journal in the past is aware of the fact that there are no independently recognised authorities for this type of journal and the only verification could come from the sources I mentioned, which once again, you ignored!(Member of the Editorial Board)
So you are saying that thye evidence of its importance is the impossibility of verifying its importance? Must remember that next time I want to keep a pet article :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 21:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly a valid topic. Not a very good article, but we don't settle that by deletion. Given Pinter, Chomsky, and Bookchin on its board, obviously notable. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Note that this whole thing started when the anonymous Member of the Editorial Board (and others?) repeatedly removed a reference in the article to the D&N article where Bookchin severed his connections with the journal because of his philosophical disagreements with the founder.--SarekOfVulcan 21:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment This distortion of facts is really shameful. First, the reason that we objected the vandalism of a disgruntled ex member of the journal had nothing to do with the reference to Bookchin’s letter of resignation. As it was repeatedly stressed by members of the Editorial Board and the founder of D&N himself (see D&N discussion page), the reason we objected to this vandalism was that it added separate sections just for two members of the Advisory Board (Bookchin and Castoriadis) on the basis of the blatantly false assertion that “the main theoretical influences of the journal" were the work of these two writers. This, despite the fact that their articles and those of their supporters constituted only 12 percent of the total contributions published and that the programmatic aims of the journal, published in each issue, were clearly differentiated from their work! Second, Bookchin’s attitude was condemned by the entire Editorial Board [15], although it was not particularly surprising to us given that, in the past, he had repeatedly expressed his discontent to the Editorial Board for the fact that the Advisory Board included the names of other people (e.g. Chomsky) with whom he had political disagreements . It is clear that SarekOfVulcan uses here the well known old trick of relying on the fact that very few pople will bother to read the relevant exchanges before they draw their conclusions!(Member of the Editorial Board)
  • Comment According to Wikipedia guidlines there is a limit of five (5) days within which a decision has to be taken on an article for deletion. Despite the fact that the proposal for deletion was made on November 18, 2005 (today is the 26th of November) no decision has yet been made. I wonder whether this is due to the fact that two administrators, who are obviously determined (for reasons known only to them) to have the page deleted have not yet managed to get a simple majority in favor of deletion. In fact, the consensus as expressed by the vast majority of users and administrators who took part in the discussion, voted in favor of keeping the page and only one other administrator supported the above mentioned administrators. This, even when all the "anonymous users" voted to "keep" were arbitrarily deleted with the insulting description used by one of the administrators as "dodgy sigs"--just because of their concern that new users did not read the Wikipedia guidelines about registration and/or get a user name! User: Sandy 13:20, 26 November 2005

Can't you even avoid lying when the evidence is on this page? The only substantial deletion has been when the MotEB removed his/her personal attack on me. No votes have been deleted. I apologize, that was out of line.--SarekOfVulcan 20:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC) Actually, I just re-read wikipedia guidelines, and it says nothing of the sort. The deletion policy says that you can't delete it faster than 5 days, and after that, it's moved to a holding area until an admin has time to act on it. There are a whole lot of AfD nominations older than this one that haven't been acted on, either. (And please sign your posts correctly.)--SarekOfVulcan 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• As usual, [SarekOfVulcan] is economical with the truth. He forgot to mention for instance that I removed my “personal attack on him” just a couple of minutes after it was published by an obvious error of mine and that my comment followed his own personal attack on me when he accused me for bad faith—a comment that he never removed. (Member of the Editorial Board)


  • Comment When a proposal was made to delete the Parecon page on 20 July 2005, a decision was made by 28 July to keep it! In the Democracy and Nature case, the overwhelming majority of administrators, users, and anonymous have voted to keep it. Still, despite the fact that the proposal for the deletion of Democracy and Nature was made on 18 November, 10 days later the administrators have not yet decided anything on that, although the guidelines clearly state, "AfD is where Wikipedians decide whether problematic articles be deleted or kept. Items sent here usually wait five days or so while debates take place on whether the article should be deleted or not...the page is then kept, deleted etc." By the way, in the Parecon case the AfD was made by an anonymous user, whereas an administrator made the AfD in the Democracy and Nature case. POINT of ORDER: Make a decision now! User:Sandyshevack 16:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Admin? What admin?--SarekOfVulcan 01:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I have to say that if I were the closing admin, having seen the way in which the anon IPs have attempted to forge wikisigs (something I've not seen in any other AfD debate I can recall), I'd discount all anonymous votes. But I am not an admin either. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 16:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not "anonymous", I want you to restore my vote. What should I do about it? User:Thessalon 17:40, 28 November 2005 (anonymous comment by User:213.16.239.13)
  • KEEP You have NO RIGHT to erase me again. What is the reason for acting so hard? Why do you condemn so many people in anonymity? Probably because we are so many AGAINST your opinion? Kim Bruning writes below: "Sometimes people outside wikipedia find out about a VFD, and will want to leave their comments, which is something that we've always allowed". What's with this case? Former Thessalon, User:TheVel 20:45, 28 November 2005.
  • Keep Since "Just zis Guy" has personally attacked me, john, below (footnotes), as "anonymous" and again above as a "forger" of wikisigs, I take exception to his irresponsibility as I'm sure others do who have been labelled the same! Furthermore, as Kim points out below, just because we are new to Wikipedia does not mean we can be both attacked vituperatively and votes discounted as "Just zis Guy" would have it. The D&N article is verifiable and presents an analysis that is sorely needed in today's neo-liberal propaganda. I vote to KEEP D&N! User:john 15:20, 28 November 2005

[edit] Footnotes

  • Quick footnote (so keep it in the foot! ;-): Not every very very new user is a sock. Sometimes people outside wikipedia find out about a VFD, and will want to leave their comments, which is something that we've always allowed. Kim Bruning 08:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: I have tagged several comments with the anon IP from which they were posted. In some cases these have been "signed" with genuine usernames. As far as I can tell, of these, only User:tommy has any edit history, and that account appears to be mostly dormant. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 10:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am user "Tommy" and the anonymous user claiming to be me in this vote, is not. Tommy 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dewvoids

No google results for this name, no allmusic.com entry, and does not appear to meet an criteria of WP:MUSIC. -- malo (talk)/(contribs) 23:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. - Bobet 02:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Punkmorten 12:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:36, 20 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. 01:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drew Morrison

This page should be deleted because the rockstar, drew Morrison, does not exist in print or web resources. This is obviously some fictious post put up by some kids to destroy the credibility of Wikipedia. As a respectable organization, this page should be deleted immediately.

  • Delete. When I looked at it, it was a copy of the Articles for deletion page. I have updated the latest edit for a real cartoonist see [16]. Capitalistroadster 02:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. 484 hits on Google. [17] --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 05:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Was the animator of Mardi Gras:Made in China [18]. Don't know whether they quite qualifies him under WP:BIO. Approximately 9 unique hits on Google search of which the New York Times movie link would be the only one establishing notability. Delete Capitalistroadster 06:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If you check the history you'll find this article was created back in June and was originally about a musician for a band called "Point of No Return". At some point it became something else. Before deleting, I suggest checking the history to make sure that a) this isn't a vandalism byproduct and b) that this might not be better served becoming a disambiguation page. That assumes both musician and cartoonist are notable enough to make the cut. No vote at this time. Delete based upon additional research by others. 23skidoo 15:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I saw that when I voted above, but a search for "Drew Morrison" and "Point of no return" on Google only turns up this Wikipedia article (or a mirror). [19] Neither "Drew Morrison" is notable, unless I've missed something. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 13:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with congratulations to the subject on so successfully embodying his pursuit of the obscure. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:28, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ducentillion


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EG Wrigley and Company Ltd.

Delete. A company that went bust in 1923. Don't know if it met WP:CORP in 1915 but it obviously doesn't now. Nothing exceptional about it stated. Marskell 12:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep on the basis that this company, if verified, forms a part of the history of the UK's major manufacturing region. Eddie.willers 12:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I have somewhat mixed feeling about this one, but feel I sway just on the side of keep for the reasons given directly above. Evil Eye 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If it deserved to be kept in 1915, and it probably did, it deserves to be kept now. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. CalJW 14:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep an important piece of British Automotive history --Rogerd 04:05, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 17:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EM -eNCHANT arM-

WP:NOT a crystal ball

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 19:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Indeed, the classical looking glass. Sure we can have an article when the game is released and it has a large enough fanbase, but not now. The server is experiencing enough trouble without this. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 18:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
If that is your view, why not nominate every title at List of PlayStation 3 games or List of Xbox 360 games? Also, server load has never been an excuse to delete as Wikipedia has no official limit on the number of articles. The servers must, and will, catch up with the traffic. --anetode╔╝ 03:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep The game is being released on the Xbox 360, see [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] Major retailer offering the game This is NOT a case of baseless prediction, and the game is quite notable in being the first RPG to be offered for the Xbox 360, and the first game to use multiple discs on the 360. --anetode╔╝ 03:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Anetode. The fact it's going to be released is no longer in question, so Crystal Ball doesn't really apply. - Mgm|(talk) 09:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, verifiable. Crystal Ball does not apply. K1Bond007 22:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it is a game confirmed to be in production and will be released. ~ Hibana 06:45, 23 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Exit The Ride

An unsigned band that only distributes tracks on the internet. I don't believe it meets WP:MUSIC --best, kevin └KZOLLMAN/TALK┐ 05:24, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing No Video on iMac G3 After Mac OS X Install

Clearly not encyclopedic. Might be of some use to Wikibooks. Note that (apparently) the same user also submitted it here, a CC-NC-licensed wiki. —Cryptic (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete UE --Rogerd 03:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if one experiences such a problem, go to the Apple support page. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual or a repair manual. There are plenty of websites and books that offer this type of information. •DanMS 05:14, 24 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Washington Fire Company

No indication of any particular notability or encyclopedic value. There are tens of thousands of such fire departmetns, most not relevant to anyone outside their service area, and indeed almost totally unknown outside said area. A paragraph in Upper Dublin Township, Pennsylvania or Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, possibly with an extrnal link, would serve better to present such relevant information as there is on this topic. There is a good deal of very local history in this article, but many many local institutions could have as much history, and i don't see that it is notabel or encyclopedic. Delete. DES (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Important public service and a pretty decent article. Too long to merge with the township. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Sjakkalle --Rogerd 01:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle. Clear example of how a bit of meat to an entry can turn it into an actual article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Can't think of a good reason to delete an article about a fire department. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 24 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? 12:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gallynappers

Not quite nonsensical enough for a speedy delete, unfortunately. Reyk 23:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete what is certainly nonsense. Harro5 23:45, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gutterslang

unverifiable neologism dictdef

  • Delete nominator. Article creator's only other significant contribution is Sacklicker, which is being AFD'd for the same reason—see Mondojava (talk • contribs). --KGF0 ( T | C ) 19:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Edit: forgot to add only 10 Google hits most of which are to a person using that nickname. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 20:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not familiar with your process. These terms were frequently encountered by me in the grunge/music culture in Seattle. How can these be supported? Was also considering adding several more Gutterslang words and phrases I know of. Mondojava 00:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:15, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Half empty band

Does not meet WP:NMG. Also contributed by anonymous vandal whose been warned four times DVD+ R/W 16:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non notable band. I say get rid of it!--Alhutch 17:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 19:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Notability is not part of deletion policy, but, fortunately, verifiability is. Trollderella 19:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. We should expand CSD#A7 to cover bands, given the sheer amount of nn bandcruft that gets unanimously deleted. Radiant_>|< 01:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and I'm with Radiant on expanding CSD A7.  RasputinAXP  T C 18:36, 23 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hot breakfast

Just vandalism, I'm sure Maccoinnich 01:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. -- I love Hot breakfasts. -- Femmina 02:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete -- I agree with Maccoinnich, I prefer Weetabix Bevo74 08:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as silly vandalism. The only reference for this is from a source of doubtful verifiability from IRC logs so it is not verifiable. After deletion, speedy or otherwise, redirect to Breakfast.Capitalistroadster 09:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What User:Capitalistroadster said (I've taken the liberty of fixing up some of the formatting on this supage, by the way). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete and then redirect to Breakfast per Capitalistroadster. --Metropolitan90 15:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete probably the most nauseating spurious neologism to date. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, unsourced, nonverifiable FRS 18:48, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jawn

borderline nonsense and speedy delete, but just not notable or encyclopedic Gator (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neo dicdef. PJM 19:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable neologism. Note that if this is deleted, Jawndel should probably go too. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Jawndel has also been nominated. please feel free to vote there too.Gator (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:37, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jawndel

nn nonsense and certainly not encyclopedic. Note that jawn is also up for AFD and will, likely, be deleted as well. Gator (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, or {{Move to Wiktionary}} if verified (which I doubt). --KGF0 ( T | C ) 20:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:14, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] J.J. Odumosu

Article claims that this person introduced Christianity to a single city in Nigeria, but I could not find any evidence of that. However, he's non-notable even if it is true. His descendant's article, Olajide Odumosu, has already been deleted. -- Kjkolb 00:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, possibly even Speedy. Google's only hits on this specific name lists this Wikipedia entry, a redirect, and a page showing where the Nigerian flag is used (3 hits total). [25] --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 05:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, if verified (which seems unlikely). Kappa 08:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable Prashanthns 16:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unverifiable. The article needs to give us the verification. If we, in addition, try to supply that want and cannot, then we cannot keep the article. Geogre 21:00, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Randolph Riley

Tentative nomination under several possible categories. Firstly as a nn bio, though I'm unfamiliar with the notability attached to being a former district attorney. Secondly as unverified, Google searches for "John Randolph Riley"+"District Attorney"+"Wake County" show up nothing, ditto "John Riley"+"District Attorney"+"Wake County" along with numerous similar searches. Finally it currently appears to be mostly a vanity/memorial page, though if they guy does prove to be notable enough for inclusion it can doubtless be cleaned up a bit. GeeJo (t) (c) 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. This appears to be a cut and paste of an obituary. Not notable. Jtmichcock 12:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for all reasons given above. Also, he only served 'for a time' as a DA - it wasn't even his métier. Eddie.willers 12:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:21, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Thomas Riley

He sounds like a good guy, but this is a vanity bio for author with only one published work, a book with Amazon sales rank 3,260,039. 165.189.91.148 21:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete just barely not a speedy, IMO. non-notable. DES (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete: He is a reputable scientist with NASA who has done some important work with Emergent Rules in mathematics. Just needs some more information about work and bio.
  • Delete per nom - I don't think he quite meets WP:BIO --Rogerd 00:54, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JunkDuster

Delete My efforts at verifying this ran only into references to the guy's website (which does not crack the Alexa top 100,000 rankings). He might be notable (but not in the WP:MUSIC sense) if his claims are both true and caused some impact beyond that of other self-published musicians given his novel method of doing that distribution (leaving free CD's of his work in public areas), but I haven't been able to verify that it has caused any noteworthy impact beyond giving cleaning crews something to do. Caerwine 04:12, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kahvi collective

Not notable/vanity. Alexa ranking of 800,000, News no google news hits, 9500 google hits but it's due to link incest and huge directory listings. Skrewler 08:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 08:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 12:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising/vanity --Timecop 23:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 04:29, 20 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? 12:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keks

Teenage nonsense game. 165.189.91.148 22:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Harro5 23:49, 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 Speedy Delete by User:Reflex Reaction as "nn-bio". (I am just cleanign up the AfD log). DES (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Girga

In a just world, this would be speediable. Only two edits before the AFD nomination, both by the same anon just minutes apart. Original text was "Bold textKevin "The Wildebeast" Girga". Currently a single-sentence claim to being the founder of a non-existant political party. 165.189.91.148 20:32, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingdom of Landreth

Micronation. Doesn't seem to be actual or notable. DJ Clayworth 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete.--Kross | Talk 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It's as "actual" as any others out there. Do we want to be informed only about things/people/ideas that are "notable"? ... unsigned comment by User:12.34.246.37
    • On Wikipedia, I do want to be informed only about things/people/ideas that are notable. Speedy delete. --Metropolitan90 01:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, we want only notable things. Otherwise you will have articles such as the biography of my cat, and what I did last Thursday morning. •DanMS 01:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as nn and made-up. 23skidoo 01:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Author removed the AFD tag. I reverted it. •DanMS 01:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete Dlyons493 Talk 11:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Fantasy nonsense CalJW 15:00, 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 NO CONSENSUS. I can't decide whether to merge with Sheath or Ligament and I can't redirect to both. Therefore I have to close this as "no consensus". — JIP | Talk 11:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ligament sheaths

This article is completely unlinked to, and provides little to no info. Seems like there would be no problem if it were deleted.--Mihoshi 23:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Merge to sheath. DVD+ R/W 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. Legitimate anatomy concept. Sheath does not have much relevant content for merge. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with ligament and redirect. Legitimate anatomy concept, but not much information to stand independent of ligament or tendon. Edwardian 21:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and make sure it is in wikidictionary. Sethie 08:02, 24 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lion-KillerMule

Obvious hoax, which should go straight to BJAODN--WAvegetarian 16:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as hoax. PJM 16:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax --Rogerd 03:46, 20 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. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of African Americans

The list of Jews has also been listed, so, I'm all for equality. Arniep 00:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, WP:POINT. Andrew Levine 00:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC) Delete per 23skidoo, this is overbroad and better served with the category/subcategory scheme. Andrew Levine 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. How do you maintain this type of list? Jtmichcock 03:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Could you be more specific?--Jondel 09:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT.
  • Delete. Although Arniep is getting silly with all his/her AFDs (WP:POINT), as I indicated in a talk page message on this I do support the deletion of this one on the basis that it is simply too broad a topic for a list and is more efficiently handled as a category; this list could have potentially millions of names. (Additional comment: no racism intended or implied on my part and I'm not going to lose any sleep over this being kept). 23skidoo 06:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think there are millions of African-Americans, or of any other specific cultural group, deserving of Wikipedia articles. I've suggested before that this be renamed List of notable African-Americans, trimmed to include only the most notable and famous figures (I'd arbitrarially cut the list off at about 200), and make pages for specializations of careers and lifestyles, sdiscouraging the addition of names to this one. After re-reviewing the list, it's already rather brief and succinct. --FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this??--Jondel 09:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep and ban user Arniep and other racists. - Darwinek 10:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as overly-broad. Marskell 10:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per 23skidoo -Doc ask? 13:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, useful list, keep the list of Jews as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete this and Delete the list of Jews as well. Either that, or create a list of Caucasians and Asians. Grande 14:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom 61.1.132.145 16:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: This anonymous user's only edit. --FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Valid encyclopedic topic. — RJH 17:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nominator's explanation is silly. However, per 23skidoo, this list is far too broad. Obviously "List of African Americans <who do something specific>" is useful. Category:African Americans, or better one of its much narrower subcats, is a better approach generally. A list with millions of names (or even tens of thousands of notables) is not useful. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See comments above. --FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Impossible list. It is not a hit-list, as many of the "List of [ethnicity/religion]" lists are, but it's also not useful. Geogre 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, at least this could act as some kind of index to other lists. JBH 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Note:This vote was JBH's 3rd edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bob talk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, this seems too broad to be useful in its present form - maybe it could be refactored as some sort of "list of lists" as JBH suggests. I don't have a binary keep/delete recommendation. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, both unmaintainable and pointless. This is what categories are for.Gateman1997 22:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. Falls End (T, C) 22:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep break it up if it gets too big. CanadianCaesar 23:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No common sensed person is going to go on here to look at an enormous list of African Americans. (Notorious4life 05:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
    • Um, Black History Month much? And I come to this list all the time to read on notable African-American individuals with Wikipedia articles (not all of the articles at the same time, more like random selection), and I know for certain I am very much a "common sensed person". And as far as huge, there's only a couple hundred names listed. The List of bands is much longer.--FuriousFreddy 06:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep dammit they have lists of people here. Encyclopedist (talk) 07:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep What dimwit listed this in the first place? Yes, certainly keep. But change the title by adding "prominent" or "notable". This comment about a necessary qualifier is true for lots of the lists of people on Wikipedia. The way they're worded, any Tom, Dick or Harriet arguably could make the lists. It's something that's been an annoyance for me for some time. I just never mentioned it. deeceevoice 09:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, we only have notable people on lists like that but that's implicit because they are lists of people with entries in the encyclopedia and we only have notable people in the encyclopedia to begin with. Adding "notable" to the name of every other list of people would be a bit cluttered - though I understand where you're coming from. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 10:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Bad faith nomination.--Alabamaboy 14:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Rename as per "Notable"172.151.95.94 21:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — No valid reason provided for deletion. I've consistently voted to keep lists of this form and I see no reason to vote otherwise here. :) — RJH 15:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment, do we have the following; List of Asian Americans, List of Caucasian Americans, List of Hispanic Americans, List of Native Americans? If not we should if this is kept.Gateman1997 01:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmantainable.  Grue  17:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per 23skidoo --Bob 20:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I withdraw my original nomination, please Keep I nominated this in a fit of madness, I apologize for this very stupid behaviour. Arniep 01:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. See what you started? (giving Arniep a good, swift kick) It's stupid crap like this that makes being black on this website a real pain in the azz. I would suggest, however, that the list be categorized by field of achievement. (As it stands now, in this particular format, it's not terribly useful.) Then, if/when a particular category becomes clogged with names/overly long, it can be separated out into a stand-alone article/list, with only a category name and link to the list itself appearing in this rather catch-all list. deeceevoice 11:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (I do wish Arniep would go a little easier on the AfD/CfD key on his keyboard). However, this one is extremely overbroad. "African American <occupation>ers" is OK, but not 40-50M potential names (or even tens of thousands of notable ones). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Speedy keep Ralph Bunche is my motivation. It ought to be an honor to be on such a list; if notable entries fill the list just as ordinary articles are vetted for notability, then what is the problem. Articles go through the selection process all the time. What is the motivation for wanting to keep a list of Star Wars topics but deleting a list with Ralphe Bunche on it? And if the answer is that 40-50 Million names could fill the list, then we need to uphold him as a standard for the 50 Million. We need to uphold him as a standard for the 6 Billion! Can you imagine a world where 50 Million were as notable as a Ralph Bunche? There would be 50 Million UCLAs and 50 Million Sculpture Gardens and 50 Million men who pursue just action at the risk of their lives! --Ancheta Wis 19:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, now. I second that emotion! :p deeceevoice 21:44, 27 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. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Catholic authors

  • Strong delete Utterly pointless list...next there's gonna be list of Christian authors Good luck with that one 65.9.143.76 23:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep-I see I spoke too soon to someone doing bad faith deletion votes. Anyway this is suspicious. Actually it's more then suspicious it's bordering on bigotry by someone who is not even registered. I think this list is far too long, but the religion of an author certainly can have a point and meaning to their work. If there are too many examples here of authors where the religion actually is not important to the writing then remove those examples. I don't understand why some of you people jump to delete, couldn't you just try for cleanup or even merge before you go to this step?--T. Anthony 03:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Anons can't nominate articles for deletion.Gateman1997 22:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Anons can nominate AfDs, but I think that's all the more reason to be cautious about deletion. :) I don't have a problem with a list of this type. Thanks. — RJH 23:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I would actually support a list of Christian authors. Why else would there be Christian book publishers. Someone's writing is influenced by one's faith. - Mgm|(talk) 16:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This isn't a list of Christians who profess Catholicism in their writings -- if it was the list would be satisfactory. This is just a very broad list of CATHOLIC authors that is a plain joke to fill out. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 22:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Then it needs fixed, not eliminated.--T. Anthony 00:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I have worked on the list to make it more satisfactory in that manner. I've also changed the opening to be less lackadaisical in its criteria. It was a difficult job and it's not complete, but it's good for now I think.--T. Anthony 02:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete list said above: unmaintainable 72.144.71.234 04:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
To others if I've removed many legitimate names feel free to put back, preferrably with a source.--T. Anthony 02:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete too many to list. 65.10.44.158 23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unmantainable.  Grue  17:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Religion has direct bearing on an artist's outlook and thus on artistic creation + can't stomach what is starting to look like an orchestrated deletion campaign through anon nominations. --JJay 18:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. Checking the histories of 72.144.71.234, 65.9.143.76, and 65.10.44.158 their edits are mostly just votes to delete things. This is most true of the last of those three as s/he seems to have done nothing else except go to a talk page to complain about why someone voted keep.--T. Anthony 09:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
That's because their IPs probably only record what they've done at that time. Antidote 20:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Well maybe. Before I had a username though I had several edits under my IP address and I don't think any of them were on votes for deletions. I don't know why only those edits would show up if s/he's doing fine work otherwise.--T. Anthony 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Comment: Does that apply only to sock puppets, or to everybody? -- JJay 20:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
It applies to anonymous IPs. If we can get whoever voted with that IP to come back on and say he's a constant contributor then I'm sure it will show his other contributions for that session. Antidote 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or Prune to include only authors that wrote about Catholicism. Antidote 23:01, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmaintainable. Radiant_>|< 10:21, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of comedians by longevity

more listcruft, not encyclopedic Ryoung122 08:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete this pointless, idosyncratic list. Marskell 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete. Although it is amazing that Charles Lane is still alive. The guy looked ancient in the 1960s. Jtmichcock 13:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete listcruft, even though I quite liked it. I hear that Bob hopes George burns in hell... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, breaks the rule that articles shouldn't be time sensitive. Someone's exact age needs to be updated daily to be of use.- Mgm|(talk) 16:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Totally arbitrary - who is a comedian? (I suppose Jeanne Calment must have told a joke or two in her time) Why are all the entries from the United States? Pointless list. David | Talk 16:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as pointless listcruft. MCB 06:46, 21 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of differences between apples and oranges

This page doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. It's on the lines of List of lists that do not contain themselves. User:Taejo | Talk 18:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • BJAODN. :) PJM 18:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not encyclopedic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — this lemon of an article. I can't believe somebody was bananas enough to write this up. :) — RJH 23:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fruitcruft. --Nintendude 03:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. You can take any two objects and start comparing them, but it will not be useful to the readers. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, if people don't know the difference, they should read the article on apple and orange. Comparisons should really be left up to the reader. - Mgm|(talk) 17:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. -Silence 19:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Definitely :-D --Pc13 22:23, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BJAODN. Did anyone else notice turquoise/tortose? 64.12.117.14 00:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom / junk--Rogerd 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain ¿WTF Mate? This made me laugh--Ewok Slayer 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Use this as a newbie guide for what NOT to put into articles. --D-Day 20:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. I particularly like the "Oranges are turquoise" which links to "Tortoise" --mdd4696 04:31, 24 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 keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Filipino Americans

What does having Filipino ancestry have to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 01:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nothing with occupations but being notable people. There are lots of lists in wikipedia listed by ethnicity. --Jondel 09:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria.

Jtmichcock 03:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Unmanageable ? Why not enumerate at the discussion page then, we can improve on it. Why no reliable criteria? These are notable Americans, there are a lot of lists of notable people in wikipedia.
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, WP:POINT, --Noypi380 09:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep while all lists of this type (lists of ethnicities) still exist. Ancheta Wis 09:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this??--Jondel 09:21, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Indian Americans

What does having Indian ancestry have to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria. Jtmichcock 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep while all lists of this type (lists of ethnicities) still exist.Ancheta Wis 09:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists. --Jondel 09:34, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Italian-American mobsters

demonises people of Italian ethnicity. Arniep 00:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • speedy keep via WP:POINT like the others. Brighterorange 03:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into one of the existing godfather or mafioso lists. And yes I know who made this nomination, but in this case there is a validity. There are many groups known to have mobsters. The Russians especially yet there is no List of Russian mobsters. As is this list is long and solely focussed on one group.--T. Anthony 04:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per T Anthony. Marskell 12:05, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Italian-American politicians by state

what does having italian ancestry have to do with being a politician? Arniep 00:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:17, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Italian Americans

What is the connection between these people having italian ancestry and their occupation? Arniep 00:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a list of notable people (by ethnicity), encyclopedic and very much referred to.--Jondel 09:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria. Jtmichcock 03:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this??--Jondel 09:29, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American academics

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:25, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American business figures

What has being jewish got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:26, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American political figures

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:24, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American scientists

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists. --Jondel 09:44, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American show business figures

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:25, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American sport figures

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with how hard you hit a ball? Arniep 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:24, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish American writers

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • This is a bit more bad faith then normal. No one has tried to vote out List of Catholic authors. For that matter, after some substantial editing, there's even been some backing away from support for removing List of Catholic artists.--T. Anthony 03:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I see I spoke to soon on Catholic authors. I think many of these deletions are becoming suspicious. We have plenty of stupid lists like List of virgins, but it's been specifically religion related lists that are getting the axe. I think this is nearly becoming related to systemic bias on religion topics.--T. Anthony 03:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:25, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jewish Americans

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not the occupation, this is a list of notable people.--Jondel 09:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • STRONG KEEP
All Lists are nominated by Arniep. see [26].
All biographical encyclopedia, "Who's Who", "Persoenlichkeiten" are nominated. It's so crazy.
「努力を尽くした人名一覧（人名百科事典）が、一人の人物によって、すべて削除されようとしている」!! --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
p.s. to Arniep: Judaism (yahaduth) is not only religion, and Jews is not only ethnic people. see mitzvah, taryag and halakha etc.
これは必要性のある一覧だと思う。If anyone delete, please tell me. I'll move. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as an unmanageable list without criteria. Jtmichcock 03:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Prominent ethnic group in America. We should either keep them all or delete them. As well, Arnie P seems to be stretching WP:POINT a bit. Capitalistroadster 03:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Really pointless nom.Vulturell 04:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT.
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this??--Jondel 09:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, but I would favour a renaming since this clearly doesn't list all Jewish Americans. UkPaolo 14:02, 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 JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] List of Jewish Members of the National Academy of Engineering

Delete See reasons listed in List of Jewish Recipients of National Medal of Technology, list of Jewish Fellows of the Royal Society. 72.144.139.115 20:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep LazarKr 14:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — It's encyclopedic and there's a positive rationale for pages such as this. — RJH 17:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete One of an infinite amount of pointless lists that have no predecessors or contemporaries. NOTE: The first keep on this list was made by the page creator. Antidote 20:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary and untypeable Dlyons493

Talk 20:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to say this, but this is an unregistered users whose only edits have been on articles for deletion, for deleting, and one on a talk page.--T. Anthony 17:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
As I stated in a previous AFD, anonymous users IPs only record their actions on wikipedia up to a certain point - it's likely that this user has had other contributions that aren't recorded in this session. Then again, it might be bad faith attempt - I don't know. But I think it's best to assume best intentions. Antidote 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Edwardian 23:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete useless list.  Grue  20:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, please keep all members together regardless of faith or ethnicity. Radiant_>|< 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as with other lists of this type StabRule 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete--nixie 23:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because nom (72.144.139.115), (65.10.44.158) and StabRule (also 72.144.161.73) are all Bell South users from Atlanta and either co-conspirators or the same person, therefore I have strong distrust of all of these nominations. Peyna 00:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
The reason I created a name is to prevent from these accusations - which I knew would erupt. I already mentioned the only IP I used for voting here. Also, WP:NPA and assume good faith, as I was expecting attacks of some sort. StabRule 01:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Funny how you went back tonight voting on articles with the same anon ip votes. Arniep 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, I voted ONCE on each article. The only anon IP I used I already replaced with my username. That simple. I see you and Penya are taking these lists WAY too personally, and I pity you. StabRule 01:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Wrong, I don't particularly care about these lists, I care about fair play. Ciao Arniep 01:52, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I merely find it strangely coincidental that 3 people from the same ISP are all voting the same way on the same AfDs and doing nothing else. No one is taking it personally, we're just suspicious of such actions. I'd like to point out that generally I am opposed to lists like this on Wikipedia, but due to the questionable circumstances at which these arrived on AfD, I feel I must vote to keep. Keep it civil. Peyna 01:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedian policy claims anon votes are allowed, and given this I see little harm in presenting afd votes to some fellow Wikipedian users given it is their decision to put keep or delete. StabRule 02:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It isn't a vote - orioneight (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Then what is it?? StabRule 02:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a discussion, whose goal is to achieve consensus. See Wikipedia is not a democracy. - orioneight (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok then. Anons are allowed to participate in this discussion. StabRule 04:31, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
sock puppets aren't. Arniep 14:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. How did I miss this? I think, it would be a lot easier if we set up and AfD section or page just for religion. -- JJay 17:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keepor move contents to larger list and redirect. Arniep 17:49, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Jews

What has having jewish ancestry got to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 02:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination; no idea what the point of or how to manage such a list. Jtmichcock 03:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Lots of people do know how to manage such a list - RachelBrown 10:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP
All Lists are nominated by Arniep. see [27].
All biographical encyclopedia, "Who's Who", "Persoenlichkeiten" are nominated. It's so crazy.
「努力を尽くした人名一覧（人名百科事典）が、一人の人物によって、すべて削除されようとしている」!! This is Wiki-holocaust!
p.s. to Arniep: Judaism (yahaduth) is not only religion, and Jews is not only ethnic people. see mitzvah, taryag and halakha etc.
これは必要性のある一覧だと思う。If anyone delete, please tell me. I'll move. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC) --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish Americans
Please write in English. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm Japanese. ('.') --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 04:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
But this is the English Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I don't know what the purpose of this nomination is exactly. Pretty dumb.Vulturell 04:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the other articles (except for List of Jewish bankers), but deletion of this one smacks of an agenda. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment Considering you voted to delete List of Jewish bankers but don't have an opinion on the other Jewish lists, merely proves an inconsistent and biased (subjective) approach, with an intention of enforcing political-correctness. Ryoung122 09:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Previous AFD ended with a keep, and the reasons there have not been adressed in this renomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. In last few month were deleted Lists of Jewish scientists, engineers and so on. An attempts were made to Delete List of Jewish Fellows of Royal Society, historians and List of Jews. There are lot of Such Lists in Wikipedia for various nationalities in Wikipedia.
  • Can Wikipedia Organisation endorse such Deletions, if apparently the only reason for them is that Jews are ethnic/relgious group and not nationality ? I think that Heads of Wikipedia Organisation have to check this matter thoroughly and pass their Position to Wikipedia users.
  • In Discussion of Lists of Jewish Publishers Deletion I've already applied to our User, highly qualified attorney, Mr BDAbramson, and asked him for legal advice on this matter.
  • LazarKr 09:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm sure no right-minded person really wants Wikipedia to be Judenrein - RachelBrown 10:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - By this logic, we should delete articles about famous Rabbis and Jewish notables because they are only significant for being Jewish - Londoneye 11:07, 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 No consensus - default to keep JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] List of Jewish jurists

Originally from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jews in law

  • Strong delete exactly like list of Jewish bankers..no other lawyer lists exist except this one. Best to make this into a category -- in which case it is somewhat acceptable. 65.9.143.76 23:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
New anonymous user: this AfD is fourth edit, the first three, all today, concerning deletions of other "Jewish foo" type articles. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — Article contains information that couldn't be readily displayed in a category. It would be useful for the page to be limited to noted practitioners. The lack of existence of other lawyer lists does not preclude their creation in the future. I don't view that as acceptible criteria for deletion. Sorry. :) — RJH 17:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as List of Jewish jurists for consistency with naming conventions (categories, "Jews in music", "Jews in the arts", etc. have all been renamed to "Jewish Foos"). List of African American jurists exists, others like List of Swedish jurists would be perfectly reasonable pages. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: even though I vote "keep", I'm really annoyed by the very poor quality of this list. Like a bunch of other "feel good" lists where the goal is to stick on as many names as possible (by editors who want people "like them" listed), this one had a bunch of names lacking any evidentiary support. I've been working on improving it, but I fear a backlash (I've had such from LGBT and born-again Christian lists, where the "feel good rather than evidence" editors pushed an agenda).
  • Keep - This is part of the general recent movement to delete all the lists of Jews on Wikipedia. - RachelBrown 20:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've restored my vote now sanity is prevailing regarding the editing of the list - RachelBrown 22:52, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Now Notice how List of African American jurists and List of Swedish Jurists don't exist -- which just epitomizes the almost farfetched specifity of this list. Antidote 20:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
What I fail to understand is, if Jews are a "nationality," why can't they just have a list by country and categories like every other nationality/ethnicity on Wikipedia has (and seems to be satisfied with)? It doesn't make sense. As said on the previous list ... where's list of Swedish jurists, list of Irish jurists? Antidote 21:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Fixed. Created (stubby) AA jurists list, which should exist. Please help fill it out. (List of African American jurists)
Please note: User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters just started it today. Seriously, can we act mature please? Antidote 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Pages get created because editors create them, no? I created that article because it should exist on WP. Not sure why Antidote things adding good content to WP is "immature", but I disagree. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Btw, Antidote, I agree with most of the delete votes you have cast recently. I don't like overbroad lists or categories. So List of African Americans and List of Roman Catholics are definitely no good. Well, neither is List of Jews worth keeping. Actually, modify that: the catholics one is just a list of lists, no names are directly at the top, so I don't mind it. However, I find that a ethicity, religion or nationality followed by an occupation is sufficiently specific. So "List of <Nation>ish <Foo>ers" seems fine to me. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
In the same way that you and I dislike broad lists, I dislike overly specific and redundant lists that could EASILY be made into categories. I just don't understand what is all the fuss with these Jewish lists; people are literally making new usernames to keep them on here. The deletion of these lists doesn't change much of anything in terms of listings, as there are literally dozens of others with the same people. Antidote 00:13, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
There is something weird about some of the reaction to the Jewish lists/categories. Sometimes you see "hysterical keep" reactions, with unfounded accusations of anti-semitism bandied about (for either keep or delete votes actually, oddly enough). So deleting List of Jewish basket-weavers might be "another Shoah", while the anon voter 65.9.143.76 above seems to insinuate that it's a racial slander to note that some Jews are bankers or lawyers.
That said, I do think that sometimes lists are better than categories, or at least slightly different. When I created List of African American jurists today, I was careful to annotate each name with a helpful one-line description of the main accomplishments of each individual. Of course you can find out much more by reading their full article, but you can't get the one-line bios by looking at a category. Of course, my AA jurists are very partial right now—I just added a very minimal set of scholars and judges who came to mind. But if it is extended with similar annotations, I think it would be worth browsing through. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

*Keep - law is a profession to which Jews have long made a particularly noteworthy contribution. Much of the legal system in many countries is strongly influenced by canon law, which in turn is strongly influenced by Jewish law. I'm not sure if the name is right, though - a jurist is "an expert in law, a legal writer" - not necessarily a practising lawyer, which I think is what this list was originally meant to cover. - Poetlister 09:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per User:RachelBrown - Poetlister 18:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for reasons stated in other pages. Just way too many of these. EscapeArtistsNeverDie 22:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Londoneye 08:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep just because other lists did not exist is not a good reason to delete, now Afican American list does exist anyway. Arniep 01:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --JJay 02:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Changing my vote. Don't like anon noms here + 2nd anom vote, both out of Atlanta.-- JJay 05:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because others have yet to be made is no reason to remove one which has. --Irishpunktom\talk 10:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Yuber(talk) 21:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Revisit those cases where there is no formal evidence that they were Jewish, but keep the remainder. There have been numerous influential Jewish jurists and legalists, and I would personally include the (admittedly few) examples where experts in Jewish law have set precedents in general law. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep notable Jews. on two related notes, A List of Muslim Jurists and List of Muslim Sharia Jurists would be nice the former devoted to Muslims practicing in secular courts, and the latter in religious courts.Klonimus 03:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I really agree with Klonimus on this, the Muslim jurists list(s) would be really nice to have. Unfortunately, I just don't know enough myself to even attempt such lists. Anyone more knowledgeable? I would lean towards one Muslim jurists list with two sections, however. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Wikipedia is not paper, notable enough to keep.--MONGO 12:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. This is what we use Categories for. This is a ridiculous example of listmania.  RasputinAXP  T C 14:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless this is fixed up. By fixing up I mean making this into a list of jurists of people concerned with the development of Jewish law. This list in its present state is just a random jumble of people of Jewish extraction who happen to be practising law. Nothing is lost by purging the mess from the history and starting again with a clean slate.
Comment: I just noticed that the entry on Halakha has a section that lists the well known sources of Jewish law. I'm not fully convinced that a list of halakhists is even needed. Pilatus 17:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
The delete is by Pilatus as well. Presumably then Pilatus would welcome a list of Jewish scientists who had developed Jewish science, African Jews who had developed Jewish Africa and so on? - RachelBrown 18:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
In all the discussions on Lists of $PROFESSIONALS that follow $RELIGION Pilatus has been arguing that the persons' faith must be have some bearing on their work and not be merely incidental. A List of Jewish theologians is OK with Pilatus. Pilatus finds Lists of $PROFESSIONALS from $ETHNIC_GROUP silly but feels there will be no consensus for them to be deleted so he won't list them here. Pilatus 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete 72.144.71.234 05:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete another arbitrary list. Categories work well for this kind of thing, and prevent the trivial from creeping in. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 09:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't see many good arguments to delete based on encyclopedic criteria. Lists are good, help navigation, still have functions that categories can't match. Charles Matthews 10:23, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Just zis Guy, you know?--Bob 17:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Gamaliel 20:22, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If we are going to keep List of Jews (which was voted to keep) then having List of Jewish Jurists seems like a logical extention. Plus, its not like the Wikipedia is running out of pages. Michael L. Kaufman 04:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no agreed definition being adhered to, and it's not always clear who the sources are and what definition the sources are using. Without a clear and consistent definition, and a uniform reliance on reputable sources using the same definition, the list is inherently unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - certain cats/lists are too compartmentalized or too broad or contain wrong/questionable names, but that's another story. I am against wholesale removal. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Just zis Guy StabRule 19:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: How many votes is that StabRule? And you're the nom as well, aren't you? I would hate to think you are obsessed with this list. -- JJay 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • By my count, that would be one vote. And they're not the nom, as I'm sure you'd know if you would stop and read it. Chris talk back 01:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Why is it important to identify these people in a legal context as being Jews? More importantly, if we have these lists, why don't we have List of jurists who are neither Jewish, African-American, homosexual, married nor Canadian? Chris talk back 01:12, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of members of the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame

How is having italian ancestry related to hitting a ball? Arniep 00:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:31, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Norwegian-Americans

What does having Norwegian ancestry have to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 01:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria. Jtmichcock 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep; the nominator's rationale for deleting each and every 'Americans by ethnicity' list can't possibly be valid. There's perfectly good reasons for keeping those lists on WP---easy-to-find overviews of Americans of non-English descent, with one-liner information on each person (just looking at the category pages won't give you that). --Wernher 03:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC) (who happens to be 3/4ths Norwegian)
  • Keep while all lists of this type (lists of ethnicities) still exist.Ancheta Wis 09:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists.--Jondel 09:30, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Polish Americans

How is having polish ancestry related to these peoples occupations? Arniep 00:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria. Jtmichcock 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP
All Lists are nominated by Arniep. see [28].
All biographical encyclopedia, "Who's Who", "Persoenlichkeiten" are nominated. It's so crazy.
「努力を尽くした人名一覧（人名百科事典）が、一人の人物によって、すべて削除されようとしている」!! It's Wiki-holocaust. --Sheynhertzגעשׁ״ך 03:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists.--Jondel 09:30, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of similarities between apples and oranges

This page doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. It's on the lines of List of lists that do not contain themselves. User:Taejo | Talk 18:02, 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 MERGE to P-Funk. — JIP | Talk 11:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of songs by the P-Funk crew

Highly incomplete, unclearly labeled and explained, and meaningless without annotation. Many Parliament and Funkadelic albums have articles; the groups would be better served with a discography of albums and singles, and with articles made for the other albums (as it stands now, all of the P-Funk coverage could use significant cleanup.--FuriousFreddy 01:21, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Swedish Americans

What does having Swedish ancestry have to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 01:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria. Jtmichcock 03:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unless every one else goes. --Ezeu 04:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep while all lists of this type (lists of ethnicities) still exist.Ancheta Wis 09:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists. --Jondel 09:31, 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 Speedy keep. -Doc ask? 09:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. cities with African American majority populations

If this said Jewish instead of African-Americans people would delete it for fear it is anti-semitic. Arniep 23:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep I don't understand whatever point the nominator is trying to make; useful list. CanadianCaesar 00:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This private message sent to me by the nominator might be informative: Durova 00:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi, Jewish people are a diaspora and ethnicity just like African Americans. If you do not think that African American lists should be deleted then please change your vote on these lists. Arniep 18:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. If there was a list of Jewish Hall of Famers or members of Congress then people would click for curiosity's sake. It also provides a resource into how one of America's religions are represented in sports and politics. Thus, it is also interesting to see what citites have large black populations. This is not a racist list and a list of mostly Jewish towns would not be an Anti-Semetic one. IT would be informative. theremight, however, be people who used these lists for the wrong purposes. But the point of Wikipedia is to inform not to try to prevent people from reacting one way or another. Keep12.77.28.183 02:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that these votes for deletion are not a fair measured way to delete things. Some things should be placed in a speedy process, yes, but other things that are clearly not frivolous or vandalism should require much more extensive discussion and debate over a longer period. Arniep 01:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Although normally I'd vote on these things, I'm going to abstain from all Arniep's nominations today. There's something about the message that rubs the wrong way. It seems to presume I'm either ignorant or bigoted. Durova 01:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
        • That was not my intention. I am just saying people have are being very quick to delete Jewish people lists because they fear anti-semitism was the motivation for the their creation when it was not, so people are actually discriminating against Jewish people by deleting them not protecting them. Arniep 02:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
          • If that is your reason then your message to me was highly inappropriate. I claimed no such view. Try engaging those people in dialogue, rather than spamming the AfD board and targeting individuals who vote for other reasons. Durova 03:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep all today's "List of..." nominations. WP:POINT. This list of at least a dozen pointless (except to make a point) nominations represents a serious misuse of the AFD process; nominator should cut the crap or be blocked. Bikeable 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful for those who study demographics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good demographic info, part of a slew of bad faith nominations. -- Jake 08:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep. Of all the pages that deal with U.S. cities that have non-White ethnic majority populations (see here), this page was the only one singled out for deletion. As a person who has contributed heavily to this page, I feel that it is informative and should be kept. --Acntx 08:17, 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 Speedy keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of U.S. counties with African American majority populations

If this said Jewish instead of African-Americans people would delete it for fear it is anti-semitic. Arniep 23:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, bad faith nomination, WP:POINT.
  • Keep interesting, informative, substantial lists. - AdelaMae 04:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Useful list for people studying demographics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Good demographic info, part of a slew of bad faith nominations. -- Jake 08:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Thorough and informative. -- Acntx 08:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously could be useful for research. Marskell 10:49, 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 no consensus. Default to keep. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of vehicles in The Simpsons

This does not appear to be important in any way. Merely a fan page taking advantage of Wiki"free" dia

  • Keep, fictional vehicles seen by millions of viewers. An alternative to separate pages on each vehicle. Kappa 10:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I am not certain whether this belongs in terms of a separate article, but it should be somewhere and I am at a loss to identify an appropriate merger. Jtmichcock 12:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep per Kappa UkPaolo 14:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this is kept, it shouldn't be in this form. This should be broken up, with one-time vehicles going in the (sigh) episode pages, and the one-person or one-family vehicles going in the pages for the relevant characters. That said, my heart would not break if this largely useless trivia were deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Call me Mr Picky, but this article is not actually a list of cars in The Simpsons, it is more like The Simpsons (vehicles). Obviously I would like to see the massive over-coverage of fictional characters and artefacts substantially curtailed - I would suggest that an encyclopaedia has little reason to cover these things (though it would undoubtedly mention The Simpsons as a cultural influence), I am on record as advocating a separate space for fiction (which would also clean up AfD a lot). But that is another issue. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, certainly better than separate articles on each vehicle. Agree that it could be renamed Vehicles in The Simpsons. - SimonP 18:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to The Simpsons (vehicles). Or transwiki to the hypothetical Wikifiction (if it existed). Way too much trivia of fictional worlds on WP. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, weird fancruft, far too much Simpsons coverage already. Andrew Levine 19:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Very interesting list, and besides, tv is a major cultural force shaping social reality. Voyager640 19:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Andrew Levine (but I count those in the plus column). BD2412 T 19:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As above. Trollderella 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete It's a shame that kids are wasting countless hours learning about "vehicles in the Simpsons," yet they cannot tell you when WWI ended. Clearly fancruft. 131.96.2.208 21:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete are you kidding me? I thoughht this was an encyclopedia? JBH 22:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Note:This vote was JBH's 4th edit (first edit November 18, 2005). Almost all other edits are in support of lists that were nominated for deletion--Bob talk 15:14, November 18, 2005 (UTC)
And this is relevant because?... JHB is not the only one who objects to listcruft you know. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete I like the Simpsons, but there are more then enough Simpsons lists already. Also the show never struck me as that "vehicle centered" a show. Although possibly this could be merged to List of fictional characters within The Simpsons.(A vehicle can be a character, in least after a fashion)--T. Anthony 23:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep or merge in relevant character or family article. Don't rename. Both suggested alternatives break naming conventions. If it's a list it should be called "list of" and qualifiers should be used to disambiguate stuff with the same name, not to name subpages of some sort. That said. The Simpsons is an extremely popular show and the vehicles should be covered. A list is better than loads of vehicle stubs. - Mgm|(talk) 16:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oh, my head. Delete over-represented fancruft. --Calton | Talk 01:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'm a big Simpsons fan, but this is way too trivial. MCB 06:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Bob 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think this article is useful.
  • Comment In addition to being a bunch of unimportant trivia, there is the question of whether such information is actually true. From the The Simpsons talk page, we see the following comment (not made by myself, but unsigned):Ryoung122 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, but clean it up and list only the most important vehicles, like the Canyonero. abelson 09:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a separate article: List of vehicles in The Simpsons, so there is no need for that section. Besides, the information there is not true. None of the Yugos that were sold in the US were sedans or station wagons. I suggest that the main article be locked from editing by anonymous users.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Simpsons" Category: Old request

[edit] Keep

- It is interesting, seems to be correct, and is not hurting anyone to be herre. Let it stay.

  • Keep This article was created as a result of a VfD that said these vehicles should be merged. CanadianCaesar 03:54, 27 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 keep, WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 12:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Vietnamese Americans

What does having Vietnamese ancestry have to do with these peoples occupations? Arniep 01:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep WP:POINT, bad faith nomination. --FuriousFreddy 01:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as unmanageable list, no reliable criteria. Jtmichcock 03:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, WP:POINT -- Jake 08:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep while all lists of this type (lists of ethnicities) still exist.Ancheta Wis 09:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, What is the point of deleting this?? Keep all ethnicity lists. Arniep if you have a point to make, go to that appropriate area and discuss. Stop making Vfds all over wikipedia! --Jondel 09:48, 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 was delete. Nandesuka 14:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of virgins

List of virgins was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-18. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virgins/2005-11-18.

This article is currently undergoing a POV dispute and I don't see any prospect of the issue ever being one which doesn't contain POV. The subject matter is not one for which there is likely to be much historical evidence, so, although there have been efforts to improve the article, I think the nature of the subject means a list of proven beyond all reasonable doubt virgins will be virtually impossible to create. As I see it, the article will always have POV entriesLurker your words/my deeds 14:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  • With all due respect to the contributors of the list, this sort of thing is unmaintainable and of dubious value. If we need to note people who are significant for having been virgins, do it via categories, where those who know the most about the subject can maintain the inclusion/exclusion. Delete. -- nae'blis 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's unmaintainable, it's divisive, it's never going to be complete, it's potentially libellous, it's arbitrary, and it's indiscriminate. Proto::type 14:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This list is hopeless. It is completely unmaintainable. Take for example the fictional characters section, I removed it when it had The 40-Year-Old Virgin and Seymour Skinner, now it has resurfaced with a character from a Shakespeare play, one from a Stephen Sondheim musical and a (probaly) fictional Roman person. Most of the other sections consist of equally random entries. Then there are the arguments about the inclusion criteria, and so on and on. Stefán Ingi 15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Clean Up If this article was limited to historical figures only I can see where it would be an interesting and informative article. There will always be disputes but they can be handled in an NPOV fashion. Having living people on it is a bit intrusive though (Does Hillary Duff deserve to be listed this week?). Dipics 15:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. This list is unverifiable and ultimately not maintainable as pointed out above. WP:NPOV disputes have already cropped up. I fail to see how inclusion on this list could ever have verifiable sources to establish one's "virginity" credentials. Non-encyclopedic, borderline WP:NPOV, and ultimately unverifiable. Scorpiondollprincess 15:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 15:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Dark Shikari 15:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and other "delete" comments. Agent 86 16:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete due to verifiability concerns. Even if some of these people have said so in interviews or whatever, we can never really know. In addition, seems like a problematic vandalism target, as people add their random friends or whoever. Looking at the history, it seems that has already happened a few times, in fact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the same verifiability concerns have been successfully overcome on List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, List of Swedish Americans, etc. Carlossuarez46 17:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The two are not analogous. List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is not a set complement. A "list of virgins" is, given that every human being in the world is born a virgin. Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists, set complements such as this are too broad to be appropriate topics for lists. A list of virgins in religious mythology, a list of virgins in works of fiction, or a list of historical figures who were virgins at the times of their deaths may be more suitable topics for individual lists, given that they apply further constraints on the list contents in addition to just "is a virgin". Uncle G 18:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The criteria for the list, for "historical and legendary" virgins, is quite valid, and can be verified, especially for deities and those who have claimed to be virgins til their deathbed. This list should NOT have any living people however per WP:LIVING. The name of the article should be moved to better reflect the criterial already set. hateless 19:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but define and enforce limits. I basically agree with Uncle G's comment just above Hateless's vote, but don't see why these would have to be separate lists rather than separate sections within one list. It might benefit from a move to something like "List of people notable for remaining virgins", but either way it needs a very clearly worded explanation at the top of what is and is not to be included, and editors willing to strictly enforce it. The talk page can be used to discuss any controversial ones before they're re-added. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I would absolutely support a Category:Fictional virgins, Category:Mythological virgins (though I can see some arguing over where to put Jesus Christ in that one!), and Category:People who were virgins until death under Category:Virgins, but I think the list is a bad idea for reasons stated earlier. I'll help transfer these to categories, though, if these do get deleted. -- nae'blis 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment In general, I agree that categories are better than lists. The specific categories might work (and for controversial ones like Jesus and Mary, there could be a special category for religious figures). My one concern here, however, would be the over-arching Category:Virgin. It would be harder to keep a close eye on, however. It would be easy for people to not see the standards of inclusion and start listing, for example, the articles for every child actor or otherwise famous child they can think of. With a list, people can't just add a person to it without going to the list itself and seeing any criteria for inclusion listed at the top. --Icarus (Hi!)
        • Yes, but anyone adding a category has to do it where people who have the most knowledge about that person are likely to be concentrated: their article! You're right, though, that Category:Religious virgins would be better than mythological, as it covers both cases. Good catch. Caetgory:Virgin should probably include folks who were notable for being virgin at some point (Elizabeth, Donna Edmondson, etc), and most spurious additions will be removed in their article. I think it's an inherently more maintainable system, and any truly spectacular cases can be mentioned in virginity (as they already are, in fact). -- nae'blis 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment a list of people real or mythical, reputed for being virgins, or widely known for being virgins would be good. They don't actually have to be virgins until death. For instance, Queen Elizabeth I, is called the Virgin Queen but she was not a "virgin". And the Virgin Mary is only known to be a Virgin through the birth of Jesus. After the birth, there is no attestation she remained virginal until death. Mythology is replete with virgin births, so those virgin mothers should be on such a list. Several big-name scientists are famous for being virgins. (and some for debauchery as well). There's also the Virgin Playmate Donna Edmondson, who is famous for being a virgin when she posed for Playboy. 132.205.45.148 00:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. GassyGuy 20:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - it's hopelessly POV and unverifiable. Without independent medical evidence, then it's claims of virginity (and, of course, there's the social pressure to claim virginity). In addition, it isn't clear what definition of virginity is used. And, looking at the talk page, the inclusion of Mary mother of Jesus will amount to endorsing a Catholic POV, while leaving her out will amount to endorsing an anti-Catholic POV. Guettarda 21:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The name could be changed to "List of people believed to be virgins" or "List of people claimed to have been virgins" or something similar. As for Mary, the easiest solution would be to list her, but put a note right after her name stating that some denominations believe this, and some don't. That covers all bases without supporting any one in particular. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Beware of weasel words. -- nae'blis 02:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
      • What's the point of a list of people who are "probably" virgins? Again, looking at the page history, there's some discussion of Britney Spears. She originally claimed to be "waiting for marriage" (despite the Fred Durst allegations, etc.) and then eventually said she wasn't. So when do you remove someone - when they stop talking about it, when they stop proclaiming their virginity? Is it really any of our business? We shouldn't be a gossip rag. As for "List of people claimed to have been virgins" - wasn't everyone a virgin at some point in time? Guettarda 04:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I don't know if this would actually work, I just thought it should be put out as a suggestion. I, for one, would probably support a proposal to not list contemporary figures like Britney Spears because their status can change so quickly. I'd support keeping it for historical (or at lease deceased) figures whose virginity was deemed notable enough to be included in some sort of reliable source, such as a biography. (And, as for everyone having been one, the list would be for people who died as virgins or were otherwise notable for having been virgins.)
          • Nae'blis is right to point out the risk of weasel words. In individual entries, it would therefore be important to cite sources as the bullet points at the beginning of WP:WEASEL encourage. For the proposed change in the name of the article, I think that this would be a case where it's not weasely, just honest to acknowledge that we can't really know who has or hasn't lost their virginity. Like I said, there may be no good way to fix the problems with this list, but I think it best to at least try. --Icarus (Hi!) 10:17, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
            • Why not just have this as a list of people famous for reputedly being virginal? Mythological instances are easy, since the claim is in the myth (This would include Mary, mother of Jesus - as this is Christian mythology). While Queen Elizabeth I, is attested to not be a virgin, but is famous for being the Virgin Queen. This would also cover Donna Edmondson as she's famous for being the Virgin Playmate, though she is now a mother and thusly no longer a virgin. The reputation for being virginal is a better and more verifiable fact than the actuality of it. Though I would not consider that any young person be placed on the list (ie. Britney Spears) as most young people are virgins for a large portion of their youth. Black Dhalia is a famous virgin because she was medically incapable of having sex... so there is the question about what to do with those medically incapable of sex... (and the definition of sex to use for virgin). 132.205.93.88 23:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
              • Because "famous" is a tricky criterion; because "reputedly" lowers the bar to anyone, living or dead, who has ever had a rumour published about them that xe is a virgin; and because this doesn't address the problem of living people. The three lists that I gave, in contrast, do not rely upon fame and rumour; and exclude living people. A list of virgins in religious mythology is verifiable by citing analyses of the mythology; and such virgins are not living people. A list of virgins in works of fiction is verifiable by citing analyses of the literature; and by definition such virgins are not living people. A list of historical figures who were virgins at the times of their deaths is verifiable by citing historical analyses; and again by definition such virgins are not living people. In all three cases, if there's a reliable source that is cited, the person is on the list. In no case do we worry about Hillary Duff or Britney Spears, and in no case do we have to argue about who is "famous" and what "reputedly" means. If you want to list non-virgins such as Elizabeth I of England, then you are into the territory that should be covered by list of historical figures nicknamed "virgin", not by any sort of "list of virgins" at all. Uncle G 09:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep offbeat but valid topic per hateless. Sectioned list works fine. Could use a longer intro and more footnotes. --JJay 16:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per hateless. Support a renaming of the article as well since "List of virgins" is slightly ambiguous. Silensor 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I see it relevant to an encyclopedia. Difficult to verify does not mean do not start an article.
  • Delete per UncleG's excellent reasoning above. The title itself is inaccurate. Ziggurat 00:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete I can't imagine this being in any reference work of any kind. Also in one sense this is the third attempt at delete. However the first one in 2004 was withdrawn.--T. Anthony 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete. We cannot, cannot, cannot have an article that speculates on the sex lives of living persons. And we can't really verify the dead ones. If we allow any "reputedly"-type language, the article becomes a dumping ground for useless celebrity gossip. wikipediatrix 13:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • My goodness, hopeless to keep this up to date, accurate, and complete. Delete ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, it is unverifiable, gossip, unimportant, potentially libelous (saying a 50-year-old living person is a virgin is not complementary to many people, especially Western men) and original research (there is almost always conflict among sources about such things, so you have to chose who to believe). -- Kjkolb 23:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. This article will be too much effort, to keep the page in accordance with WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:NPOV, than it will ever be worth, especially considering the questionable encyclopedic value of listing hisorical figures who were virgins.-- danntm T C 01:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of words punned by the P-Funk crew

Trivial list of P-Funk-isms. Better merged to the P-Funk article, but best deleted. --FuriousFreddy 01:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- I say this should be archived as the ultimate example of listcruft, so that later generations of Wikipedians can goggle at it. It doesn't get any cruftier than this. Reyk 02:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see the value of this page. Where relevant to the band or specific albums, the specific meaning can be discussed on that page if deemed notable enough. Not worth noting in total. Capitalistroadster 02:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Reyk said it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, trivial listcruft. MCB 06:35, 21 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. But lawdy, does this article ever need a cleanup. → Ξxtreme Unction {yakłblah} 22:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Looney Tunes logos

Almost completely original research, not encyclopedic, and a copyvio as well from http://members.fortunecity.com/teamfx2000/Kids_Cartoons/looneytunes.htm.--FuriousFreddy 23:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete marketing trivia. The manner in which a company presented its trademarks in a particular year is not encyclopedic. If you want to know what year a cartoon was made, you should look up the cartoon. Gazpacho 00:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this has nothing to do with marketing. It is to show how the looney tunes logo, (something which is somewhat iconic) changed over the years which is perfectly acceptable in an encyclopedia. JBH 00:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A text dump from another website is hardly encyclopedic material. --FuriousFreddy 06:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • An article like this is pretty useless without the actual logos being shown. It’s like trying to describe a scene to a blind person. I would say delete unless we can get pictures of all the logos. •DanMS 02:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • COmment. I found the page this was copyvio'd from: http://members.fortunecity.com/teamfx2000/Kids_Cartoons/looneytunes.htm. I've gone to this site several times before over the last two years (it once had pictures), and this article was begun four months ago. --FuriousFreddy 06:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as useless & copyvio Renata3 19:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and do a major rewrite. I don't giva a damn about the Looney Tunes Logo, but this is useful material. I can't see it being original research, the info has merely never been placed together. As for the copyvio, I guess it is posted by the author. Nazgjunk - - Signing is for Whimps 21:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and make it a little more consistent with National Broadcasting Company logos. Georgia guy 17:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, as it is encyclopedic, since it's is true knowlege and information. Enough with the pretention. If cruft doesn't get in the way of an article, let it be! --Nick Dillinger 00:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. tregoweth 03:12, 27 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lord Loss (demonata)

Delete - Badly written book review, duplicates the work in Lord Loss Lars T. 12:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a collection of book reviews. --Syrthiss 16:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 03:58, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 17:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles County Fire Department

No indication of any particular notability or encyclopedic value. There are tens of thousands of such fire departments, most not relevant to anyone outside their service area, and indeed almost totally unknown outside said area. A paragraph in Los Angeles County possibly with an extrnal link, would serve better to present such relevant information as there is on this topic. Delete. DES (talk) 21:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong keep for same reasons as Los Angeles Fire Department. 23skidoo 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, for the same reason as the City Fire Department. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep This is hardly Nowheresville, Idaho Fire Department. CalJW 14:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Important and significant FD, just ask Gage and DeSoto --Rogerd 01:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is one of the largest fire departments in the US, and it helped pioneer such techniques as the use of paramedics. On the other hand, the article as it currently stands is a crappy little substub. For the time being, I think that the article should be turned into a redirect, with the text merged into the Los Angeles County, California article (while adding an HTML comment saying that if the section is ever expanded, then it should be moved back to the LA County Fire Dept. article). BlankVerse 13:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep should eventually have enough relevant content added to it to make a decent article. --DDerby-(talk) 07:07, 25 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Los Angeles Fire Department

No indication of any particular notability or encyclopedic value. There are tens of thousands of such fire departments, most not relevant to anyone outside their service area, and indeed almost totally unknown outside said area. This dep[artment serves a very large city, but does not seem unique or notable otherwise. A paragraph in Los Angeles possibly with an extrnal link, would serve better to present such relevant information as there is on this topic. Delete. DES (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong keep. Is this another WP:POINT situation, because I can't fathom why one of the major fire departments in the US would even be considered for AFD.
    • I think it's probably an unfortunate nomination, there's a lot of fire department stubs coming up all over the place which actually deserve listing. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Fire department in a very large city. Deserves an article as much as the LAPD does. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable fire department. --Vsion 22:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep if this is not notable, then no FD's are--Rogerd 00:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle's LAPD analogy. - Mgm|(talk) 10:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable. - Willmcw 09:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep this article and others like it. There are many interested users inside and outside of the fire service communuty. One of the great things about Wikipedia is articles about otherwise hard to research subjects like this.


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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MacMerc.com

100,000 alexa nn vanity Skrewler 09:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. -- Femmina 12:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. per nomination. --Timecop 12:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and once again note that any article starting with a weblink to the subject almost always turns out to be vanity. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN vanity --Rogerd 04:24, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MancPunkScene

nn website, 200 daily posters, only 1000 daily posting, alexa ranking of 565,558. User:Zoe|(talk) 04:17, 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 merge into Facebook (website). - Mailer Diablo 15:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Zuckerberg

Non-notable.

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Master New Media

Not encyclopedic, Alexa ranking of almost 10,000, no google news, this article is nothing more than advertisement/vanity. 36,000 google hits, but when it comes to blogs I find that's usually an ineffective metric to use. Skrewler 01:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. Vanity. Zunaid 07:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as above. --Timecop 08:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 12:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete advert --Rogerd 05:21, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matrow (Mortal Kombat character)

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • xxxxx. No deletion required. Trollderella 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Changed vote to Delete - the afd didn't say it was not a real mortal kombat character... Trollderella 21:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ack! Deletion absolutely required! This is a hoax; Mortal Kombat 4 has no character named "Matrow". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This isn't an article on the character, it looks like a cheat guide. Delete per WP:NOT. Friday (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete if unverified, else keep Kappa 00:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a cheat guide. It's about how to play with the character, not about the character himself. - Mgm|(talk) 17:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above --Rogerd 03:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per A Man In Black's reasoning -- TrafficBenBoy 23:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unverifiable, almost certainly a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per A Man In Black and Mgm. There are too many of these "rumour" characters in the List of Mortal Kombat characters page and it's starting to get on my nerves. --L T Dangerous 13:05, 23 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meelick/Eyrecourt Hurling Club

A terribly written article on an individual sporting club. Much of the text is a list of the 2005 team members. This article is inherently non-notable, and will not improve unless the author returns to Wikipedia and cares enough to imporve it. This is unlikely Harro5 23:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, not notable. Googling Meelick/Eyrecourt Hurling gives 1 result. Same with "Meelick Hurling" and "Eyrecourt Hurling". - Bobet 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above Renata3 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 00:38, 20 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 per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miika Voutilainen-Gregg

Nonsense about a high school violin player created by an anonymous vandal. 165.189.91.148 16:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable. Most Google hits seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. jni 16:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Probably an advert. | Keithlaw 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete claims made not supported by google search, Only relevant listign i could find shows a person of this name performed at a concert at a music camp, apparently as a student. Many students so perform, and such performances are not notable in themselves. No soruces are cited for "prodigious rock violinist" or "Often compared to Gil Shaham, Isaac Stern, Joshua Bell, and Itzhak Perlman". The statement "has traveled all over Lexington, Massachusetts" is a giveaway that this is a hoax/avnity articel. I might add that the subject's name is speeled differently in the title and in the lead sentence, which should not be the case. DES (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why is his name spelt differently? I think we should send an email to the address on the website, and tell them to scram. -- Grande 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Qualifies as nn-bio. PJM 19:20, 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. Sorry, just zis Guy, you know?, but you're in a clear minority here. — JIP | Talk 17:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Corley

Trouble seeing that this person comes close to meeting WP:BIO, his main claim to notability appears to be active on Usenet, but there are few or no actual achievements. A Google check on "Mike Corley" produced about 11,200 hits but none of it seems to infer much notability and is most likely due to his internet activity. In contrast, a Google check on "Sjakkalle" gives 57,900 hits. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete in fact this would be a Speedy candidate in my opinion. Schitzophrenic usenet poster who may or may not even be a real person, according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete borderline speedy. Being a Usenet poster isn't notable nor is thinking that MI5, ASIO or the CIA are watching your every move if you are mentally ill. Distinct verifiability problems as well. Capitalistroadster 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:55, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whining Author Section

Oh dear, now I'm going to sound like all those whiners trying to keep their favourite band/website/comic/evangelist. I'm not going to vote (bad form voting on your own page: of course you want it kept!).

WP:V is not a problem (check the Google Groups Usenet archive going back as long as you want).

And I'm not claiming he's not notable for being mad, either. What I'm saying is that the particular form his mania has taken - which has involved making public complaints against public figures (Martyn Lewis, Jon Snow, John Major, Kenneth Clarke, the BBC in general), the fact that he has issued at least one plaint against the British Government (how many poeple actually do that?), and especially the way in which he has documented all his alleged persecution on the website ([30]) is quite singular, and has also resulted in him getting much wider notice than your average nutter. Now, that level of notice may not be enough - so be it - but much of it is a matter of public record via the Usenet archives and even court records. So, notability problems, yes, I'll accept that, but if it was unverifiable I would not have put the page up in the first place (and the editors of h2g2 would not have passed this - yes, the same Just zis Guy, you know?).

Also, just Googling for Mike Corley will miss a lot of references. Most of the threads he starts use munged addresses (and titles) to avoid the many spam filters people use to try to get rid of him. A google on MI5 +persecution yields 36,500 hits and all the top ones are Corley, the archive shows plenty more as well. He has sued the British Government (plaint struck out), complained to the Broadcasting Standards Council and so on. His profile is considerably higher than you'd expect, due in part to a relentless 15-year campaign of spamming by email, fax and Usenet.

I freely admit that I find the case as interesting as I find the person infuriating :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 18:53, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Exell

Delete. Probable hoax, talks about events about a person which have not taken place yet and are thus unverifiable. And it's created by a vandal (see contribs: [31]). The team he is supposedly playing for, Loccomatica Roma has nothing about Ewell Exell. [32] Sam Vimes 12:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • personal attack removed of coarse it is a hoax personal attack removed[33] unsigned comment by anon user:58.178.214.98, the article's author
    • Comment: The anon has vandalized a number of pages in apparent retaliation for this deletion nomination. Rossami (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Obvious hoax. "He was picked up as No 15 overall in the 2013 draft", "NBL's rookie of the year for 2011". --GraemeL (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete prognostication. - squibix 13:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikdipedia is not a Crystal Ball and all that jazz. -- 142.205.241.145 17:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete hoax --Rogerd 04:05, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mississauga Fire and Emergency Services

No indication of any particular notability or encyclopedic value. There are tens of thousands of such fire departments, most not relevant to anyone outside their service area, and indeed almost totally unknown outside said area. A paragraph in Mississauga possibly with an extrnal link, would serve better to present such relevant information as there is on this topic. Delete. DES (talk) 21:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep They responded to two major fires about which there are Wikipedia articles. A valid stub. Let it grow. Ground Zero | t 22:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, per Ground Zero, and my comments at other FD VfDs. - SimonP 23:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This a fire department in a smaller city, which is an important public service but of local notability only, so normally I would vote to merge it with Mississauga, Ontario. However that article is already quite long, so I think it is better to let this stay as a separate article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ground Zero --Rogerd 00:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Ground Zero makes a good point, people reading the articles on the fires may want to read up on the FD, but as it stands it's not going to be of much help. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 20 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 1, 2, 3...Uhhhhh... 4k, 5d, 3m, no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 15:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moose Jaw Fire Department

No indication of any particular notability or encyclopedic value. There are tens of thousands of such fire departmetns, most not relevant to anyone outside their service area, and indeed almost totally unknown outside said area. A paragraph in Moose Jaw, possibly with an extrnal link, would serve better to present such relevant information as there is on this topic. Delete' DES (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep, fire departments are just as notable as any high school. - SimonP 22:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The notability of schools is highly debated. Creating articles on fire departments only fuels the fire. (Please excuse the unfortunate pun). - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, important to citizens of Moose Jaw and the military base. No need for a whole paragraph in the main article. Kappa 00:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
good grief, the sewer system of Moose Jaw is important to the people of Moose Jaw too... why do I bother Pete.Hurd 05:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Funny how deletionist always turn to scatological references. What exactly is your objection to my being able to read about the sanitation system of this town? Kappa 00:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Important to the citizens of Moose Jaw? How is that important to anybody else? It's not. Fire department's are just as notable as any high school, yet the realization is that not every high school is notable; so by logic, put the pieces together and realize that Wikipedia is not big enough to accomodate every city's high school, fire department, police station, hospital, fire hydrant, crossing signal, etc... If at all, save deletion, merge with the main Moose Jaw article. (Notorious4life 05:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC))
    • I don't see why it would have to be important to anyone else, but this article is useful for anyone interested in fire departments in general (see category:Fire departments). Wikipedia is big enough for all the things you mentioned, although I don't think there's a great demand for articles about fire hydrants and crossing signals. Kappa 05:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan. As Kappa says, the fire department is important to the inhabitants there, but I don't think it has much significance outside outside that town. I have looked at the Moose Jaw article and I see that it has a section on the tunnels there and so adding a section on their fire department looks natural and should work well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:37, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Sjakkalle. - Mgm|(talk) 09:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A fifty-seven member fire brigade is inherently notable? I don't thinks so. Delete or Merge. --Calton | Talk 01:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable, not important outside of Moose Jaw.Ryoung122 22:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. No good reason to delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete, page about a non-notable 16-year old. Thue | talk 23:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Khaleeq

Extravagent claims with no citations - looks like a potential vanity article. Delete unless verified Average Earthman 13:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Should also add, this was linked to from the 1989 births page, so we're talking about a 16 year old here. Average Earthman 13:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete per nom, a clear case of vanity in my opinion. UkPaolo 13:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. The usual sort of crap that is added here by some random schoolkid every minute. jni 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - present contents fail to establish notability. --Bhadani 15:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. No claim of notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as probable and likely hoax. No references cited for notability claims. Hall Monitor 22:25, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation: Baby Clam--Rogerd 05:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Plot element used in a future episode of Family Guy ( Stewielocks and the Three Griffins) that was deleted via AFD a week or so ago. That episode page was recreated along with this, by the same editor Rx StrangeLove 04:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as rewrite. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
  • Delete under the not-a-crystal-ball clause. Possibly speedy-delete-able under G5. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 07:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as speculative fancruft (the worst kind) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. But not because it's a "plot element used in a future episode of Family Guy" (it's NOT). There is no production code for an episode titled "Stewielocks and the Three Griffins" nor is there any reference to "Operation: Baby Clam" from either FOX or Seth Macfarlane. STEWIELOCKS IS A HOAX and OPERATION: BABY CLAM IS A HOAX too. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not a crystal ball --Rogerd 05:14, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pasicrap

Non-notable website that isn't even running currently Delete —Brim 15:19, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 18:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pension bomb

A theory related to Social Security (United States), but likely individual research (particularly this POV name) and unlikley to improve. Any stuff about Social Security's future should be added to the existing article where it can be reviewed and cited. Harro5 23:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Issues well-covered in Social Security topic. Jtmichcock 04:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and redirect. Social Security is just a disambiguation page, where is it covered? Bryan 17:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
    • See the article mentioned in the explanation on US Social Security. Harro5 02:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per Jtmich -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Well known phrase in the UK, althouygh more commonly Pension time bomb. Rich Farmbrough 18:02, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    I've added a little to the article. Rich Farmbrough
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piet Bijl

Unknown to Google [34] [35] [36]. Delete. Ze miguel 11:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, looks unsalvageable. --Merovingian 11:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, admits to being placeholder. -- Mgm|(talk) 16:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons above. PJM 18:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:11, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Relaxer

Finishing incomplete nomination; no opinion. Anville 21:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. As it is, this smacks of dicdef but a good cleanup and expansion could make it a useful article. Eddie.willers 01:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's more than dicdef now. Interesting to boot. Ifnord 03:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per Ifnord --Rogerd 03:06, 20 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 closing afd as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religious Blackjack

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:58, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rich Perez Jr.

This is a memorial/vanity page. Cmdrjameson 20:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with the nominator's appraisal; however, after trimming the memorial language, what's left appears to be a decent military stub or sub-stub. Rather than pass judgment on the subject's notability, I elect to remain neutral. Anville 20:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the current stub. Youngamerican 21:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Tragic, but not encyclopedic, and a probable copyvio to boot. Gamaliel 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom. wikipedia is not a memorial. DES (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Yes, it is tragic. --J. Nguyen 22:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete, as per DES. Pete.Hurd 05:53, 22 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 as rewritten by User:Uncle G. — JIP | Talk 18:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Size

This article is nothing but a chart of ring sizes. WP:NOT an indiscriminate compilation of info. Delete. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • Keep This chart is nothing but a comparison of international standards for a multi-billion dollar business. I say its useful--Ewok Slayer 06:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. NatusRoma 06:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not sure I have an opinion either way yet. The table doesn't seem very encyclopedic on its own, but I don't yet have reason to believe that there's nothing more to say about the history of ring sizes. Nominator, could you say more about why this shouldn't be treated as a stub? I note similar reference material at, e.g., ASCII. --William Pietri 06:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Google shows nothing relevant to the history of ring sizes. If any reader actually knows something about it, please be bold and add your knowledge to the pool; otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that there is no encyclopedic information available. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
      • Hmmmm... I'm not persuaded that a lack of quick Google hits proves that nothing is known to the minds of mankind. Many other standards have very interesting histories, like the 80-column limit of terminals (based on an old US bank note size) or railroad track width. At least one jeweler has interesting things to say about ring sizes, and I'd bet there's more out there. I'm voting keep for now. --William Pietri 15:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain. I'm sorta kinda on the fence as well. This might be made encyclopedic per William Pietri's suggestions. Might actually be quite useful with a bit more content. - Lucky 6.9 06:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. This seems like good info to have, but I too am undecided on its "encyclopaedic" nature. Since the article is not yet a day old, perhaps renominate for Afd if it hasn't been expanded upon within the next week or two? --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Blackcap (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikibooks. -- RHaworth 08:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as it stands. Good rewrite. Keep. --Last Malthusian 10:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I suspect that the original introductory sentence came from the same source as did the data in the table itself. Uncle G 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article isn't great as it is yet, but it's not worth throwing away. What's wrong with shoe or dress sizes, as well? JPD (talk) 11:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand. I can never figure out how ring sizes are determined. This chart is helpful. Some expansion in terms of background and methodology is in order, but that's a clean-up project. Jtmichcock 12:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. It has merit, I'd say. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, but move to Ring size, and expand beyond table. UkPaolo 13:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with hope of expansion. If in a year this is still mere information I might vote delete, but the one minute given by the nominator sure isn't enough. --William Pietri 15:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and mark as stub. Herostratus 16:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Needs explanatory text. Durova 17:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep this useful information! (and move too Ring size) Karol 17:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article comprises a conversion table amongst various countries' systems of jewellery ring measurement. Looking at Imperial unit, Conversion of units, Cooking weights and measures, Metrified English unit, and Approximate conversion between English and SI units it would seem fairly obvious that discussion of and conversion amongst different systems of measurement is a wholly appropriate topic for an encyclopaedia article, and in no way indiscriminate. What is required here is for the article to be sourced, and some context supplied for the different systems of measurement. Research turns up plenty of sources discussing ring sizes and the conversions between the different systems. Keep. Uncle G 19:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Nice expansion, Uncle G! This addresses any concerns I had. --William Pietri 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • definitive keep: solid information. do not keep strict adherence to old fashioned encyclopedia concept, please expand to handbook notion V8rik 23:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks good now. Jasmol 01:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the subject has an ISO standard, it probably deserves an encyclopædia article too. —Psychonaut 03:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Measures and standards, and comparisons between systems of them, is a highly encyclopedic topic. MCB 06:45, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewrite. Nice job as always. Jacqui★ 16:02, 21 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sacklicker

unverifiable neologism dictdef

  • Delete nominator. Article creator's only other significant contribution is Gutterslang which has been AFD'd above—see Mondojava (talk • contribs). --KGF0 ( T | C ) 20:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. --Neigel von Teighen 20:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 20:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:14, 20 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 to Bikini Bottom, then delete/redirect. - Mailer Diablo 16:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sand Mountain (Bikini Bottom)

Fictional mountain in a kids' cartoon that I discovered it when an anon added it to List of ski areas. Delete as subtrivial and non-notable. Martg76 23:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Renata3 19:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How about a merge and redirect to Bikini Bottom? I don't really care about Spongebob, but I'm afraid that even though he's fictional the place he lives is pretty notable too. - Mgm|(talk) 10:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect works for me. Alf melmac 12:44, 23 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 00:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seton Hall University Tecmo Bowl League

Non-notable organization. It's too bad, because this is actually well-written. Delete —Brim 23:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete or Userfy to the creator's (User:Brodie319) user page. - Bobet 02:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable organization. Good video game, though. There are several college Tecmo Bowl leagues. None of them are "notable." --J. Nguyen 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, nonnotable. tregoweth 06:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 00:37, 20 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 closing afd as entry is already deleted. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Pot Racing

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:56, 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 merge. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simple club

I really don't know what to do with this article. Suggestions? No vote --Neigel von Teighen 19:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Dictdef at best. Not a standard term as far as I know. Dlyons493 Talk 20:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge/RedirectSee also Composite club by the same author - two terms are seen in D&D and roleplaying --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into club (weapon) --Rogerd 03:17, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Smudglings

Non-notable writing group. 33 google hits, not clear if any are even relevant.Brighterorange 03:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete unless notability can be established. —Brim 06:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete but encourage them to keep the unfinished works off WP... Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom FRS 19:27, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:19, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Snatch watch

Hardly needs justifying, does it? Maccoinnich 01:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete- {{tripe}} Reyk 01:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and fast. --Grande 15:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:Complete bollocks Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unverifiable. Trollderella 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: Advocates illegal behavior and child abuse, but it is also a personal definition of a personal game played by kiddies. What you're describing is the onset of puberty, kids. It gets worse. Geogre 21:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a speedy though. Wikipedia isn't even censored for the protection of minors, let alone that being a speedy criteria. --Last Malthusian 15:01, 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 redirect to Sonnet. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sonnett

Non-notable english rock band, can't find them on google and are listed as "little known" in this article.jfg284 you were saying? 13:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll agree with a redirect, at first i thought maybe someone has vandalised the sonnet page, then realized that I had found the article under new pages, so it had to have been newly created and not just a total page blank/rewrite. In any case, both sonet and sonett already have pages... the former is a disambig, so i just added a line about a misspelled version of "sonnet," and the latter redirects to Saab Sonett. Should someone place a disambig type heading like This is an article on an automobile. For the poetic form "sonnet," click here? I think it'd be helpful, following the same logic that double letter mixups are easy. Thoughts?jfg284 you were saying? 16:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, article even acknowledges band is little known. UkPaolo 13:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
+redirect per Last Malthusian. UkPaolo 16:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect to sonnet would seem in order. Double letter mix-ups are surely the commonest misspelling there is. --Last Malthusian 15:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per Last Malthusian, with thanks to the band for making our job easier. If only all these NN bands started by saying they were "little known" :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect per above. --Syrthiss 15:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:54, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spoon FM, Spoonage

A British internet radio station and its blog. Alexa doesn't even give a traffic ranking for the radio station, and the external links lead one to presume that this serves to plug the websites. Pilatus 14:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable webcast. It ain't radio if it ain't on the radio. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Webcast can be radio and some deserve articles, but there needs to be proof of a significant audience. - Mgm|(talk) 16:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:50, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Squabble drums

A google search shows that practically no one is saying anything about these "squabble drums" and "turbo and vagabond", contrary to the article's claim about how famous and legendary they are.... delete, vanity, non-notable. wikipediatrix 02:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • I found one mention of it here [37], but Delete per above. PJM 04:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable neologism (or maybe just fancruft) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for being unverifiable and Big In Japan. Eddie.willers 13:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 05:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete for being Big In Japan.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starport

Doesn't appear noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article - Akamad 05:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Might be interesting if there was more content, but as is, certainly no strong claim for notability. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 06:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn and almost no content.--Alhutch 07:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete possibly even speedy as nugatory content of no discernible or asserted importance. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:31, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Strongcore7

The article does not mention any release or tour. 8 google hits, all in Norwegian, apparently. Delete per WP:MUSIC Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 16:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wow, it's more google hits than my site, but definately non-notable.... --Vilerage 20:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:47, 20 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 vandalism. -Doc ask? 13:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superman (sex move)

This article identifies "Superman" as sexual slang for a rather coarse series of events that is likely to never be practiced. Google test reveals very little reference to this slang (in fact, the only similar one I could find was on the self-referenced Encyclopedia Dramatica). The article also insults Wikipedia and was not designed to convey information. Wikipedia is not a slang directory, nor a publisher of original thought. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 09:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Substub slang dictdef. Half the content is an insult to Wikipedia, claiming that this article has already been speedy deleted once (incorrectly at least at this namespace). Saberwyn 10:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete: db-attack or db-g3. PJM 12:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and throw from window. Eddie.willers 12:59, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Synonus

Vanity band page, barely any text. Jake 07:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete non-notable band, only 47 Google hits, mostly from myspace.com. I say get rid of it!--Alhutch 08:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. Come back when you have the platinum albums, guys. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:30, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Systemic organizing

I have proposed this for deletion because:

  • The english is worthless
  • It tends to be advertising
  • It does not make a point, i.e. It is trying to say something without doing so
  • It does not link to anything

I know this sounds more like a cleanup item, but I have AfD'd it because it doesn't say anything.

Delete.

Nazgjunk||(talk) 22:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as worthless jibberjabber. AFD can be Cleanup. Eddie.willers 02:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 00:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete may qualify as patent nonsense. I think it's trying not to say anything, while retaining the appearance of saying something Pete.Hurd 05:52, 22 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tarrazu

I'm relisting this article again as it appears the copyvio is ressolved has a claim of permission grant, and this time under the grounds of NN. - Mailer Diablo 18:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete: looks non-notable, includes spam (phone number, etc., overlaps with coffee. --User:Taejo | Talk 18:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 18:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. MCB 07:31, 21 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taylor Harris

College-age bio. Hard to tell if it's vanity, attack, or simply nonsense, but it definitely isn't encyclopedic. 165.189.91.148 21:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • He actualy helped my child through a difficult time in his life. So this entry is warrented —preceding unsigned comment by Sellitho (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC-5)
  • My name is Taylor Harris, please remove me from this search! I am not Wikipedia material! —preceding unsigned comment by 192.197.60.2 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 18 November 2005 (UTC-5)
  • Googel shows only 5 hits on "Taylor Harris" + "Thunder Bay". Those hits suggest that there is at least one person by that name who lives in that area, but do not support any of the specific statements in the article. At the very least, one or more sources that verify the existance of this person must be cited. But beyoned that, the facts stated in the current version do not really seem to describe a notable person. Indeed this is IMO on the edge of speedy delete for WP:CSD A7 (nn-bio). Delete unless citations are addedd demonstrating existance and notability. DES (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I'd have speedied this. DJ Clayworth 22:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as non-notable biography. Indeed could be a hoax as it seems unverifiable. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 00:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

There are several Taylor Harris in Thunder bay, you may not have found any information on him because his work goes largely unnoticed.


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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? 12:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Bell Orchestre

Appears to be a brief advertisement for some content on a person's computer. I vote to delete RJH 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete. Not worthy of our time. Harro5 23:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonsense. Herostratus 07:04, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Cazals

nnband failing WP:MUSIC-- -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 10:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. PJM 12:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. UkPaolo 13:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 04:22, 20 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The EEN

Not notable - few Ghits which are mostly irrelevant.

  • Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 20:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 06:06, 22 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The ITT List

Wikipedia is not a web directory, useless blogcruft, vanity. alexa rating of 900,000 and no google news Skrewler 02:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Vanity. --Depakote 05:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with In These Times which is a notable left wing magazine in the US - this is its weblog. See [38] for a description of In These Times. Capitalistroadster 05:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I've just added the (little) content that was on The ITT List onto In These Times. Skrewler 06:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Now that its mentioned on In These Times, problem solved. This can now be deleted or redirected to In These Times. --Timecop 08:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Femmina 12:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not least because if the editors of the mag don't think this stuff is important, I sure as hell don't care about it :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 15:45, 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 redirect to Sith. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Sith Conspiracy

Delete. Already covered, and in more detail, elsewhere. --Maru (talk) Contribs 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Made redundant by various other Star Wars articles. Saberwyn 05:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll support a redirect, but delete still is my first option. Saberwyn 08:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless an appropriate redirect is found. Kappa 08:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete or maybe redirect per above if people really can't bring themselves to nuke it. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 14:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. Way too many articles on little corners of fictional worlds (that would be deleted if they were in the "real world", for lack of noteriety). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If a secret order of sorcerors successfully conspired to take over a galaxy-spanning representative democracy in the real world, I think it would be notable. Redirect to Sith, or delete. -LtNOWIS 21:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Sith --Pc13 22:19, 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 KEEP. — JIP | Talk 18:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Toronto Fire Services

No indication of any particular notability or encyclopedic value. There are tens of thousands of such fire departments, most not relevant to anyone outside their service area, and indeed almost totally unknown outside said area. This one is for a large adn well-known city, but is not otherwise notable. A paragraph in Toronto possibly with an extrnal link, would serve better to present such relevant information as there is on this topic. Delete. DES (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. These Fire Services, however much respect I have for them, haven't done anything remarkable enough for Wikipedia. Nazgjunk||(talk) 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, vastly larger and more important than the thousands of high schools we have articles on. - SimonP 22:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment If i had my way we would delete most of those, also. But the exiatance and indeed the gernal acceptance of one calss of poor articels (such as School articels, or Pokemon characters) does not justify another such class. DES (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and more important than the thousands of articles on Pokemon, Star Wars, Star Trek and Harry Potter characters. Ground Zero | t 22:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep per SimonP and Ground Zero. 23skidoo 01:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has over a hundred years of history behind it and if expanded (I won't do it) it can make a decent article. However, I do not suscribe to SimonP and Ground Zero's point that because high schools and Pokemon characters must exist that fire departments must also. --maclean25 02:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm with Maclean25. Please judge an article on its own merits. Just because we have crap that's not deleted, doesn't mean we should allow more in. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong keep A major municipal service in a large city should have its own article and should be enhanced, not deleted. Should we consider deleting the article about the Toronto Police Service too? How about the better way? Or the FDNY, NYPD, or even NYPD Blue? Given its size and structure, there is only a very slight argument (if at all) to merge the TFS article into a unified article about all of Toronto's emergency services (GZ, et al: God forbid articles about beloved sci-fi characters being less important, but I agree that Pokemon should die. :)) E Pluribus Anthony 07:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This is an article on the fire service of a major city, not an individual fire station, and its educational counterpart would be a school district and not an individual school. The fire service is an important part of the public service, and the article looks good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:54, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • keep This is hardly Nowheresville, Idaho Fire Department. CalJW 14:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable service of a notable city. --YUL89YYZ 23:03, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Something doesn't have to be unique to be notable. It's a major and important institution. Skeezix1000 02:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep organization with significant history. Provides context to the Great Toronto Fire. - Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 20 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 18:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trixi tang

just created by anon ip. barely legible.Dave 00:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Redirect to The Fairly OddParents, which has an entry for her. Joyous | Talk 01:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete- I'd say this is straying dangerously close to patent nonsense territory. No sane person could be expected to make sense of this miasma of misguided fancrufty enthusiasm. Reyk 01:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Almost incomprehensible. I could just barely understand about half of it. ♠DanMS 02:42, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to The Fairly Oddparents as per WP:FICT. The short paragraph in that article is actually understandable. On second thoughts, Delete. Capitalistroadster 04:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect Delete as per abovebelow. --Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 05:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete no point redirecting (incorrect capitalisation) and nothing coherent enough to merge. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 12:40, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect, so what if the capitalisation is wrong? If we had an article with the correct capitalisation, we'd redirect to that. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But it's spelled wrong, too, if the main article for the show is any indicator. It's not a double mistake that too many people are likely to make. Dave 15:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete and send the user to public school so they can learn how to spell. --Grande 15:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Irretrievable bad Prashanthns 17:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - cringe! Don't you just worry about the standard of some new contributions to Wikipedia? Moriori 18:16, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep... I fixed the typos and grammar. Wikipedia is supposed to be about collaborative development, not criticizing and deleting people's hard work... Voyager640 19:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You fixed the typos and grammar? Could have fooled me!. It's still a mess. OK, that's the criticism bit, but the collaborative bit is that I'll give it a much needed haircut. Cheers. Moriori 20:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
      • OK, I have put into some semblance of English and tidied it a bit but it is still much ado about absolutely nothing and I still say Delete. Moriori 20:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No evidence that someone would repeat the misspelling and incorrect capitalization in a search to therefore need the redirect, and the article's contents are already knowable to fans of the show and unsearchable by non-fans. The bit about the origin of the character would, at best, be part of an article on the cartoon itself. In short, it is too granular and unusable. Geogre 21:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Joel7687 21:58, 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. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Trolls Cottage

Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackcap (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete no mention on allmusic. article is a substub too. --Syrthiss 16:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, no assertion of meeting WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 17:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:24, 20 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 Determinism. -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Undetermined

Appears to be a dictionary definition, so far Delete Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, dicdef. PJM 16:08, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DVD+ R/W 17:17, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Determinism, which goes into great depth. - AdelaMae 19:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:47, 20 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. — JIP | Talk 18:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Warsaw Fire Brigade

This was deleted after an AfD discussion here, brought to Deletion Review, then undeleted before the DRV discussion was complete. As most of thsoe who favored overturning the previous close also favored relisting this, I am doing so. DES (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete The content is very limited, and no sources are curetnly cited except for the stamp. I do not see any reason in the content presented for this to need a separate article. Any appropriate content can be included in Warsaw, Poland. DES (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, no self-respecting encyclopedia would destroy its information about the founding of this fire brigade, and if merged it would lose the interwiki link to the Polish wikipedia. The Warsaw article doesn't need to mention every stamp issued about one of its features. Kappa 17:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A link can certianly be added to Warsaw that links to the relevant article on the polish wikipedia, if desired. DES (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Complex vote elaborated below - currently delete. I'm in agreement with DES. I'm not convinced by the presence of the interwiki link; en.wikipedia is not compelled to arrange information the same way pl.wikipedia does, just as I don't expect pl.wikipedia to arrange their info the same way we do.
    • Delete if no sources are cited for the nontrivial claims in this article, as unverified.
    • Merge if sources are cited and this isn't significantly expanded, as the substantive claims could fit into Warsaw.
    • Keep if someone expands this with non-trivial information. Right now, this claims that Warsaw has a fire brigade and that it was founded on such-and-such date. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a great article, but we do have articles on 17 other fire departments. - SimonP 18:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks, i'll review them. I've already listed one for deletion 0-- in fact it looks like a rather clearer case than this. DES (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I believe the topic is quite interesting and the Polish wiki article (though also tagged for cleanup) explains it a tad better. Anyway, the Brigade seems both notable and encyclopedic, so I don't think we should delete it. Expanding it would be a better option and after the weekend I could do it myself (or at least translate the Polish wiki page). How about that? Halibutt 18:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • BTW, if we deleted the article, it's re-creation (even in a much improved form) would be much harder. So, improving it seems a better choice. Halibutt
    • That would be great. I would love to see a proper article on a 170-year-old fire department. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:03, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per some points made above. Must be improved. PJM 18:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep (but please expand). After all, there is an article on the Moose Jaw Fire Department... --Tupsharru 19:28, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I just nominated that one for deletion -- nice catch. DES (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, verifiable topic, and the article is undergoing improvement. I don't see why we needed to Afd this. Friday (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - it is now a good stub, with prospects for growth --- Charles Stewart 20:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable institution in Warsaw. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The latest cleanup has saved this article. The article is hardly a great one, but it is at least somewhat useful now, and a large city's fire service is a valid topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A good start. CalJW 14:55, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable, verifiable, encyclopedic. BD2412 T 16:33, 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG (entry was deleted but AFD page hadn't been closed). -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Womanbusters II - Katie's Revenge

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:58, 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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG (entry was deleted but AFD page hadn't been closed) -- ( drini's vandalproof page ☎ ) 05:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] World Heroes 3

Article was nominated as part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RyanVG debate. Consensus within the articles was to delete all, for varying reasons. While RyanVG was deleted, the individual games remain, and I am re-nominating all the games for deleteion as low-key Nintendo ROM hacks. Saberwyn 09:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Saberwyn 09:56, 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 Speedy delete. -Doc ask? 12:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrist fight

High school nonsense. 165.189.91.148 22:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete as nonsense. Harro5 23:52, 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 merge with St. Mark's Place (Manhattan). - Mailer Diablo 16:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yaffa Café

Generic café -- Wikipedia is not a restaurant guide. 165.189.91.148 20:09, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: I created it as a supplemental for St. Mark's Place and didn't intend for it to be an advertisement, only an explination of the reference in that article. ~Meligan 20:25 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 Speedy deleted as link spam by Lucky 6.9 06:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yahoo! India Cricket

Delete all adverts. Possibly should merge it with Yahoo!. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)

  • It's going away right now as link spam. So is this user. Variations on this theme are all he's done. - Lucky 6.9 06:31, 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. DS 15:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zaclink

Can't verify information in article; possible hoax. --Viriditas 09:07, 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 2 keep/6 delete after disregarding unsigned votes and those with extremely low edit counts (both edit count related discounts had under 10 edits) 75% to delete. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Zombie Squad

composed of a few hundred members only? non-notable? Zzzzz 19:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom Zzzzz 19:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A good cause, but fails the notability litmus test per nom. --PeruvianLlama(spit) 19:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notability is not part of deletion policy. This is verifiable and a good, neutral article is possible. Trollderella 20:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Notability is a big part of the deletion criteria. That's why we delete "Fred J Skewfixer is a student at Trogmore High." and suchlike. Anyway, delete. DJ Clayworth 22:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually, it does not appear in any policy. The reason we would delete that is because it is not verifiable. That is policy. Trollderella 21:50, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:CSD, WP:BIO, and WP:WEB, which, in Trollderella's defense, define notability in specific contexts. Anyway, verifiability is actually the bigger issue here; I don't see any evidence that there's even a "squad" here, but just a zombie movie fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Well, this isn't CSD, not that the CSD policy mentions notabilty - it doesn't. WP:Bio does, but it's not policy, and WP:web does, but it is only proposed, not polciy. Notability is not part of deletion policy. Trollderella 23:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unless this community has a significant offline presence, it fails WP:WEB miserably. The Alexa ranking is six digits and the forum has about 2250 usernames. Delete this unless someone can provide some verifiable info showing that this isn't a zombie-movie fansite. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep.
    • Please share your reasoning and sign your vote. - Mgm|(talk) 19:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unverifiable. Find me some legitimate sources for the info and my vote'll change, but I couldn't find any. Ziggurat 22:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN --Rogerd 03:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Please try to find a valid reason for recommending deletion ;) Trollderella 23:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep thats all bull!
    • Please sign your posts! Trollderella 23:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
discounted by closing admin JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep These guys have a significant presence in charity work and disaster preparedness ( see linked articles above ). Rus 13:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually folks - take a look - this deserves a second glance - I think it is verifiable. Trollderella 18:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
discounted by closing admin, user has only 6 edits. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep They are not just a zombie movie site, they have projects that often bring members together (Zombie Con) and do various charity events (like Hurricane Katrina relief). --Kyle S. 00:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
discounted by closing admin, user has only 9 edits. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:57, 24 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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Log_2005_November_18_9d01.html"