Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 50-cent word

Dicdef, neologism. Delete. — Phil Welch 23:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Move to wikidictionary not sure if would be suitable for the dictionary or not (not familiar with the trends there) but in either case, it doesn't belong here (dicdef). Fallsend 23:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a neologism. Yamaguchi先生 09:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Its "Five-dollar word," anyway. Youngamerican 04:26, 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 Delete by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 03:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A. Willis Abraham

Either extremely nonnotable or hoax... Google cannot find any mention of this person or his supposed short story, idea that it might be a pen name of Bram Stoker doesn;t go with the fact that a photo is presented, photo of this individual has false source information listed (link there for origin of photo goes to someone else entirely), claim of being Jack the Ripper means he'd be listed on one of the comprehensive lists of 200+ suspects that exist, and he doesn't. This is either not real or bizarre original research on a nonnotable figure, but I'm going for hoax. Also, please include the subarticle Legend of the danat about this supposed short story the alleged Abraham wrote as part of this vote. DreamGuy 07:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, if this gets deleted, please remove the redirect A. willis abraham as well) DreamGuy 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Non notable, though this would fit in Uncyclopedia. (FireballX301 07:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete unless verified. CalJW 08:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparently non-existent, certainly not notable at all. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Delete the redirect as hoax that fails Geogre's Law. Grutness...wha? 12:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 by community decision. -- Psy guy ^(talk) 03:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A. Y. Jackson Secondary School

Just wanted to point out guys, when i nominated this, all the links were red--Herzog 03:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

this may have pointed to something at one time, but now this page is useless --Herzog 04:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete (winces), a dab page pointing to two red links (and nothing else) is a speedy candidate as containing no content as far as I'm concerned. Proto t c 15:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Keep now that redlinks have turned blue. Proto t c 13:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep not a valid speedy deletion candidate as it has more than "no content". It lists two high schools with the name, and their locations.--Nicodemus75 15:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Proto t c 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete: I was about to go ahead and delete it. If you want addresses, use the Yellow Pages. The page is a dab, but it does not disambiguate articles, which is what dab pages are for. Further, having the "information" that there are two schools with the name is utterly useless. If we really, really, really want to make sure that someone can find out that there are schools by that name, put the information in the "Schools of Ottowa" article. If there isn't one, make one, but don't argue that broken pointers to non-existent places are "content." Geogre 15:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Disambiguation pages with no existing articles have always been accepted, and we have many thousands of them. There is no obligation for disambig pages to have content, because they are not articles. - SimonP 16:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I nominated it for speedy deletion, and SimonP just removed the tag. I firmly believe this should be speedily deleted, as should any and all other dab pages that disambiguate between nothing, and nothing (i.e., pointless). Geogre put it better than me. Failing this, my vote is delete. Proto t c 16:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • These have always been standard practice. A disambig is not an article, it is a technical page that has no need for content. Why wait for one of the articles to be created, then have to move it, and disambiguate all the incoming links. The red links should not be pointing to the same place, even if that place doesn't contain an article. Over the years I've literally created hundreds of these pages, and they have never before been deleted. The various missing encyclopedia articles projects in particular tend to generate hundreds of these pages. - SimonP 16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as having no content, just like I'd vote to speedy delete any disambiguation that, as Proto puts it, "disambiguate between nothing, and nothing". I can't recall any times this was tested previously on AfD off-hand, although I'm sure there have been such times, so I can but go with what I think. Lord Bob 16:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Change vote to keep as a now-valid disambiguation, even if it does disambiguate between two (shudder) school articles. Disambiguation between bad things is still valid disambiguation! Lord Bob 22:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-disambiguating dab pages —Wahoofive (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP. Delete voters please have a little more consideration for the value of other contributors' time. Kappa 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep of course. Perfectly good disambiguation page. I would remind other editors that we're building an encyclopedia, and the game of "pick an article at random and try to think of an excuse to delete it" is not compatible with that aim. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful disambig page.Gateman1997 19:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think a dab page with redlinks warrants an AfD (there are plenty of geographical dab pages. many of which contain nothing but redlinks). I think such dab pages simply reflect a request to have pages created about those subjects, and also provide a useful service by having properly-titled pages ready for editing. However, the point is moot in this case since the dab page now contains no redlinks. Mindmatrix 20:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP, but would just say to Kappa and Tony Sidaway that there's no need to attack the nomination in this case, which seems to me entirely good-faith and reasonable. And we've certainly clarified a useful piece of policy here, today. AndyJones 01:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it appears to be a useful disambiguation page. Yamaguchi先生 09:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a disambig page. Also, stop nominating schools. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  Please don't order people about what to and what not to nominate. Proto t c 13:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Please stop wasting everyone's time with doomed nominations. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is now a disambiguation page that links to two valid stubs, and not to redlinks. Ground Zero | t 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please there is no red links and disambiguations are useful really Yuckfoo 00:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep at least its a disambiguation --JAranda | watz sup 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful now. --Vsion 09:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aadam Nasir

nn people spam. Also created by a user just warned for vandalism (and blocked for it previously Ian 13 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ian 13 18:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete could easily go speedy as nonsense.--Isotope23 18:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish. And yes, speedy as nonsene if possible. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. *drew 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. crap --Rogerd 05:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this load of trash. I am Aadam and I find this offensive.

The above was from IP 72.1.206.12 which is the same as the address that created the article. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopedic, nonsensical.Dakota ^{t e} 17:55, 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 delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Samad Maharuddin

NN director at Acmar International Group which seems to be using wikipedia as free webspace (which it is WP:NOT) to give director profiles.

• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 07:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ALL in group - can the AfD's be merged? NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 09:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is one of our people in our company. Acmar 10:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Yes yes, Acmar, we know that. Delete as advertising. -- Hoary 10:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But this is not an advertising page, this is one of our people in our company. Acmar 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nomination.Logophile 11:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with all the others Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable employee of a company. I wish these AfD's had been combined...--Isotope23 17:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and the other Acmar employee articles as well. Yamaguchi先生 09:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Fertray 15:59, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Afskum

Band vanity, fails WP:MUSIC. No released albums or songs. Also nominating one of the band members below. 165.189.91.148 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --TM ^(talk) 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be a band with a very similar name to this (Avkshum) name on AMG but it isn't the band in this article. Band in this article is not notable per nom. --W.marsh 21:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article states their non-notability as according to WP:MUSIC jnothman ^talk 00:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per WP:MUSIC. Punkmorten 16:09, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alan lennon

Delete nn singer/songwriter vanity. No allmusic, didn't think it would qualify for speedy. TM ^(talk) 21:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN --Rogerd 05:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete article does not establish notability as per WP:MUSIC Pete.Hurd 18:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AMUST Registry cleaner

Advertisement. Not a notable enough software product to garner productive discussion. jphofmann 21:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Woohoo, it's even a blatant copyvio from the site linked in the article. Which says "copyright, all rights reserved" at the bottom, so we know we're not allowed it on Wikipedia, whatever the contributor will inevitably come and try to claim. ;) Delete as quickly as possible. — Haeleth Talk 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Please use Copyright Judo against copyrighted advertisements. Uncle G 00:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 01:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete advertisment rmosler 07:01, 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.

After considering this debate carefully, I have come to a conclusion that consensus exists to delete this article. If Andkon wishes to write about (him/her)self, (s)he can create a user page.  Denelson83  02:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andkon

NOTICE: Article protected from further edits during this AFD since personal attacks were made on it.

Vanity article for non-notable site owner/blogger/forum poster. Site has an Alexa rank of 195,916, he's been involved in flamewars, okay, but I don't see any media attention or anything to support notability. W.marsh 00:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, at least if notability can be better established. --Daedalus-Prime 01:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to Delete. Attacks in AfD make me a deletionist... --Daedalus-Prime 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It's nice to see someone of such high principles. Andkon 01:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete this is OBVIOUS VANITY! not notable and the facts given are unverifiable.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also vanity. Ifnord 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• NOT A VANITY PAGE I am "The Reverend", also known as Reverend Bijhan Al-Attack. My website is http://reverend.andkon.com. I am a fan-turned-friend of Andkon, but not Andkon himself, and I wrote the article. That disqualifies this as a vanity page. Popular Enough Also, I discovered him through a search engine, but he is linked through collegehumor.com and metafilter.com, both popular and established sites. His own stat counters, as he informs me, have counted on the arcade page he has recorded 10,000 unique visits a day, in contrast to the Alexa rank. As for his involvement in flamewars, that is a political issue, not to be judged by his worthiness as a wikipedia article. We have the whore that Hugh Grant slept with on this site, Andkon is hardly a misuse of space.
• Delete Sigh. I find it depressing that this could garner non-s.p. votes to keep, even weakly. Dottore So 10:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As per nom. Marcus22 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable blogger and forum poster.--Isotope23 14:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable vanity Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It may or may not be vanity, but it doesn't meet notability guidelines for bios or websites. — Haeleth Talk 16:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone in here is familiar with what non-notable is since I'm the only one here who runs a website that exceeds the ten thousand mark on a daily basis. Since no one here is able to quit college because of earning money from a website, no wonder everyone is so familiar with what non-notable is. And considering Alexa is rated malicious spyware by Norton and Spybot, I'm not exactly sure what such a low-standard is being used on Wikipedia. Oh yes, this is Andkon himself.

• • Not able to quit college? Andkon, I think a lot of your arguments are pretty fair and you raise some good points. However, you are a little presumptive in this opinion re: college and notability. Believe me, Wikipedia users come from all backgrounds: different age groups, different countries, different sexes, different races and, needless to say, differing socio-economic groups. We don't all need to run websites such as yours in order to be able to quit college and, in any case, some of us left "college" a long time ago! Marcus22 11:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Who ever set this up for delete has issues.Andkon is a site with nearly 700 arcade games all free and without pop-ups or anything malcious. Not only that it features a webcomic that as spanned over 100 issues and is constantly in updation. To say this site is insginificant is quite ignorant. This is site is so popular that the author of it can actually make a living off of it out of ad revenue alone. If this site where to actually be deleted you would also need to delete almost every other article entry that is about a website. This article in fact, was not even done by Andras, but by a friend. Every single reason to delete this site is unfounded and/or horrbly incorrect. This is a joke and stains what Wiki really is. DrunkCat 18:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable per proposed policy WP:WEB and nomination. I wish them the best of luck in making it notable, but so far, it doesn't qualify. --William Pietri 18:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Delete every article about a website, too, for that matter. WP is not a web guide. The criterion for inclusion is not "pays its way," but, instead, "is much discussed by second and third hand parties, has a large effect on the world around it." It may be pleasant, fun, well done, etc., and yet it is just another website for all of that. Geogre 18:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: non-notable vanity. No Account 18:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment there seems to be some new-to-wikipedia people here and that's fine. Wikipedia is not just your private webhost, the only articles that are supposed to be here are ones which are notable. A good guideline of what that means is Wikipedia:Websites, which clearly this site does not pass. 10,000 hits a day is about enough for a 200,000 rank on Alexa... based on experience (2 million daily pageviews is about a rank of 1,500 for example). Ultimately there are millions of sites as popular as this one. Sorry. --W.marsh 19:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete this from Wikipedia. This is not a 'best of the web' site. If it was, Ankon.com would not feature.

No, marsh... closer to 500,000 "hits" per day. Please consult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_analytics#Web_Analytics_Concepts

And this is rich: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker%2C_Missouri So a group of 5 people get an article, but a group that includes tens of thousands don't? Is is because we're black?

• Keep: This site is beneficial to a lot of people. Considering he gets hundreds of thousands of page hits, its a unique site. Considering the number of pages that only contain a single line or a reference that could easily be tied into another topic, at least this is a special, independent, stand-alone article.

• Non-Notable? Hey, I have an idea, lets be mean and ignore the facts and label this article as non-notable despite Andkon having an arcade with over 700 games with no pop-ads or malcious coding and having enough unique hits to gain a living from the money of ad revenue alone. Please make up another faux excuse to delete this site for this one is clearly wrong. DrunkCat 19:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad people enjoy the site, and kudos to the builders for making something that people like. But mildly successful businesses are not automatically notable; otherwise we'll have to list every sandwich shop and convenience story in the country. To change my vote, you'll need to come up with press clippings, Webby nominations, or an Alexa ranking two orders of magnitude higher. A more collegial and reasonable tone from pro-keep partisans would be nice, too. --William Pietri 20:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Webby Awards is nothing but a get-rich scheme. Registration to be considered costs money and can be done by the website's owner. It's lovely see WP using spyware and get-rich schemes as standards. The corporate run media can't be trusted to report correctly on an elementary school science fair, so unfortunately I haven't been able to buy my way into newspapers through PR firms. Andkon 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, but I find the proposed alternative standard (that the site makes money and has a few ardent fans) unpersuasive and unverifiable. Best of luck in becoming notable, but so far I'm going by WP:WEB, Google's count of incoming links, and the other markers I mentioned. The world may not be properly honoring your talent and effort, but Wikipedia's not the place to fix that. --William Pietri 21:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
        • So why is a completely unremarkable place with five people staying while Andkon is out? 209.184.165.20 22:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
          • That's a reasonable question. I can't find the policy, but you can see that the strong consensus is to keep all recognized places, no matter how small. My theory is that the legal and social recognition of cities and towns means that the world has formally noted them, and that they're therefore notable here. You might reasonably feel this is inconsistent, in which case I'd encourage you to lobby for a change in policy on notability of small towns. But WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, and WP:CORP, like WP:WEB, are all pretty clear: existence isn't enough for notability; you have to really stand out from the crowd. --William Pietri 23:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
            • With almost a million entries, it'd be nice to see Wikipedia getting a bit more organized. I'd personally prefer a system *without* anonymous edits and semi- to fully-professional editors with anonymous/registered users only flagging for changes and entries. Under such a scheme I wouldn't get in but with a million entries I insist on having my part of the pie. If Nowheresville, USA gets in for absolutely no reason, I'm not sure why I or other like me shouldn't. I mean are you people saying all of the almost million are all more noteworthy than Andkon. You must be kidding, right? I'm pretty certain I have a bigger following than this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Ali_bin_Al-Hussein Andkon 00:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
              • That would also be an interesting way to run things, and if you think a site like that would be better, you should start it. Under Wikipedia's license, you can even start with the all the current Wikipedia content. I'm sorry that you're upset, and if you think you have found articles that don't meet the current criteria for inclusion, you should nominate them for deletion as well. Regards, --William Pietri 02:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
                • It'd be nice to know the criteria that's being applied. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.184.165.20 (talk • contribs).
                  • Basically, Wikipedia:Websites, as has been mentioned several times in this AfD. --W.marsh 22:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Hehe, thanks Clint and Drunky! Andkon 19:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • • • • "This page is a *proposed* Wikipedia policy, guideline, process, or informational page." So you got an established guidelines? Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This is getting out of hand. Signed votes have been made by unbiased voters, unsigned votes by blatent sockpuppets/fans/etc. typically get very little weight so you're wasting your time. If you want to argue about the criteria for website notability, I think there is an open discussion linked to on the daily AfD page. --W.marsh 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Marsh, please don't slander like that. None of my reason are bias period. I'd love for you to point out where I deviated from facts and stats to show me where I was bias. If you want to delete this site for your own bias reason then I think this entire page should be voided. Oh hey, lets ignore the fact how long this article's been up too. DrunkCat 19:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Truth: Fans, yeah that's one thing a popular site would expect. Sockpuppets? None. The IP of beneficial comment is a friend from the same college I'm finishing the semester at, who also added the new hilarious but still correct bio on the front. LOL :-) Andkon 19:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: You are missing the point. If you think those pages d=on't meet the relevant criteria, you can nominate them for deletion. You have exactly the same edit rights in Wikipedia as I do. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: non-notable No Guru 20:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, vanity issues, etc. Sliggy 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Double Standards? The Wikipedia self-appointed Death Squad should also kill the pages for Limecat and that weird Hello My Future Girlfriend. Both have terrible Alexa ranks. Andkon 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• You appear to have missed the point. You have exactly the same rights in Wikipedia as I do - there is nothing stopping you nominating those other pages for deletion if you have good reason to believe they fail to meet the relevant criteria. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I personally don't care if Limecat or whatever the hell else has its own page. But if they do, I want to be held to the same standards. So far, I've been told that my website doesn't confirm to "proposed" guidelines which are "not policy." That's like breaking a law before it's made. Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This isn't a government; it's a wiki. The guidelines are extracted from many discussions like this one. After a long process applying them and seeing how they work, they become so uncontroversial that we call them policy. (This is basically how the Internet developed, so there's some precedent.) If you have some reason to change the proposed policies besides not liking them, then by all means go to their talk pages and propose changes. Or if you have some first-principles argument about why this should stay despite not matching criteria that have been working for us otherwise, please do make it. Honest, this isn't some vast conspiracy against you; if you look at the other AfDs on the same day as yours, you'll see that dozens of things get deleted as non-notable every day under similar criteria. --William Pietri 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, mostly for vanity. Melchoir 02:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity article about someone's friend's non-notable website. --Stormie 11:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, significant enough website, gets 41,000 google hits, I'm not going to be biased against it just because the webowner's buddy is here defending it. HGB 00:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How do you get that number, HGB? For his website, I get 1420 links and 2840 mentions a number of which are for other sites hosted on subdomains. For him personally, it's harder to tell, but it seems like Google comes up with 751 actual hits, many of which are cruft. That seems pretty far from WP:BIO to me. --William Pietri 16:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • This speaks for itself: http://www.stumbleupon.com/url/www.andkon.com/arcade/ Note the bucketloads of activity near the bottom. Andkon 17:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't doubt that's exciting for you, but I can't see why that would be a better standard than the other ones mentioned on WP:BIO or WP:WEB. Sorry. If you're very excited about keeping this content, have you considered moving it to your user page? --William Pietri 18:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
        • Man, I'd hate to get famous and listen to all negative comments like "seems to be notable and batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion." It's not about the content, I could easily print ten thousand copies and post it all over the city if I really wanted to. It's the part where Wikipedia has room for a million entries but not me? Ridiculous. Andkon 19:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
          • We don't seem to be making any progress here, Andkon. I think your position is clear, and I've tried hard to explain Wikipedia's position to you. If you have any more questions, drop me a line on my talk page and I'll do my best to answer them. Best of luck in your efforts. --William Pietri 19:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
            • Please explain how http://ranking.websearch.com/ can't be used as the standard because Alexa is screwing my site? Andkon 22:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
              • If you think that would be a better standard, go propose it, although personally I'd argue against it. But it wouldn't matter, as a rank of 53,069 is still not notable. And even if it were, that would only merit adding a page for your site, rather than for you personally. At this point, Andkon, everybody else has moved on, and the consensus is pretty clear. I've just stayed in hopes of educating you and your pals. If there's something you want to understand (as opposed to argue about) then ask me on my talk page. I'm moving on, and hope you will too. --23:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
                • I'm not quitting college just to be spit on elsewhere. Upon deletion of the article, I can confidently give WP the Andkon guarantee that the next time we'll have this discussion I'll have the support of a cybermob numbering in the triple digits which by itself will warrant a few articles. Andkon 00:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Also interesting to note is that at least three people, none of whom I know, edited my heroic biography before the Death Squad decided it was wasting space. Did any of these people take anything away? No, they fixed minor things and *added* the article to category pages. It's very hard to get a fair hearing when the people doing the deleting are self-appointed using vague and unapproved standards. Andkon 00:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• If WP is in the business of setting policy by the way of malicious spyware, why not use http://ranking.websearch.com/ ? Andkon 19:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC) add: if we take metafilter.com, collegehumor.com, and wikipedia.org we will see that Alexa is screwing Andkon.com quite heavily.

• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 23:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'NOT A WEBSITE PAGE' People keep complaining that this is a "best of the web" page. It's not even about a website, it's about a man named Andras Konya, who commonly goes by Andkon. He notable not only as a webmaster, but also as an activist in the Mozilla community. The page is not vanity, because it was written by me, The Reverend, who is not only a distinct person but also more than 2,500 miles away from Andkon, and it can be proven by the logs of the editing of the article. The reverend 01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Correction: outcast not activist. As you'll remember, the idiot savants at Mozilla refused to take that Mozfest idea, which of the same technique of guess/check has doubled/tripled my ad revenue. But in my glory days I was being headlined every other month on Mozillazine (and thus on the bottom of the front of Mozilla.org). Oh well. Andkon 01:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  00:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anphillia

Long, non-notable history of a NeverWinter nights mod. Unencyclopedic. Official site/forum clearly fails Wikipedia:Websites proposed guidlines. Delete. W.marsh 00:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable history of a non-notable mod. --InShaneee 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 80 players does not constitute notability in cyberspace... --Daedalus-Prime 01:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will it ever stop? Deltabeignet 02:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• ÁSpeedy Deletenot notable and per above reasons.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per well-written nomination (pity about the vote at the end). Newyorktimescrossword, please note that this article does not meet the speedy criteria. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I love NWN and I've played the server several times. It's a cool server, but in no way is this appropriate encyclopedic material. It's simply not notable enough among the general public, or even among the greater canopy of NWN players.--Isotope23 14:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all above Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable, over 4000 google hits. HGB 00:26, 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 merge. Going to merge into the frisbee throws article. Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anvert

Simply describes a type of throw in Ultimate Frisbee... I don't see how that deserves it's own page. No other throws have pages. This also seems like a hardly ever used neologism. W.marsh 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this page. Posted merely as a joke based on discussion on rec.sport.disc.JH
  • Comment by User:216.249.144.20. User's only edit. --InShaneee 17:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, or merge is someone can somehow prove people use this. Hoax. --InShaneee 01:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ultimate frisbee. --Daedalus-Prime 01:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per daealus.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and then delete Ultimate Frisbee :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Frisbee Throws entry. 20:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment by User:209.167.125.82. User's only edit. --InShaneee 18:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, don't merge. Google search of frisbee anvert returns 5 results, so it's a hoax/neologism. --TM ^(talk) 21:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Melchoir 02:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment yeah I must support the idea that this is a hoax, merging would be just adding a hoax to another article.--W.marsh 02:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnn. Klonimus 05:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This clearly a hoax. --NormanEinstein 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Ultimate (sport). HGB 00:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Frisbee throws. This is not a hoax, search google again and read the talk pages. Liface 07:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just changed my vote.
• Merge into Frisbee throws. An anvert is an actual throw. It's the same thing as the thumber mentioned in the Frisbee throws entry (the last throw listed). To see the discussion that originally pointed me here see http://www.ocua.ca/node/4802 --Tamir 17:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User's only edit. --InShaneee 17:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Please do not merge this into the Ultimate page, it's just a silly neologism for an already existing frisbee throw which is not nearly important enough to be listed on the page for Ultimate. (I'm not a wiki editor, just an ultimate player)
  • Comment by User:67.165.20.142. User's fourth edit. --InShaneee 17:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Appalachian State University Student Government Association

I see no reason why this is notable. Article is just an attempt at a list of people in the SGA. W.marsh 06:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete has potential, but listing of members is irrelevant anyway jnothman ^talk 07:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per jnothman. *drew 07:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN student club Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a list so far, and probably not notable anyway. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, and lacks enough substance to be an article Fertray 15:47, 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. Kirill Lokshin 00:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apples, Guns and Greed

alleged movie, possible hoax or vanity. Cannot verify with IMDB, only Google result whatsoever is the Wikipedia article. Unless the movie's existance can be verified somehow, I don't see how it's notable. W.marsh 06:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No IMDb entry. *drew 07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn jnothman ^talk 07:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax and/or vanity. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Superm401 | Talk 11:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arcanime

Seems to be a defunct site now, Alexa rank of 860,625, negligable Google coverage. Non-notable. W.marsh 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Makes no attempt to establish notability, and is unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. Also note that its forum has only 213 members. *drew 13:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete qualifies as spam, given that the web page has a only a link for donations. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is not notable Fertray 16:22, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archipel

Another orphan find. Claims to be a recently invented RPG, has no published books or anything as far as I can tell. Official site seems to be dead, I can't even find anything to verify that this RPG exists, let alone is notable, on google. Unverifiable, probably non-notable if verifiable due to scarcity of information/interest. (lots of google results for Archipel because it's a common word, but few meaningful for 'Archipel roleplay' W.marsh 15:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Advertising for a product, even a free one, is a no-no. Geogre 16:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN gamecruft Pete.Hurd 19:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 'Redirect -03:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archos Gmini XS202

Talk about your blatant ads... I've never heard of this mp3 player. Current article is unacceptable... if someone really wants to rewrite go for it. But I don't think we owe them a quality article just because they spammed Wikipedia. W.marsh 15:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, hate to do this but I've made it just a redirect to Archos (an article in need of attention itself). I guess this is a plausible search term. I wouldn't object to closing this AfD... sorry. --W.marsh 15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arise-Beta

Non-notable website. No alexa rank, little google coverage, no media. W.marsh 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speculative, spam and non-notable. And I'm sure the writer will be hugely annoyed that I've expunged the linkspam from it (no, I don't think it really needed the name of the site as an external link at least once per paragraph). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN website. *drew 01:34, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Armasmeggon

Non-notable webpage/forum with some video download... not much on google, no Alexa rank [1], forum clearly fails Wikipedia:Websites proposed guidelines. W.marsh 16:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and thanks to the original author for so eloquently describing the comprehensive lack of notability of this enterprise. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. *drew 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Xoloz 15:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Art Love

non-notable musician. I can't even find anything on Google about him. Claims 5 'underground' releases and is allegedly starting a label, that seems to fail the WP:Music guidelines since he isn't on a notable label. W.marsh 18:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "lives in the same town as" notable gangsta rappers doesn't quite cut it, I'm afraid... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Everyone can start an own label and say he's 10 LP on that. And, I assume, the AfD is for the photo as well. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:38, 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 to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ashfaq Majid Wani

106 hits on google are either mirrors of WP article or just confirm what article says. I don't see how being a "freedom fighter" (or whatever you wanna call it) and dying are notable by themselves, and that's all I can find about this guy. We don't have articles for most suicide bombers, for example. W.marsh 21:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as non-notable terrorist. Carioca 01:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AskEd! Automatic Multilingual Question Answering System

While this could be a fascinating site, it has no alexa rank [2], little google coverage, no media coverage (that I can find) and does not seem notable based on that. Current article also seems to be an ad, though I can't tell that the site is a commercial site. Also, article was added by creator of the website in question, apparently. W.marsh 23:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Response from creator of the askEd wikipedia entry: Everything W. Marsh wrote is essentially correct. However, the demo which the entry refers to is a bona-fide working system which is non-commercial and is the result of university research that attempts a very different approach to automatic question answering. The system was also a participant this year in the annual Text Retrieval Conference (TREC) Question Answering evaluation. It differentiates itself from other systems in 2 fundamental ways: (1) by offering input in English, Japanese, Chinese, Russian and Swedish which no other system does, and (2) by providing short answers to questions, not sentences or text snippets as other systems do. In that sense I believe it is of interest to anyone researching question answering systems or the field in general. Moreover, the demo itself serves the additional purpose of data collection for furthering the field of automatic question answering as a whole and for providing a comparison of the state-of-the-art with other systems. I tried to facilitate such comparisons by including links to other demos of similar systems on the web (including commercial systems) and for some of which there are also existing Wikipedia entries. (Presumably those entries are not suggested for deletion because they are already reasonably well-established sites, I don't know.) Incidentally, no one has so far objected to a link to the demo placed on the main Wikipedia question answering page (a much higher profile page) so would you also argue for the deletion of that link or is it that the site itself simply does not warrant an entry at this stage? Would the proponents for deletion consider an argument for moving the page or expanding it rather than deleting it? Is there anything in particular they would like to see about the system's workings to justify the entry's existence? Do they have a stronger argument for deletion other than that there is little other media coverage? Because while W. Marsh's observations about the site's low profile are correct there is a somewhat vicious circle here in that because the site is new, Google does not give the main site a high ranking so correspondingly the traffic to the site is also low. If there is a Wikipedia policy for deleting entries that nobody knows about then I guess I have to concur. But in that case, it would be nice to see a larger number of people arguing for deletion with an explanation so that one can judge at which point a site does warrant a Wikiedia entry. I think contributors both for and against should also state their credentials to argue for and against deletion since their decisions necessarily affect many other people.

Lastly, I have had a fair number of readers of the Wikipedia entry go on to try the system and while I realise this is not an argument for the entry in the first place I believe it is an argument for the site's relevance to the question answering community and therefore to Wikipedia. Ed Whittaker

Please feel free to comment on my comments as I'm obviously interested to understand your objections better to see if they can be resolved without deleting the Wikipedia entry. 12 November 2005

• Delete per nom -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Come on you guys! I don't know whether you're paranoid about spam pages or what but I am genuinely trying to understand what the issue is here and you're not helping. I am relatively new to Wikipedia so my request is genuine. Drini has clearly edited many pages according to his website but these "delete per nom" comments smack of arrogance. If you delete the page fair enough but please try to justify your decision with a few more words. Besides if you write a bit more you can try to convince other people that you are right can't you? Ed whittaker 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• I give up. This isn't a discussion. This is a battle of my long-winded requests for clarification as a new user against unhelpful busybodys' "delete per nom" statements. A waste of everyone's time so delete the entry and delete these [[3]] [[4]] too. Ed whittaker 06:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Awesomer

Self identified neologism. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 04:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 04:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Silly. —Cleared as filed. 05:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to awesome. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete illiterate neologism Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox ^-CVU- 16:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Backdrift

Dictionary definition, and as far as I can tell, not even an accurate one. —Cleared as filed. 03:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as a neologistic dicdef. Ifnord 05:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism and dicdef and any other reasons you can think of. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Dion Nam

Probable hoax article. Google only finds the Wikipedia article. Only linked to from Khoi Vo which was created on the same day and has since been deleted as a "hoax; bs bio of an nn Vietnamese student". Delete. Geoff/Gsl 04:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ludicrous: Factual errors galore, basic logic loopholes, no google hits or evidence of happening.
  -- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 04:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research. I'll bet this isn't an intentional hoax, probably it's a family myth or "old soldier's story".
• Delete obviously a covert operation, Wikipedia must not blow its cover. Delete this and the last reference on Google vanishes with it. Keep watching for the black helicopters... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I wonder if he meant Pyong Yang?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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.

[edit] Bazzarin

Not notable. Article says a guy called Bazzarin emigrated to Brazil and now has over 350 descentents.--Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete large family, but not relevant to encyclopedia jnothman ^talk 00:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No verifiability. -- Perfecto  01:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as stated above. --Daedalus-Prime 01:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. --->Newyorktimescrossword 02:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. If I started in 1880, I'm pretty sure I could have just as many descendants with no unreasonable effort. Saberwyn 07:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. HGB 00:21, 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 DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belch Rodriguez

Hoax. Belching champion biography. -- RHaworth 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, probable hoax, and nonnotable if it isn't. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 15:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. No Google hits for "Belch Rodriguez or "Major League Burping Association". --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete burp .... did someone say probable hoax --Carlos Prats 11:00, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Kaufman

Non-notable person. Google shows 23 hits, none appear to be this person. Ifnord 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable. I got more hits on Google and verified that this person exists... but I'm not seeing that just being a doctor somewhere is particularly notable. --W.marsh 06:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no claim of notability jnothman ^talk 07:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. *drew 07:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable (at least, no claim to that effect is included). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google scholar returns 23 hits on "Benjamin Kaufman", most cited article has been cited 16 times... I get better results there. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Fertray 15:39, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bes-15, Bes-10, Bes-20, Implo-explosion bomb, Crocus Saris, SMIKIM, ITAQ

These Besford Kosova-related articles are about a Kosovar inventor and the many weapons systems, airplanes, and life forms he has invented. Hoax. Delete. — Phil Welch 20:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Agree unless evidence can be cited to the contrary. It is also possible that it is a notable hoax, and should be included as such, though that seems unlikely. Dsol 20:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete patent nonsense, gives every appearance of the product of a daydreaming ESL pre-teen. Pete.Hurd 18:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. BTW, what this user was describing was simply a pair of sunglasses that clip on to a pair of prescribed glasses.  Denelson83  02:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Black fold on optomitrist glasses

Almost an empty/nonsense article. Certainly not encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense. Ifnord 05:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete lack of context; probably has a name, but is a dicdef (sort of) anyway... maybe is a request for an article on a part of glasses...? jnothman ^talk 07:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not encyclopaedic, would be better of deleting and starting from scratch if we ever get an article on this phenomenon. It's not patent nonsense, Ifnord. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 07:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment What I perceive here is a badly executed article request by someone who wants to know what these things are, and couldn't find them in Wikipedia because he didn't know what they were called. Unfortunately, his description isn't very clear and I can't figure out what he's referring to. It is not a trial frame or phoropter. Most likely, he is describing a kind of very cheap, disposable sunglasses that are nothing more than stamped plastic sheet of clear, dark grey plastic. They have no frames, hinges, or temples so they cost very little. They are placed underneath a regular pair of glasses and rely on the regular glasses to hold them in place. Eye doctors sometimes offer them to patients to wear on leaving the office after their eyes have been dilated. The only thing is, these don't fold. Hey, Edwardian, any thoughts? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Dpbsmith. There are some that fold and some that do not. I've added a comment to Sunglasses about "various disposable sunglasses" to clarify what the original author to this article had in mind. Edwardian 00:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nominated Ze miguel 13:50, 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 DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blarticle

Neologism, "blarticle" gets 600-odd Google hits. Blatantly formatted as a dictionary definition. Was missed when "Blannoying", by the same author, was deleted. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete unimportant slang. — brighterorange (talk) 15:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: It doesn't even parse as a set of sentences. "Dictdef" is the reasoning. (Or could a blarticle be a small piece of a blart?) Geogre 16:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per George (the smallest piece of blart must be a blarticule?, non?) Pete.Hurd 19:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bluebird illusion

Non notable obsolete fanmade game. With sadness, WP:CSD does not cover this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notability stated multiply within article jnothman ^talk 07:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hits all the right buttons: nn, fancruft, gamecruft - burn it! burn it now! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonesaw Romance

Non-notable unsigned band.

• Delete Fawcett5 15:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment while this band may fail WP:MUSIC one member, Scott Reynolds, is a former member of a truly notable band All (band). Pete.Hurd 19:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bosnian Hot Potato

Purported slang term- no google hits. JJay 20:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 20:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax or nn neologism Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom --Rogerd 05:27, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brendan O. DOwney

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Impossible title, and the person described in the article appears to have left no trace of his albums. Otherwise, he's a teacher. There are lots of those. Geogre 16:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. Subject has a blog wherein he states his two albums are almost ten years old (likely self-produced). He has no AMG entry as a musician. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per howcheng. *drew 01:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per howcheng. Xoloz 14:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Revert to unvandalised version and keep

[edit] Brian Jackson

Non-notable, not on IMDB, has made amateur movies but that's about it. No media coverage, nothing to indicate he's notable. Delete W.marsh 06:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Revert to this edit before it was vandalised by vanity nn bio jnothman ^talk 07:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

  Interesting. Even that edit had the vanity nn bio in it too, but I've removed that and reverted to the previous apparently notable version. As far as I'm concerned this could be closed now. --W.marsh 07:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. This isn't the place to delete redirects. If you want, list it on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, but RFD is exceedingly unlikely to delete this based misspelling redirect. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brooks Kubick

Page created with misspelled last name; has been moved to Brooks Kubik Dsreyn 00:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep redir--common misspelling (over 70 hits). Redirs are cheap. Thanks for moving it, tho. :) 24.17.48.241 02:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ...you just voted to delete a redirect as "non-notable." Please read the articles before voting. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Nothing to be done here, then. You want redirects for deletion. Personally, though, I don't see why it needs to go. Like 24.17.48.241 said, it's a common misspelling. Jacqui ^{★ 05:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Redirect to Brooks Kubik with Template:R from misspelling gren グレン 06:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delist. This article, as Jacqui pointed out, belongs on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion. Further, it won't be deleted, because it's a useful redirect. Dsreyn, moving articles always results in leaving behind a redirect, and that's Almost Always a Good Thing. If someone got the name wrong when creating the article, someone else could easily get the name wrong when searching for it. Newyorktimescrossword, do you, uh, read the articles you vote to delete? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhism in Texas

Interesting article, but reads like spam and doesn't seem encyclopedic. --AllyUnion (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. - it can be worked on --Philo 09:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete So can painting trees, doesn't mean it should be done. Dottore So 10:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but expand and clean up.Logophile 11:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless anyone can convince me that this should not be part of a more general discussion of Buddhism in America. It's a very limited scope at present and much less useful than a wider-scoped article would be. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: A separate discussion for a minority religion in a given state? That sort of granularity strands the information and disrupts the context considerably. At best this should be part of a Religion in Texas, but that should be part of Texas#Culture. What I read in this article looks like advertising, on the one hand, or proselytizing, on the other. For POV issues, as well as lack of definition of the topic, I don't agree at all with keeping, though we should be happy to have the author contribute to one of the larger articles with appropriate content in context. Geogre 16:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Geogre. This is the slippery slope down to such forking as Mormonism in South Carolina, Sikhism in Alaska, SubGenii in Michigan, & Discordianism in Rhode Island.--Isotope23 18:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Seems just too place-specific; and also looks a little like ad. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like an advert. *drew 01:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And I was so looking forward to the article on Rastafarianism in Reno. Denni☯ 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL, or Pastafarianism in Pennsylvania?--Isotope23 18:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. Too limited geographical scope. Punkmorten 15:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Xoloz 14:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too specific. Carina22 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  02:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chapello

Hoax ? —Gaff ^ταλκ 04:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not a very good one alas. Delete. Sjc 04:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• As the author of this article I can provide written confirmation from everyone cited within the article as well as numerous published journal articles on findings concerning the Chapello. Simply because knowledge of this creature isnt within your limited knowledge of animals does not mean it is a hoax. The Chapello is a creature which has documented proof of existance from top researchers at top universities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.222.139.108 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 05:14:45 UTC.
  • Then do so. Uncle G 13:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax bordering on patent nonsense. Ifnord 05:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why are you so sure it is a hoax? Have you heard of every animal in existance, even those found in clandestine forests in the middle of jungles in 3rd world countries? If not then perhaps you would consider that this is a real animal who has simply had a dearth of information published about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.222.139.108 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 05:25:35 UTC.
  • (Lord, why can't I ignore trollers/hoaxers?) This isn't a case of a panda or a platypus that some researcher has brought forth a carcass and no one believes them. There is nothing to substantiate your claim. Bring forth your evidence, I can't "prove" a negative. Ifnord 05:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as speedy vandalism category of G3, which includes creating hoax articles. A Google search for Chappello returns 5 unique hits see [5] with no result relevant to the subject of the article so problems under WP:V in any case. No Google print and three Google scholar articles [6] with no relevant articles retrieved. There is simply no verifiable evidence for the existence of this animal so we cannot accept the article. It is up to authors to cite verifiable evidence in support of their articles and the author has not done so. Capitalistroadster 05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no obvious evidence this exists (give us the Latin name, Mr. Anonymous) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 16:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, because the article uses "currently" twice in the same sentence, and I just can't accept that. BD2412 T 23:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable unless a good verifiable reference, including the scientific name of the animal, is provided and verified prior to expiration of AfD. Source citation is a necessity whenever the factual accuracy of an article is suspect. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Latin name: Lupus Hominum, and there is a literary device called anaphora, which has been employed by some of the greatest writers of all time, Homer and Vergil to name a notable two. Dont question my syntax when it isn't relevant.

• Go ahead and Delete. "Lupus hominum" receives 12 Google hits, all of which are unrelated Latin fragments. --Zetawoof 09:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as non-verifiable. --Me or a Robin 10:26, 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 delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Bannon

Listed as non-notable CSD, but playing college basketball is enough of an assertion of notability for it to be a CSD. Listing here, no vote. — Phil Welch 21:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't think that playing college basketball alone is an assertion of notability. Most professions alone don't establish a claim of notability, and non-professional sports are at an even lower level. An assertion of notability would be winning a notable award (voted a College All-American, for instance), or being a member of a national championship team. 165.189.91.148 22:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete agreed that former college football player should not be considered assertion of notability; this is assertion of pastime. jnothman ^talk 00:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-notable player. *drew 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, college basketball players are of interest to large numbers of people. Kappa 01:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I can only verify that a Charles O'Bannon played for UCLA who had a brother Ed, which would (a) be notable and (b) be completely contrary to most of the supposed facts in this stub. — Phil Welch 02:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No indication of notability. Brother is the professional athlete, not subject. ERcheck 05:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Charles was actually a professional basketball player, but his career in the NBA and the US was short-lived. He spent the vast majority of his career overseas. Not only that, but he went to UCLA, not Michigan where he was a crucial member of the NCAA title-winning team in 1995. Plus, the information on Ed O'Bannon is wrong too (I should know, I wrote most of the Ed-O article). I can probably take a stab at rewriting it later. I still have my Sports Illustrated collector's issue of the UCLA title. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, I just did a quickie Google search and found no evidence of Charles dropping the "O" from his name. This article as it's written is completely bogus. Charles is alive and well and playing in Japan for Toyota Alvark. He's good enough for at least a stub, but at Charles O'Bannon. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't that be a Move or Move and Kelete? — Phil Welch 21:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • No, because nobody searching for Charles O'Bannon would use the name Charles Bannon (who was a real person -- the last person lynched in North Dakota). So deletion of this is warranted with a new article started in the correct location for Charles-O. And besides, the article as it stands is totally bogus anyway so not worth keeping. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:23, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:40, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Hills

Non-notable brother of a couple of jockeys. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete same deal as with George Hills (also up for deletion), being related to notable people doesn't automatically make you notable. --W.marsh 15:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO. Xoloz 14:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chat 820

Delete Non-notable chat room. Krzypntbllr 01:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, no...not another gaming forum. Speedy delete if possible. Or, if you prefer, pwn it. - Lucky 6.9 02:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN vanity chat room. *drew 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Deletezorzz, chatroomcruft. — JIP | Talk 13:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A chat room? No, not notable Fertray 16:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete GameFAQs message boards are sufficient enough. Logan

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chili cookoff

It's mostly an ad, but someday there ought to be a real article about chili cookoffs. Delete or expand? Melchoir 20:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Remove the portions that are basically advertising for the International Chili Society and expand the article. This could turn into something genuinely interesting, like Barbecue. If the consensus is to delete, maybe a section could be added to the already substantial Chili con carne article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 21:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I took the liberty of rewriting it. There is very little left of the original article, though I thought it was still worth noting the International Chili Society's substantial contributions to charity and such. So I'm going to change my expand vote to keep! —HorsePunchKid→龜 04:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Clean-up and Keep. Chili cookoffs are common cooking competitions. While the current article is poor, it could be turned into an interesting article. Delete the ad parts and mark it for cleanup. -- JLaTondre 03:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as re-written. Could use further expansion.ERcheck 05:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, Keep now that HorsePunchKid has cleaned and stubbed it. Melchoir 07:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for nominating the article and getting it some attention. It had apparently been sitting in that state for quite a while. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 08:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, was that sarcasm? Melchoir 08:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No, not at all! It was just fun to work on a little article like that for a while instead of fighting link spam and such. Also gives me some hope that I'm not a complete deletionist. :) —HorsePunchKid→龜 20:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Well then, you're welcome. It's just that I've spent some time recently in Special:Ancientpages, so I can't think of articles created in 2005 as having sat there a while! Melchoir 20:36, 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.

[edit] Chris Poke

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Mo0[talk] 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC) Obvious vanity page. --Dalkaen^T/C 00:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete no assertion of notability jnothman ^talk 00:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as above. --InShaneee 01:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete this please it is written by the author even Yuckfoo 01:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vanity JFW | T@lk 01:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete nn and vanity.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Claveman

Does every flash animation need its own page? This one seems particularly useless. - BonsaiViking 15:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable, and fails to estabilishing notability. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and quite likely by the author. If not they should be ashamed of themselves for writing such drivel about someone else's work. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN, vanity. Xoloz 15:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC) ===D-sak=== D-sak is a real skate crew of Yolo county. Yes the page is not written well but none the less it should be recognized. Don't delete D-sak!! non notable, probably vandalism Arniep 20:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn per nom jnothman ^talk 00:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. *drew 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Don't Delete D-sak Everyone cool loves D-Sak - (preceding unsigned comment by 24.7.159.74 (talk • contribs) )
• Delete, non-notable. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom --Rogerd 05:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• I must not be cool. Delete per nom. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your right.....your not.

Someone here should definately make a reputable page that we can all enjoy. I have a great idea, how bout one discussing the depths of Howchengs uncoolness. Sounds interesting.

• delete what could be cooler than deleting NN/vanity articles brimming with typos and malapropisms? Pete.Hurd 18:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dagannoth

Trivial stats for a creature in an online game. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I vote delete RJH 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete egregious game cruftery Pete.Hurd 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP (and overwhelmingly, at that). BD2412 T 06:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Brandt

No vote. Several users at Talk:Daniel Brandt, expressed a desire to renominate this for deletion, with the subject of debate being Mr. Brandt's notability. I'll let someone who actually wants it deleted argue for its deletion; I'm just setting up the renom. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Previous AfD Summary This article was nominated for deletion a few days ago. After about two days there were 22 Keeps and 3 deletes. Of those deletes, one was Daniel Brandt, one was an anonymous IP making a first edit, and the third was an IP that has only ever edited Daniel Brandt and one other article. jucifer 23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I purposefully did not link that AFD, since I agree that it was largely about not allowing Brandt to control the article on himself. This AFD is at the request of FRS, who would have listed this himself had he known how to do a renom. Given that FRS is not a Brandt sock (I assume Brandt isn't placing sleeper agents on WP ;D), I don't think the desire to prevent Brandt from controlling WP's coverage of himself isn't really relevant. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: notable founder of google-watch and wikipedia-watch. Performs a valuable service, even if I believe he's a bit weird. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If Google Watch was all he was known for, I would support a merge or delete. However, I consider his history of activism, his creation of NameBase, and his work with the likes of Philip Agee and publications like Covert Action Quarterly equally if not more important than his quixotic anti-google crusade. With that said, I support letting this VFD run its full course so there is clear and undeniable consensus for a keep we can point to if this issue comes up again. Gamaliel 22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speaking of which, while I don't much care either way about this topic, I will revert any speedy close of this AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: notable individual by any of wikipedia's criteria. No question about this. Brandt's desire not to have an article about himself on wikipedia is of no consequence IMHO. He has no greater right to edit the article than anyone else (arguably - perhaps less); therefore he has no greater right to have the article deleted than anyone else (arguably - perhaps less). jucifer 22:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Brandt's desire not to have an article on himself is not at issue here. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Right! I agree with you. But some think that Brandt's desires are at issue - like FRS for example.jucifer 23:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Well, fbow, I DO think that the wishes of the subject of an article should be taken into account where the the subject's notability is marginal and the subject's views are ascertainable. If the subject is truly a non-public person (not quite the same as non-notable, I suppose) and wishes to remain so, I don't believe we have the right to splash information about him/her on WP, even information that might be true and veriable (e.g., someone is sued or loses a nn lawsuit). Here, it's (to me anyway) a close question whether Brandt is enough of a public/notable figure that we can feel free to disregard his wishes.FRS 23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree - if it's a case of borderline notability, there's every reason to respect the subject's wishes (as a sort of casting vote). Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep bogdan | ^Talk 22:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Subject of this article is only marginally notable, and most of what notability does exist arises from what is essentially a current dispute in which WP and (more recently) several editors/admins are involved. The subject of the article vigorously objected to being the subject of an article (after trying unsuccessfully to control its content), and the disagreements rapidly escalated to his being indefinitely blocked. Given his marginal notability and the ongoing, current, dispute with WP, I think this article should be deleted. At least, the pros and cons of doing so should be fully aired. FRS 22:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral - Since the last RfA I have seaached the web for content about Brandt. I'm no longer as confident that he is notable. His attacks upon me and others make me lean towards keep (to spite him), but I musn't let emotion cloud my judgment. Let it be known that I did not support the speedy keeping in the previous VfD. Broken S 23:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep he is notable, his disagreement with his article is no reason to delete it. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable and encyclopædic article. Tonywalton  | Talk 23:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete/merge with Google Watch. I don't think Brandt clearly passes an "average activist" test. I'm not convinced that Namebase is notable enough for its own entry, so his creation of it isn't enough; details on his involvement with various alternative publications are sketchy and the details we do have appear non-notably techy; his teaching of computer skills to a few fairly well-known people doesn't seem that notable. Does his involvement with the anti-Vietnam war whilst at university seem that significant? I don't think so. What's left is Google Watch, which again doesn't seem notable enough to justify a separate entry on its founder. It is a weird post-modern irony that at this point Brandt's attempts to delete his Wikipedia article (on the basis that he isn't notable) may be a significant factor in him being considerered notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia (at least by Wikipedians - probably not by your average man-in-the-street). But I would suggest that if this episode does have any wider significance then it could perhaps more relevantly be documented under Wikipedia. A delete/merge of this article (with Google Watch) would retain most notable material and be a reasonable outcome. Also, (post-modernism again) - the injunction on people to be careful about editing articles about themselves should also apply to articles where Wikipedia itself is covered; there's an obvious potential for bias of various types since almost by definition most Wikipedians are more favourably disposed towards Wikipedia than most non-Wikipedians. Rd232 ^talk 23:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed that once again, there is very little discussion, and instead merely assertion of the issue in question (notability). We have a reference to WP:BIO, but nothing there obviously covers Brandt. There are on that page also alternative tests that have been proposed, but these are not established as guidelines and it is not clear under which of these Brandt would fall in any case. People should also be careful not to confuse notability and verifiability. Rd232 ^talk 06:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ashibaka (tock) 23:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe we could start a third AfD on this article now, so we could all vote on it at the same time.--Nicodemus75 23:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)#
  • There is a very good reason for this second AfD and that is many believed the last AfD nomination to be bad faith and thus voted speedy keep. This AfD is definitely not bad faith. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Subject is both notable (by WP:BIO and verifiable. At the very least, it should be kept as a redirect to Google Watch and it's content merged there. Not speedy. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What part of WP:BIO does Brandt fall under?
    • "Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events" - [7], [8], [9]. Even if he doesn't meet WP:BIO, I think he will still be verifiable in 10 years or so. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable and verifiable. Ral315 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject is (at least marginally) notable; I'm inclusionist enough to set the bar pretty low for this. His attempts to suppress the page only make Wikipedians more inclined to want to keep it to spite him, though this is a "base emotional reaction" that probably shouldn't go into the final decision. However, his silly and baseless legal threats would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that the American legal system is so screwed up that people can force others to spend huge amounts of money defending against baseless claims. But we shouldn't give in to such claims nevertheless; that would be letting the terrorists win! *Dan T.* 00:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Passes all policy tests. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable activist. --Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough. Canderson7 04:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable --Rogerd 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as before. It's simply not true that "most of what notability does exist arises from what is essentially a current dispute in which WP." Google Watch gives him the necessary significance for an article. (Also, be warned that Brandt is advising people to create meatpuppets to influence this vote). Superm401 | Talk 05:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • He doesn't seem to have had any noticeable success at this (recruiting meatpuppets), however, which ironically is an argument in favor of the non-notability of his sites; they don't even seem to have enough "friends" or "fans" to make a showing in an attempt to stuff the ballot box his way. Some others who have tried to suppress their own articles in similar fashion have at least managed to get a few supporters to show up. *Dan T.* 15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • For archival and CYA purposes, I have uploaded a screenshot of the notice in case Brandt tries to pull some foolish stunt like calling us liars. Linuxbeak | Talk 20:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
      Image:Wikiwatchdeletion.PNG

      Screenshot of Deletion notice
• Keep very notable. Klonimus 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "notable", "very notable". - why? Rd232 ^talk 06:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Subject has had articles written about him in major publications. Nohat 07:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the figure appears to be notable enough. Yamaguchi先生 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not going to vote one way or the other, except to point out that Daniel Brandt is at least as notable as several other people who have their own Wikipedia articles. As someone who objects to the notability of many such biographies, however, that's not necessarily an argument for keeping Brandt's article. I do want to encourage voters, however, to base their decisions here on whether they feel Brandt is notable enough for an encyclopedia article, on not on his behaviour here. Specifically, I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will not be intimidated by his legal posturing into deleting the article; neither would I want this article to be kept simply to spite Brandt for trying to have it removed. —Psychonaut 09:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• As before, Keep as a semi-notable "activist" with mild media attention and founder of notable website. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 10:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• I find this new Wired article titled "Net Chat Anoints Public Figure" related in this case. -Philwiki 17:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is a related and interesting new case. In the court's order linked to that article, the judge applied Florida law to find the plaintiff was a public figure because "(1) a public controversy exists; (2) plaintiff played a central role in the controversy; (3) the alleged defamation was germane to plaintiff's involvement in the controversy." The court applied this rule to the defamation complaint, and then threw out the invasion of privacy complaint because it arose from the same publication. FRS 18:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hopefully I don't get put on his list for this, but I ran a Nexis search and his name came back with a lot of media mentions. Therefore notable, therefore keep. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, seems to be notable and batshit insanity is not a criteria for deletion. Lord Bob 19:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The hilarious bit, of course, is that I don't think he would have been nearly as notable without his campaign at wikiwatch. Therefore, by his actions he has guaranteed notoriety. However, even his campaign regarding Google is notable in the Internet world. Jacqui ^{★ 20:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)}

• Keep well if he wasn't notable enough he sure is now. Pretty amusing stuff. The author not wanting an article about himself is certainly not a reason for deletion. chowells 00:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep He needs an article on him. He definitely fits the definition of public figure, at least on the internet (several independant news articles on him), has almost half a million results on google for his name, and operates several significant watch sites. And he needs to know that he can't push wikipedia around with legal threats and claims of conspiracy. Elyk53 06:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)(This was the first edit of Elyk53(contribs) Superm401 | Talk 06:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC))
  • Note: After having a CheckUser done on this user, it was revealed that it originated from the San Antonio area. Seeing that Daniel Brandt is located in San Antonio (see this, which I found using, you guessed it, Google), and those edits are the only edits this user has ever made, I bet that it was either Brandt or one of his friends. Sorry, Brandt. We throw out keep and oppose votes from any meat/sockpuppets. Linuxbeak | Talk 01:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I knew something was up! I geuss when he saw how the voting was going, he decided that if he put in some fake votes for "keep" he could at least claim that the vote was rigged against him. Fabricating conspiracy theories - who would have thought it? Hmmm, maybe it is the CIA doublebluffing us. Or the freemasons. Or the WTO. Or the neocons. No, cummon thats just dumb - it has to be the mossad.

jucifer 01:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The watchers must be watched. Also, he's funny. I'm looking forward to having this comment posted on [ħttp://www.wikipedia-watch.org/hivemind.html]. // E23 15:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Ironically enough, I think this whole affair qualified him for his own article Obli 18:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree, complaining to wikimedia and attempting to get information about yourself removed from wikipedia does not make you notable. That said, I think brandt is notable for other reasons. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 18:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Not just that, I was referring to his one-man crusade against wikipedia, not to mention Google, sorry for not making myself clear. Obli 22:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, Wikipedia is not self-referential. We don't have an article about editors only famous (or infamous) within WP (Jimbo, Angela, and a few others excluded. But they are in here for other reasons, not just WP).
• delete who cares who this guy is? At most there should be a one para article. So much detail is senseless. He's not that notable. He's no Abbie Hoffman, nor is he a Peter Norton. Why are we bothering this guy? I say leave him be and delete or radically prune this article. If this ever becomes a public controversy, re: Wiki vs. Brandt, all kinds of kooks will come out of the woodwork. The last thing you want is the "fight the power" crowd starting to think that this Wiki is "the power" to be "fought". That would be terrible. Again I say, prolonging Brandt's anger will not accrue to the long term benefit of this wiki. Rex071404^{(all logic is premise based)} 20:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - clearly worthy of discussion and documentation. Andy Mabbett 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - More notable than Cyrus (pronounced suh-ROOS). And since when did people decided whether there should be an encyclopedia article about them? Do you think Bill Gates authorized his wiki entry? - Hahnchen 21:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep seems (at least a little) notable to me, at least enough so to keep. And it certainly is bizarre that he on one hand claims to be a private figure, and on the other hand publishes public sites like ħttp://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ -- which way does he want it? CarbonCopy 21:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A notable Wikipedia critic. His ridiculous legal threat [10] is obviously moot so he poses little legal threat to Wikipedia — if he himself uses Wikipedia as a forum for legal threats, we can always ban him. Andrew pmk | Talk 23:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: notable both for his criticism of Wikipedia and for Google Watch ➥the Epopt 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - He's now notable, if nothing else, for being a major and public Wikipedia critic as per Obli. Oh, and I'm an admin, so does that mean the admin crusade can begin against me as well? :sigh: I look forward to being part of the hivemind. FCYTravis 23:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and ban Daniel Brandt forever for legal threats. Oh, and put me on his hitlist of people to sue because I don't think he can dictate policy to Wikipedia over what we can or can't print. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  He already has been, see the block log for him. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Verifiable information, notability is not a deletion criterion, yada yada yada. James F. (talk) 13:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel L. Buttry

NN pastor of church, first three hits are wikipedia or wiki mirrors. Book is small scale and out of print, borderline, but likely does not pass WP:BIO

• Delete: Standard credentials, really. His book's lack of success takes it out of the mix. Standard practitioners of any calling or profession are non-encyclopedic. I'm sure we wish him and his flock well. Geogre 15:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Xoloz 15:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Darth Shraddok

Non-notable fan fiction, zero Google hits. Nufy8 22:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Never heard of him. By a new contributor. Concur. Delete. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft delenda est. --DavidConrad 02:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-canonical Star Wars character, likely fan creation
• Delete, no record of any Sith between Millennial and Plagueis. Real Star Wars characters generally get Google hits.-LtNOWIS 04:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Airhart

Non-notable political activist. Apparently generated a tiny amount of very local news coverage, but I see no indication that Airhart is important beyond that. I vote to delete. —HorsePunchKid→龜 06:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

This isn't of international importance, not national importance, and perhaps not of much importance to many people... but there are hundereds of people who have signed the petition in less than a month with litterally no publicity given to the event. Many people are aware of the situation and as such we should have an article on the person and/or the event (I first started looking for information in wikipedia and found none, which started my research). At least, that is my opinion... if it doesn't fit within the guidelines, please delete it; otherwise I vote to not delete --Zeroasterisk 07:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete not particularly notable student. And as for the petition, Wikipedia is not about promoting things, it's about recording what is notable and verifiable, stated in neutral terms. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there are hundreds of little protests like these every day and nobody is putting them in Wikipedia... Foofy 00:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  02:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derek William Nicoll

This person seems to exist, and may even deserve a page, but the content is completely inappropriate at this point. Although in some ways it's fascinating in its details, with a non-linear, almost nonsensicsal, structure that is reminicant of the American Postmodernism movement in literature, the article offers no set of facts for a reader's understanding of the topic. Andicat 01:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as vainglorious nonsense. Eddie.willers 02:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete seems to be a joke or hoax, one which 'real' Derek William Nicoll's are not likely to appreciate http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Derek William Nicoll%22&btnG=Google Search FRS 02:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete outrageous. nn. per frs. --->Newyorktimescrossword 03:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete here claims no notability, although Human-computer interaction does for someone of the same name jnothman ^talk 03:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with nom. Contributor could consider submitting to The New Yorker or a literary mag, but not appropriate for WP.—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Dottore So 10:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete bio(?) of a non-notable person... or a prose piece. Either way, not suitable for wikipedia.--Isotope23 14:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete either a NN bio or a hoax. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Articles like this are where Everything2 holds the edge. An interesting piece of writing, but inappropriate for our pages. Delete Denni☯ 05:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Userify this. Klonimus 05:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, what Konimus said. Perhaps the user who created it would like to move it to his/her user page. HGB 00:59, 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 DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DKid Virus

Nonsense, albeit not patently so. Delete. — Phil Welch 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Zero google hits. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yamaguchi先生 09:10, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dō itashimashite

WP:NOT phrasebook. If something can be written about the significance of this phrase, here's your chance. — Phil Welch 23:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It means "you're welcome" and when I lived in Japan, I rarely heard it. If you want an article an important Japanese phrase, try Yoroshiku onegai shimasu instead. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:00, 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. Voters are reminded that "redirect and delete" is not a valid Vote in an AfD. All content in this article is in DVD or its see also section. 6 delete, 2.5 merge (merge=redirect). -Mysekurity 05:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dual-layer

Small, badly named, article of little value from unregistered user — Barefootguru 04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Sadly, not really worth even a merge, but would be easy to mention on DVD article if not already done. Then delete.—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge then delete per Gaff. —Cleared as filed. 05:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless Apple want to ship me a complimentary PowerBook G4 to check out this claim in person. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You mean they didn't? I got mine. Denni☯ 05:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to DVD and Delete. Dual-layer DVD burners exist, and newer Powerbooks have them, but they're far from the first computers to do so. --Zetawoof 10:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, mention in DVD article if necessary... Foofy 23:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F - Your Bro

Some online gaming thing. A few googles, but didn't notice anything that seemed relevant. Probably vanity. -R. fiend 18:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Ian 13 18:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamecruft. *drew 01:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom --Rogerd 05:32, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fine Grit

Delete nn band vanity. No allmusic, no attempt to establish notability. TM ^(talk) 22:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn per nom jnothman ^talk 23:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN band. *drew 01:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:02, 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 (discounting IPs). 02:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fort not Portland

Non-notable place (whether it existed or not), and being a long-time Louisville resident, I had never heard of the place. Google hits are negligible. -- — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable "punk house." —Cleared as filed. 05:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hi Stevie... yeah definite vanity article here (original research too). Just some random punk house, I've even been to a few such places in Louisville and never heard of this one. --W.marsh 06:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and apparently defunct. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Having been in close contact with many of the people that came through this place, and having never been there myself while it was around I would say that it served a very important function in not only Louisville, re: crimethinc convergence, but also the greater midwest. It served as a sort of underground railroad clearing house for political hobos who were moving from action to action in the midwest.
  • Potential sock-puppet vote from IP 207.250.128.144 -- this was the sole edit by that anonymous user. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am the original author of this article. I am new to wikipedia, but trying to catch up. As I understand it, my page has been marked for deletion under WP:VAIN.

*KEEP I agree with what Electricz just said. I remember fort not portland. It was a good place that had shows there. I meet new friends and learned about anrcho culture. A culture previously keepen from me by an overbearing society. Fort Not Portland was a good place and needs to be remembered.

Given the current state of the article, I can understand this complaint. Its current incarnation mainly consists of what might be refered to as the "downfall of ft. not portland." It does not currently discuss the reasons that Ft. not Portland became an important establishment to people in Lousiville and throughout the United States. This was the Principled anarchist collective I hinted at in my original article but did not expand upon.

I wrote about this part of the history first for two reasons. First, This is the time period that I have the most direct knowledge regarding. Second, I hoped by posting this cursory information I could entice editors with more direct knowledge to expand the article.

Please understand that the article is only one day old, and has had only one major edit (its creation). I will enumerate why I do not believe this article qualifies as a vanity article: 1) I was only a one-time guest at ft not portland, and thus do not consider myself directly related to it. 2) Part two of WP:VAIN states that "There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition [that] is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia." Thus, even though the great majority may not know of Ft not Portland's existence, this does not make it irrelevant. In fact, the fort was very relevant to a great many people. It was an important punk rock and anarcho-folk music venue in the Louisville community for over a year. It was also an important center for organizing radical political activities. It's impact on the anarchist and punk community in louisville and the South-East region of the United States is still deeply felt. Just because this community is small in relation to the greater community does not mean their interests should be ignored. 3) This article is the first article in what I was hoping to be an attempt to document "Punk Houses" in the United States. A category has been created to aid in this. It is a phenomenon that is actually very interesting and has many anthropological implecations.

I understand people's concerns with this article, but I really don't think it warrants deletion. Perhaps there is a more appropriate tag something like "we're working on it" or some-such that will denote the inadequecy of the article. Electricz 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Vanity is just incidental. You say you want people to add edits from their own personal experience... that's a big problem, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and needs to be able to cite published sources. See Wikipedia:No original research... that's the real problem here. Unless you can cite actual media or equivilent published 3rd party coverage of this place that confirms your claims... there's no way it could pass the AfD, in my opinion at least. --W.marsh 16:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Where did the source information for those original sources that you hold so sacred come from? First person experience, anecdote and accounts are all valid sources for a scholarly article, as long as there is a well rounded collection of these views of events. I am not trying to make a comparison of importance, but what you are saying is that no first hand account of an event is valid as a resource, or that no analysis of current events, in writing, with out "published source material" is valid.
    • The Wikipedia is *not* a compendium of "scholarly articles." It is an encyclopedia. No original research is allowed here. All articles require hard references of their factuality. Anecdote is clearly not allowed. First person experience would only count if you have two or more such experiences/accounts that are unconnected and referenced somewhere that can be pointed to. Simply discussing such experiences in the article isn't good enough; there has to be backup for these things. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• • I did some research on the wikipedia "no original research" policy today. I do not believe that it applies to this article either. WP:NOR states the following: "The phrase 'original research' in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation'." Essentially it seems that WP:NOR is mostly relevant to academic articles. Articles involving the hard sciences as well as the social sciences. My belief is reinforced by section three of WP:AFDP none of the examples given seem to apply. Electricz 03:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted.

[edit] Fox Kids' Wicked

• "wicked"? also the editor refers to "power magers". seems like nonsense to me --Philo 08:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedily as nonsense - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. *drew 13:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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. FireFox ^-CVU- 15:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FTW (wtf)

neologism, dictdef

• Delete (nom): can never be more than a definition of a neologism; probably doesn't even belong on Wiktionary. --Kgf0 23:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - nonsense --Phil 02:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Nonsense, yet not patent nonsense, and therefore unfortunately not a candidate for WP:CSD, or believe me, I'd've done it myself. --Kgf0 08:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is nonsense. We cannot have articles for every reverse spelling of an acronym. Yamaguchi先生 09:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, dictdef, and not even a good article: "FTW" is an acronym in gaming circles for "For The Win". --Stormie 11:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense neologism Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:14, 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.

IAR: The result of the debate was DELETE. I'm clsoing this early and nuking the article as consensus is very clear. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fuckfrance

Delete. Just not seeing the encyclopedic value of this article, but maybe thats just me (and a few admins trigger happy on the speedy delete button with this page). I decided to post here for a rational discussion hopefully leading to a consensus (I'll be holding my breath for that...)—Gaff ^ταλκ 04:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Despite the fact that I, on the mistaken assumption that this page was just a recreation of a properly deleted previous article due to the previous deletion before my own, support this AFD since it makes it official and if this is recreated then it can be properly speedied as per CSD. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete No claim to notability, apparent hate site and not especially encyclopedic. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn website. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, due to being non-notable and hateful. Mo0[talk] 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Use your judgement on the matter but I would recommend a template:deletedpage notice and a page protection for this page since there is clearly a high risk for recreation. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

After the appropriate time period has passed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't mean to imply anything before the time has passed, I just was noting in case that this ends in delete. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dog's breakfast of a POV nn vanity page. --Fire Star 05:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • 113,000 Google hits. So my "non-notable" reason is gone. I may reconsider my opinion. --Fire Star 05:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete more a blog than anything else. Not notable and the article is unencyclopedic.MONGO 05:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vaity spew --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 05:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious reasons. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep lame attempt at censorship. It's dissapointing that so many experienced users would delete a page simply because they disagree with the subject. freestylefrappe 05:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It would be deleted because Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the article is completely unencyclopedic, not because of the subject. Censorship would be if the government shut down the fuckfrance.com web site. Wikipedia not having an article on them in no way censors them. --DavidConrad 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless evidence of notability is incorporated into the article. - brenneman^(t)(c) 05:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article on non-notable web forum; Wikipedia is not a web directory. --DavidConrad 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Whether or not I, or anyone else here, likes the content is irrelevant. The truth is that Wikipedia is not a web directory, and this website is not notable at this time. Jacqui ^{★ 05:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep It's a Keeper! The article is necessary. It's crucial! So many still don't know. There are tons of pictures!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.93.43.178 (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC).
  • You are over-excited. It's really not of great import.
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a web directory, and the article is not encyclopedic at all. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Malcious Nazi-style chauvanism. Cognition 06:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity, advertising. *drew 07:07, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hate rant, advertising-Dakota ^{t e} 07:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable: Alexa rank of 34,576. --Carnildo 07:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this rubbish -- Francs2000 09:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable website = unencyclopedic. --Aquillion 10:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable ad. for a trashy site. Marcus22 11:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability not established by article. Demiurge 11:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Pixeltoo 11:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because people oppose an unauthorised war started on false premises and later illegal incarceration and torture of innocent people doesn't mean they suddenly become a free target for insults. — JIP | Talk 13:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Kiand 13:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, while its Alexa ranking isn't that bad, the article fails to establish significance and contains POV in the last paragraph and speculation about its creator. Once that is gone, there's nothing substantial left to keep. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice against notable, verifiable France-bashing websites. If there are any. android79 14:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and even if it was WP is not a directory. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment we deleted Fuck the South.Geni 14:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaop

Delete nn band vanity. No allmusic, references are to myspaces, geocities, etc. TM ^(talk) 22:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN --Rogerd 05:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Band vanity. -- Marcika 15:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  02:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Hills

Not a notable person Akamad 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Being related to notability does not confer notability. Keryst 03:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete was basically going to say what Keryst said. --W.marsh 03:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non notable. utcursch | talk 04:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no claim of notability jnothman ^talk 04:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy as zero claim to notability. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, go through 'whatlinkshere' and remove redlinks to prevent any temptation of recreation. I'm surprised there isn't a range of hills called the George Hills anywhere. Proto t c 15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:Bio. HGB 01:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nominator. --Me or a Robin 10:23, 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 DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giggle East

Hoax, no such island. feydey 20:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Foolishness. No Guru 20:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax. *drew 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom --Rogerd 05:22, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GLOBAL FERNANDO

Creating AfD nomination on behalf of User:ReyBrujo. Delete, non-notable organisation. — JIP | Talk 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN. Sorry, my connection went down. Thanks for the hand. -- ReyBrujo 13:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete: Just your usual graffiti. "We are the greatest's! We rulz!" Yeah, yeah. Geogre 16:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• speedy delete as above Pete.Hurd 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grassroots coverage of Natalee Holloway

I don't think there's anything here that isn't already in the Natalee Holloway article, or can't easily fit there.

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge - just slap a merge tag into it --Philo 12:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I don't see anything to merge. What's not original research is already well represented, so this is a deletion candidate for redundancy. Geogre 16:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, this is a redundant article that adds nothing to the topic of Natalee Holloway.--Isotope23 17:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. As a second choice, merge anything deemed valuable into Natalee_Holloway#Media_coverage. --Metropolitan90 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I started this article. This case has generated a lot of controversy across the board. The blogs are notable because there are strong feelings the case which are not represented in the mainstream media (MSM). Due to the Aruban system, where the prosecutor rarely makes press conferences and information does not want to be free, even the MSM turned to these bloggers for information. I find it interestng (and therefore notable) that a strong contingent wants to delete references to the blogs, as well as the other subjects related to this case such as the sex trade theory, the drug cartels and racism in Aruba. Joaquin Murietta 05:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't see anything here worth merging. Conspiracy theories are by nature unverifiable. Strong feelings come with POV. External links serve a specific purpose in an encyclopedia which may or may not reflect their "importance" in other contexts. If a contributor wishes to discuss the case without respect to WP policy there are better forums out there. Dystopos 05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into the parent article for Holloway, if there is anything to merge. Yamaguchi先生 09:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This adds nothing. AlistairMcMillan 10:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unacceptable blog promotion, duplicate info in a meaningless fork --Carlos Prats 10:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree, promotes blogs, and information about them, which is a legitimate footnote to the holloway story should be merged into the Natalee Holloway page. No reason to have this as a separate page.
• Delete, WP:NOT a web directory. --Me or a Robin 10:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. —Seselwa 06:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant. Xoloz 14:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - say no to the blog evangelists. I would err on deleting on merging a Press coverage of Natalee Holloway article anyway, let alone blog coverage of it. What about a Wikipedia coverage of Natalee Holloway article? - Hahnchen 14:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I started this article and it looks like it is about to be deleted. So I am adding what I told Yamla in response to her inquiry:

A brief paragraph on my perspective, I started Grassroots coverage of Natalee Holloway because the blogs that link to media coverage were continually deleted in the Natalee Holloway article. The same people went over to the new article and voted to AfD it as nn blogcruft etc. If that is consensus, then I think the Kuroshin reference in the Natalee Holloway article should be deleted. Kuroshin's sole "coverage" is what is conceded to be a "profanity-laced editorial". But the blogs which act as mini-encyclopedias of media coveragev videos, ( e.g. www.blogsfornatalee.com and joranvandersloot.blogspot.com ) are continually deleted.

I can understand the anti-blog attitude, but a couple of the blogs have no outside posts, they are, like I said, mini enyclopedias of the news coverage. But they keep getting deleted from the Natalee Holloway article. It is interesting that the case evokes so many emotions, and has brought several Aruban govt. officials over to Wikipedia. Well, time will tell. Thanks for your votes and your consideration of this AfD. Joaquin Murietta 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, both on Talk:Natalee Holloway and in edit summaries, if you have a case as to why a particular External Link is useful and encyclopedic, make the argument on the the Talk Page so that a consensus can be reached. That's how the Kuro5hin link became part of the article after I and others had been deleting it several times. Be aware that Wikipedia does have policy for external links (Wikipedia:External links) which favors adding information to the article rather than just building a link farm. The argument in favor of Kuro5hin's editorial was that it had achieved exceptional notice among discussions about the case, as evidenced by its ranking in Google searches. It sounds like a decent case can be made for some of these others, but I maintain it's your responsibility to seek consensus rather than forking to new articles that are obvious candidates for deletion. Dystopos 05:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Vote count here is 6 merge/10 delete, but I think that the "merge" voters did so under the assumption that this club actually existed. Arguments have been presented that the club is not verifiable, and because of this it is not a suitable candidate for merging. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grimsley High School Ultimate Club

School athletic club. Article does not make clear exactly what they do! Non-notable. Merge into Grimsley High School. -- RHaworth 14:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• You don't need AfD's help for a merge. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • by using AfD, I am inviting others, more deletionist to say delete completely. -- RHaworth 15:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmm, you make a good point. Consider my face officially red. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per fuddlemark Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge these things without bringing them to Afd, which is full enough already. Kappa 16:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per nominator. Capitalistroadster 17:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Not a sensible use of AfD time. No vote. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge whatever content may be mergeable. Come on, no need to use AFD for this. Titoxd^(?!?) 21:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Extreme delete. There is nothing here that is worth merging into the school article. This is pure and utter vanity. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is nothing here that needs to be merged. - brenneman^(t)(c) 02:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge. There's nothing verifiable here, thus nothing to merge. I agree this is not a good use of Afd, it should have been speedied. Oh, it was. Hmm. Friday (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with no merge needed per Aaron Brenneman. --Metropolitan90 03:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What is there to merge? The best i can think of is that the ultimate team and founding date is added to the school page. Since the team is already listed on the school page then just add the words founded 2002. David D. (Talk) 04:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a thought but since this IP traces to Haverford College not NC it appears this is either written by an alumini of Grimsley or a hoaxer (i notice the ultimate team mention on the HS page was added from the same IP number). Who will be ringing up Grimsley HS to verify this team exists? David D. (Talk) 04:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge into Grimsley High School. Why is this on AFD though, this is a forum for deletion. Yamaguchi先生 09:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm curious what, exactly, the people saying merge think ought to be merged? The existance of this student club? (It doesn't sound like it's even a proper team). Its membership and history? The kid who hurt his foot? Any given high school is going to have many many student clubs. Unless they're somehow significant, I don't think this type of incredibly-local-interest detail needs to be included. And, by local interest, I mean only the members themselves are likely to be interested. A good high school football team might have enough interest (and coverage in local papers) to be mentioned in the H.S. article, but a club?? What could they have done that would be verifiable? Friday (talk) 14:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete or we would soon end up with an article about every schools' toilet.  Grue  18:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, some would maintain that if a thousand people have used one particular toilet, and if an article about it is verifiable and not a copyvio, we should have an article about it. (Personally, I do not agree). Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable and probably not verifiable. Not listed in Grimsley High School student organizations or Grimsley High School athletics. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete NN Pete.Hurd 19:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Friday and Dan Smith. WP:V and WP:RS need to be taken far more seriously than they currently are. The integrity of the encyclopedia rests on it. It has often surprised me that there is so much difference in the way we generally address contraventions of WP:Copyrights, and contraventions of WP:V & WP:RS. It shouldn't be that way. All core article policies—NPOV, V, NOR, Copyrights—ought to be observed with great care. encephalon 00:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per encephalon. Xoloz 14:54, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Gus's Fashions and Shoes"

Not obviously notable shop. Only 12 hits on Google; I really doubt it meets the WP:CORP guidelines. — Haeleth Talk 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 04:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Currently a poorly-written stub, but it might have potential. As a St. Louis resident I can attest to the at least local notability of this independent shop. May not meet the WP:CORP guidelines, but I don't know if Ted Drewes would either. It has played a role in the redevelopment of the Washington Avenue Loft District (which still needs its own article). I am almost sure it has received some press coverage through the years, and will see what I can find. TMS63112 20:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The proprietor seems to have been the subject of an independent documentary (see bottom of this link). [11]. He gets 483 Google hits by my count. Maybe the article should be about him instead of his shop! TMS63112 21:06, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horked

Neologism, linked site explains that this is a made-up word. --Alan Au 23:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• All words are "made up". The question is, is the word useful and used by people. Google references 36,000 web pages that use horked. It's pretty clear that it's being used a lot. In limiting the results to US Government sites I found "horked boot disk". HUGS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.1.49 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 23:58:06 UTC.
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's an encyclopaedia. Articles here are about people/concepts/events/places/things, not about words. The dictionary is over there. Per our Wikipedia:naming conventions (verbs) and Wikipedia:naming conventions (adjectives), this would at most be a redirect to an article on the concept of software bugs. However, I'm not completely convinced that this would be a useful redirect. Weak Delete. Uncle G 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Uncle G, noting also that the article missed the variant definition "stole," and that the preceding unsigned comment was from the same IP as the article's creator/principle editor. --Kgf0 00:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree, this would be better moved to Wiktionary. It is amusing, to me, to note that words are "things" and so the above definition about what separates wikipedia from wiktionary is slightly arbitrary. A clearer discription is that wikipedia is for proper nouns, I think. -- Sign me, the same idiot that made the entry.
  • Not necessarily; see chair for a reasonably well-written counterexample. --Kgf0 08:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, dictdef. I don't think it'll make a useful redirect, either. And Wiktionary already has hork, so there's no point in a transwiki. —Cryptic (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nnn. Klonimus 05:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:13, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hornoad

Delete: Metroid creature-cruft, minor role, no information except a few lines in the manual--Zxcvbnm 17:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete minor and non-notable. Burn the fancruft! Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn fancruft. Xoloz 15:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 18:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Cream Man (movie), Gyno-land (movie)

Nonsense, vandalism, vanity, fiction ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. If previous deletions can be found (asserted but no evidence given on Chris McPeak then speedy delete. — Phil Welch 23:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Chris McPeak speedied then recreated. Speedied again. — Phil Welch 23:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete.This is an important independent production. It is a crime to try to censor struggling artists as they attempt to get noticed for their artistic accomplishments. Just because you aren't cultured enough to be aware of these films doesn't mean that listing them online is inappropriate. It is the very height of arrogance to suggest that since a film is not the product of the corporate and stagnate Hollywood system, it is therefore not valid as artistic expression. Just because the makers of this does not have the studio dollars or distribution muscle behind the many so-called mainstream films, it doesn't mean you can shut them down. Do not use your ignorance as an excuse to limit a filmmakers access to the viewing public. That...is un-American. - Peter O'Toole —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.237.168.53 (talk • contribs).

• Do Not Delete I cannot believe that we're even having this discussion. This is a fantastic film, and I hope that it is well recieved if and when it gets a distribution deal. Don't censor art. - Tom Whitworth —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tom Whitworth (talk • contribs).

• Do Not Delete. Riotto Ulriggio happens to be my absolute favorite independent, non-mainstream director, and his rendition of "Ice Cream Man" is one of his absolute best works. Additionally, despite criticism to the contrary, Joe Howard and Chris McPeak offer up stunning, Academy-award-winning quality performances. I was terribly disappointed when I learned that Chris McPeak's entry had been deleted before I had a chance to defend his immense cultural significance, and could not let the same happen to this masterful film. The influence these three artists have had in the Independent Republic of Freemont, Seattle, WA is impossible to gauge, but let it suffice to say that to remove knowledge of this film from the public sphere would be a grave injustice, and would be an act of violence against the American people. ~Saul Madigo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saul madigo (talk • contribs).

• Delete as nn indy movies, unverifiable. The above users should note that new user's votes must be discounted to prevent ballot stuffing. See WP:SOCK#.22Meatpuppets.22 --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib)
  • To be pedantic, we're not voting, we're discussing. Also, there's no "must" in the discarding. If new (or even anon) contributors present compelling arguments with supporting evidence these are usually taken into consideration.
    brenneman^(t)(c) 01:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I am aware of the AfD guidelines. Sorry, I have simply worded it poorly. "Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith." Those contributions will probably be discounted in light of the sockpuppet policy above. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Conversely, if new, anonymous contributors present compelling evidence contrary to their preferences, that is also taken into account. — Phil Welch 01:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Juding by the user-page vandlism from the above accounts, they are not meatpuppets at all, but full-blown sockpuppets. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified. *drew 01:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverified some more. Melchoir 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified, and sub-juvenile, to boot. And I am aware of what has happened to others who voted to delete. - Dalbury (talk) 03:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 18:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinability Theory of Truth

This article is identical to another deleted article. It is original research. See that discussion here.

• See also the first deletion debate for this article (which resulted in a "keep" vote) here. — Haeleth Talk 17:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Michael 15:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Original research/speculation/cosmic musings. Wikipedia is not the place to explain the Ultimate Truth to folks. Geogre 15:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because the article has not been touched since the previous AFD was closed. Punkmorten 16:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per Punkmorten. --Me or a Robin 10:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Punkmorten. Xoloz 15:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India Today's top 10 colleges of India

Non-encyclopedic. Delete. This article was originally created as "Top 10 colleges of India". See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 colleges of India. Why does an encyclopedia need a list of "top ten" prepared by a magazine? Such lists are highly POV and subjective. In fact, IIMs had opted out of such Top Ten lists some time ago. There are innumerable magazines and newspapers bringing out list of top ten colleges each year - we don't need an article for each of them. utcursch | talk 04:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

To all people who have complained of systematic bias: I am an Indian and this is certainly not bias. By the way, I find Newsweeks’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) also equally non-encylopedic and delete-worthy. utcursch | talk 05:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are they: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003). utcursch | talk 05:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

And one more thing: These lists are copyvio: See [12]] and [13]. The author doesn't discuss the list - the criteria, the methodology. The author has not taken any pains to even wikify the list. utcursch | talk 06:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally wasn't saying this nomination was systemic bias. To clarify my position, I will reprint here what I put on my talk page:

I wasn't saying the nomination was an example of systemic bias. Of course not! What I was saying was that, since we have articles on such US lists, it's only fair that we have Indian ones too. And I think we should have such lists, in general. Jacqui ^{★ 16:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}

• Newsweeks’s List of Top High Schools (2003), Newsweek's List of the 1,000 Top U.S. Schools (2005), Newsweek, India Today. Uncle G 04:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. We have American lists that are similar. This helps WP:CSB. Jacqui ^{★ 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Merge with the colleges' articles, if any of them exist. ("This school ranked #8 on India Today's top 10 colleges of India list.") —Cleared as filed. 05:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Lists of this nature exist on WP for the USA. Help stop systemic bias by keeping this article.--Nicodemus75 07:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Wouldn't be deleted if it was an American list. CalJW 08:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep although I think the nominator could legitimately take umbrage at the above implications that s/he is somehow culturally biased and put this on Afd b/c it is from India. Assume good faith and recall that many find such lists cumbersome, unwieldy, and problematic, regardless of cultural or national origin. Dottore So 10:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What nonsense. Suggesting that there might be systemic bias against articles about non-primary English speaking countries is not the same as implying that an editor is personally culturally biased. Quit waving around WP:AGF trying to make points.--Nicodemus75 12:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above. The previous AfD only ended yesterday, so why is this being listed again? - ulayiti (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - and the American ones too. Every single publication in every single country in the world seems to run at least one "top ten" or "top 100" article every year, it's a space-filler for the silly season or the slow period round Jan 1. Where do we set the cutoff for these arbitrary lists? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Counter systemic bias by deleting the American version as well. flowersofnight (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Cleared As Filed. --Martin Osterman 16:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per Cleard As Filed or Delete as per Just zis Guy. --William Pietri 18:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Inherently POV, even if reporting on a specific newspaper's top 10, inherently unstable as it will change every year, and unnecessary. Yes, delete Time Magazine's top 10 colleges of America and Newsweek Magazine's top 10 colleges of America if they exist. (Hint: they don't, so the "systemic bias" is a red herring in this case.) Geogre 18:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep if it can be shown that this list is well-known and influential. Also include note that IIMS have opted out Bwithh 22:44, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NPOV. Obviously there must be some kind of systemic bias against colleges, since we have Newsweek’s List of Top High Schools (2003) etc. Kappa 01:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since apparently we have similar articles for schools within the United States. Yamaguchi先生 08:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep fights systemic bias. Youngamerican 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: How big or small does a publication have to be before its subjective annual top ten lists get Wikipedia articles, and who is responsible for updating them every year when a different set of arbitrary choices replaces them? All these articles are unencyclopaedic. Their legitimacy depends entirely on a fallacious appeal to the authority of the journal which published them. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep to be truely NPOV we must keep this since we allow lists like Rolling Stones top 100 guitarists of all time and other lists of that nature.  ALKIVAR™ 06:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I see it in the AfDs over and over, but I'm still unmoved by the argument that possible cruft justifies more possible cruft. Do you have another argument for the merits of this article? Thanks, --William Pietri 06:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And for the record I would also delete Rolling Stone's top 100 guitarists and all the other subjective lists by random publications, with the possible exception of The 100 if it can be proven beyond doubt that this genuinely started the whole stupidity, and even then It could go either way on the grounds of being a blindingly obvious concept. A list of this nature without the spurious authority of a publication would instantly be deleted as inherently subjective. Having someone else without a NPOV rule publish it just allows it to be slipstreamed into Wikipedia without the benefit of a provable basis for inclusion or ranking. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Amen to that. I think Rolling Stone can host their own list. The material seems fine on individual school pages, and I'm happy with a page that describes in an NPOV way the topic of ranking schools in country X that has links to these lists. But including the lists themselves seems to be dancing on the border of both POV and copyvio. --William Pietri 15:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As above and stop afd spam. Trollderella 17:17, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Just because you don't agree with the nominator does not mean it is afd spam. Assume good faith. --Idont Havaname 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge a summary of it into College and university rankings, and have the list as an ext link on that article. The current version looks like it was stolen from another website. (In addition, College and university rankings seems like it has a lot of coverage of US News rankings right now, and needs more about non-US colleges to counter systemic bias.) --Idont Havaname 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Listcruft. Article should explain the fact that India Today prints this list periodically and externally link to the source material of the lists. No reason to recreate lists on wikipedia.my comment...unsigned [User:Isotope23]

• Comment. Hi there. This is your friendly neighborhood IP lawyer. Listing the names of the schools can not be a copyvio, because Newsweek is simply taking a set formula and applying it to publicly available facts about the schools in question. See Feist v. Rural. The formula itself is merely an idea, and is not subject to copyright; only the expression of the idea can be protected, and the listing here does not duplicate the expression because it differs significantly from the layout of the Newsweek list. See Kregos v. Associated Press, 937 F.2d 700 (2d Cir. 1991). I've maintained such a list - indeed one more similar to Newsweek's own - in my user space for quite some time without fear of legal action, because I'm quite confident that this is no copyvio (and even if it was, it would easily qualify as fair use). No vote on the article itself. Cheers! BD2412 T 15:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamaliel (talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if this isn't a copyright violation, it's pointless to rehash this Newsweek article. Claims of bias are a bit silly. Foofy 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, as per nom. *drew 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete and then redirect. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] International Sufi Movement

Nonsense (not "patent nonsense") about The International Sufi Movement. The Movement itself exists, and possibly deserves an article, but this original-research-fest ain't it, and hasn't been it since its inception back in August. The article is an orphan, and receives almost no attention apart from half-hearted vandalism from Sufiests, or whatever they're called. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 06:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

they're called sufis.

• Article is currently a rant against the organisation (as far as I can discern). Needs rewrite to be an article, not a POV rant. jnothman ^talk 07:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after merging what little might be salvageable to Sufism. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Sufism. and let me quantify that. I'd prefer to see a keep and cleanup, however if that does not happen by the end of the AfD, I'd prefer a redirect in the hopes that someone else will come along and write a good article on the International Sufi Movement in place of the current POV rant. If someone cleans this up before the end of the AfD, drop me a message and I will certainly reconsider.--Isotope23 15:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete very little here worthy of an article Fertray 15:49, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 06:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Itadakimasu

At most a dicdef, but since it's really a translation, I'm not sure it belongs in the dictionary. Fallsend 23:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as dicdef/translation jnothman ^talk 23:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important part of Japanese dining culture, in the same way that Bless you is an important part of Western sneeze-related culture. Kappa 02:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  Since "bless you" is not in japanese wikipedia, why should an similar Japanese phrase be notable in english wikipedia? --Rogerd 04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  Because wikipedias are not-culture-specific. We have a project about that: WP:BIAS. Kappa 20:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, this article can't be expanded much more than it is. "Itadakimasu" is what you say before you eat. You might mention some derivation of the word from Buddhist traditions, but that's about it. It doesn't deserve an article on its own, but could be merged into Japanese cuisine (for lack of a better place). --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

  Sneeze-related culture? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 04:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as a dictdef with no possibility for expansion. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Kappa. Yamaguchi先生 09:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'd keep an article on Irasshaimasse, but not this. Are there articles for Gochisou-sama too? At best, it should be mentioned in an article on Japanese culinary habits or something like that. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please it can be expanded too Yuckfoo 01:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  How? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep cultural thing. --Vsion 16:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] James "Jimbo" Boulter

Vanity. In no way notable. -- Necrothesp 10:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. Possibly speediable (depends how seriously one takes its "assertion of notability"). fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - by unnerving coincidence he's a pupil at my old school, but this is clearly vanity --Wordmonkey 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. *drew 13:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seems like vanity. — JIP | Talk 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedy if possible under nn-bio. To quote the article James "Jimbo" Boulter is a little known character in the wider world... an admision of non-notability. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 13:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm sympathetic to niche characters and those notable in very narrow fields-- however, I can't quite justify this one to myself. Too small an audience. Wiki-directory-of-all-people-everywhere is a better fit. Wellspring 15:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Save I must Object James is Indeed a very great asset to a multi million pound organisation, He is a future Alumini of Cambridge and is t wrong to remove a persons entry into a niche simply because he hasnt touched your life. How many people must support him before he warrents and entry. More importantly, how many people must suffer without. I also Note you have a page for yourself is that pure vanity. I understand that you cant have an entry for every one but I implore you to at least give this article a chance, The person in question is far to modest as it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob15v (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 12:44:20 UTC.
  • Yet another person fails to understand the difference between user pages and articles? — JIP | Talk 13:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Rob15v could be referring to Joona Palaste (AfD discussion). Uncle G 17:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • No he could not, because by the time he wrote his comment, I had not written anything at all in this AfD debate. What do you think he is, a mind reader? — JIP | Talk 17:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If this chap hopes to get to Cambridge, it would probably be a good idea if he learnt some English! -- Necrothesp 13:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • A little Latin wouldn't go amiss either... even the Fenland Polytechnic of East Anglia hasn't fallen that low! — Haeleth Talk
• I wrote the above and I can Assure you that the Subject has had no influence over the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.210.226 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:13:05 UTC.
• Keep It's only as non-notable as any other article on this site. Notability is over-rated. Citing all that the member above wrote!  :D Big Booger 15:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC)]
• Keep Who are we to judge, this, I think such an individual, any individual is as worthy of note and non-deletion as say Naokawa, Oita. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.210.226 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:20:40 UTC.
• Keep Define Notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.253.210.226 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:13:05 UTC.
  • "Notable" is defined at WP:BIO. Go read. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Save To quote 'Redvers': To quote the article "James "Jimbo" Boulter is a little known character in the wider world"... an admision of non-notability - Perhaps the nuance of this delightful little article is lost upon my honourable friend! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charlie Thompson (talk • contribs) 2005-11-08 15:20:01 UTC.
• Save Who are we to judge. Citing all the Keep and Save parties have said User Rob15v 15:25, 8 November 2005 (actually 62.253.210.226 2005-11-08 15:26:29 UTC according to edit history. Uncle G 17:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC))
• Delete: When he actually leads the life less ordinary, he will be noted for an accomplishment that affected the lives more ordinary. Until then, he's some dude. Geogre 16:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, preferrably speedy. If he wants to create his own User account, then by all means he can have all that mentioned and listed. Else, I think that there's really no reason to have the article here. --Martin Osterman 16:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• "James 'Jimbo' Boulter is a little known character"... yup, I think that's a delete then. Not to mention what looks suspiciously like rampant sockpuppetry above. — Haeleth Talk 17:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable bio... and with a poorly executed meatsockpuppet support network. Now if you'll excuse me, all these votes have me in the mood to spin some Meat Puppets.--Isotope23 17:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ive allready Said my fill however the subject of the article allready has an account though with no biography, this was written in a purely autobiographical sense and has been placed on wiki as a resource to all, I believe the auther wrote it to commemerate such a person and that James himself had no imput at all. Also James could be defined as significant under the code of conduct. He has received 42 commercial endorsments, significant local press coverage, has a fan base of several thousand this alone should give him a place, quite apart from the other issues my sock puppeting friend above has raised, I must add that I know this Jimbo and although I didnt write the article i would be prepared to verify the details User: Rob15v (comment originally by 217.44.195.40 (talk • contribs), then edited by User:Rob15v
• Delete per nom; the James "Jimbo" Boulter article will soon be a little known record in meta:Archive_table. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Also, I vote for whacking the sockpuppet originator on the nose with a rolled newspaper. --William Pietri 21:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under category A7 as a biography that doesn't assert notability. His one claim to fame is being Head Boy at his school. While he may hope to be Prime Minister of the UK, at the moment he is a schoolboy and not notable. Problems with WP:V. Capitalistroadster 23:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per Capitalistroadster & nomination. 70.27.59.200 03:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have edited the page now inserting truthfull data, His group Neon did indeed win the awards and recieved significantr acliam as they were the youngest group in their catagory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rob15v (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable Fertray 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as important as any other article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.44.195.40 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Save Whatever your're views, this gentleman is clearly an asset to a local area and as worthy as mention as any other article on this fine website. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marlin 22k (talk • contribs) (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy Faulds

Jeremy Faulds - non-notable surfer. --Oscarthecat 09:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Google one "Jeremy Faulds" + surf returns 148 hits. I trust google on this kind of articles. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn-bio. 28 unique Google hits and nothing to indicate he's any different from any other surfer. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable surfer. *drew 00:14, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeremy_Joseph

Jeremy Joseph merely runs a gay club in London. He hasn't done anything of note. Vanity entry Steve5312 22:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable bio. ERcheck 05:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or demonstrate notability (if any) in article. Barnabypage 17:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Kirill Lokshin 00:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jiffy

This disambiguation page only consists only of dictionary definitions, contradicting Wikipedia policy. The Wiktionary entry contains all of the presented info, and there isn't an appropriate redirect.--Commander Keane 07:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand into an actual article on the various lengths of a jiffy. - Pasiphae 07:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. 'Clock Tick' redirects to it, and 'jiffy' is succinct. At worst just redirect it to the Wiktionary. (FireballX301 07:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC))

Comment, the Wikimedia software doesn't allow redirects to other projects, see Redirect at meta.--Commander Keane 07:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Merge Wiktionary into Wikipedia. There is no need for a division between them. It's an irrelevant division inherited from paper. CalJW 08:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment No, it's policy ( Wikipedia is not a dictionary) and while wikipedia is not paper, it is a database. This the search function runs slowly sometimes? Imagine MediaWiki querying wikipedia and wiktionary databases (or a combined database)... that alone should be sufficent argument against that suggestion.--Isotope23 21:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Jiffy is a useful disambiguation page at the moment. Capitalistroadster 08:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment, as the {{disambig}} template says, disambiguation pages are "a list of pages that otherwise might share the same title". There are no Wikipedia articles about Jiffy. None of the articles linked to on the Jiffy page mention Jiffy. At the moment, this page is a useful dictionary page. Wikipedia is not a dictionary - that is official policy.--Commander Keane 10:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but make it a proper disambiguation page. And add Jiffy Packaging, since a jiffy bag is a generic term for a padded envelope in these parts. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is now a proper dab page, with the information about different time-lengths moved to Jiffy (time). I added the packaging company, and also the lemon juice company (as Jiffy packaging is known in the US, so a Jiffy lemon is similarly well known in the UK). Grutness...wha? 12:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment the main effect of your change was to move a bunch of dicdefs to another article. Is WP a dictionary, or not? —Wahoofive (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Jiffy as it is a disambigous page that redirects to one article... all other links are dead. While we are at it, Jiffy (time) which was created as a product of this AfD should be deleted as well because it is essentially a list of dicdefs.--Isotope23 19:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this page and Transwiki Jiffy_(time) on wikctionary. Of course, if someone manages to expand the latter page or to create a page on any other use of Jiffy, I would be glad to change my vote. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC). I just realized that both Jiffy and Jiffy (time) are taken from the entry on wikctionary. Delete both. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it appears there are several commercial products that use this name so an article such as this one is helpful. Yamaguchi先生 09:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep proper DAb page --Carlos Prats 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Xoloz 14:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:26, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JKC Special

Dicdef. Previously listed as CSD, no vote. — Phil Welch 21:17, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dicdef / nn neologism: google results with this term do not refer to given def anyway. jnothman ^talk 00:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete UE --Rogerd 05:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Herbert (inventor of "hotpants"

blatant hoax, no Google hits, unfortunately "blatant silliness" isn't a speedy criterion. Apparently he ..attended Gloucestor (sic) University and acheived a First Class degree in the art of design leg warmers, with a minor in glitter studies. Riiight. Tonywalton  | Talk 15:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete as hoax. — brighterorange (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I want to believe, I really do. Sadly, delete is my vote too.

• BJAODN it! Blatent silliness indeed. --W.marsh 15:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy it: It's nonsense, even if it isn't "patent" nonsense. It's also just another attempt at making WP one's web host. Geogre 16:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. However as I mentioned merely being nonsense is not a speedy criterion (in fact hoaxiness is specifically excluded from WP:CSD). Sad but true. Tonywalton  | Talk

• Delete preferably speedy. WP:CSD prescribes vandalism as a reason for speedy deletion of pages under category G3. Our vandalism page cites "Silly vandalism" consisting of the creation of joke articles or plausible sounding false articles. This is a textbook definition of silly vandalism. Certainly should be deleted as problem with WP:V. Capitalistroadster 17:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment you learn something every day. Thanks for that. Tonywalton  | Talk 20:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and just possibly BJAODN. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• ' Edward Herbert here, how dare you speak so illy of my father. The reason you found no Google hits is because his great career defining invention was stolen by one Count Minogue who claimed invention of the article for himself. John Herbert is a great part of Hampton, and fashion history.'

• 'I attend Hampton School and I can assure you that this bloke is included in the school's history. I'm not sure about the details of his life but the school does have a plaque with his name on'

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Parlas

An article written by a schoolboy about his teacher and friends. I've removed the schoolboy silliness, but the article isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. --Phronima 11:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; not encyclopaedic. --Phronima 11:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. Why did you repeat yourself? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The deletion guidelines currently suggest that the nominator should also vote. — Haeleth Talk
    • Indeed? Whereabouts do they say that? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. *drew 13:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. — Haeleth Talk 17:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable highschool teacher. Cnwb 05:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Ian ≡ talk 05:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possible A7 speedy. Not a professor as the article claims but a school teacher. Capitalistroadster 05:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as non-notable bio. ERcheck 06:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster
• Delete per nom. pfctdayelise 12:55, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson Ng Weng Kuan

nn __earth

• delete per nom __earth 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7 -- no assertion of notability. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 20:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No attempt made to establish notability. Or date of death (else why past tense?) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep freestylefrappe 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. Postdlf 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Person is a student... how wonderful. No claim otherwise. Xoloz 15:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnson Tee Kim Hock

NN director at Acmar International Group which seems to be using wikipedia as free webspace (which it is WP:NOT) to give director profiles.

• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 07:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. Almost all of the articles submitted by the author are on Afd now. *drew 07:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: This is one of our people in our company, and that is my younger brother. Acmar 10:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. -- Hoary 10:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But why are you deleting it, it's not advertising. It my brother and is one or our management. Acmar 10:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Being your brother and a manager of your company does not make somebody notable. Logophile 11:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete along with all the others Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable manager of a company.--Isotope23 17:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete like all the others. I fail to see how employees of a non-notable company are notable. — JIP | Talk 17:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 20:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Company should be able to afford its own website Bwithh 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. good info, just not notable. get a website, and put it on there rather Fertray 16:21, 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. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jonny Bryant

Nominated by User:Pasiphae at 07:57, 8 November 2005, may or may not be speediable as recreation of previously deleted content (could an admin please check the history).

• Delete as non-notable member of non-notable band. See also The Charlie Bryant Tribute Band, Jonny Bryant, Lloyd Hercek. And perhaps an admin can collect all of these wannabes into one giant AfD-o-rama? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete obviously, and maybe speedy (though being in a band is a notability claim, the band is obviously itself not notable). — brighterorange (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all related: They number their groupies? That's sad. That's really, really, really sad. (The band is not yet notable, and its members would not warrant individual articles unless they achieved individual notability outside of their band associaiton (and therefore being in a band is not a claim of notability, but rather a claim of a need for a redirect to the band page).) Geogre 16:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all as they do not meet WP:MUSIC--Isotope23 19:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. *drew 01:32, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jordan almond flower

Unencyclopedic;promotion Ian Pitchford ^{(t) | (c) | (bias)} 20:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 01:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. advert --Rogerd 05:28, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Klinefelter types in popular culture

Content removed by anon claiming to be the articles creator (IP does not match). Anon stated they wanted the article removed, but did not know how to do so. Tossing this up for AFD to fulfill the anon's request in the proper way. TexasAndroid 16:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as it violates WP:NOR.--Isotope23 17:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At best, original research; at worst, incoherent garbage. Postdlf 18:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, speculation, duplication, deviation, hesitation and repetition. And Thompson's Gazelle. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Speculation is rife. Denni☯ 06:08, 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 dealt with by copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 06:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Knights of Noblemen

NN, copyvio, reads partly like an advertisement.--DooMDrat 08:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nomination.--DooMDrat 08:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as copyvio of [14]. Please don't indulge in the silly habit of voting in addition to nominating. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert, part copyvio, and non-notable. Trying for the full set :-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. *drew 13:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please follow proper copyvio procedures. —Cryptic (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, whether copyvio or not, as advert of NN online game. I think it's proper to list here and list as a copyvio—otherwise, we'd still be stuck with this crap if (as may be likely) the dumped text is not actually a copyvio but was dumped here by its author. There's no reason the two processes can't work in tandem to axe this article. But don't just list here if it's a suspected copyvio. Postdlf 21:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was to Delete the article. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Koushik Kumar

The article sounds like it could be on a notable person, but google test makes me suspect that Mr Kumar doesn't exist. Google test doesn't always work for non-Anglo-Americans, however, so we'll have to see what's posted. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: NN/Vanity. The creator of the page also spammed a lot of articles with links to this article. --Ragib 22:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Tintin 01:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN vanity. *drew 01:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 05:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Current contents do not establish notability, and perhaps I will have to edit and remove reference to him placed by someone in Bihar under the section: Language and Literature – perhaps people (including me) sometimes make wrong assessment about notability. Yes, Ragib is absolutely right. --Bhadani 14:38, 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 DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Larrikin love

Still awaiting their first single. Bandity. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable band failing WP:MUSIC. They do have 1 released NN single though. Keryst 04:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 04:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet another non-notable band. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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} 04:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last Dance Massacre

Textbook non-notable band. Delete. — Phil Welch 20:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. *drew 01:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per nom --Rogerd 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MUSIC. -feydey 11:50, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Swan

Voice of a single video game character. No claim to notability. Pointless vanity. —Cleared as filed. 04:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Anville 10:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Research shows that she is also a localization manager who has worked on many games. [15] Nevertheless I think I'm going to come down on the Delete side seeing as it's not all that notable a position. flowersofnight (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This page contains only one sentence, and not a very useful sentence. Perhaps this page's information should go onto a more general page, Fertray, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 05:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Foofy 23:59, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: A category could well replace this -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 06:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of typecast actors

Ludicrously subjective list, whose entries inclusion factor often seems to be "actor with one famous role". Delete or clean-up with a chainsaw. Calton | Talk 00:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete POV and as nom states, inherently subjective. KillerChihuahua 00:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep some actors are undeniably typecast, like Ben Stein as a blatently boring professor/economist type, Leonard Nimoy as Spock... the current list is obviously biased, but it could be rewritten as actors who are famously typecast to the point where it controls their entire careers (for better or worse) and is what they are best known for (or only known for). Difficult to maintain but could be useful. Can understand if no one wants to vote to keep with the current list... --W.marsh 00:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective, inherently POV. --InShaneee 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; inevitable POV. Deltabeignet 01:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete I find myself on the opposite side of the fence from W.marsh. Although the list has some potential value, it is also a POV-attractor... --Daedalus-Prime 01:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wholly subjective list. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 02:50, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up worthy of being here but needs to be of higher standard.--->Newyorktimescrossword 02:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but only list actors who have been publicly identified as being typecast such as George Reeves, the cast of Star Trek, Adam West, etc. should be included. The issue of typecasting is real, and a properly maintained list would be useful in conjunction with the various articles on the subject. All POV-based judgement calls should be deleted. For example, there is no evidence to suggest Gillian Anderson has been typecast. Certainly Leo DiCaprio has not been typecast as Jack Dawson... chainsaw time, indeed. 23skidoo 04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The issue of typecasting is indeed real. And an article on typecasting would therefore be encyclopaedic. But a list of actors who may or may not have been typecast is POV and unmaintainable. Typecasting (acting) already covers this. Some of the names are already in there as examples. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 09:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as well-nominated. How could such a subjective article ever get rid of POV? Ifnord 05:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as too subjective and POV-based. I doubt most film critics or casting agents would consider, say, Mary Steenburgen or Samuel L. Jackson to be typecast. --Metropolitan90 05:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up with a chainsaw. Specifically, we should narrow the criteria to actors who have had more than one role, and be very aggressive about requiring sources -- ie, it can't just be some random Wikipedian's impression; there should be reputable sources who feel that way, too. But, clean up is only a few clicks away, and this maybe could have gone there first. If cleanup didn't work, sure, I'd kill it too. Jacqui ^{★ 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Weak delete per Daedalus-Prime. gren グレン 06:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up per Jacqui. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 09:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, unencyclopedic. Dottore So 10:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV and pretty pointless. -- Necrothesp 10:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean-Up with a Chainsaw. Worthy of being here, but needs some major improvements to quality. -- 8:56, 8 November 2005 (EST)
• Delete. There's no way to make this an NPOV article. flowersofnight (talk) 13:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Listcruft that is inherently POV by nature.--Isotope23 14:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV and unmaintainable (and listcruft) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is inherently POV. -- Captain Proton 17:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• I CAN PLAY SHAKESPEARE! TO BE OR NOT TO BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY! Delete, though, I'm afraid. AndyJones 17:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently POV. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 18:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. How could this be verified, except by original research? Chick Bowen 18:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete inherently PoV and UE FRS 19:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as just too hard to maintain. Could be a good article but it's impossible to be sure of who should and shouldn't be on the list. Denni☯ 04:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. needs cleanup though., Klonimus 05:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV and unmaintainable --Carlos Prats 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Typecasting is indeed real but just because somebody is famous for certain role or certain kind of roles, they are not necessarily typecast. Especially if the role in question just launched their career, it may be too early to say if they are typecast or not. Not to mention to some actors intentionally want only certain kind of roles, when "typecasting" usually refers to something undesireable. This list would make sense if, for example, it would include people who are widely accepted to be typecast (ST:OS cast) or have publicly complained that they are typecast. Otherwise the list is POV - Skysmith 15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 19:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment (having already voted). It's a shame to lose this after so much work has gone into it. Deleted it has to be, though. Reading it again I found so many items I disagreed with (Leonardo DiCaprio, I mean come on). The fact that it provokes that kind of judgement is evidence of its subjectivity. There is an article at Typecasting (acting), and some of the better examples could be merged there. AndyJones 20:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV Listcruft --JAranda | watz sup 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep if cleaned up and made npow somehow. if not, delete

Youngamerican 04:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It is a major mess but it can be cleaned up. I'm going to do so right now. Toonmon2005 00:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup There could (and should) be an article on typecasting, so a list is A-OK. Xoloz 14:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WAY too subjective Astaroth5 19:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied under A7. - ulayiti (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lovis Axon