Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FM Toyohashi

nn Japanese radio station. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• abstain for now, will wait until some editors with more knowledge on Japan vote. Youngamerican 01:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC) weak keep based on my analysis of the arguements below. Youngamerican 03:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this is an extremely low-power station, which are usually not notable, but since it is in a relatively large city, it may have a large audience. -- Kjkolb 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, potential audience of over 800,000 according to the Japanese page. Kappa 04:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above comment by Kjkolb and vote by Kappa. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep per kappa --Isolani 10:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC) I change my vote to 'abstain' as long as it isn`t cleared up, thanks for pointing the Wattage issue out kjkolb. --Isolani 11:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment No vote because I'm not sure of the policy on radio stations, but is 'potential' audience really relevant? Something's potential audience can be huge but that doesn't mean anyone watches/listens to it - websites are the extreme example of this. --Last Malthusian 10:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: that's why I didn't vote keep. Even the most non-notable station in a big city has a big potential audience (though some have such a small range, it might not be that big). I'm voting delete for now because it doesn't make sense for a notable radio station to have such a low transmitting power. It's only 20 Watts. The well known local FM stations in my area are 3,000 to 25,000 Watts, and they're not big city stations, which are often more powerful. If someone from the area says it's notable or some other evidence is found, I'll reconsider. -- Kjkolb 11:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep PJM 13:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A "potential" audience is not the actual audience; for example, NHL on cable TV in the US has a potential audience somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 million. It has an actual audience generally less than 500 thousand. As for 20 watts, my local (population approx 15000 ppl) radio station broadcasts at 50000 watts.--Scïmïłar ^parley 18:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article claims that this station was the third ever community FM station in Japan. Also claims that it is a leader in the low-power community FM movement and is an 'opinion leader'. To me, that sounds sufficient for it to have an article on Wikipedia. This probably has as much listener-ship as most college radio stations in the US, and it is generally considered that a college radio station is notable enough to have an article. Cleanup of this article would be a good move, though, I think! —Morven 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'm a keep here. A bread and butter entry. Marskell 22:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A 20-watt radio station has a "potential audience of over 800,000"? Leaving aside the nonsensensical handwaving about "potential audience" (every website, by that logic, has a "potential audience" of billions), there's no way 20 watts is going to cover that many residents. Urban Japan may have a high population density, but it ain't THAT high. --Calton | Talk 01:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Scimi and Calton. encephalon 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC) Further comment. I should have said this earlier. In common with most problematic pages on Wikipedia, this one does not meet WP:V and WP:RS. There is a self referential external link, but there are no references to any independent, reputable publications (newspaper, magazine, book, thesis, monograph or other) that focus on this subject (ie the station): if someone had off-loaded spam onto Wikipedia, it will not look much different. That is the main reason this page should be deleted. In addition to that, the wattage of the station raised concerns about whether the unverified claims and projections might not be entirely incorrect: however, this is a technical issue, and its answer, whatever it is, is of secondary importance to the central weakness pointed out above. Fg2's comment seems to suggest that it is possible for a 20W statio to broadcast as widely as the blurb on the page claims. I'm willing to go along with the claim that this is true in principle, although I'm not convinced that this station actually manages it. Be that as it may, this is peripheral to the problems of the page. My vote remains unaltered. Regards encephalon 01:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added a couple of external sources now. Probably no one that helps verify the 20W claim, but at least I found evidence for the existence of the station (and a one-hour Portuguese-language programme on it) Sam Vimes 07:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is verifiable, honest information. Deleting this article would diminish Wikipedia's encyclopedic nature. For reference, note that the city of Toyohashi has an area of about 260 square kilometers (the same as a circle with a radius of 9 km or 6 mi) and a population of 380,000. Fg2 02:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Morven Sam Vimes 09:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Obviously. If this survives AfD, it needs to be relisted and the nominator needs to a better job pointing out the 20W issue, which is less than a lightbulb. That may, however, be a mistake for 20 MW. Dottore So 12:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: a mistake for 20 kW perhaps, but not 20 MW, as that would probably make it the most powerful station on Earth. However, some small stations are actually 20 W or less. I believe the FCC requires a license at 10 W, so unlicensed stations, in the U.S. at least, would be even less. -- Kjkolb 14:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • lol. Thanks for correcting the error. I believe you are correct about the cut-off; iPod and other digital music player attachments that work over FM are about 10 are they not? And those barely have enough juice to get picked up by a car antenna. It makes a 20w station highly unlikely and definitely not noteworthy.Dottore So 16:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Walkie-talkies (hand-held transceivers) are in the milliwatts, and have ranges of a few hundred meters. Radio amateurs, with bigger antennas, can communicate halfway around the world with five or ten watts. Yes, that's comparable to a night light. See this link. A high transmitter tower is a key to success in an FM station. Fg2 21:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn Radio station --JAranda | watz sup 02:00, 10 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 wasThe result of this dabate was Keep (10/1).May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fotolog

Relatively low Alexa rank, but stats going down every day. [7] Will not be anything resembling notable in six months. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete... promotional vanity...Dakota 00:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Over 2 and a half million Google results see [8] and nearly two million users makes it notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 00:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable enough for inclusion to me. If it becomes NN later on it can be deleted then. --ASchmoo 01:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, once notable, always notable. Kappa 11:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Needs some clean up. PJM 14:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Two million users, a relatively popular photo hosting site. One of the earlier ones, being a bit eclipsed by some of the newer arrivals, but still notable enough I think. Article needs some work, but let's do that instead of deleting. —Morven 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As a further note, outranked flickr according to Alexa until mid July. —Morven 18:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; clean up. --Optichan 19:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and expand, as it is notable. Carioca 20:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable site, still popular, and not dead yet. --Calton | Talk 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please do not erase this later either we should keep it forever for research reasons Yuckfoo 18:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep the site recently got helped out by investors and should only keep improving. Its extremely popular in Brazil . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamesinclair (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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuckface

Delete NN band; can't find anything via Google (only a Fuckface record label) and allmusic.com shows a blank page. PJM 13:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete it seems punk band by this name does exist [9] but nn (doesn't pass WP:MUSIC). jnothman ^talk 13:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per jnothman. BrianSmithson 13:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd suggest linking it to Bill Ripken because of the famous baseball card misprint, but that might be a rather insulting redirect... flowersofnight (talk) 16:45, 3 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 Ingoolemo ^talk 05:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global Factory

Currently is nothing more than an advertisement. I removed two in-text possible linkspams to the site. If it warrants inclusion, it needs rewritten. However, although it's not too easy to judge from the website (smallish company playing large?), the Alexa rankings and info seem to indicate that this isn't a major site/company. Also, this is anon user's only contrib (hence spam?). I currently vote Weak delete. Fourohfour 20:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopaedic advert. As far as I can tell the term is used (occasionally) as a neologism with conflicting meanings to describe various effects of the globalisation of manufacturing industry. The company described in the article is apparently very small with a restricted geographical scope. The article is probably unverifiable as the only obvious source of info is the company's own website. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:25, 6 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. Joyous (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Dennison

seems to be non-existent person/character, not confirmable via Google; allegedly the creator or alter ego of, or same person as, the equally unconfirmable Montgomery Sands, cited above. Flapdragon 03:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless verified. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete..hoax no google hits..Dakota ? e 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harry's_place

Archive of previous VFD (how did this pass?) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry's Place2

Obvious vanity/advertisement, not notable Skrewler 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Harry's what? --Timecop 14:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No attempt has been made to establish notability. TheMadBaron 15:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Blatant vanity, advertisement, non-noteable. --KirkJohnson
• Delete -- Femmina 22:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. According to Alexa, my personal homepage has almost twice as many page views. Without details on how its founders may be notable outside of this blog or on how it might influence other people and/or websites, I don’t think its sole existence is notable enough. Just another opinion website. Sam Hocevar 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --supers 23:21, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. Incognito 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Waste of time. --Impi.za 00:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. 65.34.232.136 02:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable blog. —Cleared as filed. 11:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I've never heard of this 'Harry's Place' shit, and nor do I ever want to again. Non-notable, worthless garbage. --86.2.56.178 12:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose listing. This was only removed from AfD 6 days ago. Angela. 12:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There were only 2 votes last time, I can't tell but it may have been ended early also. -Skrewler 12:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Angela, it certainly falls within administrator discretion to relist nominations with extremely low participation. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, I don't think it will be a few days from now either. Vanity. --Depakote 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn blog. Dottore So 13:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete How the hell did this survive its previous AfD listing? Someone tell me, please. Whoever voted keep last time should hang their heads in shame. Reyk 01:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I hate jumped-up-charlie, "look at me, I'm on Wikipedia", self-referential blogshite as much as the next guy... nay, much more than the next guy. Unfortunately, a very little internet research shows: Alexa is 110,806, which isn't great but isn't bad, Google shows that it's made it into the gaurdian um ,twice and was even nominated by them for the Backbencher's political weblog awards. Thus, as this is not a vote every entry with "not notable" is just a waste of photons, methink. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, ok guys, had your fun yet? --Daniel11 02:01, 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HBO Movie Premieres

pointless list Melaen 01:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Pointless. -- Necrothesp 02:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless listcruft -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 18:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Kingfox 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. encephalon 23:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 03:04, 4 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 Ingoolemo ^talk 05:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heuristic squelch

Not notable student newsletter. Dglynch 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 06:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete – non-notable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 06:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. encephalon 02:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable *drew 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a real (humorous) paper. Notable. --Zippy 06:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • as evidence of its noteworthiness, the phrase "heuristic squelch" yields 20k hits on Google, with a quick scan of the first 30 results showing that most point to this paper (~ 2 results appear to be dictionary spam pages) and the paper has been published for > 3 years. --Zippy 06:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hilarious consequences

Subject is not encyclopedic and undeserving an article. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 05:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP is not a dictionary or usage guide. Flapdragon 14:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• There was also a Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/hilarious consequences listed in the AFD log. I had voted delete there and I vote delete now. Oh, and I redirected it to this AFD page once I realized it existed. --Optichan 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, without hilarious consequences. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:20, 3 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. This utterly humorless AFD closer failed to find anything funny in the article, so I'm not sending it to BJAODN. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infovangelist

Neologism, although it is one of the better tries. No google hits. 66.191.124.236 09:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The lack of Google hits pretty much invalidates the term... though I did chuckle at it. -- Captain Disdain 11:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• 'delete, unfortunately. I had good fun reading it though. --Isolani 11:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I like the "fresh out of prison" remark. -- Kjkolb 11:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN unworthy of retention, but it would be a shame to loose via deletion... Pete.Hurd 22:08, 6 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 I have noticed that the entire text is copied from the heading at the forum's website, and is therefore a copyvio which I will list at WP:CP. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International communication forum

The page offers no links to any other articles, does not give evidence supporting it's relevance, and is poorly written. Therefore, it should be deleted. ---Ayumbhara

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 07:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a real organization, which is described on some government and NOG web sites as participating in international conferences. The web site is [[10]], and a description of the organization is at [11]. Yeah, it needs work, but that is not grounds for deletion. - Dalbury 22:44, 3 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 ambiguous. Vote count leaves us with nothing clear. My observation here is that verifiability and the lack of cited sources is a concern, something that has not really been adequately covered by the "keep" voters. I also observe that the article is extremely short. While there is not a consensus to delete, I will use my discretion and call this a redirect to multiverse, as has been suggested by at least two people, and invite people to undo this redirect if they wish to expand this article and, most importantly, make it verifiable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interuniversal space

Virtually undocumented neologism, scoring 4 Google hits GTBacchus 10:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• If verified, merge with Multiverse. Otherwise delete. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The name interuniversal space seems to use the analogy of intergalactic space, interstellar space and interplanetary space. Garr 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But why do you posit that universes are necessarily separated specifically spacially, just as the known groupings you mentioned? Unless someone who knows anything about the subject is able to clarify this, I suggest: delete. Dusik 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. GuardDog 01:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - It seems to have already been deleted - not sure why the week on AfD was waived... -GTBacchus 04:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I just restored it. It was definitely deleted out of process. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete total neologism. So what if it's in keeping with intergalactic etc.? That doesn't mean it's in use. Marskell 08:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I apologise for the speedy delete - at the time I was reviewing a series of contributions made by a suspicious user (User:64.194.44.220), and I had the honest impression that it was intentional nonsense (and so speediable). But in fact this user did not originate this article, and on review it appears to be a legitimate topic about which research may exist. I do think though that it should be redirected to "multiverse" until such time as someone writes more detailed information on the topic. Deco 20:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Multiverse. 64.194.44.220 21:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but verify it. --N0thingness 03:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Edwardian 07:05, 7 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 both. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Isobelle-Jane Letters

NN writer. 3 google hits. See also Isobelle-Jane letters. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 21:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ifnord 21:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 00:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. *drew 03:58, 4 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JamesRedfern

Vanity page about student. Cannot find evidence of "published" work. NymphadoraTonks 20:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per own nomination. -NymphadoraTonks 20:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy if possible. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 20:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment/No Vote Anon IP creator would make userfying difficult. Saberwyn 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Thue | talk 20:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fourohfour 21:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. This is a classic candidate for an A7 Speedy Delete. Could possibly be a redirect to early 1970's Australian singer Jamie Redfern except for the lack of punctuation. Capitalistroadster 01:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN vanity *drew 03:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A7. -- Captain Disdain 04:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pure vanity..Dakota ? e 06:55, 4 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 --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeff Kingsbury

non-notable Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete only claim to fame is as a member of a band that wouldn't get its own article either (Googling "The Extreme Zombies" gets, amongst other things, a more-notable-but-still-not-worth-an-article skateboarding (?) team). By the way, please consider putting more effort into your nomination. Explain why the article should be deleted (e.g. no Google hits), don't just write "non-notable". Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 20:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the tip. I'll try to be more verbose in the future. I could've at least said, "Non-notable, as the band itself doesn't even have an article yet." Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Bearcat 01:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. *drew 03:55, 4 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 kept DS 23:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jim Jiangbo

Article's creator is a very good contributor to Wikipedia, but Jim Jiangbo doesn't get a single Google hit (My Chinese isn't good enough to check for Chinese websites though.) For now I say delete for lack of notability, but if the article's creator can convince me otherwise, I'm more than willing to change my vote. Aecis ^{praatpaal 22:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

• Okay... that's odd. I read his name in an article about art purchasing trends at North American art shows, one of the trends is Chinese work. Here's the quote from today's Toronto Star article "Big art fair says much about buyers' tastes": No art magazine with a circulation of more than six readers has gone without a recent feature on the burgeoning contemporary art practice in China. TIAF brought Shengtian Zheng — co-curator of 2004 Shanghai Biennale — on board as guest curator for "Art Rising," a sampler of new Chinese work, including some site-specific work by Wang Tiande and Jin Jiangbo, both from Shanghai. As might be expected, "a selection of galleries representing Chinese artists," note TIAF's organizers, will be there, "underpinning the exhibition." I can contact the author, Peter Goddard, to see if it was a typo. However he's a very knowledgable art critic, and The Toronto Star is way too respectable to make up info. -- user:zanimum
  • Now I see what has happened. You've created an article called Jim Jiangbo, while the artist is called Jin Jiangbo, who gets about 600 google hits and seems relatively notable. Would a speedy fix/move solve the problem? Aecis ^{praatpaal 23:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
    • Ughh... how I missed that mistake, I'll never know. -- user:zanimum
• Keep possibly move to Jin Jiangbo and expand as per Zaninum. His work is being displayed internationally and reported in a notable newspaper so meets notability criteria for mine. Capitalistroadster 02:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Was that intentional, switching the "m" in my username with an "n", as I switched the "n" in Jin's name with an "m"? I must say it's funny, either way. -- user:zanimum
• (Speedy) Keep, then move to the properly named article. If only all of these things were as easily solved... -- Captain Disdain 04:41, 4 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jiztini

Neologism, dicdef. 66.191.124.236 09:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Yawn. Delete; it takes much more than this for a term about a glass full of sperm to be encyclopedic. -- Captain Disdain 11:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above and I second that yawn. PJM 13:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete and yawn (but with my mouth closed, y'understand?) Pete.Hurd 22:07, 6 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Allen Wood

NN vanity entry of artist of questionable notability - googling "Joseph Allen Wood" pulls two hits, not related; other searches not definitive. See related AfDs on White Caps and Duane Jackson. Delete --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. -- Captain Disdain 11:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. He has some talent, I tell you what. I see nothing biased in this article.

LBJ TEXAN

• Speedy delete. --Nlu 12:33, 3 November 2005

(UTC)

• Delete per nom. PJM 13:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

It is sad that people who become so complacent in their arrogance forget what it is to be kind. I suppose such persons are worthy of numerous unedited pages and I am worth not a one. I might assume the moral high ground and delete it myself, since good intentions are found nowhere amongst the "mental giants." Therefore, I should take my good intentions with me. You may be giants, but your hearts are small, and your life is long; remember who you have trampled in your wake.-- Joseph Wood Artist

• Joseph, I'm sad to see you go since you might have turned out a good editor here, but for this article my vote will have to be delete. As for certain editors who have dealt with this article (and others) and this particular user, I consider their behaviour in blatant violation of WP:FAITH and WP:BITE. We should not be driving away newcomers like you do, gentlemen. - ulayiti (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Ulayiti, I disagree. The sock puppetry involved in this case proves that the skepticism was correct. --Nlu 17:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ulayiti for your assistance. My attitude reflects no concerns at all towards you and your decision. I am however disgusted with the condescending tone of some of your contemporaries, who at no time attempted to give me a shot at making a halfway decent edit. You are the most professional one here it seems, and they could learn a lesson in square-dealing from you. I dont know what sock-puppetry is, but it sounds like a cry for help.

Joseph Wood

Postscript--My guess is that these people choose to focus on sockpuppets and what is deletable in their eyes, instead of trying to help others construct a page in the way "the romans do." Perhaps if they took your approach, they would have less of what they so complain about.

When I was a bit younger, there was no shortage of successful or wise elder gentlemen and lady who did not condescend to your obtuse behavior. Instead they saw nothing but value in attempting to help along a young newcomer who had ambitions. It is called courtesy. They did everything in their power to share some of what they had learned, rather than criticizing those that may possibly look up to them. I was taught that you must learn courtesy to deal with others. I suppose they do not teach old-fashioned goodness at your Ivy-League schools, and apparently no one had the home version either.

If I am successful in my endeavors, I will rememeber to try and help those who need it the most. Remember this gentlemen, after you leave this mortal coil, it is not your resume and accolades that will be remembered--but instead your kindness, or discourtesy. You just learned that lesson for free.

Whatever. Don't try to act as the victim in this matter. You know what you did. You know what you wrote. --Nlu 22:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You reap what you sow.

You dont know me and I dont know you. Let's try though to at least let bygones be bygones. Don't mess with a Missourian, because they will call you on it everytime. I am editing now only in good faith that my article is one that will stay, so I am trying to improve upon it by wiki standards. What problems does it have that you see? I am trying to compromise with you. Your advice would be helpful.

You note below that you were repeatedly blocked under various sock-puppets. I blocked you, multiple times, for obvious reasons - A good piece of advice is to not vandalise user pages with racist remarks. See the list of sock-puppets banned here for further examples of multiple article reversions (removing AfD tags and the like), and multiple blatant vandalisms accross 4 or 5 user pages, including my own, which I had to have protected for the first time in a year of editing. If you are now editing in good faith, which I intend to believe, then welcome. However, your article does not warrant inclusion because you are not notable enough, yet. In time, when you are, then someone else will see fit to include you, along with verifiable evidence of notability. Simply including yourself because you feel like doing so is vanity. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, and good luck with your art career. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a big enough man to say I'm sorry. Nlu, if I came off offensive, it was because I was offended. I will bear with you, if you can with me. Truce? JW

PS--I dont understand what it is that makes my article delete-worthy? At first, I was told that it was not from a neutral POV, so I deleted such portions that might be construed in that way. Next, Someone commented on my vanity, so I deleted portions of the article that did not reflect the nature of its value as a description of the person's notability.

Then becoming a so-called vandal, my work was repeatedly reverted back before these constructive edits. That is why I became a bit irritated.

I ask myself, what does a guy have to do to make someone lay off? Why was I targeted so bad? If it is retaliation, and not the nature of it's content, then it should stand, minus a few edits. If, on the other hand, it is indeed the content that has need for editing--then why doesnt a few knowledgeble caring wiki members help me improve the quality?

deletion was a little premature last night, ten minutes after my first time writing an article. I admit I needed help. I will take all/any suggestions if someone cares enough to assist rather than destroy/needlessly belittle.

Joseph Wood

Also, consider that most right-minded adults wont resort to such measures such as sock-puppetry if they have a constructive relationship with others, and feel welcomed and assisted. I had to edit my file, and people were blocking me. What I did in retaliation was not good either, but AS I SAW, THOSE MEMBERS ARE MORE CAPABLE THAN I AT RESTORING THEIR WORK.

Lets work together in the future.

Joe Wood

• Delete. It seems to me that Joseph Wood may be an artist with potential but who is mainly known in the St Louis Missouri. He may well develop a national or even international reputation making him eligible for an article but as yet, he is not yet notable enough. Capitalistroadster 00:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments about my posted work. If you take the time to visit [website] you would see that I am quite serious and active in producing quality works of art, and unlike others, do not simply do the same type of work--over and over again.

You are correct that I am not nationally known. I can tell you that my work is hanging in Austrailia, Norway, Brooklyn, Texas, New Orleans, and Germany--so, I tend to differ with you. To make a living at art is hard enough--but to have been recognized by collegiate journals for work that was not done in the classroom as both current and original is for an artist very rare. I have never had to advertise, and I didn't think that my article was a promotional ad.

Perhaps it is vanity and perhaps it isnt. There is a create a page feature here; it's understandable why people would use it. To say that I'm not well known enough as the criteria your using would make sense, except as you well know there are numerous pages on wikipedia that do not meet such criteria, and there is no bandwagon to delete their work. I have visited the pages for deletion list also.

I thought the purpose of an encyclopedia was information; I didn't realize that it was a popularity contest. Censorship. True descriptions of fact and of a biographical nature is valid, if there is something noteworthy about the person. If you are saying that I am not noteworthy because you have never heard of me, that is a personal trivial excuse. The real reason that you do not want my page on here, is that I did not ask your permission. I do not need your support to be a successful artist, nor do I need your acceptance of the merits of my art. I have had plenty of blessings so far as an artist, and your personal opinion is just that--your personal opinion.

Needless to point out that there are the equivalent of 3-5 pages on Osama Bin Laden and Abu Musab Al-Zarquawi. I suppose they deserve a page and I don't. But then, theyre famous and that's what matters. They don't have my talent, nor half of the talent that most of the people you would nominate for deletion.

Since you have never heard of me, think of all the other remote and equally valid subjects that populate wiki. Tell me, where is the criteria posted that explains when I am good enough in your eyes to have half a page?

Not that it matters at this point, but let me introduce you to Wikipedia:Importance. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose if I had murdered a celebrity, or flew airplanes into buildings--then you would want to shaare my bio with wiki's patrons. I believe you are just an editor, and little more. If you can't find imperfection in someone else, you can't be happy, nor do your job. People as talented and successful as myself must make your job hard, because we have no need for an editor.

I can see why you reacted to me in the way which you did. Marcus Aurelius would have told you that you project your negative view on your private failures onto others, because it is your nature. In other words, you can't help being such a obtuse person. Enjoy your picture of yourself that I'm sure is hanging next to your Framed Certificates. People like you take things too seriously--except when it does not involve promoting you.

You create what exactly?

Oh that's right. You promote the well-known and censor the obscure, all according to your judgement. What a gift God has given you.

But I'm sure that in your case, he would not take the credit.

Additionally, I nominate this AfD for BJAODN. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Here is what the page says. "Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field"

Now, what divides my current status from this description? I am a painter a professional my work has been recognized as exceptional by diverse sources

now, it is up to others whether my work will become an enduring part of the field. All you did was simply look to the number of hits on google as an authority on fine art. Since I have created over 500 oils, 2000 drawings and sold almost all of them, been asked to paint murals in signifigant sites, and have sold oils to prominent personalities--who are you to say whether or not my work will be remembered in the historical record? I have already secured my place. I didnt know I had to be a superstar on TV and the internet too.

Jeffrey O. Gustafson/Fortune Teller....????

This correspondence may be worth something someday. Would you like my autograph, Jeffrey?

• Delete Unverifyable. Unfortunate, but if there's no attainable reference that Mr. Wood's work is exeptional by acclaimed experts it is hard to believe he has any merits/value to art history or the current stream he falls in. I tried the St. Lious Post ditchpatch and the North County suburban Journal site's (both of them seem to have the same online reference) but unfortunatly I couldn't get anything from it. L3TUC3 14:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. I also did a fair bit of searching and couldn't find any external verification of notability, although I did find a fair bit on another painter named Joseph Wood. That's not to say his art doesn't have merit, but Wikipedia's about other people recognizing him, not about the art itself. --William Pietri 02:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, nn, unverifiable. MCB 09:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 21:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua Kentwell

Nonsense bio, no references. 66.191.124.236 02:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

you could use also the template {{db-bio}}

delete --Melaen 02:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment subject seems real, I couldn't say how notable, but article seems to contain large elements of spoof/fantasy mixed in. "A young man named Fiona Blee"?? Flapdragon 02:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Close to A1 or G7. --JJay 02:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• I have cleaned up the article getting rid of the nonsense after the first paragraph, adding references and turning it into a cricket-bio stub. This fellow is a semi-notable cricketer playing for the Canberra Comets in the Cricket Australia Cup. For mine, this does not meet the notability criteria for cricket as this is the secondary cricket competition after the Pura Cup. Delete as not yet notable. If it is kept, move to Josh Kentwell. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 04:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV, verifiable. Cricinfo has a profile on him. Regarding the notability criteria for cricket: Canberra does not field a team in the Pura Cup, so it could be argued that this is the primary cricket competition for the ACT. Snottygobble | Talk 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. Flapdragon 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I'm not sure exactly what is meant by "notability criteria for cricket", but Snottygobble's argument is lousy (articles for Northern Territory Football League players?), and Kentwell doesn't fit the sportsperson criteria at WP:BIO. JPD (talk) 09:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please he is a professional sports person the article looks really nice now too Yuckfoo 18:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep obscure but WP isn't harmed by including this. Klonimus 23:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and I'll write up something on Cricket Australia Cup in the next day or so. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to a suitable topic which better satisfies WP:V, WP:RS. Also, doff hat at Capitalistroadster for his display of uncommon class. encephalon 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua west

Musician fails WP:MUSIC. Not found on allmusic.com or amazon.com. Only google hit is for his home page. Claims only 3 released singles, and they appear to be self-published. 66.191.124.236 07:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep. "Joshua Three" has an AMG entry and he has a song on the Elliott Smith tribute album, so he seems to have some reknown, but a Google search for "Joshua West guitarist" only gets 89 unique results. He's borderline keep IMHO. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:43, 4 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. Joyous (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jule Crain

Nom & vote Del. Text is

Jule Crain, age 83 as of 2005, of Salem, IL is the oldest living hemophiliac in the world

Googling this name gives no hits (&, just in case of a typo,

"Julie Crane" Salem OR hemophiliac

produces only un-related law-clerkship info in the 2 hits that mention Illinois). An appeal for verification has been ignored since August. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the identity of the oldest hemophiliac is known: offer a scenario in which the worldwide original research ever gets done! Even then, the failure to verify accents the inherant non-notability the assertion would have, even if verified: no one beyond the creator and presumably the subject's intimates cares about this. Del, Del, Del!
--Jerzy•t 04:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• 'Delete per nomination. Non-verifiable claim. The Land 12:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 17:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no google hits for Jule Crain. Punkmorten 13:25, 5 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. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Juzam Djinn

Unnecessary article on inconsequential Magic: The Gathering card (one of thousands). Article text is only marginally more than a copy from the card itself. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razia, Boros Archangel) Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm liking the sound of redirect. Changing vote. Saberwyn 22:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The Juzam Djinn is pretty high up there in terms of value and fame, actually, but nowhere near the P9, and as noted elsewhere even they don't get their own articles. Changing vote to redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), since I see it's already mentioned there. --Aquillion 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge somewhere, verifiable game card. Kappa 08:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Power Nine precedent. Though I wouldn't be averse to this one being redirected to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), since it is the most well-known card of the set. -- Grev -- Talk 16:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ...and now I'm changing to redirect there. -- Grev -- Talk 05:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), as it's arguably the best-known card from that set. (Feel free to take this as a "delete" or "merge" if that will build a consensus.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Arabian Nights (Magic: The Gathering), as above. A rather famous card within the M:TG subculture. Kingfox 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Cheesy

Non-notable campus radio DJ at CFRU in Guelph, Ontario. Part of an interconnected web of unimportant CFRU minutiae that includes the already AFD-nominated P. Briddy, Proper Rock and Roll and The Anarcha-Feminist Kool-Aid Acid Test. Favour deletion. Bearcat 06:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete as per above. not notable. --Heah (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. I was going to list this myself, but was sidetracked yesterday. Hall Monitor 17:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• del, for reasons detailed at lenngth on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proper Rock and Roll. encephalon 22:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. *drew 03:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete reasoning unnecessary Monkey Tennis 13:47, 5 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kendra Benham

Voice actor with only a single credited role and no other notability claimed. 66.191.124.236 05:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per Howcheng. *drew 03:19, 4 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knight entertainment

advert, NN Flapdragon 00:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This page is similar to Newgrounds and it was not removed as an advert. Rcknight 3 November 2005

• What's the similarity? Flapdragon 01:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

newgrounds article states the nature of Newgrounds and how it is relavelent to the internet. Miss Dynamite article is similar in nature to the mention to Dr. Shroud. This page does not promote Knight Entertianment, but is simply a related article that is in relation to three other web pages and two related articles. The FCC is similar to the Ultimate Fighting Championship. Newgrounds, an established Article is also related to items involving Knight Entertainment. This article does not promote any of these other entries, but just states their nature and relivance to other articles. Also Knight Entertainment is in talks with Miss Dynamite as well as other popular flash series about the production of flash related DVD's. These are all in direct relation to the established article for Newgrounds Rcknight 3 November 2005

• Newsgrounds appears to be a large and well-established website with 850,000 registered members. Knight Entertainment (est. 2004) is doubtless a fine company, but one DVD release does not make it notable. An article whose only contributor is the founder of the company, using a Wikipedia account seemingly set up for that purpose and which has contributed nothing else, will naturally be open to suspicions of vanity/advertising. Flapdragon 14:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the former writer. This is no reason to consider this entry for deletion. Nsight7
Above comment by anon 70.112.39.83 --Aquillion 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is obviously not an advertisement. Rcknight 02:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like vanity/advertising designed mainly to promote upcoming releases. Does not seem notable with only one DVD issued. Related articles may also warrant AFd. Page has also been recreated as Knight Entertainment. --JJay 03:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And incidentally Rcknight also exists as RCKNIGHT, doubtless an accidental case of dual identity. Flapdragon 03:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The duality exists because there was an error with the lower case 'e' in entertainment. Both were to be capitolized as in Mirror site I alter created.

The duality of Rcknight and RCKNIGHT was due to the fact I did not know that articeles were case sencitive. Please delete the all cap one.

If you do not want me to list the releases, I will modify to accomidate.--Rcknight 04:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Do NOT blank this page please... -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (User:Rcknight has blanked this page once. Please do not do it again, as it is vandalism.)

• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 13:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, sock support. Also see Knight Entertainment, below. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Dottore So 12:16, 7 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knight Entertainment

mirror of Knight entertainment, NN DVD manufacturer Flapdragon 03:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

See also votes and comments at Knight entertainment, cited above. Flapdragon 03:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Here is the AfD discussion for the incorrectly capitalised entry: Knight entertainment. It's now a redirect.

Please delete other mirror site. The 'e' in title was not to be lower case. Also Delete User RCKNIGHT as it was my first atempt to create profile and I did not realize that it was case senitive. Rcknight profile matched my user log in.

• Do Not DeleteI have edited site to not show releases, or up comming release to aid in any issues with this article.

Other entries on Newgrounds such as Star Syndicate are allowed Wikipedia articles, then why not a DVD prodcution that features a animation of Newgrounds Mascot, or another series like Dr. Shroud? --Rcknight 04:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, advertising. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete There is no advertising, it is factual in nature only. You allow other flash series found on newgrounds like Neurotically Yours Please how mine is differnt?--Rcknight 05:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You aso have the flash series found on Newgrounds known as Salad Fingers How is this not advertisment like mine?--Rcknight 05:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Also the mascot of Newgrounds the character Pico (Newgrounds.com) is on the Dr. shroud DVD production, and is a cartoon found on Newgrounds here - [12]. This character is worthy of his own article, when he has only appeared on a few flash entries, but the production and production company that contributes more to this character is not allowed to exist? These are facts presented on my article that directly relate to and go in conjunction with existing approved articles.--Rcknight 05:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Another Flash found on Newgrounds allowed to have an article Xombie--Rcknight 05:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alien Hominid a creation of Tom Fulp ,like Pico feature on the Dr. Shroud DVD. Now tell me how this is an approved article, and not advertisement in comparrison to the current state of this article? If this article is in violation, then should every article that is related to a manufacture product that can be bought or sold.--Rcknight 06:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The character Pico (Newgrounds.com) is on the Dr. Shroud DVD production and is another fact that realted to other exisinting approved articles.--Rcknight 06:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Alien Hominid is a single production made by a new company and it is an accepted article. This particle has a production that is Newgrounds Related, as well as related to other articles. Also several more productions are in the works set to be released in 2006. FFC alone has 4 to 6 releases a year and is similar to otehr Mixed Martial Arts entries. Information added to this article will also be added to related articles. Several Flash Animated series do not even have DVd productions are allowed to have articles.--Rcknight 15:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

- I agree with the former writer.  This is no reason to consider this entry for deletion. Nsight7

Above comment by anon 70.112.39.83 --Aquillion 06:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Above comment pasted over from previous debate on other mirror site to be deleted. --Rcknight 15:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN site, sock support —Wahoofive (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 16:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JJay 17:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do Not DeleteThis Article Does Not Promote Nor Does It Advertise. It Is Factual In Nature Only and is similar to Articles listed above. No one who has taken the side of deletion has explained how this is and advertisement and the others are not. Also, there has been not supproting evidence as to why they feel this site varies from the others that have been listed above and are approved.--Rcknight 17:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad. (Don't see any socks here, though, just lots of votes from the article's author.) AndyJones 18:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I just made it late yeasterday, and I have yet to tell anyone about it due to the deletion ststus. I have yet to have anyone give me compelling reson why my article should not be allowed when some of the articles I have mentioned above are allowed? Most of the flash series you allow are just web sites. Knight Entertainment not only works with several differnt clients, more will be added upon the release of the 6 other projects currently in works. Those 6 were not listed because they are not a matter of fact until then. I also do not want to get accused of "promoting" them.

Give me a reason why the above articles were allowed to exist? If my site is an advertisement (I do not post any links to where to buy the DVD by the way. It is listed on over 30 web stores.) then the articles listed in my earlier comments are advertisments for their web sites. If there is no "stock" here, then why is there stock in articles that explain about web pages based on flash animation series? No one has dared to explain that to me. I have just as much stock if not more with an actual product.--Rcknight 20:23, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• The reason is that (as explained before) the subject of the article is not notable (NN). By the way your objection has been registered, there's no need to keep voting again and again. Flapdragon 20:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • So just making a web page is notable. (As in the examples I listed above.) But taking something in cyber space, and taking it to market in association with a variety of those notable web pages is not notable. I fail to see tha logic. Other DVD production are noted, and other flash series are noted, then why is a flash series taken to the DVD not notable? Of the 100's of flash animation, only 8 have made it to the DVD market. I am helping more to faciliate that need. --Rcknight 21:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rcknight, please stop blanking text on this page. Vandalism will not exactly help your case. Flapdragon 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I blanked it because that link and issue is over. It has no bearing on this subject, and it is misleading since it was due to an error on my part when setting up this article. I even noted that change as such.--Rcknight 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There are other, different, comments there accumulated separately due to the confusion of having two mirrored entries. You also blanked the initial nomination of this page. Flapdragon 22:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable. Kingfox 22:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• I am still waiting for clearification on why my article is not notable, when it is more of a rare acomplishment then simply making a web page as sited articles listed above. In fact I am currently in talk with two of those flash animated series to aid them in the creation of DVD's prodcutions as well. Now if I--Rcknight 22:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC) were truly "promoting" or "advertising" I would have mentioned those facts, but I did not. If you are doing this just because I made it then delete it and i will have someone else create it, would that satisify your issues? I have noticed that the notion of advertisingment has not been used, but now it is a matter of not being noteable, when much more simple accomplishements have been noted. I keep stating my case because no one has yet to offer any compelling evidence to the contrary. It would take less time and effort for me to get someone to draw and create a flash series, and that would be notable. I have spent my time and efforts setting up a distribution network, DVD production editing studio, praphic arts design, and manufcaturing capaibilities to provide a cost effective way for underground series and productions a way for them to get their series to the main stream market. This is a far more complicated task then building a web site, and placing some flash animation on it. But my efforts are not notable. I still fail to see the logic in that, and have yet to hear otherwise from any of you. Then again I would doubt that any of you have a real concept of what it takes to get something to market in the mainstream media.

• Delete. Rcknight, lots of people here use other articles or previous decisions as precedent to stop their own advertising or non-notable pages from being deleted. It never works (in fact, it draws the attention of "deletionist" editors (like me?) and is thus counterproductive). Each Article for Deletion consideration is based on the article's own merits. The only way to avoid deletion of an article where people are generally anti is not to argue here, but instead to go back to the article and edit it to address the concerns. You have five days to do that between nomination and deletion, which is plenty of time to repair an article that looks like advertising or something non-notable. If it is either of those, you won't be able to clean it up and it will be deleted. If it isn't, you will easily reform the article and all will be well. But arguing - and especially arguing-by-exception - just won't work. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Redvers Olorin28 02:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 03:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete I have made chages per the direction of REDVERS who actually offered constructive critisium, which is all that I have ever asked for. Please re-review and offer new opinion. Thanks! --Rcknight 23:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Reworking the article does not make its subject more notable. (Nor incidentally does voting over and over again.) Flapdragon 23:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• On the plus side, the more he says the more convinced I am that my delete vote is correct :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain If it stays, it needs a major reworking. The introduction reads like a press release. Include a list of publications. Tell me something about the history or the company. What's an "Affilate" in this context? Does Newgrounds really need 8 mentions? If it survives and these changes are not made, I would probably vote Delete in a second VfD, but I'll let it go for now. --Billpg 16:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Introduction edited, History and Publications added, Newground mentions limited. Afilate was used in an alternate to "Clinet" due to VfD comments above about "Advertising". Explaination of "Affilates" may be taken as advertising which is what I am tring to avoid as well. --Rcknight 16:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the mirror entry. Dottore So 12:18, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Mirror entry already deleted. Now a redirect.--Rcknight 16:16, 7 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. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knowledge is Power

Almost a CSD A1, it isn't explained where the phrase is in common use or why, and even if it did, that'd be transwikied to Wiktionary. It seems like OR in an attempt to put in an article for the phrase. Karmafist 06:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, It isn't original research but a quote from Sir Francis Bacon in his 1597 book Meditationes Sacræ. De Hæresibus. I am not sure whether this has potential for an article. Capitalistroadster 07:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the Verification, Capitalist. Karmafist 15:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a quotations dictionary. Flapdragon 11:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• ... but Wikiquote is. If one reads the Wikiquote article on Francis Bacon, one finds the actual quotation, in the actual language that it was written. ☺ Uncle G 12:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikiquote. Aecis ^{praatpaal 12:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Transwiki to Wikiquote --Alynna 13:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please read what I wrote imediately above. Uncle G 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as already on Wikiquote. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Francis Bacon. Carioca 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Research indicates that there is enough secondary source material on the subject, both supporting and decrying the assertion. It also indicates that Francis Bacon is not the proper place for covering this subject. Weak keep. Uncle G 17:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. Enough references in today's society to warrant an encyclopedic article. Punkmorten 13:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is also a widespread concept. The article Property is theft! is kept, even though it is a phrase. Concept-phrases should be explained, expanded, and kept! Canadianism 02:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge, i.e. mention as an aphoristic quote, into Francis Bacon, does not need its own article. MCB 08:52, 6 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 by me, under A7. Saying you have a job (or, in this case, a hobby) is not an assertion of notability. Friday (talk) 17:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence Watson

Young comedian who performs around Pittsburgh. Not yet notable. WP:ISNOT a web host. Delete. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• speedy delete no assertion of notability ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 00:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Flapdragon 01:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. -- Necrothesp 02:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 02:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JJay 02:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:46, 3 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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of car models available in India

Pointless list, and the only one of it's kind I've found so far. Bjelleklang - talk 20:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete listcruft. But could be redeemed if there was some actual content and context (e.g. ways in which particular cars are modified for this market, trends of imported versus indigenous manufacturers and so on). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful list. Fg2 04:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Curious: in what way useful? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep as above. Tintin 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep – I think its useful =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Quite Useful. --Pamri ^{• Talk • Reply} 14:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and cleanup. Useful, notable and interesting list. Definitely not listcruft.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve As per Just zis Guy, you know?, put some content and context. deeptrivia 03:04, 9 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. Vote count is 8d 4 to do something else. I am not inclined to merge this with Church of Christ, since adding info on a small church into the main article will just clutter it up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Living Streams Church of Christ

nn church, utterly unremarkable. Article does not establish notability. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 18:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 18:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a real church. Trollderella 20:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I've had chemistry classes with more people in it, should those get an entry too? This is less a church than a fellowship, a non-notable one at that. Ifnord 22:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to Church of Christ. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Reduce content and Merge as an external link only to Church of Christ Bwithh 03:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep real churches.--Nicodemus75 04:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete if the community considers it nn. I don't think a merge with Church of Christ would be taken well in any form, 1. because there are a lot of CofCs, and 2. CofCs are nondenom, so not all members acknowledge all other members, and not all churches recognize all other churches. Isle 05:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Good point. As this is a church in Oregon sponsored by a church in Texas, it may be difficult to determine which CofC group it belongs to. - Dalbury 11:29, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The church is now mentioned in the Clackamas, Oregon article. Do not "keep all churches". Punkmorten 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, per nom. Dottore So 17:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zoe --redstucco 10:29, 7 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, but the copyvio version will be removed. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Llama (band)

nn wp:music BeteNoir 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - BeteNoir 22:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC). Changing to Keep, as a conscientious individual has rewritten the article and others have affirmed its legitimacy. BeteNoir 23:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A8 -- copyvio from AMG (although I actually think they warrant a keep if rewritten). Have tagged as such. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrote to avoid the copyvio. Please re-evaluate. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. *drew 03:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Changed my vote to Keep after the valid rewrite. *drew 00:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Since they have an AMG entry, a rewrite would be valid. Geogre 15:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite works for me. It's better than the original, too, as it actually states the record label and cuts down some of the intimate chattiness. Geogre 04:16, 5 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 A4. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lochac-where-to-buy

Wikipedia is not a webhost Geopgeop 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Geopgeop 00:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete and can this be speedied? :S seems pretty nonsensical to me. ♥♥purplefeltangel♥♥ 01:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedied, not as nonsense, but as A4, attempt to contact. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, using Wikipedia as e-commerce website Flapdragon 01:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom jnothman ^talk 02:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 05:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] M. Schuyler Towne

This sounds too much like a hoax to be believable. The editor who put the article up agrees that the story sounds far-fatched, and asserts that the guy is at least a legit musician. So the {{|tl|disputed}} tag goes up and the article is listed for proper discussion at AfD.

This is the discussion copied from the talk page:

No pertinent Google hits for "Schuyler Towne" "Life Art", "Schuyler Towne" suicide, "Schuyler Towne" Toronto or "Schuyler Towne" assault.

There is a Schuyler Towne with the Poor Artists Collective in New York City who doesn't fit the description in this article at all. Pilatus 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I heard this story from a friend of mine who actually has some of his music, don't know if the suicide story is true as it seems a little far fetched. The guy actually existed though, I'll scan the picture on the album and put up a sample of the music if I can. Comment left by User:199.74.155.50 (contributions).

Delete as unconfirmed. Pilatus 17:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Per Google, M. Schuyler Towne is a writer and comic book artist from Boston. Notability is doubtful; he gets just 20 hits without the initial M. — with it he gets just five. I suppose it's remotely possible that the real M. Schuyler Towne actually is notable for reasons I don't know of, but he's most certainly not a dead-by-stage-suicide performance artist from Toronto as this article claims. (If such a person had ever existed, there's no way in hell I wouldn't have heard of them.) Delete hoax. Bearcat 10:44, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --maclean25 08:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mahamoti djinn

Unnecessary article on inconsequential Magic: The Gathering card (one of thousands). Article text is only marginally more than a copy from the card itself. (Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Razia, Boros Archangel) Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nomination. Saberwyn 05:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Power Nine precedent. -- Grev -- Talk 16:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a particularly forgettable M:tG card. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Particularly forgettable? If I only could count the times I've grinned when drawing it and groaned when the opponent played it. But damn, Delete it still. No matter how you look at it, it's only a 5/6 blue flying creature. Not noteworthy at all. --Wwwwolf 22:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Certainly one of the classic old-school blue flyers of Magic, but not deserving of an article. Andrew Levine 01:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Major reasons why Europeans explorers went on great voyages

Delete per nom - weak? Although this article does have some merits in its content, I think "Wikipedia is not personal webspace" outranks the article in this situation. Don't universities and colleges tend to have their own webspace, anyway? LichYoshi 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment The IP 202.47.48.10 who listed it was me - I lost my login for some reason. -LichYoshi 14:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 14:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as it is original research. Carioca 16:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 17:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to post lecture notes. Bearcat 01:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete I like the article. (unsigned vote by User:Minidiez; user's first-ever contribution apart from posting a web URL to their own user talk page.)
• Delete; OR, school coursecruft. MCB 09:05, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Edwardian 07:10, 7 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 (A7). --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malo-kun

Vanity/Spam page

• Delete per nomination. - SFT 04:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as A7. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marion's Piazza

A "local pizza legend" in Dayton, Ohio is a non-notable restaurant to me. 66.191.124.236 06:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, like nom. said NN. -feydey 12:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, even though one can never be too informed about good pizza places. PJM 14:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Garr 22:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn *drew 03:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Jackson-Weaver

Musician doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. Allmusic.com doesn't know him or his bands. Also putting QTA on AFD. 66.191.124.236 08:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 19:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Master of Oz

Minor card in a card game; not notable. Dglynch 06:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 06:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as one of many, many lagely interchangable Yu-Gi-Oh cards. Redirecting this somewhere might be a good idea, though. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination. Garr 22:41, 3 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.

This article was speedily deleted by Geogre on 2005 November 4 with the summary "Not enough allegation of notability for VfD: a kid wrote a paper & hosted it. Woo-hoo." I am accordingly closing this AFD. encephalon 03:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matei Stoicovici

Not notable. As the article itself says, his claim to fame is a paper written in June 2005. I can't find much on him on google. Thue | talk 21:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Error in listing for Nov 2nd AfD. Relisted on Nov 3rd AfD. No vote. Saberwyn 04:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn bio. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vanity. Delete, candidate for speedy deletion. - Mike Rosoft 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough for Wikipedia. Vanity. Not a speedy, however, as it does attempt to assert the importance or significance of its subject. (It's just that the assertion is dead wrong.) Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete biographical article that does not substantiate the notability of its subject. This is a borderline CSD A7; in my view it qualifies. Read each sentence carefully—there is no real assertion that the subject is anything out of the ordinary; ie. a 23 year old journalism student, who has written stuff on blogs as part of his course requirements, has interviewed a few bloggers, etc. encephalon 23:06, 3 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. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Memetic engineer

Original research Isolani 20:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef, apparently already transwiki'd. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)Redirect per Uncle G - although I am suspicious of this term, it has a strong whiff of marketing about it. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 08:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 21:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to Redirect to memetic engineering. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Surely a memetic engineer is one who practices memetic engineering? Uncle G 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to memetic engineering per Uncle G. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Unca G. -- Captain Disdain 04:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep memetic engineering Additions and edits from original writer of Memetic Engineer and Memetic Envisioneering. Original writer per previous delete requests. Entry writer currently teaches classes on the subject. Also per redirect. You cannot have a field of study without it first having been pioneered. Meaning you cannot have Engineering without there first being an Engineer. per Just zis Guy, you know? You should not opt to delete a term just because you had not heard of it. Please research first and do not make delete decisions on opinions. Apparently you didn't know it was even indexed already.elohimgenius [ t • c; 03:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see any information in this article that couldn't be added to memetic engineering. Note that Genetic engineer redirects to Genetic engineering. I don't see why it shouldn't be so for memetic engineer. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 11:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Correction, we don't have an article called "Genetic engineer". But if we did it would redirect to Genetic engineering. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 11:46, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Mechanical engineer → Mechanical engineering; Aerospace engineer → Aerospace engineering; Electrical engineer → Electrical engineering. Tell me why this should be any different. (Curiously, though Civil engineer has its own article, but Civil Engineer (note capital E) is a redirect). --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Hmm, good poing JFish I agree. Redirect to Memetic Engineering --ElohimGenius(^Talk/_Contrib)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. Joyous (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MIB Grenoble

An article for a specific program within a school seems unnecessary and possible advertising. No real useful information. ASchmoo 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. - ASchmoo 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete also the refernce in the disambig page. -feydey 12:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 16:54, 3 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, discounting various devious signatures. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mike Etoll

Vanity bio, loaded with the usual hyperbolic language and unverifiable claims. 66.191.124.236 05:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:BIO. Less than 100 hits on Google see [13]. His main claim to fame is Sewer baby which was nominated for deletion yesterday and does not seem to be notable outside Minneapolis. He has an IMDb page showing he was the art director of The Can see [14]. In short, he doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia's notability inclusions for biography. Capitalistroadster 05:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep User 66.191.124.236 calls this a "Vanity bio, loaded with the usual hyperbolic language and unverifiable claims" Do some EXTENSIVE research, not all of your research can, or should be done from a computer desk at home. Make some phone calls, walk around and examine things with a magnifying glass, and then (and only then) claim that these claims are unverifiable claims. (Yes it is me!)Samuel Payne 05:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per Capitalroadster. Marcus22 15:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Dalbury 18:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if it's real, otherwise Delete Garr 23:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 01:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete..vanity, commercial (wikipedia style doesn't look like a new user wrote it.Only one logged in user in all the edits to it and that user page has a external link)..Dakota ? e 01:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unencyclopedic encephalon 02:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Olorin28 02:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity. *drew 03:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No vanity here. As I personally know Mike Etoll, I can verify that none of the names or places cited have been exagerated. He is a major player in the Minneapolis artist scene.User:Mutai 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. User:Mutai's only edits have been on Poosa, Sewer baby, Mike Etoll, and Image:Lunginsewer.jpg, and the delete discussions for the three articles. The Lunginsewer image has also been marked as a possible copyright violation. - Dalbury 11:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Dalbury, what's your point? Mutai edits and comments on what's important instead of spending his time as a professional critic. The Lunginsewer image is mine and I gave permission for its use. - User:Poosa 16:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I did not mark the Lunginsewer image as a copyright violation. Someone else did that. Wikipedia has strict rules on the use of images. If you are the photographer who took this photo, you must release it into one of the available licenses, preferably the GFDL, and show that in the Image:Lunginsewer.jpg page. - Dalbury 08:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep User:Booty(contribs) 22:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)(This user's only edits are in the deletion discussions for the related set of articles of Mike Etoll, Poosa, and Sewer Baby, the last two of which have already been deleted. - Dalbury 00:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC))

• Delete. No verifiable claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 21:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment Dalbury is wrong about Sewer Baby being deleted. He's starting to make mistakes. User:Mutai 01:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Ah, I see my mistake. I entered a reference to Sewer Baby instead of Sewer baby, which gave a red link and made me think it had been deleted like Poosa. - Dalbury 10:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment It seems as though Mutai and Dalbury enjoy the game here. Keep having fun at my expence (I have been suffering for the last 2000 years 20 minutes due to your squabbles and a heavy case of the gout). Mutai, Please be nice. Dalbury, Did you mention Poosa's deletion in an attempt to get under Mutai's skin? (Did You Mention Poosa's Deletion In An Attempt To Get Under Mutai's Skin, a new Sci Fi epic by the makers of the soon to be deleted Sewer Baby.)Mike Etoll 19:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment I do not fear an army of lions, if they are led by a lamb. I do fear an army of sheep, if they are led by a lion.

Alexander the Great, 356--323 BC

A D Monroe III states that there is "No verifiable claim to notability" in reference to my artical. What constitutes notability? Is my popularity strictly determined by how often my name appears on a google search? A D Monroe makes an absolute claim with this statement, a claim that is unverifiable and meaningless due to the simple fact that it is not true. -Mike Etoll

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mike Etoll. Have you read Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability? Your notability is determined by neither me nor you; by definition, it's determined by the public at large. If you can provide links or references to public acknowledgements of your accomplishments, then your notability is verifiable, and I'll change my vote. Without those references, it's unverifiable. It's that simple. (Note that acknowledgements made by you or on your behalf don't count as "public at large".) --A D Monroe III 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Hey AD, As far as I am concerned, we are both part of the "public at large". Is this statement untrue? Mike Etoll 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I can provide verification of my accomplishments for you, or else you can do a search on my name. For example,I created illustrations for the book Six Galleons for the King of Spain: Imperial Defense in the Early Seventeenth Century By Carla Rahn Phillips 1987, wrote an icon in '94 for an Orthodox church to work off my community service hours for breaking the law (I am now reformed). Things like this are hard to prove through internet searches, and may also seem insignificant but not only are they true, they are also uncommon accomplishments. The public at large will determine if things like this merit fame. All you are asking for is verification of my accomplishments, and this evidence exists even if it is not fully recorded on the internet. Mike Etoll 14:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Note that one or more persons signing (but not signed in) as User:Mutai, User:Marjon Leger, and Mike Etoll have posted from IP address 24.223.252.12. In addition, an anon user at 24.223.252.12 removed six Delete votes from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sewer baby. This makes it appear that Mike Etoll is User:Mutai and that User:Marjon Leger is a sock puppet of Mike Etoll. - Dalbury 10:37, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Corrected error in which users posted from the cited IP address. - Dalbury 23:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment It may appear as though all of the users posting and editing here are the same, but this claim is not true. I have not deleted one post, or altered any of the comments here illlegally. Please trace my IP from this posted comment (if you wish) and in the future, please do a more thorough job investigating your subjects before you make claims concerning their validity. It is unwise to state something as fact unless you know that your statement is 100% true, and in this case Dalbury, you are wrong. -Mike Etoll
  • Comment Thank you for pointing that out. My apologies for the error. You are posting from IP address 65.25.215.205, as have persons signing as User:blorch, User:Tom Paulson and User:Samuel Payne. I recommend that you sign in to Wikipedia before editing, and then sign comments in these dicussions by typing four consecutive tildes (~~~~). Among other things, doing both steps will hide your IP address. - Dalbury 22:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• CommentThank you for posting my IP address. it was never my intention to hide it or to pretend that I have not posted under strange pen names. Thomas Coates Paulson III has an extensive internet history in his own right, but that's a horse of a different color.... Mike Etoll
  • Comment. Out of curiosity, is that Tom Paulson the one who is connecting from the same IP address that you are? - Dalbury 01:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Official Tom Paulson Website

Official Tom Paulson Blog

Where Tom was born

• Comment Yes Dalbury, I admit here for the first time anywhere that I am the Paulrus.

-Mike Etoll p.s. how exactly does the tilde thing work? Is there a problem with me commenting and signing my name as I have been? Thanks -Mike Etoll

• • Comment. Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages explains the signature business. - Dalbury 02:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• keep This is obviously an interesting individual whom I'd like to study further. Jaguarmask 05:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (Note: This is this user's (contribs) first edit. - Dalbury (talk) 10:13, 7 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, discounting socks. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Modojo

Article about a non-notable website (Google: 235), content at the end is bordering on patent nonsense [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep. This article should not be deleted. Modojo is one of the only websites that focuses solely on mobile gaming. In addition there is a fairly large and active community behind Modojo. Update: Please keep in mind that the Modojo Forums were perviously called Cloudchaser and XenGamers. Modojo is rather a recent name, which is why it produces unimpressive results in Google. Also keep in mind that Modojo is one of the only gaming sites that is devoted exclusively to handhelds. plucas 05:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Modojo contains no puppets, especially meatpuppets. Modojo is not a disgrace to the internet.plucas 18:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I don't see how this particular little-known website is any more important than the zillions of other Internet forums out there, and the article doesn't seem to be able to establish any importance beyond quoting some unimpressive statistics. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Cloudchaser and XenGamers get a comparable number of hits on Google. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not so much the site itself but the community/group of people there and the rather interesting history it has; i.e: a lot of metamorphesis of the site has occured but the original community for the most part has stuck together. 220.236.33.103 06:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. HorsePunch- The website is differenciated from the "zillions" of other gaming sites/forums because of its strict mobile focus. It fills a specific online niche that very few (no one else?) is focused. Not all websites can or should be gauged solely on their google rank. Modojo is very relevent in the ever-growing mobile gaming scene. Cell phone gaming is EXPLODING in popularity, and I don't know of any other site that examines in so closely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.254.35.179 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-03 01:36:49.

• Delete the article and Ignore the meatpuppets.-Sean|Black 06:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the article and Eat the meatpuppets, they're delicious with gravy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete the article and don't play with the puppets. feydey 12:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 14:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. Marcus22 15:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• It's somebody's website. I have a website too, but I don't write articles about mine, and neither should other people. Delete for lack of verifiability and significance. Friday (talk) 16:12, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. 7300+ people could make a midsized town - even if the internet is incomprehensibly large, why should any part of it be ignored? (preceding unsigned comment by 129.21.41.2 (talk • contribs) ) - Dalbury 18:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The website is looking to pioneer in creating communities for gamers. They are looking to differentiate themselves from the zillions of forums out there by building a community with MySpace like feautres for people who share a common interest. Sites with similar social networking features may become common in the future but this site is one of the first in a potentially new area. While they may be small now there is potential for this website to become significant. mcwiggin Please use four tildes instead of three, so that a time and datestamp may be applied. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}

• My delete vote (per nom, nn +/- vanity) becomes strong delete votes when puppets are involved. Cut the strings. Ifnord 17:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom as non-notable. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Optichan 19:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not sifficiently noteworthy to satisfy WP:V, WP:RS encephalon 22:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The forum has existed for over 6 years and effected thousands of peoples lives. Give it some time and it think you will all see the merit of the page. (preceding unsigned comment by 66.166.232.206 (talk • contribs) ) This is the fourth edit for this user; the first three were in the article Modojo. - Dalbury 03:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The community use to be one of the leading video game media websites on the Internet. This isn't a website by Joe Schmo who wants some free advertising, and the forums were at one time were the official community of a print magazine. There are other, less notable websites on Wikipedia (see Talk page), so if you vote to remove this entry then by default those other entries should be removed as well. JTrost 02:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep With a little touching up, I don't see why not. Besides, "Ignore all rules, including this one." Toupee I edited the article recently without logging on. My mistake.

• Keep This website has become MoDojo only recently. There is a large community with a long, interesting history behind it. Besides, how many other sites devoted exclusively to mobile gaming do you know? (preceding unsigned comment by 71.57.120.22 (talk • contribs) ) This is the first edit for this user. - Dalbury 02:51, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep because it's one of the top gaming forums in population as well as being the best mobile gaming exclusive sites. Mirthoneist (preceding unsigned comment by 66.177.213.74 (talk • contribs) ) This is the user's first edit. - Dalbury 02:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom Olorin28 02:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This site actually has a history, a fairly long and complex one. It has encompassed many sites and Modojo is the most recent one, the forums are a mainstay of the website and have included members from all the forms Modojo has taken. For the fact that Modojo deals with mobile gaming is what sets it apart and makes it worthy of keeping. Barnolde Please use four tildes instead of three, so that a time and datestamp may be applied. Thank you, [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)}

• Comment To save all you Modojo supporters some wasted effort, please read Wikipedia:Sock puppet, and particularly the section on "Meatpuppets", before posting. - Dalbury 03:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable website. *drew 03:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Modojo members who have actively participated in Wikipedia have been encouraged to vote to keep this entry, however they have no control over people who are not members that vote here. JTrost 03:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It may be non-notable to you (*drew, et al), and I'm afraid I would have agreed with you, but I took a look at the category this article is in, and if you put up an AfD for this article, you should do it for the likes of GiveNGo and FOK!Games as well. For all I know, Modojo seems much more well established than either one of those two and some of the others in that category as well. I'm most certainly not a meatpuppet, and this is my honest opinion. janey the crazy 06:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On a sidenote, in reference to mysekurity's google count, [15] turns up almost 100k results. the difference between 235 and 76100 is quite huge. janey the crazy 06:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but that counts vast quantity of links that shouldn't be; for example, links from modojo.com to itself. I don't know exactly what Mysekurity's search was, but I tried several and kept coming up with numbers in the hundreds. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Mysekurity's search omited several articles outside of Modojo linking to itself such as the Business Week and Sports Line articles. On a related note, doesn't the fact that highly reputable publications such as the LA Times and Business Week cite Modojo make it all the more noteworthy? It also makes Modojo the subject of national media attention outside of the Internet, which means the website meets 2 of the 3 requirements to be a notable website (according to Wikipedia's policy, it only needs to meet 1). Jtrost 06:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure what, exactly, my search was, as looking through my Search History on Google brought up no real indicator (the search looks to be indeed 76100). I'm not sure why the descrepancy happened, but in any event I'm sorry. I'm not an inclusionist, and personally think that Wikipedia doesn't really need articles on sites such as these, but I think I'm willing to let it slide. I'm going to be neutral on this, because I'm not really sure of the merits of having an article on this site (why not have a history page on the forum?), except to drive traffic. What normal encyclopedic article, may I ask, would link to this site? What are the merits for keeping it on Wikipedia as opposed to having this information on the site? -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{20:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)}

Here is an example search that shows only a couple hundred results, though it may be too restrictive. This gives about 18,000 hits, but includes a lot of irrelevant garbage. For what it's worth, my lame personal website, which I make no effort to advertise, gets over 30,000 hits. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:56, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

First, I would like to establish some credibility for this website. It isn't made by a bunch of people sitting at home on their computers (not to say that's a bad thing, several websites with entries here are made in that sort of environment). Modojo is a real business that takes in revenue. Look at the business's address: 268 Bush Street in San Francisco. Google can show you that hundreds of reputable businesses are located here, including the IGDA San Francisco Chapter.

Now to answer the bigger question of why Modojo deserve its own entry on Wikipedia. It's already been established many times on this page and on the talk page that there are other, less notable websites with entries here, so I won't go into that again. The WP:WEB states three requirements for websites. Modojo meets all of those except for the Alexa ranking, which is understandable seeing how it's a newer website. However, Cloudchaser Media, the company that the community derives from, was in the top 10,000 during 2001. Even if you omit that fact, this website is still notable according to Wikipedia's standards.

However, you bring up a good point about if this still merits a Wikipedia article. I can see how people who are unfamiliar with the website can easily dismiss its entry on Wikipedia because it does look like blatant advertising. Please look at the current article again. The vast majority of the text deals with the history of the community, not the main website (the idea of creating an entry here was to tell the story about the history of the community, not a seven month old website). At its peak, the community had over 11,000 members, and during highly publicized events such as E3 and the Game Developers Conference, it's common for there to be HUNDREDS of active users on the website at the same time. The current record is 544 members who were on the forum simultaneously on 02-07-2005, which was around the time of a big announcement that is escaping my memory at the moment.

This community has a long and interesting history, and it's a story that many people here (even if you omit the meatpuppets) think should be told. Why should this be on Wikipedia instead of a page on the website? I think it's for the same reason that every other of the 800,000 articles on Wikipedia should be here. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia of everything notable. Over the years this community and all the websites it has been associated with has had several million viewers. It's part of the Internet's history. Jtrost 22:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. In addition to the citations in news media mentioned by Jtrost, Modojo's official industry contacts make them seem noteworthy. Also, the history is interesting enough on it's own - even to someone like me who had never heard of the site before today. 63.224.187.10 04:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: this is the user's first edit [[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{04:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)}

• Delete nn, sockpuppets. Dottore So 12:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep 7000+ forum members meets informal wiki requirements. What's the argument here? 63.224.187.10 18:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: This user's only contributions (4 at the time of this post) have been to this AfD and another, Origenxbox360, which was deleted. -[[User:Mysekurity|Mysekurity]] ^{[[additions | e-mail]]} _{03:09, 10 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 afd inapplicable, due to redirect. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moeru kotoba moetan

page was incorrectly titled, content moved to new page with the correct title Moeru Eitango Moetan Sbard 06:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect (Sbard please see Wikipedia:Redirect). --feydey 12:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep (someone has redirected the page and removed the AfD tag) — Haeleth Talk 19:09, 3 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. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Montgomery Sands

Long description of book/writer. Unconfirmable via google and not found at amazon indicate hoax JJay 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 02:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not clear whether this is meant to be a book, a real person, a fictional character or some kind of hallucination. Clearly nonsense anyway. Flapdragon 03:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The same text (or some variant of it) appears as the user page of Jcash. Note also the comment at User talk:Jcash. Flapdragon 03:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 06:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax, nonsense, nn, Jcash insulting people more intelligent than him/her rather than editing the d--- article in the first place, etc... ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax..Dakota ? e 01:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. dr.alf 07:22, 6 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} 23:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morphosexual

18 hits on Google, apparently one author; appears to be a neologism. - AdelaMae 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Also, substantive content of article now covered in Gender bender. - AdelaMae 18:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to gender bender. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:45, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Not in CHambers etc., and all examples on Google appear, per nom, to have a common source. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not redirect, as this is a neologism. Friday (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete & don't redirect, per Friday. encephalon 23:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MPhil in Futures Studies

advertisement for a not particulary distinguished course Isolani 11:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not encyclopedic. feydey 11:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BrianSmithson 13:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. encephalon 00:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 03:28, 4 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. Joyous (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad Lotusflower

This person does not appear to actually exist, according to a Google search. Also, the article contains many subtly ridiculous claims about his past, and there are no sources cited. I suspect this is entirely fabricated. Dglynch 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing regarding the past experiences of Mr. Lotusflower that can be construed in the slightest way outlandish, unless you view attending a Go Team! concert as unbelievable. All of the individuals cited in the posting are used as influences towards his ideology, rather than contemporaries or partners.

• Delete per nomination. - Dglynch 04:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax / nonsense. --keepsleeping say what 05:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoaxy hoaxy hoax hoax hoax. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Rogerd 05:27, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 07:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, also per nom. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 07:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. I meant to nominate this yesterday (came across it in the great CFRU-cruft muckout), but forgot. Bearcat 01:27, 4 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. Plenty of consensus for keep, even the nominator does not appear to have wanted this deleted. Discussion of merge with New Year's Eve is better done on talk pages, not Afd. Any such discussion is not precluded due to this Afd. Friday (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] New Year's Eve party

Someone deleted this article without an explanation as to why. I vote that the article should be kept, it's a well written article. What do you think?CarDepot 22:49, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think it was ever deleted. It should not have been brought to AfD. Editing disputes, e.g. whether an article should be a redirect or not, should be discussed on the article's Talk page, Talk:New Year's Eve party in this case. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep. Kappa 03:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable topic and article should explain the traditions. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep more notable than elementary schools --JAranda | watz sup 03:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Well, if we're going to talk that way, JAranda, then it's more notable than Wikipedia Day. Jacqui ^{★ 03:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep as per Kappa. Garr 04:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. —Brim 04:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• It wasn't deleted, it was converted to a redirect to New Year's Eve, which is how it should stay, in my opinion. The article as it stands really says no more than "this is a party on New Year's Eve" and goes on to define what New Year's Eve is. Leave as redirect and merge anything remotely useful into New Year's Eve. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] North_American_dragon

Appears to be nonsense. Ex0pos 21:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nn +/- original research. Ifnord 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Ifnord, unless someone can produce citations of notable or commercially successful books this creature appears in. Average Earthman 23:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Ifnord and particularly Average Earthman. -- Captain Disdain 04:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Deleteper nom..Dakota ? e 06:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to American Dragon, which is currently a dab between a pro wrestler and a children's cartoon. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:11, 4 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.

AFD result.

There is a clear consensus that this article should be merged into at least one other. Debates as to the most useful disposition of cricket match articles are not new; to outsiders (to cricket) they can be extremely confusing. I'm one of these folks, so it took me a while to go through the articles and categories to familiarise myself with the issues. Briefly:

1. The article that is the subject of this AFD pertains to a single cricket match that took place during the 1971-72 South Africa cricket season. The article is four sentences long and is a short summary of the game. It is unlikely that there is much more that can be sensibly added to the page.
2. There are dozens of SA cricket seasons, see Template:South_African_cricket_seasons.
3. In the 1971-72 SA season, some 32 matches were played. See Category:1971/2_South_African_cricket_season_matches. Each of these matches has been given an individual page, usually only a couple of sentences long.
4. Aside from individual pages for the matches, there are also individual pages for each team's performance in that season. For example, Transvaal B in 1971/2, Northern Transvaal in 1971/2, Rhodesia in 1971/2.
5. Aside from individual pages on single matches, there are also articles on the various tournaments (I hope that's the right word) within that season. In the 1971-72 season, the tournaments were Currie Cup Section A in 1971/2, Currie Cup Section B in 1971/2, Gillette Cup in 1971/2, and Non-Castle Cup first-class matches in South Africa in 1971/2.
6. The material in the articles on the tournaments (what I mentioned in #5), and the material in articles on teams (what I mentioned in #4), are all collections of substs of the individual match articles (what I mentioned in #3).

I agree with Stephen Turner, OpenToppedBus, Ian, A Man In Black, and (I think) Sam Vimes that these individual match (not just the one here discussed on the AFD) shouldn't be maintained. The information is all in the larger articles, each of which consist of a series of substs of the match articles. The larger articles also provide the opportunity for context that the tiny articles don't (I'm sure a bit more could be said about the 1972 Northern Transvaal team, for example, than merely a list of the matches they played). I would also like to point out that the team articles (ie. what I mentioned in #4), are poorly titled. Rhodesia in 1971/2 may be an acceptable title for a cricket encyclopedia, but on a general encyclopedia like WP it is misleading. The disposition of articles not the subject of this AFD cannot be decided here, but there does appear to be a strong consensus, both within and without the WP cricket community, that the individual match articles be merged (and redirected if not deleted). I lend my voice in support of this idea. Finally, I'm a little mystified as to why the match articles were written in the first place, and agree with OpenToppedBus that they shouldn't be in future. encephalon 03:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Northern Transvaal v Natal B 1-4 January 1972

This is a nn cricket game from more than 30 years ago. WP:NOT a scoreboard Delete --JAranda | watz sup 02:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, like Category:2005 English cricket season matches. Wikipedia is timeless so 30 years is irrevelant. Kappa 03:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Harmless. No reason why Wikipedia shouldn't include a guide to first class cricket matches. CalJW 03:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have other cricket matches articles. Carioca 03:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Im tempt to nominate all those cricket articles as Wikipedia not a scoreboard. We cant keep a page for every cricket game that ever played --JAranda | watz sup 04:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd reckon you'd do the project a favor if you did. These matches are getting completely out of hand. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
      • How so? Kappa 09:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The 30 years are completely irrelevant. If this is deleted then all the recent matches should be deleted as well. JPD (talk) 11:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Currie Cup Section B in 1971/2, Natal B in 1971/2 and Northern Transvaal in 1971/2 when they're all finished. Sam Vimes 14:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Either Move to subpage of 1971-72 South African cricket season (or some such suitable title), or Delete. I voted to keep the 2005 English cricket season matches, but only because I understood that they would all be merged at the end of the season, and that it wouldn't be done that way again. I very much respect the authors' dedication to cricket and to Wikipedia, but I am unhappy that WikiProject Cricket is continuing to provoke so much controversy. Stephen Turner 14:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've just read Wikipedia:Subpages, so I change my opinion to: Move to subpage of a user page immediately, and then Merge per Sam Vimes when the whole collection is ready. Stephen Turner 16:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Either merge per User:Sam Vimes and cleanup, or transwiki to Wikisource if they'll have it. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 16:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per User:Sam Vimes. Some cricket matches might deserve their own article, if they were pivotal enough or eventful enough, but in general, the information would work better as a collected season or league or tour roundup. I really doubt much more information could be inserted into this article than is already there. —Morven 19:09, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per His Grace. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Query - I thought the whole point of the 2005 English county match reports was that at the end of the season, they would all be merged together into a week-by-week analysis or a team-by-team analysis, and that the original match reports would then be deleted. Is my understanding wrong? If so, would very much appreciate knowing what was intended originally and what happened in the end, now that the season has been over for a month or more. --Peripatetic 00:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your understanding is not wrong. However, because of holiday and things it's taken a great deal of time to clean all the articles up (I'm into the middle of August at the moment) - when that's finished, I'll subst them all in and ask for someone to merge page histories. Sam Vimes 07:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into relevant articles on the greater competition. Lord Bob 02:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep We've discussed this all before (is it four or five times now?). Why bring it all up again? The series of articles on the 1971/2 South African cricket season will be completed sometime, and this is an essential part of it, jguk 04:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Reply. It might be useful to have links to the previous discussions: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
  1. There was no consensus in any of these discussions. So pretending that a precedent has been established is disingenuous.
  2. It was clearly stated by several contributors that the articles would be deleted promptly at the end of the season. I suspect that the vote would have been more negative without this promise. However, this has not happened, and I'm not even sure whether this is planned for these South African articles. I'm beginning to suspect that the authors quite like having the individual articles.
  3. The fact that WikiProject Cricket is continuing to do something so controversial based only on the inability to reach consensus either for or against is itself worrying to me. We're not being good neighbours, and we're giving our project a bad name. Besides, we could do without wasting time having this argument every few weeks. We should be voluntarily finding a better way to do this.

As for myself, I can no longer support these individual articles, although I'd still be happy to have them as subpages. Stephen Turner 10:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to a higher level article per previous commitment to do so for the English 2005 articles -- Ian ≡ talk 12:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into higher level article, and an extremely strong recommendation to the Cricket Wikiproject that future articles on individual matches, if they are only intended to exist temporarily for future use in larger articles, should be created either on user or wikiproject subpages rather than in the main namespace. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong merge per Sam Vimes. Wikipedia is not a scorecard. Dozens of professional sports games are played every day, the bulk of which have no lasting impact even on the participants and observers. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge this article, along with everything in Category:1971/2 South African cricket season matches --AllyUnion (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Merge for this and delete for that. Why so ?Tintin 13:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ocean (magazine)

Could not verify this with google. Anyone know of this? feydey 11:40, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as almost certain hoax. There is a magazine called Ocean but nothing like the article describes. There's also an early-1900s serial fiction magazine called The Ocean, like a nautical version of The Strand. Of course there's some similarly-named ones like Ocean Drive, Ocean Navigator, Ocean Realm, etc.However, nothing remotely like this article. A long-published magazine would certainly have some web presence, even if mostly eBay listings and similar, as vintage skin magazines of all types have an avid collector base/secondary market. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Starblind, Pete.Hurd 22:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OPIUM

Does not meet WP:MUSIC The Land 12:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The Land 12:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not sure if it'll automatically then redirect to opium, so if it doesn't, do that as well. Proto t c 12:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. PJM 13:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete then redirect to opium. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 20:23, 5 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 afd inapplicable: is being put through WP:CP. Ingoolemo ^talk 06:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outlandish

This is a press release, not an encyclopedia entry...borderline db-bio Jasmol 19:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment this band passes WP:MUSIC, and should probably be kept. However, from your post to the talkpage it looks like a copyvio. If you feel like tracking down the exact URI, it might be worth listing it on Wikipedia:Copyright problems or perhaps tagging it as speedy for copyvio. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 19:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The same text seems to appear in various places including http://www.click2music.fi/biografi.asp?art=173 and (link removed)

Flapdragon 19:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Copyvio tagged and bagged. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:55, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• The band is notable, so keep if somebody rewrites the article. Thue | talk 20:01, 3 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.