Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 November 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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 for copyright violation. Ingoolemo ^talk 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 101 rules of black metal

Delete. Not encyclopedic. Unsourced, unverifiable. brenneman^(t)(c) 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Possible candidate for BJAODN if it wasn't a copyvio of this [1]. I don't know whether Metalstorm counts as a content provider. Capitalistroadster 05:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ACQ-Kingdom Broadcasting Network

POV rant. This is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep providing it is rewritten as a short NPOV article. -- RHaworth 06:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten. Delete if not. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, the rewrite looks fine. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:34, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It exists, but I see little evidence that it is notable (even if the article were NPOVd - which would leave a very small stub at present) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a bad article is not a reason to deletion, but rather to improve. Trollderella 17:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (see below)
  • Comment 1; I have added the POV tag, in the unlikely event this article passes the AfD without ending up in meta:Archive table. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment 2; I remind everyone that we have deleted companies posting their ads here. I do not see how this one is different. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Removed earlier vote to keep as page is a copyvio. While it is a legitimate tpic for an article, it shouldn't be a copyvio one. Delete. Keep following the excellent rewrite by user William Petri. Capitalistroadster 22:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Guy. Advertising of small business' is not encyclopediatic.. KillerChihuahua 17:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep after William Pietri's excellent rewrite. I'd still like to see more content in the article. KillerChihuahua 13:02, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep if rewritten or turned into a stub. Delete otherwise. I was thinking it would be non-notable, but they were mentioned in the Manilla Times and repeatedly in their hometown paper, the Sun Star Davao, which appears to be an award-winning paper in a city of over one million. --William Pietri 18:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: that the local newspaper of the city only mentions this station five times is a sign of non-notability. The article of the Manila times mentions this station only at the end of the article, in passing. The sentence is particularly interesting:
    If you don’t believe religion is big business you don’t know how many millions of pesos evangelists and other “religious” leaders are spending to widen their communication network [2].
    I also think that even good newspapers sometimes mention things or people that are not notable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm... Looking into this more, it looks like this is one head of a hydra, but a notable hydra. If we had an article on Apollo C. Quiboloy or the Kingdom of Jesus Christ the Name Above Every Name church, I'd support a merge. But as it is I'm not quite sure what to do. --William Pietri 20:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hopelessly PoV, probably nn vote withdrawn; article looks OK to me as rewritten (kudos to William Pietri for the rewrite); I have no opinion on whether notability criteria is met --FRS 04:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The list of TV channels alone is significant, just remove the POV stuff and clean it up. Bryan 04:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but needs major rewrite. *drew 23:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have rewritten the article entirely save the channel listings. I think it addresses the NPOV issues raised here. If anybody has further issues, please mention it. --William Pietri 02:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• After the rewrite, I withdraw my nomination. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment very good edit by William Pietri, who removed the spam and POV from the article. I praise him for doing the improvement, not just telling others to do so.
  Regarding notability, I am still somehow in doubt that this TV station notable enough for deserving an article here. William presented some evidence that the station is to some extent notable. I have withdrawn my delete vote, but I will not replace with a keep. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 13:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, the article is now an acceptable one, and the citations establish limited but adequate notability as far as I'm concerned. — Haeleth Talk 15:06, 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 keep, moved to Al Bidayah wa al-Nihayah. - Mailer Diablo 01:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Al Bidayah wa-Nihayah

Empty Article- but possible notable item if the claim is true, also seems like an advertisement for the book. Fallsend 19:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Per Nomination. Fallsend 19:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Claim is true. google gives 700 hits, wich is considerable when taking into account that there are diffrent ways of transliterating it. --Striver 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Search it here and remeber that next time you vfd. Things are not unotable only cuase they have arabic names. --Striver 20:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I doubt the Arabic name had anything to do with this nomination. — Haeleth Talk

• Keep and tag for cleanup Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. — Haeleth Talk 22:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep maybe merge with article on author. The author certainly appears to warrant an article. Swegner 00:56, 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 Speedy deleted as non-existent band that hasn't even been formed yet!

[edit] All We Fight For

Yet another completely non-notable non-band that can't be speedied. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete, as it is now. Work on it on your user pages, then copy it over if ready. Dsol 20:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Gone. If this was a band that actually existed, this would be different. I'm invoking the "no crystal ball" rule. - Lucky 6.9 20:09, 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 KEEP and CLEAN UP. — JIP | Talk 07:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Animutation

Article is hopelessly POV, if indeed this is an actual real term it also likely belongs in Wiktionary, not here. --Locke Cole 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Move to cleanup. I agree that it is POV and contains some copyvio, but that can be fixed. Animutation is a somewhat popular Internet phenomenon, and a very well-known style of Flash animation. --Aurochs
• Cleanup Please research before nominating for deletion. Google lists over 12,000 references for this animation subgenre. Durova 17:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I did research. I noted the 12,000+ references for "animutation". I then tried the same search with "Cicierega" as one of the keywords, and only got 487 hits. The problem isn't that there exists such a subgenre, the problem is that this particular article is so POV ridden and worthless that I think it needs to be scrapped and started over from scratch by someone who isn't trying to push an individual or an agenda. --Locke Cole 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I just have to point out right here that "hyakugojyuuichi", Cicierega's second (and the first that became really famous) animutation, gives 11,500 google hits, and that's an otherwise (nearly?) unheard of word. Cicierega's name isn't as famous as his creations, mostly because he uses various aliases and because it's just not relevant information to the flashes, but he's created or been key in creating numerous internet phenomena, most noteably the genre of Animutation and Potter Puppet Pals (34,300 GHits when in quotes). It doesn't make sense to argue that the popularity of his name is the only acceptable evidence of his popularity.--Anonymous (sorry) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.187.202.112 (talk • contribs).
• Cleanup massively, this is more vanitycruft from Neil Cicierega as currently written. KillerChihuahua
• Keep. I've done some cleanup. Does any more need doing? --Billpg 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The article needs more than a cleanup, it needs to be rewritten. It states many things as fact (such as this Neil person "inventing" it) without providing credible sources to back this up. It smacks of self promotion as well. --Locke Cole 03:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • And what's wrong with that? Slashdot effect is also a neologism, but I don't think anybody objects to its presence here. Meme is a neologism, but I'm sure nobody's put that page up for deletion either. --Aurochs
    • To be fair, "Slashdot Effect" (in quotes as a phrase) on Google gets almost 92,000 hits. Animutation only gets 13,000. If you just run the words "Slashdot Effect" (without quotes, as keywords) you get 1,750,000 hits. It also wouldn't surprise me to learn that some of those "animutation" hits are talking about something else since the pairing of those words isn't exactly a hard one to come up with. (Whereas "Slashdot Effect" is specific to one website). --Locke Cole 04:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup although it might be easier to start over, just blank the page for five seconds and make a new one if it makes anyone feel better. - brenneman^(t)(c) 23:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but clean-up. Notable Internet phenomenon. 23skidoo 03:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and rewrite from scratch. Cleanup won't help this article. --Locke Cole 03:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, yet more cleanup. I've commented out a couple of offending sections, including claims that Neil Cicierega invented the genre and the claim surrounding independent musicians. Could people who voted cleanup above this comment please take another look? --Billpg 08:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • It needs a lot of work.. check out Incandescent light bulb for an example of how Animutation should be rewritten/cleaned up. I'm still not entirely convinced this is even encylopedic material, but I am trying to keep an open mind. (And before anyone else jumps in with examples of things they don't think are encyclopedic, I don't care-- the issue isn't other articles, the issue is this article. If you have problems with another article being here, nominate it for AfD). --Locke Cole 10:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep-PlasmaDragon 18:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; it is a very popular animation style on the Web. But the article needs heavy revision. Some parts are plagiarised from the AlbinoBlackSheep page, for example. (The article says that some parts are "sourced" from that page, but that's not valid. They need to be specifically identified as quotes from that page, rather than mixed in with the other article text.) —AdamAtlas 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Cleanup; Animutation is a cult internet phenomenon, who made it or where it came from would need to be better defined and the articale needs be we very rewritten, but a particular form of flash art deserves an entry with specific details of its definition and history,people looking for more information about this should be able to come to wikipedia as a source. Trollsb 04:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • user's second edit Karmafist 05:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest Possible Delete per my comments at the Neil Cicierega afd. Karmafist 05:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; it's an internet meme which has progressed beyond the initial contributions by Neil Cicierega.Caterpillar 36 20:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Sixth edit by this user and all of their edits have been to vote Keep on AfD articles. --Locke Cole 01:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but clean up. Animutation is pretty notable, and it is a generally recognized term. I do not, however, agree that Mr. Cicierega invented the genre by any stretch (it'd be coming closer, though still not entirely correct, to say that *I* invented it -- but I'm sure someone did it before me), he merely popularized it. However, note that Mr. Cicierega is not responsible for the propagation of the idea that he invented Animutation. Tgies 01:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Users 46th edit, but note contribs-- user voted keep on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Cicierega yesterday, and that was their 11th edit. --Locke Cole 02:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Cleanup: Animutations are notable as a whole. Call me back when they start making articles for individual flash files. -- -- Bobdoe (Talk) 23:01, 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} 00:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anno Frankenstein

Spurious article, copied and mangled from Anno-Dracula series Gadget850 21:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete G3 as silly vandalism. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as above Pete.Hurd 06:05, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-blog

Neologism, self-promotion. The article's creator promptly bragged about it on their blog - see [3]. Rhobite 01:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as self-promotion per nominator. *drew 01:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- Egil 01:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, then delete again. Deltabeignet 01:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nomination.--Alicejenny 08:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wow you people need to get a life. Get over it. If you're going to delete it, just do it and move along. Here you are talking about self-promotion and all of you are shamelessly linking back to you user profile so people can read about how high and mighty you are. We're not writing a constitution here, it's a wiki. Heard of freedom of speech? I'm not selling anything. I'm not a commercial business nor do I have any other agendas. I've set up something that I think deserves to be in Wikipedia. But if you're going to be dicks about it, then be my guest.

I suggest you go and use your time to do more productive things in this world rather than being wiki nazis.

• Delete. This discussion is not meant to be mean. We are trying to make an encyclopedia and an article about a website which only 59 pages link to Google most of which are archives from the site and which has no Alexa ranking or press coverage to speak of isn't an appropriate article topic. This discussion is meant to give the issue exposure so all Wikipedians can share their view on the matter. BTW, our signatures aren't meant as self-promotion but as a means to identify who said what (see Wikipedia:Accountability) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Perodicticus 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Then shred the electrons, smash them into their constituent subatomic particles and bury them in a deep dark hole. And jump on it afterwards. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Mgm.--Isotope23 14:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• LOL at the indignation of the AfD blogger. Mylakovich 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per everyone, yet another neolojizzum. "Fed up with the mainstream nature of blogging, certain ex-bloggers have taken the phenomenon to the next level." Great, now I'll always remember the day in my life when the universe changed for the better. There really needs to be a CSD along the lines of "Is a blog, blog author, blog-related neologism, or has ever uttered the word 'blog' in a sentence which did not also contain the words 'vain', 'rambling' or 'worthless'". --Last Malthusian 18:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Neolojism, n. An article ejaculated onto Wikipedia by a one-handed typist.
• Keep, why do you always delete things that are non-notable. WP is going backward!

• Delete per nom. Nothing personal though, Patrick and Giv.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Starship Squad

The 'ASS' Squad - with a suitably disturbing image, created in 2005, by students... its just all going a little bit toooo far.Sounds like vanity to me. THE KING 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, NN. 40 members, eh? PJM 13:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, 0 hits on Google.. Speedy if possible --Locke Cole 13:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable student pointlessness Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete almost a speedy (does not establish notability). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. Foofy 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Briangotts (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Carioca 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.72.108.19 (talk • contribs) 15:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 00:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assuming Song

Non-notable song... played on one radio station. No awards, not a hit. Nowhere worthwhile to merge to as far as I can tell. W.marsh 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Agreed Jasmol 04:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but there is no speedy criterion that covers this. — brighterorange (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The song is widely circlated on the Internet so it almost qualifies as an Internet meme, but I don't think it has quite gained enough notability. A song doesn't have to be a "hit" to be notable, though. 23skidoo 05:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I know, but being a hit is just one relatively sure way to be notable, I try to rule out the likely ways something would be notable when nominating. Thanks for mentioning the internet presence though. --W.marsh 05:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable (but amusing) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not really all that notable. Foofy 18:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn. *drew 23:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 02:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aswjood Hussain

Probable hoax. Evidence is well stated on the talk page by rbrwr:

*Google search for "Aswjood Hussain": 0 hits
*The manager of Iran is Branko Ivanković, who has been in post since 2003.
*Rimini did not win the double in 1999; Milan won Serie A, and Parma won the Coppa Italia.

I would add that the author of this article seems to be a well-documented vandal. --W.marsh 03:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I was unable to verify anything in the article, and have refuted some of it. Note that 62.171.194.38 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) is a proxy used by British schools, and that its neighbour 62.171.194.40 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) also added "Aswjood Hussain" material to Bristol Rovers F.C. [4][5]. This is almost certainly a hoax from top to bottom. --rbrwr^± 08:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Is there a procedure for articles that rely on easily refutable claims? Average Earthman 09:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or speedy delete for vandalism, which is what I consider an article that is an obviously untrue joke. When I do the speedies of things like this, my summary is often "graffiti," as that's what I think it is -- the impulse of school kids to write their names on us. Spray painting the wall gets you arrested for vandalism in real life, and these kinds of articles get deleted as vandalism here. Geogre 09:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete above evidence is compelling. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 23:32, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Athésia

Aspring actress and singer. 1 album, label unknown. Not on AMG, not on IMDB. Advert tag was added but removed without discussion by the original author (who has no other contributions). Still reads like an advertisement, and the subject is non-notable for a WP article as far as I can tell. W.marsh 04:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable and spam. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pretty, but non-notable. Ifnord 15:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. Durova 15:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Firstly, she is known in Canada — granted, she hasn't had a breakout Top 40 megasmash hit yet, but she is most certainly known in dance music circles. Secondly, she was a guest vocalist on Deadbeat's 2005 album New World Observer, a title which gets 14,000 Google hits, including a Pitchfork review which notes her vocal contributions to the album. Thirdly, neither AMG nor IMDB are entirely reliable gauges of notability outside of the United States — it's far from rare for an album that's very notable in Canada, although not widely known in the States, to get mostly or entirely overlooked by AMG. New World Observer itself has a track listing on AMG but no review, no musician credits, no nothing...and the album's been out for almost eight months. As such, she's on the safe side of my keep line. Bearcat 07:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The cleanup looks ok to me, also provided Bearcat's argument is justified. *drew 23:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atomic Raygun Attack

Band article... mostly insults the band right now. Band has 2 releases, but not on a major label (or any label that I can discern) so would seem to fail Wikipedia:Music. Can't see that they're a notable band. W.marsh 05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Appears not to meet WP:NMG despite two albums as no evidence presented of wide distribution or tours. BTW this is probably the first case of an attack page on an obscure band and would have to be cleaned up for NPOV. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as an article that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject. Any information that is factual is incidental. -- Kjkolb 08:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete abusive and even if not, fails WP:Music. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My Google search showed this as a band in Fredericksburg, Virginia that gets a moderate amount of local press attention. Doesn't seem noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. Probably not salvageable. Durova 15:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cute name for a band, tho. KillerChihuahua 18:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete attack page (?) that doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. I'd call it vanity, but it's kind of brutal...--Isotope23 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 00:19, 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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 00:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AtomicPark.com

Makes a minor assertion of notability via some local awards but, my concern is that the article is one of two edits by User:Atomicpark (the other edit was to upload the company logo). --Alan Au 00:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Advertising abuse of wikpedia; non-notable company Bwithh 00:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, #33,060 in Alexa traffic rank. *drew 01:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable per above. --W.marsh 02:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Blatant advertising. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, as mentioned above. PJM 04:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Never thought I'd say this, but keep. This is possibly the least obnoxious, least self-promotional, most neutral, factual, documentary articles I've ever seen about a dot-com. They're relatively well known, it seems, and have been around for quite a while, in Internet time. If this is kept, I can use it as an example of what a decent article about a commercial website should look like! —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not encyclopedic. —Cleared as filed. 09:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I don't often say that in respect of spam, but this does appear to be a notable company. Article reeks of POV and needs cleanup. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Even though this was added by an AtomicPark.com employee, HorsePunchKid has a point: this is probably the best wiki article about a company by an employee of a company I've ever seen. I'm a bit conflicted on this one because while I certainly don't want to encourage companies to start doing write-ups about themselves on wikipedia (because 90% of them will be marketingspeak drivel that ends up in AfD), if they do, this is how they should be doing it. As for notability, they fall well below Newegg, but they seem to be a moderately popular software retailer... notable enough that I would definitely vote keep had this article been added by a third party. As it stands I'm leaning weak keep assuming good faith.--Isotope23 14:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak Keep per above. Very good points made. -Haon 02:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Well of course my vote is to keep it, I'm the guy who wrote it. Yes, I am an AtomicPark.com employee but I think I did a good job making the article as neutral as possible. I could have just as easily registered as an unbiased 3rd party and hidden the fact that I work for the company, but I'm an honest and straightforward guy. And why is it that a company needs to be as big as Amazon to be considered notable? If there are any problems with this article, why is it simply not just edited? --Atomicpark
  • Your first question is a leading question that takes a falsehood, an erroneous description of our WP:CORP criteria, as its premise and is thus unanswerable. The answer to your second question is: Because Wikipedia is not Yellowikis. Uncle G 20:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. Nice and neutral, but I'm questionable on the notability (many google hits, but mostly to ad-related items) and still feels a little too much like vanity and linkspam. If Atomicpark feels any better, I'd vote delete whether or not I knew that the creator was associated with the company. --Syrthiss 16:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any verifiable content in this page. Trollderella 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, with regret. Nicely done, and I strongly encourage the author to contribute elsewhere on Wikipedia. But it doesn't meet proposed guidelines WP:WEB or WP:CORP. I'd encourage the author to save this and resubmit when AtomicPark is more demonstrably notable. E.g., with more news article mentions, ideally some non-local ones. --William Pietri 18:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, Delete I'm afraid. HorsePunchKid and Isotope have a point, and it's well written, but it's still an ad for a nn subject. AndyJones 18:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Being the subject of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, this company satisfies the first WP:CORP criterion. Keep. Uncle G 20:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • technically, one != "multiple". I'm not entirely sure that isn't a routine article either, which would make 0. :) --Syrthiss 20:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • "One" doesn't equal multiple, but there is other news coverage as well. There's an CNET article that I've found and am thinking of adding.

      As for the news article: A major point of the exclusions in the WP:CORP criteria is to exclude the humdrum "Acme Corp will be opening late for Christmas again this year" style of article and simple self-publicity. (See this for the sort of self-sourced press release which doesn't count.) The MJS article, in contrast, is a feature article wholly devoted to the company, and not just a notice of extended shopping hours. Uncle G 00:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with HPK and Uncle G FRS 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep; the case to keep it has the support of some editors whose judgement is usually good, and that gets my attention. Give it a good thorough NPOV checkout, and see how it looks then. — Haeleth Talk 21:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree with FRS. Also, WP:CORP is a guideline, not a rule, pillar or policy. -- Perfecto  05:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff 14:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Atsuisofu

Obvious vanity for some website guy. If the claim that it means something in Japanese can be verified (my google verification attempt failed) then I can see moving to Wictionary. But as far as I can tell it's unverifiable and non-notable. W.marsh 05:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, since what little content exists looks suspiciously like vanity. Also, foreign language dicdefs have no place here. 70.27.59.200 06:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy if possible. NN vanity nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nn-bio. The claim about Japanese is true (熱い祖父 atsui sofu does mean "hot grandfather"), but it's a phrase, not a word, and given that it gets a grand total of 7 Google hits in Japanese, somehow I don't see it being Wiktionary material either. — Haeleth Talk 22:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Vanity bio. *drew 00:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Audio collective

Non-notable podcast. site's Alexa rank 1,654,336 [6]. Very few comments on blog. Not much on google [7]. No evidence that this is notable enough for an article. W.marsh 06:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nonnotable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable Jasmol 08:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet another non-notable podcast. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• According to Yahoo!'s listing they have 1 review, 4 subscribers and 17 episodes. Doesn't sound at all popular. On the other hand, the podcast of The Pocket and the Pendant Yahoo! listing appears to have the same problem while it has over 135,000 verified downloads and is second most popular in the arts section of Yahoo!'s podcast pages. How high is this podcast listed in various sections? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, it's listed 32nd (http://podcasts.yahoo.com/search?p=art&c=s&t=1&s=31). Lack of web presence of site makes me think it's a podcast by a non-notable site. weak delete. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Ifnord 22:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aughie By Nature

Another non-notable podcast. Almost no comments on blog. Almost nothing on google [8]. No media coverage. No evidence that this is notable enough for an article W.marsh 06:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Jasmol 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete another non-notable podcast. Podcruft? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete podcruft...--Isotope23 14:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Swegner 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. *drew 00:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auken

Incoherent fancruft of a character from a manga that doesn't even have an article. Non-notable. W.marsh 06:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NatusRoma 07:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable character in non-notable Manga. And one of the untidiest bits of fancruft in recent weeks. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete player-created character in RPG which claims to be used in manga, but if "the actual history of the charachter and infact even how he looks is different in the manga than in the game." they are not the same. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fancruft. *drew 00:22, 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} 00:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Austriavakia constitution

This one's rich. Article consists soley of the very long (3,700 word) constitution for a fictional country, apparently from the game Nation-States. According to our article on the game, "players had set up over 1,300,000 individual nations since NationStates premiered in late 2002". W.marsh 18:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete after considering briefly just how sad you'd have to be to write this fancruft. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at least it's good for a chuckle. Durova 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete junk. *drew 01:36, 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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 08:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auto art

While this claims to be some new movement in art, I can't verify that. What it does seem to be is an advertisement for an artist who has a non-notable blog, 30 results on Google, and no media coverage that I can find. Adding it all together, I don't think this needs really warrants an article. W.marsh 19:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete but only because the thing is so badly and subjectively written, and because I can't think that's the right title. There is a real movement involving highly decorated motorised trishaws, trucks and especially the Jeepney. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. unencyclopedic, advertising tone.-Dakota ^{t e} 20:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it is an advertisement, but it is a real subject. That is why I put the total rewrite tag on it a while back. It should be rewritten to talk about actual auto art, which appears to exist. -- Kjkolb 20:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but Wikify. It seems to be better known as Rickshaw Art. I found a Bangladesh News review of a gallery opening [9] and a Banglapedia article [10] that states this art form has a fifty year history among numerous apparently legitimate references. The New York Times has reviewed books about Bangladeshi rickshaw art. Durova 23:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Automated Stealth Vehicle

I cannot verify any of this. Anything I find via searching is just a mirror of this article (it has been around for 6 months). I think this must be a hoax, given the total lack of use of this term anywhere but in the article. W.marsh 19:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unverifiable howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable speculation. Either that or the black helicopters are on the way already to eradicate the author... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:49, 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} 00:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar business solutions

Non-notable hosting service / website. Fails both the proposed Wikipedia:Websites and WP:CORP guidelines as it has no Alexa rank, minor market share, no media coverage, etc. It is an advertisement as currently written. W.marsh 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom FRS 23:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. DarthVader 23:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 02:54, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Who are you guys to decide what is notable and worth online publication???!!! Maybe someone was trying to explain how bad that team really was...and it's way too specific and creative to be "any other HS soccer team."

[edit] Averill Park Warriors Soccer

Very lengthy Teamcruft (or something...) about a really bad high school soccer team, presumably in Averill Park, New York (but the article lacks much context). Doesn't assert notability beyond that of any other HS soccer team. Could be merged to the High School's article, but as far as I can tell one doesn't exist. W.marsh 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov celebrating losing as many games as possible. Renata3 18:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 02:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Balle

Two definitions in the same article, but are questionable. The first one lists references the term balle being used as a slang in a game. The second refers to Business Alliance For Local Living, which may have some merit, if that article was created or moved under Business Alliance For Local Living with perhaps a bit less POV. Balle is the name of a rune scriber in Sweden during the 11th century, however I did not believe it correct to disambigiousize this page to reference the two current entries. Perhaps I am wrong. Mceder 04:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment logicaly the first half could be merged into Elasto Mania.Geni 12:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove gamecruft and tag for cleanup. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Oh, and move to a more correct title, per above.

• Duh I have done as suggested above, you guys are much smart. --Mceder 16:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any verifiable content in this page. Trollderella 17:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the Business Alliance for Local Living Bryan 04:54, 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} 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bilaterals.org

Promotional blurb for non-notable website Jasmol 23:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Blatant ad/link spam. - Lucky 6.9 23:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 02:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Boyjones

DO NOT DELETE!!! it is something that people have never heard of and its some good imagination....so y should it be deleted?! and PLUS it is very very funnay!!

Rambling incoherent nonsense. On the plus side, whatever the author is smoking, I want some... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• NON SENSE!??! this kid has an imagination...its good...u need to keep it...and he dosent smoke...i loooved it...it great!! -Esther! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.117.145.2 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC) (moved from above by Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC))
• Speedy delete. Nonsense. --Alicejenny 12:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Complete nonsense—unfortunately, not quite “patent” nonsense. He’ll get his 5 days on AFD. ♠DanMS 16:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. At least it made me laugh. Pure nonsense, but entertaining. Durova 16:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. And the talk page as well. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete and your little boyjones too. Dominick ^(ŤαĿĶ) 18:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with all reasonable haste as per nomination. Saberwyn 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Your Lost --User:Thimas I am the author of this article. If you humans don't approve of this article I feel it is your lost. The truth will remain in the minds of the BoyJones. If this article does get deleted I hope the humans that have read this article will remember the BoyJones whenever they hear of a tornado, a hurricane, a meteor strike, a lightning storm, or a mysterious surge of happiness.
• Speedy Delete. Storycruft. *drew 00:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense.  RasputinAXP  T C 19:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Minor droids in Star Wars. (~78% majority) --FireFox ™ 18:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BT-16

Proposed deletion on grounds of non-notability. This thing's on screen for two seconds of one movie. Starwars.com can have an article on it if it wants, and the Star Wars CCG can have a card on it if it wants, but we are neither, and we don't need this. Marblespire 06:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to Minor_droids_in_Star_Wars. --Alan Au 06:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Alan Au. Saberwyn 06:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per Alan Au. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Should definitely be merged and redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure that Minor droids in Star Wars is appropriate: that article covers "specific droids rather than droid types", whereas BT-16 appears to be a droid type. --Stormie 10:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• The name makes it sound like a specific droid rather than a type, but it should be merged somewhere nevertheless. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; fancruft. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Paolo. --William Pietri 19:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Minor_droids_in_Star_Wars per Alan Au too minor for it's own article.-Dakota ^{t e} 20:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to a more appropriate article. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 16:39, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Calum Duncan

Article was vandalised by IP in same range as creators, is unsourced and appears hoaxy. I reached it by going through the contributions of 213.249.155.240 (talk • contribs) after deleting Barton-in-the-Beans, a nonsense attack, on what appears to be a non-existent village. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• He was a good man, do him justice by having this page kept. Do your research first, before making assumptions.

• Delete, MacGyverMagic beat me to completing the afd on this one, but my original reason for nomination is: Looks like a hoax, the IP who created it has proceeded to vandalize it, quick google search does not draw up anyone by this name who fits the original description. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 12:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• No, the IP who created it differs in the last 2 numbers. It's likely they are related, but we can't be sure the creator vandalized it themselves. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are right. Still, original content appears to be a hoax. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 12:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The users on 213.249.155.231 (talk • contribs), 213.249.155.239 (talk • contribs), 213.249.155.240 (talk • contribs) have been crossing each other's paths today, performing similar looking vandalism and creating articles that may be hoaxes. It looks to me like one or more English school boys, possibly moving around between machines. - Dalbury (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No its true, he was like a brother to Luther King, look it up (unsigned edit by 213.249.155.239 (talk • contribs)) - Dalbury (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If that statement is true, then cite your sources. Otherwise, delete. ♠DanMS 16:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete fails the Google test Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 00:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom Pete.Hurd 06:25, 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 speedied. — brighterorange (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carrot McCoon

Purports to be the bio of a forgotten bluesman (see talk page for details). Nothing found on google and cited sources do not mention McCoon (full text checked through amazon and print.google.com). Looks to be a hoax although editor claims its based on OR. In either case completely unverifiable thus delete. --JJay 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --JJay 01:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as "Silly vandalism" under vandalism under WP:CSD criteria. No article on Allmusic.com for him and no Google hits outside Wikipedia see [11] so problems with WP:V. According to the article, he fails WP:NMG. Given that I strongly doubt that there is or was a Southern bluesman called "Syphilis Carrot McCoon" and that Coon is widely considered to be a slur against African-Americans, I consider that "speedy deletion" as "silly vandalism" is warranted in this case. Capitalistroadster 01:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Closing the discussion since the article was speedied. — brighterorange (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Casual gamers (webcomic)

Not notable Velvetrope 09:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Rewrite this term is heavily used in gaming market and can be turned an excelent article. --Mateusc 14:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe so, but this vote is about a crappy webcomic. --Velvetrope 09:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • When he voted I had not yet moved the article. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Now that I notice who made that rude comment - when he voted, the nominator, who failed to list the AFD properly, had also failed to move article to it's appropriate name before nominating it without substantial comment whatsoever, thus making the nomination (without the clarifing move) incredibly confusing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment I have moved the page to Casual Gamers (webcomic) Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • To clear up any confusion from my earlier edit summary No vote Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. I checked its rating on two web comic listing sites. The quality of this comic is good but it needs more recognition within its field. Durova 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Fails WP:WEB. No assertion of notability. - Hahnchen 19:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. *drew 00:56, 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 speedy delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Loffredo

nonsense, vanity page if not, created by vandal IP RainR 00:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• This falls somewhere between WP:CSD G3 (pure vandalism) and A7 ("no assertion of notability"). But it really looks like an attack and insult page (would have been clearly A6 had the article been a bit shorter). I am speedy deleting this. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 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} 00:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church sign generator

non-notable web site Nv8200p (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete it could be argued that this is an internet meme, since images from this site appear all over blogs and message boards. However... I personally don't think that alone makes it notable. Also the site linked to has blatant ads, merchandise etc. so this could be considered spam. --W.marsh 21:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - ad, not notable. Fredrik | talk 22:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've seen the site. It's amusing if you like making irreverent church signs, but not notable otherwise. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 02:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Circumduction

Dictionary definition. - 62.73.137.190 12:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Yep, it's a dictdef, and it's not very promising for development into more than that, either. Geogre 12:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete That anon nomination was me, I lost my cookie (have now baked a new one). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dictdef. How about getting a free new cookie at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eat n park instead? Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete dicdef. *drew 00:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Computerized Performance System Disc Jockey

5% neologism, 95% hype. Three Google hits excluding Wikipedia. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 18:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Neologism - The use of this newly-coined word, like Lewis Carroll's 'jabberwocky' is how terms come to being. The artical should remain as I created with edits to clearify time-line and clearification. Do a Google search for it's more common used term CPSDJ.

Above unsigned comment by user:Computer DJing, 20:22, 9 November 2005

• Delete The inclusion of this article is being used to justify the inclusion of another afd candidate, Professor Jam. Sounds like very roundabout marketing ultimately. Jasmol 21:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Searched for CPSDJ and it seems all references are to the convention or a certification program run by Professor Jam. Is there any evidence that computerized disc jockeying has affected the industry in any way and that the term CPSDJ is the standard accepted by most DJs? If there is, please present such evidence and I'll be happy to reconsider. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Computer DJ and Digital DJ dwarf this reference on Google searches. Most of the references to CPSDJ wrap back to a conference in Tampa, Florida. It doen't appear to be what it claims to be: a legitimate industry standard. Durova 21:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confederacy of the concealed hand

Uncited; Original research. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 13:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable (fails the Google test) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; non-notable, probably an hoax Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. Trollderella 17:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for all the above reasons. Foofy 18:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sounds like an inside joke, non-notable at the least. Jasmol 20:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. *drew 00:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep verifiable. Its fairly well known amongst UK student circles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 137.205.69.250 (talk • contribs) 12:20, 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 14 delete/4 keep (77.77...% to delete) Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contact Consequences

Is not sutiable for Wikipedia and may be a hoax article. Kerowyn 04:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete personal essay --Trovatore 04:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete as original research (edited previous comment to remove section header; this messes with afd). — brighterorange (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete because it's one big, false dilemma fallacy, made of original research. It's not encyclopedic, contains POV material, and needs to be totally reformatted. I hope this is a hoax. 70.27.59.200 06:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 20:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously not verifiable, original research. —Cleared as filed. 09:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: Incorrect title, original research, personal essay. Geogre 10:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• The article is part of a series of original research articles that included Malevolent Alien Abduction Research (AfD discussion). It propounds a novel synthesis of ideas as to what "could happen" in the event of first contact (science fiction), without citing any sources to demonstrate that such a synthesis has already been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, and is exactly the sort of thing that our no original research official policy is intended to prevent. The place for publishing this is the author's own web site. Delete. Uncle G 10:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Although the article has been modified to address the subject more from the point of view of what scenarios science fiction writers envision, no effort has been made to cite sources demonstrating that the article is not original research, the concern that I expressed above. We have articles on themes encountered in fiction. See Government Warehouse, for example. Note that they cite sources demonstrating that the idea is not a novel one unique to its creator or to Wikipedia.

    Also, as Just zis Guy, you know? points out, if the intent is to cover what science fiction writers consider to be the possible consequences of first contact, this is territory that is already covered properly (citing the opinions of specific science fiction authors) in first contact (science fiction), and (since there's nothing to merge) this is now at most a redirect. Uncle G 17:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Syrthiss 13:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep in current form. As long as it doesn't stray in to Original Research again, it looks reasonable. --Syrthiss 14:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete speculative, unverifiable, unencyclopaedic, and - worse still - boring. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unencyclopedic. Martial law, if you want to defend this article please improve it. I doubt that's possible but you have five days to try. Durova 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP . Where is provision elsewhere for those of us that are devoutly religious who believe that aliens are Satan's minions and that those that run the world are evil people are cooperating with them ? I've encountered people like this in my travels.Martial Law 20:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Uncle G. Full of predictions on what "will" happen if humanity encounters aliens with one of two anthropocentric assumptions. Simplistic speculation that I could have written better in junior high school. Unsourced except one cranksite which the author seems to treat as authoritative. Barno 20:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Would it be practical to merge this with the OCP article regarding alien contact ?
  • What is there to merge? — Haeleth Talk Merging not necessary. — Haeleth Talk 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete original research. — Haeleth Talk 22:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep in its cleaned-up form; it now seems to be a good overview of the subject that contains relevant links to the more specific discussions of various scenarios. I would encourage others who voted "delete" to reconsider. — Haeleth Talk 11:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do any other articles consider those who are religious, those(hopefully a few) who may want vengeance concearning the Robertson Panel's recomendations ? That is why I am asking that this article is NOT deleted.Martial Law 00:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (double vote by user)
  • Vengeance? That's an odd choice of word. In any case, the article as it stands is not encyclopaedic. The other articles on the possibilities of alien life and the like already address the possibilities of extraterrestrial contact. Delete Kerowyn 01:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Preaky 04:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Westernriddell 06:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The article certainly needs a ton of work, but the subject is valid. Far from a hoax, it has often been the subject of discussion and is the focus of many works of fiction. Let the Cleanup Taskforce have a go at it. Canderson7 22:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. *drew 23:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Speculation. Original research is a somewhat grand word for this. Trollderella 02:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with First Contact because the subject is valid; (countless sci-fi works deal with this theme... War of the Worlds, Close Encounters of the Third Kind etc. Intersofia 16:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I have moved discussion to this vote's talk page. Please continue the discussion there.  RasputinAXP  T C 19:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect as per Uncle G above. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is effectively a religion to some folks and deserves the same careful NPOV as articles on other theological concepts. Yes, it needs sources, but from the looks of it those should be available. I just heard a Harvard professor on NPR discussing her extensive interviews with "contactees", whom she carefully and NPOVely described as deluded. That shows to me that the field has been properly studied and that "pro and con" material is available. If this article doesn't improve in a few days then I'd be happy to delete it but I think there is room for growth. Wikipedia has the opportunity for being a rare NPOV source on the alien abduction faith. -Willmcw 12:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • How can something as horrific as a alien abduction be a religion, See Malevolent alien Abduction Research's website about the real alien agenda. Thats like forming a religion around a cruel rapist. Because a deceptive agenda is indicated, I say this is a STRONG KEEP.Martial Law 08:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, here we are; the MAAR's website is the "cranksite" I had in mind. How can you verify the "real" "alien agenda"? Your opinions ("horrific") and conclusions ("deceptive agenda" leading somehow to "strong keep") are not valid criteria of what is or isn't encyclopedic. If we see verifiable evidence that many people are following a religion based on alien abduction, then we'll keep an NPOV article documenting that. No change of vote for this article. Barno 19:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Some of the keep and merge votes above are on the basis that (as rewritten) the article covers something which has at least some validity as a subject. I don't dispute that, but I would draw people's attention to the following articles:

• Abduction Phenomenon, which covers the subject of belief in alien abductions
• First contact (science fiction) which covers the issue of first contact and its coverage in science fiction
• Unidentified flying object which covers the subject of possible alien visitors in our time

I stand by my original view; although this article has now been completely rewritten into something which is at least encyclopaedic, the topic itself is adequately covered in these other articles, and I am not persuaded of the need for another article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:32, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• • Can you suggest an appropriate article to possibly merge it into? -Willmcw 10:08, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damn Skippy!

Does seem to be a popular local band (in Leeds), but not quite yet popular enough for WP:MUSIC to be satisfied. Released a 6-track demo in 2005. Article seems to be advertising and band name is actually Damn Skippy (no !). A weak delete from me. jnothman ^talk 13:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• And it's a delete from me too, Dave! This is a blatant advertisement for a band that is not notable enough for Wikipedia. — JIP | Talk 13:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. PJM 14:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet more nn band vanity Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, a popular local band in Leeds. Trollderella 17:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Then why doesn't it say that in the article itself? Chainsaw cleanup and rewrite from someone knowledgeable on the band, completed by the end of AfD. If not, delete
• Delete per nom. -Locke Cole 18:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 00:59, 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 after minus anonymous votes. - Mailer Diablo 01:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Damn Skippy

Band vanity. Non-notable (no AllMusic entry or any note on importance). Recreation of two previous deletions. --Quasipalm 15:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Other albums that should also be deleted: Live From The Haunted Candle Shop, Hip To The Javabean, Clown Circus.

• Delete --Quasipalm 15:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn band vanity Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable as per nom. --Locke Cole 16:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Didn't we have this one before? KillerChihuahua 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, but it has been deleted twice previously. (I wasn't sure if it was speedy or not.) --Quasipalm 03:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ( howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; if it's established that Wiki isn't a place to promote your up-and-coming-but-nonnotable band, maybe the rate of these submissions will decrease. Jasmol 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ashibaka (tock)
• Delete. NN band vanity. *drew 01:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppet Votes

• KEEP. What is everyone's freaking deal with Lemon Demon? You want to delete virtually all existence on Wikipedia of one of the weirdest (yet finest) musical projects to come out of the 21st century? Neil Cicierega worked his ass off to write and perform nearly every song on those albums. Blah, blah, blah, band vanity.. STOP IT. Those articles can be cleaned up, and not just deleted as if they never existed. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.106.231 (talk • contribs).
• MEGA STRONG KEEP. DO NOT DELETE ALL THE LEMON DEMON ALBUM ARTICLES. I bet all of those who want to bop along to McFly and crap. You make me sick to my stomach. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.30.7 (talk • contribs).
• Keep You all want to get rid of everything. Just work on your stuff and let others work on their own. Live and let live. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.199 (talk • contribs).
  • RIGHT ON, DUDE! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.128.182.106 (talk • contribs).
• We are the future of this site. We will win.--Locke Cole 152.163.100.199 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) and 64.12.116.199 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Ar Wern

this is a Vanity page there are no hits on google for this except other wiki type websites that are editable. Fabhcún 11:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable. Durova 16:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I touched this page during new page patrol. If you look at the initial entry, it mentions a magazine called Al Liamm. If you look in Google results for "Dan ar Wern" you get this page which shows he's published, but I think the magazine is in Breton, so I wasn't able really to determine his notability, and I was inclined to give a little more leeway to Breton-language poets as simply being one might just be notable enough. However, I agree that it might be a vanity entry -- an anonymous user from the same IP block added the article to fr:Dan Ar Wern and a user named DAN AR WERN added de:Dan Ar Wern. No vote. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete low-notability as a poet...--Isotope23 21:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. *drew 00:36, 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} 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dan Oster

Looks like self-promotion by an aspiring actor. The only sites that list him on Google are a few routine performance notices and his own blog. Durova 14:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Above restored after blanking

• Delete as non-notable per Google searches. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. Foofy 18:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Durova.--Isotope23 21:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. *drew 01:02, 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 (and recreate as a redirect to Daredevil). Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dare Devil

Member of The New Deal (rap group), a musical group that is currently under review in the afd process. If The New Deal (rap group) is voted 'keep,' this bio should be merged with that article. Jasmol 21:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - not notable, no verifiable information. Fredrik | talk 22:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect daredevil. 23skidoo 03:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect sounds good Renata3 18:27, 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 by Ingoolemo as nonsense. Ingoolemo ^talk 23:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] De Oratore

Article has no serious content. There may be a legitimate work out there by this name, but you wouldn't know anything about it from this article. DanielCD 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete, no content. Fredrik | talk 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no content Niz

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Degrassi_On_Tour

Seems to be nothing more than an advertisement for a tour. Jasmol 01:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - ad. I hate the show, I hate the article. --Phil 02:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Tour advertisement. --Mceder 05:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising.--Alhutch 05:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note existence of tour in Degrassi article and delete. 06:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a calendar for tours and conventions. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Why is everyone on Wikipedia all a bunch of fags about this stuff? --Boycottthecaf 01:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This is one of the funniest votes I have seen in months. LOL!--Nicodemus75 08:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving stray vote [12] into here:

• Delete, non-notable. 70.27.59.200 06:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam. (and inherently unencyclopaedic). Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not necessary. 23skidoo 17:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... I'm not sure if I'm more shocked that Degrassi Jr. High is apparently still on TV or that they are going on tour. Either way, this is non-encyclopedic material.--Isotope23 21:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Aw, and I already missed them at Lakeside Mall!--Isotope23 21:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn, advert, fancruft. take your pick. Youngamerican 04:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• and because I am a fag about this stuff Youngamerican 17:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep all school articles. Oops, I mean DELETE.--Nicodemus75 07:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete per Saberwyn getcrunk juice 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete schedule. Mindmatrix 15:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promotional schedule. *drew 23:45, 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 speedied because author is a known vandal and hyperlinked page doesn't apply to topic. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dmitri Solyetzin

Going for nonnotable (the article even says he's unknown) vanity, though it could also be a hoax (as the latest anon IP editor to touch it has been vandalizing a variety of pages DreamGuy 15:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

It says relatively unknown, not unknown. I say keep it. 216.185.69.65 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The link given shows that this guy wasn't even a member of the team that won the competition he supposedly "singlehandedly won". JPD (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• This was tagged for speedy, and I'm tempted to bite, but I won't yet. Delete, anyway. Bad vanity. -R. fiend 16:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I would have bitten, if I had had admin powers ;) Delete or speedy delete, the result is the same. Aecis ^praatpaal 17:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. Thue | talk 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - don't you love it when they point out how non-notable they are? ;-) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Donovan (DOA)

This is fancruft for the video game. I'd merge it myself but there are other articles (e.g. Bayman (DOA), Leon (DOA), Helena (DOA), Fame Douglas (DOA)). My view would be that they should all be burned as vacuous fancruft merged into the parent article, or a single article on characters, but there may be - ahem - consensus issues. What does the panel think? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Clean up, of course. But there are heaps and heaps of precedent for this. For just two examples, see Ken Masters and Yoshimitsu (video game character). In a perfect world, these would be merged into "Characters from Game X" articles, but this is a hot point of debate at the video game wikiproject. BrianSmithson 13:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Someone who knows enough about the game to condense each article into a paragraph or two should create List of Dead or Alive characters (or something appropriately named) and merge all DoA charcter articles into this. Trim to fit where necessary. Do not merge into Dead or Alive. If it helps to build consensus, count this as a delete all. Saberwyn 13:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Oookay... there apparently is a List of Dead or Alive characters article, but its nothing more than "Hey, that's character x's name, they've been in games A, B, and C. Here, have a wikilink." I will support a merge of the smaller articles back into this main list, and a keep of the extremely large ones. Saberwyn 13:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up Only because of the existing precedent, as mentioned. But I do look forward to seeing these numerous game character articles merged with their parent articles...one day. PJM 13:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, there may be precedent, but it isn't a good one. This is simply gamecruft that is better merged into List of Dead or Alive characters. I'd support a delete of all DOA videogame character articles.--Isotope23 15:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verified information, merge if necessary. Trollderella 17:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as fancruft. Sorry, guys, as you've done nice work, but it's not notable in my book. And I'm with Isotope23 on the similar articles. Has anybody considered forking off a separate project so that fans can document their fictional universes while we keep on with the real one? --William Pietri 19:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't do it, for the same reason we don't hive off all the science into another project. Trollderella 21:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Not the same reason. Science is real, fancruft is something which, when you reach adulthood, you are ashamed to realise you were ever interested in :-) - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to George Steiner. It is the same reason, it's just that there is stuff you like, and stuff you don't. Trollderella 00:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Good effort, but I'm sorry to say that I'm still unpersuaded. Even for things people aren't ashamed of at adulthood, there's a pretty clear difference between fictional universes (of which there are an infinite number) and the single real one. (Unless you're arguing for epistemological relativism, in which case no notability criteria are possible.) Keeping our science here while letting the Star Trek fans track Star Trek science elsewhere seems pretty reasonable to me. Similarly, some fiction is notable for its cultural effects in banal reality, so a short article on Sherlock Holmes here could happily link to the exhaustive (and to most, exhausting) pseudo-biography that fans and academics yearn to compile. --William Pietri 06:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not about like vs. don't like. I'd say that a good half of the books I read are science fiction, I have a collection of several thousand SF books. Do you not see a fundamental difference between documenting a fictional reality and a real one? - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 09:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment Agreed... here is a good example of what could be done with the DOA characters: House Stark. I don't know if you are in any way familiar with the work of George R. R. Martin, but his books have hundreds of characters. Rather than create a separate article for each character though, the information is collected by family. To me this is a preferable way to collect the information, rather than cluttering things up with 100 separate articles about each character. This isn't a question of "liking" or "not liking" something. If I saw articles about every single character in The Song of Ice and Fire, I would vote to merge and delete, even though it is my favorite fantasy series ever written.--Isotope23 16:11, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dragan conjecture

Did some research, nothing come up under "Dragon conjecture", taking the quotes off gets a few more, but nothing looking like this. Also adding "prime" doesn't get any further. Probably NN if it exists. I'd say delete unless some good references are given. Fallsend 23:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The conjecture seems interesting, but I can't find any references to Dragan. Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification. Strongly disagree with NN, at least in regard to (a). Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

  Clarification again. The new conjecture is clearly false, unless is always prime, for . Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. It does not seem to be much of a conjecture. It says "Given an integer n" and does not hold for 0. If a conjecture by this name really exists, an article that states it properly could be written. --Tabor 05:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for same reason as Tabor. It doesn't hold for 1 either, since 2 is not between 1 and 2. Or for -1. Rule 2 doesn't hold for any negative integers, in fact. Grutness...wha? 06:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Related to the Bertrand-Chebychev theorem ("Chebychev said it and I'll say it again, There's always a prime between n and 2n!"); part A will probably fall over with large n. Oh, and no references; the author is from Romania. Might this be original research by the author? --Zetawoof 09:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, unless references are given. I can't find a Valeriu Dragan on MathSciNet. Google does not help either. Part (b) is easy to prove (once correctly formulated) since there are n − 1 numbers between n² and n² + n and half of them are even, thus not prime. Part (a) is more interesting. If the Riemann hypothesis is true, then there is a prime between n² and n² + n^1+ε for every ε > 0 for sufficiently large n [13]. Baker, Harman and Pintz proved that there is a prime between n² and n² + n^1.05 for sufficiently large n [14]. Finally, Bertrand's postulate says that an unsolved conjecture states that there is always a prime between n² and (n+1)² = n² + 2n + 1. I find it hard to imagine that a professional mathematician would group two conjectures of such varying difficulty together. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: not sensible. Charles Matthews 21:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like original research. Can't find a trace of Valeriu Dragan, although Vasile Dragan has been very productive :-) --Chan-Ho 04:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Google immediately turns up a Valeriu Dragan who is an architect and a junior lecturer at "Ion Mincu" University of Architecture and Urbanism. Michael Hardy 22:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Christopherparham. — JIP | Talk 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eat n park

Blindingly obvious advertising. Quote from the article: "If you mention this wikipedia article, Chelsey or Marge might give you a free cookie or two." Sounds like they're desperate for customers. Delete. — JIP | Talk 13:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• The raison d'être of this article is advertising. A rewrite, including some of these significant factoids (which I have not tried to, as yet, verify), might still continue it as an advertisement. Still, any article here about a franchise is an advertisement in itself. Nevertheless, it was created as an advertisement, and Wikipedia ain't a spambox. So Delete. -LichYoshi 15:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. And because it's a seriously crap name. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and also because I'm to far to stop there and ask for the free cookie. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

*Weak Delete I grew up in Western PA and have eaten at these franchises many times (usually late night). They are well-known in western Pennsylvania and nearby areas, but not probably not elsewhere (see: [[15]]). While it's strictly regional, it could have 1 million customers (a WP company criteria) depending how customers are measured for restuarant chains. DEFINITELY delete the reference to the Etna franchise. Nothing against Etna, but ads have no place on Wikipedia. Jasmol 20:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, valid topic. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment -- rewritten to remove advertising. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vote changed to keep as rewritten, but it may need renaming as per the official spelling. — JIP | Talk 17:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vote changed to keep. Rewrite looks fine. Jasmol 19:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Vote changed to keep. Decent article now. -LichYoshi 10:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian tree of life

The (sole) author of the article has not responed to the accuracy dispute. Although some chunks of the subject matter are factual in themselves, they do not seem to fit into any documented Egyptian Tree of Life in the way the author states. Another tree of life article already exists--Alicejenny 07:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

N.B. Just noted the new link [[16]] at the bottom. Check out their "services" [[17]]. Looks like a scam to me.--Alicejenny 12:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as apparent original research, per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "If these gods are placed on the Sephiroth in order of succession of their birth" — cool, does that happen in Final Fantasy VII or Kingdom Hearts? Agree with above comments, zap as OR. Anville 11:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• weak keep Tree of life is only a redirect to Tree of life (disambiguation). The page seems to be serious, not a joke. Another option might be a merge -> Egyptian mythology if there is anything worth keeping but not enough to justify a page. I'd be inclined to leave the page and tag it as a stub. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• If this is authentic mythology, then so is Zena, Warrior Princess. It's junk.--Alicejenny 12:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• weak delete Egyptian tree of life is clearly to be a real concept and a real article on that subject might be OK. This this seems a mismash of real mythology. The 'Sephiroth' seems to be a reworking of another image from the same site as the one the author credits for the hyroglphics. [18] The user is quite active on a number of pages, but I don't have the knowledge to know if he's being helpful or a subtle vandal. Ben Aveling 20:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I killed the link because as far as I can tell, it is completely extraneous to this article and doesn't have anything to do with the text (it also was apparently added by someone other than the author of this article). As for the article, it appears to violate WP:NOR. I can't find any outside sourcing or citation for this article, and in fact I'm not even sure what they are trying to say here. "If these gods are placed on the Sephiroth in order of succession of their birth the Egyptian correspondence of the Tree of Life becomes obvious." Maybe I'm daft, but it's not obvious to me. If someone wants to cite sources for this to prove it is not original research and rewrite the article so it's not so esoteric, I'd be willing to revisit my vote.--Isotope23 14:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above Briangotts (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No refs, and I've not been able to verify any of it. If it's legitimate, someone can write a new article later with proper refs. But I doubt it; the tree of life in Egypt is connected with the Osiris myth, and I'm familiar with that, but I don't have any idea where all this is coming from. No ref - delete. --DanielCD 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified. *drew 00:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Elemenstors

Delete. Looks like someone trying to create a fan site inside a WP article. Quote: "We're all fans here". --Trovatore 03:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. 70.27.59.200 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I’m not trying to make a fan site. All I’m trying to do is organize all the information available regarding the Elemenstors. I am certainly a fan of the fiction, otherwise why would I do this. I don’t think that should be a reason for deleting my entry though. I’ve catalogued a lot of good information here, some of it pretty obscure and hard to find. (Unsigned comment by 67.183.7.101)

• Delete: Regardless of intent, the article is set up to be a "wiki" in Wikipedia for fans. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (not a web host), and it is supposed to contain articles, just as you would find in an encyclopedia, that contextualize and explain the significance, importance, function, and history of a given topic. It is not a fan site nor a place to collect raw information. It is second-order information, digested and shaped into articles with theses and development (hence WP not a Yellow Pages, WP not a web guide, WP not a school directory, WP not a fansite, WP not GameFAQs, etc.). Geogre 09:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Please make sure you don't make self-references and say things like "this article" and "this wiki". Also, include a lead which gives context. Right now I have no clue what it is you're talking about. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or So Weak as to be almost infinitessimal Merge. Fancruft regarding current (11/07/2005) Penny-Arcade storyline. --Syrthiss 13:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft. Burn it, burn it all. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete To the article creator: please create a Geocities site with the material. It seems like you put work into creating it and the right audience would enjoy it. It just isn't encyclopedic. Durova 14:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete original(?) fiction. There is no "Elemenstors" series, so there can hardly be "fans" of it or "information available" for it. See Penny Arcade as identified by Syrthiss. — Haeleth Talk 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Of course it is real. Did you not see all the information I just posted about the Elemenstors!? I didn't just make all that up. I will try to make it more encyclopedic.

• Speedy delete as nonsense -- the content alone makes it obvious that this is poor-quality parody, and (before it gets suggested) unworthy of BJAOD --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft. *drew 23:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone misunderstood Tycho of PA. There is going to be a wiki project for this story. The creator of this article apparently didn't realize a "wiki" could be anything but Wikipedia. Kertrats | Talk 04:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is an attempt to use Wikipedia as a webhost for an external project; see the original announcement and the forum thread.--Dglynch 01:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Fancruft. I would feel a bit guilty voting delete when all this can still stick around. I agree the pokemon articles are better written then this but that isn't really justification. As far as I'm concerned, this is as notable/encyclopedic as any of that, just not as visually attractive. -Haon 02:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is not encyclopedic material. Yamaguchi先生 09:13, 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 redirect to Emerald Coast. - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emerald Coast (Florida)

Duplicate subject. This is a stub that does not contain anything that isn't already in Emerald Coast (I moved some place names over before nominating this.) Dalbury (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Emerald Coast. BrianSmithson 12:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. I'd be really surprised if anyone looked for Emerald Coast (Florida), but then redirects are cheap. As the nominator, I request an early close as Keep and Redirect. - Dalbury (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per above. PJM 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per above Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. As a completely irrelevant aside, this page was on Emerald (disambiguation), but Emerald Coast was not. I fixed it. - Dalbury (talk) 19:32, 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 strong consensus Keep for the rewrite, after nomination withdrawn. Xoloz 15:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Empress of the Seas

Delete. Text sounds like advertising, suspicion of copyright-violation Peter S. 14:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Copyvio. Text taken straight off from the website of Royal Caribbean. Nonetheless, I think cruise ships are inherently notable, so I won't oppose a rewritten version. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep the rewritten stub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if anyone is motivated to write non-copyvio content, else delete Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if rewritten to remove copyvio. 23skidoo 16:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I wrote it to stub quality on the temp page. Foofy 19:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• That's a nice stub. I would support using this stub instead of deleting the article. Peter S. 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep the rewrite. Carioca 21:07, 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, excluding anonymous votes.. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ernie Wetzler

Delete (or at least userfy). Possible vanity; subject is not notable. BD2412 T 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete with all haste. No indicia of notibility, even if assertions are true. Briangotts (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This subject is very close to my heart and should not be deleted. The subject matter is very notable and merits inclusion in the Wikipedia. 208.247.255.11 23:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity and non-notable. But preserve the picture for his mother show to unsuitable future girlfriends. Every parent should have at least one buttock-clenchingly embarrassing photo of their sons, just in case. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I disagree with deleting this article. Ernie Wetzler's accomplishments are quite notable. Not only was he awarded the HOPE Scholarchip (which is quite impressive on its own merits), but he also went on to become the youngest VP in the history of FIU Law School. Where does one draw the line on what is notable and what does not meet that threshold? It all seems quite arbitrary. Lopman 02:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Above is Lopman's third edit. I'm afraid I'd have to doubt the notability inherent in being the youngest-ever VP of a law school that just graduated its first class this year. BD2412 T 02:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • According to BD2412's user page, he too attended FIU Law School. Based on this fact, I'd have to question whether his push to have this article deleted is based upon jealousy for having not been Vice President or personal malice towards the subject matter as opposed to any objective consideration of the merits of its notability. Lopman 20:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • If he was at Harvard or Yale, and the youngest Vice President in the history of the law school, that would still not constitute encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 20:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article is quite interesting and could be of valuable use to people studing Ernie Wetzler's works. 68.48.241.47 06:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ^{User:68.48.241.47's fourth edit. BD2412 T 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete. I think the self-important photo says it all—this is pure vanity. Law school class vice-presidents are not notable, outside the context of an employment resumè. He hasn't yet performed any "works" that anyone would consider worth studying. Postdlf 21:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC) (GULC, '05)
• Delete quickly, borderline speedy deletion candidate. Nothing within this article expresses notability, nor does it meet any of the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:BIO. The name "Ernie Wetzler" returns a mere 11 matches on Google. [19] Hall Monitor 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If you searched on Google, you probably noticed that there is a web page devoted to the man where he is referred to as "The Intimidator" [20]. Notable? I think so. Lopman 23:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Pathetic is more like it. To think that a law student's ego is so thin and fragile that he not only needs to buttress it with a self-written encyclopedia article, but also to waste time casting "votes" (which will just be disregarded anyway) to try and defend his own flacid sense of self-worth. Ernie deserves our pity. Postdlf 23:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But didn't you make this web page, Lopman? — brighterorange (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline speedy. And, for full disclosure here, I am jealous. Very jealous. I think I may have to go to my room and cry. -R. fiend 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I had to do a report about Ernie for my social studies class and if it wasn't for this page I would have had nothing to present! 64.198.200.83 23:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ^{User:64.198.200.83's only edits. BD2412 T 01:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)}
• delete or userfy. The achievements cited don't really confer notability. — brighterorange (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. At first glance, this looked to me like another vain autobiography that should be speedily deleted, but after viewing that video, I must agree that Mr. Wetzler is quite notable. Zathura 04:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • But not very bright, if he thinks the "vote" of a user who never previously contributed to Wikipedia is going to count for anything.[21] Postdlf 04:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and cockpunch all sockpuppets. --Last Malthusian 20:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, added with the noisy sockpuppet. *drew 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This is clearly vanity, subject is not noteable in the least Yurigerhard 00:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or move to the user page side. Yamaguchi先生 15:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Escalator Child

Looks like a hoax. I can't find anything about a band called "Escalator Child". This and the article that are now redirects to it, should be deleted. -R. fiend 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete hoax or not, "Escalator Child" band scores the coveted zero Google hits. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delte - unverifiable. Fredrik | talk 22:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above, either way --Rogerd 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete. It would be unfair to delete this detailed history of a great band. You probably couldn't find anything on the net becuase the band has now sunk into the chasms of obscurity now.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article'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} 00:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ewelina Podsiadło

Seems like a nn-bio, but I don't know polish and can't check the source listed. Did a google search which only pulled 6 dissimilar results, all but one looked unrelated. So I thought I'd through it out for consideration. Fallsend 17:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete notability not established, fails the Google test Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable. *drew 01:14, 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} 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyelegal

Advert for non-notable website/organisation. No alexa rank. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, the second sentence "eyeLegal is proud to announce..." really tells everything. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Andrew 19:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and campaign ardently for a Speedy criterion for blatant spam. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 02:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertising. *drew 01:35, 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 merge & redirect (already implemented by involved parties). RobertG ♬ talk 11:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Film Out (NTSC)

This artcle might qualify as original research. My efforts to verify have proven futile. --TantalumTelluride 21:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• "Film Out" IS legit. Film out is a real term and a real process. In filmmaking, film out is the actual term used to describe the process of turning a video program into a film print. Also, it is broader than merely the film recording stage of the process. Sadly, it is spelled different ways -- with or without a hyphen, or as one word. It seems the hyphenated version may be the most common. The film out process is significally different depending on the regional standard of the video original in question, NTSC, PAL or SECAM; thus separate discussions are warrented for each type. Moreover, it would be worth finding out if the term is mainly used in NTSC regions -- it is a good bet that a different term is used in Europe, where one must cope with the speed version frame match choice of PAL when doing film out.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moontaurus (talk • contribs) 21:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC).
• Merge into Film-out Niz

• Hi there. "Film out" is process understood in the world of video and filmmaking, beyond just the industry. Useful "research" for instance: one can check in with one of the many "film out" companies linked in the article. One can also check in with independent filmmakers on IMDB and elsewhere on the internet -- especially documentary filmmakers. Thousands of filmmakers each year film out their projects. One can also find many articles on the subject, such as in American Cinemagrapher and many other popular as well as trade journals. I am sure that as this article matures that there will be added related discussion to the many known documentaris -- such as Dog Town and Z Boys, Farenheit 911, many many others -- that have been filmed out. Look before you leap :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moontaurus (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC).
• Merge with Film-out and keep whichever title is punctuated correctly. I've never heard of this process, and I still don't really understand what it is. Due to the unusual tone of the article, I thought it might have been a non-notable process that isn't really important to filmmaking. Please don't take this nomination personally. I wasn't sure that this article was legitimate. --TantalumTelluride 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per TanatlumTelluride. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. I used to work in video post-production. The firm where I was employed didn't do this but I can confirm it's no hoax. The article is badly in need of citations. Durova 22:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• I shall personally merge the information for the Film Out (NTSC) article into the Film-out article and do all that is neccessary to get it above board. User:Moontaurus has been in contact with me via e-mail and I should be able to complete this task in consultatation with him. Please only delete this article once I have posted back here to say that I have done this.

- Aaron Jethro 00:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Hi Aaron, the original author here. I'm a step of head of you. I have already re-written the article into the "film-out" page. Everybody, feel free to delete my original "Film Out (NTSC)" page. The article rightly belongs in subheadings of "film-out". Wikify it there instead!  :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moontaurus (talk • contribs) 01:06, 10 November 2005.
  • I was WP:BOLD and wiped out the content, leaving only the redirect. Looks like we can close this AFD. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 07:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Filter list rejection page

Almost no content. Likely a dicdef at best, and I'm sure we have this covered somewhere else. Non-notable anyway. Deltabeignet 03:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. —Cleared as filed. 09:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Fairly useless, as that's not actually the name of the page in most systems, and the article is a dictdef. Is it important to define this term, when the term isn't consistently used? I think not, so no need to mention transwiki -- just let it go its way peacefully. Geogre 09:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless and unencyclopaedic. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaper Gun

Non notable company that has 1 hit in Google [22]. Article attacks other company (ie: Nike) Hurricane111 00:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Probably worth of a db tag. The same IP was responsible for a number of vanity bios with decidedly spurious information. Jasmol 00:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. *drew 01:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Melchoir 02:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete do they mean Sean Casey (not Sean Carey?) Not notable per above even if they are somehow involved with a guy on my Cincinnati Reds. --W.marsh 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. PJM 03:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per nomination.--Alicejenny 08:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. -Haon 02:26, 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 speedied as an attack page. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Gilbert Daffins

Non-notable, non-wiki, looks like the vanity page of a kid, or a joke one kid is playing on another. Nyh 07:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I would've tagged that for speedy deletion. Jasmol 08:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and probably speedy as nn-bio. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George Yi

It is a hoax. I know the person who did it. This is why it's impossible to find references for it. -203.51.173.103 12:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Rapid Delete Does indeed smell like a hoax. Only refs are from term-paper sites, which put just about anything they are sent on line.--Alicejenny 12:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've been looking for sources for this article since it was first created, and in response, the original author put up those references. I still wasn't able to find any hint that this might have a basis in reality. —Cleared as filed. 14:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Has all the earmarks of a hoax. A professor of science? I agree about the only Google references being term paper sites. Durova 16:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --Cnwb 23:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of verifiability under WP:V. A Google search shows little to verify the claims. I have conducted a search of Australian media reports for this guy over the intranet. It came up with no results despite the fact that the article claims he was a notable medical researcher who died earlier this year. If that was the case, newspapers would have written an obituary outlining his contributions to the field. None has. Capitalistroadster 23:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 00:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. CSIRO doesn't even have a medical unit. Snottygobble | Talk 00:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I also posted a note at Wikipedia:WikiProject Preclinical Medicine for their view. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also, consider ban against author/anon IP with a history of vandalism. Edwardian 00:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless we suddenly find out he's legit. --Roisterer 06:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science and medicine-related deletions. --Edwardian 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified. *drew 00:43, 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 speedy delete. — Phil Welch 04:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Giraldo

In my opinion non-notable bio and so speedy delete-able, but added AfD just in case. --Nlu 07:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. None of his books on any of the ususal sites (Amazon etc.). That's a good yardstick for "authors" I think. Slight overkill tagging the page perhaps :) --Alicejenny 08:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete Ben Aveling 08:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: In the future, I suggest that you wait for the speedy tag to be removed before nominating an article on AfD, as it wastes time if it is speedily deleted. -- Kjkolb 09:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and speedy if possible. Did it really need two speedy tags and an AfD? What's the guy done to you, Nlu? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

(Response to both Kjkolb and Just zis Guy, you know?) Having both is in fact trying to speed things up -- since I really think it should be speedily deleted, but if not, then getting the AfD to move along is a good thing. --Nlu 22:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The more pressing concern on AfD is the number of articles nominated, not the speed at which they are deleted. -- Kjkolb 00:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• I took one look at this article and found that more than half of this page is devoted to templates. As a possible nn-bio and as a very short article, it has two speedy tags, then it has the tag for this AfD, and it is ALSO tagged for cleanup! You have to scroll down to see the actual words of the article! That means this is a bio of a non-notable person (CSD A7) with little-to-no context (CSD A1). Speedy delete, this meets two of the criteria. Wcquidditch | Talk 11:53, 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} 00:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Green Week

Silly hoax. -- Curps 15:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. What's a pre-assesor? JPD (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent nonsense Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:13, 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 with a 100% discount of sockpuppet votes. - Mailer Diablo 00:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grof

Despite their grofumentary and nice picture, I have a suspicion these guys fail the music notability criteria. Delete — picture should go at the same time. -- Egil 01:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC; we should have a dedicated button for these ones. Deltabeignet 01:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why don't we give the poor guys a day, then we can throw it into the cyberspace fire. Its not like we are running an encylopedia here. Sarcasm--Master Jay 02:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep you are based on mere suspicion. You have no proof of how many albums, if any, they have sold. And also no way of really knowing how famous they really are. And since none of us live in Puerto Rico, there is no way we know how famous they are. Since we can't be certain that they are famous, we can't affirm for certain that they are not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.153.8 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-09 02:17:15 UTC.
  • You are saying that no information about this band is verifiable. If that is indeed the case, then you have made a strong case for the deletion of this article. If you want to make a case for keeping it, you must provide the very information that you are saying isn't known, citing sources. Uncle G 03:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep La Secta Allstar has a space, here and they are not known very much through-out the US, besides their current guitarrist Mikey Genao is friend of their producer. That must mean something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.23.193.150 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-09 02:36:50 UTC.
• Delete Fails to meet WP:NMG as supposedly recording first album. No indication of tours or prominent members but plenty of socks. Unfortunately for them, it is not one of the criteria we use to assess notability. No Allmusic.com article and a search for Grof band "Puerto Rico" comes up with 504 results but not anything confirming the existence of this band let alone notability see [23]. Capitalistroadster 02:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've heard these guys play before, and you shall not judge them by their incomplete music criteria. So they might not have it complete, but that's not a reason to delete them. They have worked hard on their band, and these guys are serious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.23.215.230 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-09 02:44:53 UTC.
• Delete, fails above guidelines. Anonymous contributors, if they're so serious, then you can write about them after they do something notable. Melchoir 02:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Not on AMG, fails WP:Music. --W.marsh 03:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly NN as mentioned above...and their farcical Keep-votes only dig a deeper grave. PJM 04:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, contents of article make it perfectly clear that this band does not meet the notability criteria as set forth in WP:MUSIC. --Stormie 10:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Syrthiss 13:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Great they may be (and I have no reaosn to doubt it except inherent scepticism regarding any comment made by sockpuppets), bit notable they surely are not Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• My vote for delete always turns to strong delete when the puppets come out. Ifnord 15:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete whenever sockpuppets feel the need to emerge. ESkog | ^Talk 15:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Sophomoric SP's, no less. PJM 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:MUSIC. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They do appear on AMG. On allmusic.com they appear as Groof, typographical error. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.153.8 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The Groof on Allmusic was active in the 1990s. This article claims the band was founded in 2004. Something tells me they're not the same people - unless you're saying they have a time machine? — Haeleth Talk
• Keep Perhaps you should be more flexible and await for the opinion of a puertorican. It is evident that you haven't heard about them because they don't live in the U.S. Keep in mind that they live in a relatively small island, so its plausible that they are well known there, but, due to the lack of funds, they have been unable to travel around the world. Renée DuChesne—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.153.8 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

'

• Keep I am from Puerto Rico, this is a well recognized band withing the youth of our island, i belive it should stay it gives us pride that a common band within us is established for other to lear about, this band is from of the most prestigious schools in Puerto Rico San Ignacio de Loyola, a jesuit school. Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the US and feels strongly about their music. This is a band with not enough funds to tour US and many few are capable of doing so.

Lorenzo Bosque Puertorican Resident —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.167.98.165 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-09 21:35:28 (UTC).

• • Interesting that a "Puertorican Resident" should be commenting from a Florida IP address, eh? — Haeleth Talk
• Comment: Always good when the socks come by, it confirms the judgement to delete :-) Hey, I bet the applause at their gigs is quiet, what with all the fans having socks over one hand... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The AMG entry for "Groof" shows a band that has two EPs released in 1998 and 1999, long before Grof was formed in 2004. If we put all the sockpuppets in a dryer, would we invariably lose some of them? --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Well, who has the time to actually go looking for pointless articles in wikipedia and make a fuss about them to erase them? Let it be, man. Besides, I know these guys and they are well on their way to get their new album out, and they have potential. So please, lay off and give the guy who made this article peace of mind, and let Grof amuse themselves.

Roberto Ramirez de Arellano, Puerto Rican rezzadent & pirate —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.237.184.224 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-09 22:09:44 (UTC).

• • Impressively, this user is actually contributing from Puerto Rico. However, he's still acknowledging that this article meets our criteria for deletion. Roberto, sorry, but that's why we want to delete it. — Haeleth Talk
• Delete, per all above... including the sock puppets who don't seem to understand what "notable" means. — Haeleth Talk 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Haeleth i am a resident from puerto rico san juan especialy look up mi name in google i apear as a contributer to comunity service and what is your personal grude to delte this band, and this ip is not from florida

COMMENT: How did so many people come across this article?

REPLY: Recently we puertoricans have come across this news, as more and more people realize that a known band is being deleted from this page more puertoricans will stand up

(A more rationale reply) Something I enjoy about Wikipedia is the idea of consensus. It's not like a vote per se. If I see on AfD that more than three people voted to delete and no one has voted to keep - I don't need to poke my nose in. Only when there is a disagreement will I look at the article and then weigh in on the debate. Here we have what appears to be a debate - but in reality it's deletes and sockpuppets. More people will enter the fray if they believe the voting is being skewed by puppets. Ifnord 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

"KEEP" I know all members of this band personally. They are rising stars and have the contacts to be big. There album do to come out in the next months will be extremly succesful down here in P.R. I know this because they are extremly passionate about there music. They are also racking up the gigs at battle of the bands they also play at most school or student organized activities and everybody loves them.

Jame Gavin

"KEEP" I am resident of Puerto Rico and i know this band personally and i think theyre great. They should not be deleted because they are unknow in teh U.S.for they have a great deal of followers here in P.R.

                               Rodrigo "abuela" Vazquez

KEEP- they show a good sense of music and talent. They should be given the recognition they deserve. It is not easy to have a band like that at that age, I think that you should keep the article to it serves as an example to other musicians that wish to be in a band. This serves as an example to young kids and adults to never give up your dreams, just stick with them and you will acomplishe in life what yu want.

• Comment Enough already with the sock voting. You've made your point. However, Wikipedia is not the place to promote 'up and coming' talent. Get signed by a notable label, release a couple of albums and try again. Lots of luck to you. PJM 01:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• CommentThe rules says that for a band to apear her they must have hit a number 100 nationaly, there albun is coming out next moth give them till then if they dont hit the charts erase them but if they do they can llegaly stay (Sugestion)
  • The converse of that argument is WP:ISNOT a crystal ball. Delete them now and if they make it big, THEN reinstate. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC, plus the noisy sockpuppet. *drew 23:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This has turned into such a mess. Kill it already. -Haon 02:37, 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 1, 2, 3, uhhhh....7m, 4d, 1k...no consensus, leaning to merge. - Mailer Diablo 14:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GURPS Horseclans

• Delete because book reports (especially brief ones) don't make for encyclopedic content. Also, to recommend the book is POV. It could be cleaned up, but I doubt the notability of the subject matter (though I'm not an expert on Robert Adams' works). 70.27.59.200 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or merge this and all the other GURPS-cruft into the main GURPS article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 03:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all GURPS books without an individual claim to notability into List of GURPS books. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge salvagable info (mainly on setting) into GURPS since a cursory glance appears to show it's not there yet. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all GURPS-cruft per horsepunchkid.--Isotope23 14:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete GURPScruft. Merge if you must. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into GURPS. Needs NPOV editing. Durova 15:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. As usual, no deletion required. Trollderella 17:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have just rewritten this article into a perfectly fine stub, plenty of less "notable" books have as much. Bryan 04:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm still planning to merge this into List of GURPS books at some point. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge --SockpuppetSamuelson 08:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and direct to List of GURPS books Yamaguchi先生 07:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - EXTREME CABALISTIC LESBIAN DO NOT MERGE into GURPS. GURPS is a universal ruleset, and this is one of dozens of different setting books for GURPS, and not even a particularly important setting book. If people want this merged, List of GURPS books is the place. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gutterpirate

Not sure what this is. Looks as though it's the nickname given to some people who discuss Harry Potter in a webforum. If so then not notable. DJ Clayworth 21:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable (and sad) Niz
• Delete neologism. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with DJ Clayworth. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:45, 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 Not even the nominator wants this page deleted. If this is to be megred somewhere the target ought to be hashed out on the article talk page, not on AfD. Pilatus 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Handle-o-Meter

not notable -- Zondor 15:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• merge Johnson & Johnson -- Zondor 15:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• So merge it. Don't bring articles to afd unless you want them deleted. —Cryptic (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge; I think that Zondor took the article here looking for opinions about the merge; the appropriate way for doing this is by using the {{merge}} or {{mergeto}} tags as specified in WP:MERGE. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move to Thwing-Albert (who appear to be the actual makers of the handle-o-meter). I have to vote keep on anything so gloriously esoteric as the "Thwing-Albert Patent Handle-O-Meter"! - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:07, 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} 00:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Herbion

This article is SPAM. The company receives few hits on Google and the article contains unsubstantiated, unsourced advertising claims. Swegner 23:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, blatant advertising. Melchoir 23:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam. Text is most likely a copyvio as well. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert --Rogerd 02:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Haon 02:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How to predict US vetoes

See also Violence and evolutionary psychology (AfD discussion) and Sociobiological analysis of rape (AfD discussion).

Original research, not appropriate for Wikipedia. The disclaimer at the top, strangely, seems to ask for the article to be AfD'd. Delete. — JIP | Talk 12:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete What a great article! which should be hosted ELSEWHERE on the net - this is original independant research, not reviewed, conjecture and heavily POV influenced. but its pretty good! bjrobinson
• Delete: It sure seems to be part of someone's political science paper in college, and I read the disclaimer as kind of indicating that. I hope he cut and pasted the stuff back by now, because the article is going to be righteously deleted. Geogre 12:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please note that 80.33.212.189 (talk • contribs) (80.58.4.170 is just the IP address of the back end of xyr HTTP proxy.) has now given us three original research articles, all with the same "I'm writing this here so that you can see it in the 5 days that it takes to delete articles." preface at the top. Uncle G 12:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as it violates WP:NOR. Someone sign this kid up for a Blogger account.--Isotope23 15:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Given the disclaimer at the top, which clearly states that the contributor has no illusions that this "article" belongs in an encyclopedia, surely all three of these can be speedy deleted as G7 (author request). —Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Good OR is still OR. This deserves hosting somewhere else on the Web. Durova 16:46, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't even think it's good OR. The author fits the number of vetoes (he doesn't say whether he means cumulative number, or number in a given year) to an unmotivated empirical curve that predicts the number will eventually go negative, and in which he uses the term "log" without specifying whether it's natural log or base-10 log. The reader is apparently supposed to divine some political message from all this, but what it is is very unclear. --Trovatore 19:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedic. --DanielCD 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I suggest that similar contributions from him in the future, be speedily deleted, as he is gaming the system. -- Kjkolb 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Not just OR, but OR with some sort of agenda. Agree with Kjkolb that similar contributions be speedily deleted. Jasmol 21:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This was first posted on Everything2 and apparently copied here by the author. It was appropriate there, but not here. Encourage the author to edit United States and the United Nations and Israel and the United Nations in an NPOV fashion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as speedily as possible. Can't this be considered vandalism or something for convenience's sake? — Haeleth Talk 22:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Yet another essay from this person. Yet another violation of WP:NOT a soapbox and WP:NOR -- in fact, these are starting to break other policies, as that disclaimer is borderline on CSD G7, and if this keeps up, WP:POINT could be violated as well! This, like all the others, needs to go. Anyone else think these AfDs could be merged? Wcquidditch | Talk 00:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal essays violate NOR. HGB 00:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (but agree with above advice to expand United States and the United Nations to cover use of vetoes). BD2412 T 02:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• On deletion. Sorry if this post comes too late (I didn't know the authors could discuss their own possibilities.) Firstly some concern about the funny speech from Trovatore~~ 1_Cummulative vs relative data? Can it be so hard to decide, even if the text insists with contumacy that vetoed proposals per year, among a total of n=206 instances, occur at a given percentage? 2_Logarithm base? When reading 'log', and not 'ln', the base is usually decimal in nature, as can be seen here, this reference being evidently NPOV (otherwise it couldn't be there.) 3_Unmotivated regression curve? Don't forget it has been obtained after deep meditation, which involves stochastical methods in order to find out the best function fitting to data pool. 4_Very unclear political message? I wonder, when things result as dark as you say, if it actually does exist. Lastly something about encyclopoedic nuances ~~ (.../...)
  • OK, way off topic, but no, you didn't read the Logarithm article carefully enough. There are (at least) two competing conventions, and the author didn't say which was being used. As for "deep meditation", I don't reject that out of hand as a source of knowledge, but it's hard to source it in an article. Also, maybe the author needs to see his guru and get his mantra adjusted, if the one he's got has him predicting negative vetoes sooner or later. --Trovatore 23:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Pavorous neutrality is hitting again, isn't it?~~ May I suggest either of the following ways to solve the negative vetoes' dilemma? Negative veto = positive vote; or negative veto = singularity. Even the best, more reputated mathematical models have some pathological behavior when applied to certain domains. Whichever it is the chosen way, your immaculate NPOV will be preserved. HerMan. 15:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• On deletion (.../...). In this particular article there are verifiable, massive data emphasizing certain policies that could be historically relevant. Why to waste such encyclopoedic knowledge by deleting the entire node? I thing to have understood that everybody here can edit whichever it's the article they decide. Obviously you had my permission to do it with mine. But you are reluctant because of your restrained policy, or something whose goal I'm not able of reaching. Thus, the point now is: should it be feasible to modify the node as aseptically as possible? I mean, a few words and a link to E2?. If not, and it's nuked, I'd like to be guaranteed that it never will be re-edited without my consent. Many thanks in advance. HerMan. 19:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If I'm understanding you correctly, that means that if it gets deleted, you request this to be protected from recreation? Not sure if AfD is the right place to bring that up... Wcquidditch | Talk 23:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay ~~ I'll be quietly waiting here for somebody who knows the answer. HerMan. 15:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. *drew 00:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete OR. Edwardian 02:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research and non-encyclopedic. Jtmichcock 13:00, 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 'Userfied' . -Doc ^ask? 10:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Rickard

This article does not make it clear why Mr. Rickard is notable enough to be included in an encylopaedia. --Slashme 11:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete "currently researching for a PhD." makes him non-notable by default. I'd be willing to change my vote if it turns out he's done major work that had press or expert attention, or if he has an excessive amount of publications to his name.- Mgm|^(talk) 12:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• User:Ianrickard has properly userfied this to his user page, all that needs to be done is speedy the leftover redirect in the article namespace. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteI see nothing special about this doctoral candidate. Even if he were department head he would need exceptional scientific or civic accomplishments to merit an article. Durova 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ibro Hasanovic

Film maker, not in IMDB. Appears non-notable. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

While he passes the Google test, this page seems to be a vanity addition (cf. 80.65.70.158's addition of birthdays). Might be better to wait until someone else considers him notable enough. Nomination seconded. --Mgreenbe 14:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I disagree that he passes the Google test. His projects may have been reviewed in Variety and The New York Times but he's credited as a digital effects artist. That's too minor a level of artistic contribution to be noteworthy unless he wins an Academy Award or revolutionizes the field. Durova 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, this might be made into a decent article in theory, but is is nearly contentless now and nothing would be lost by a deletion. Dsol 20:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No IMDb entry. *drew 00:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infuquitable

Delete.It is dictionary definition for a made up word. There is no reason to keep it. It has "no encyclopedic value" as it is nonnotable as an extremely little used word at best and original research/factually untrue at worst. I would transwiki it to Wiktionary but given that it's a neologism, that would be silly. The definition has been changed significantly by the creator of the page since its creation, showing that it is either completely contrived, or is so new as to have no stable definition and hence be a nonnotable current event not worthy of our time. This falls under the informally proposed speedy deletion category of Complete Bollocks, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poffenberger. WAvegetarian 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete neologism / dicdef / vanity / nonsense Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. - ulayiti (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above, and I'd back you on the extra tag.. - N (talk) 00:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ioulia Vladimirovna Artemova

No notability of this person is given. She has a PhD, yes, but...there needs to be more than that to merit an article, in my opinion. I put on an explain significance tag in August, and nothing has been added, so I say delete. If someone can expand to explain her notability, I will happily change my mind. --Etacar11 19:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. All Google hits seem to be wikimirrors (at least first 7 pages were). --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment She gets 6 hits at ADS, but that is NOT a good argument for her notability. 3 ApJ papers and 3 conference proceedings. In a "publish or perish" field...that's not a large number. And it's all 2001 or earlier, which makes me wonder if she's even still working in the field. But hey, I'm perfectly open to keeping if evidence is presented...I just don't see any right now. --Etacar11 20:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Papers aside, there needs to be some reason for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Significant awards, etc. --Syrthiss 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN astrophycist. I bet you she ends up working as a programmer - I'd say about half our developers are PhD astros. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. *drew 01:49, 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. — JIP | Talk 08:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jerome Napoleon Charles Bonaparte

Individual seems notable only as a consequence of being distantly related to the more famous Napoleon Bonaparte of France. While I'm certain that the individual in question merits a mention on someone else's page (his father's page, for example, who seems marginally noteworthy in his own right), this entry reads simply like a geneology entry, and provides no reason why Jerome Napoleon Charles Bonaparte is, himself, worthy of a full, seperate Wikipedia entry. Extreme Unction 15:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a speedy, unless being the son of a notable person is a claim to notability. JPD (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is the son (1) of the son (2) of the son (3) of the brother (4) of Napoleon Bonaparte. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and support speedy if possible. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Merge with Bonaparte and redirect. Some folks may be notable only for their name or family connections. Descendents of Napoleon Bonaparte also fall within that category. Smerdis of Tlön 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Your argument is flawed. Your chosen example satisfies the WP:BIO criteria on several grounds, including (for starters) being the subject of extensive media coverage and third party biographies. Someone who is only related to notable people indeed does not satisfy the WP:BIO criteria. Wikipedia is not a genealogy database. That's Wikitree's job. Uncle G 19:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there an article here where the various Bonapartes can be identified (and this merged)? Smerdis of Tlön 19:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is. Merge any data not already there with Bonaparte and redirect. Smerdis of Tlön 15:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He is the great-great-nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte (if I have my genealogical relationships correct). Doesn’t seem like much of a claim to notability, unless ALL relatives of Napoleon, no matter how distant, are considered notable. If I traced my genealogy back far enough, I could probably find a relationship. ♠DanMS 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• merge into a list of descendents of Napoleon or something. Trollderella 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. He isn't a descendent of Napolean, he is a decendent of one of Napolean's brothers. Not that I want to see a list of Napolean's descendents, either. - Dalbury (talk) 19:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Bush family contains brief coverage of the minor ancestors of the Bushes. Something similar could be done for the minor decendents of Napoleon. - SimonP 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Merge into what? - Dalbury (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Merge this and related articles into a general one the descendents of Napoleon. - SimonP 15:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • But he's not a descendent of Napoleon. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment He is already listed in Bonaparte. -Dalbury (talk)

Delete, Not notable enough in own right and not a descendant of Napoleon.-Dakota ^{t e} 20:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Argh! He is already listed in Bonaparte. The only new info in Jerome Napoleon Charles Bonaparte is the ancestry of his wife. Note that there are many more names in Bonaparte that do not yet have their own articles. Just how far will this be taken? - Dalbury (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only claim to fame is a distant relationship with Napoleon. I'm related to someone famous, but you don't see my article on Wikipedia? Or are all descendants of famous people now inherently notable and automatic speedy keeps? Saberwyn 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Napoleon Bonaparte was the founder of a ruling dynasty. Yes, this makes information about his family and descendants somewhat notable, even if they could never make it in on their own merits. The information should be preserved somewhere. Smerdis of Tlön 15:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable *drew 01:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Bonaparte as per above. Ejrrjs | What? 01:12, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jon Rakes

• Delete: According to the only source I could find, he lasted 70 minutes in a "World Series" Poker Tournament. I don't think that meets Wikipedia's criteria for WP:BIO Jasmol 01:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Speedy Delete if possible. Deltabeignet 01:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Alhutch 04:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete please. Essexmutant 06:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, removing unsourced POV statements that he put up an "amazing fight" and that he is a "local legendary basketball player" leaves the article pretty much void of useful info. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 23:46, 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} 00:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kandeeban

Didn't put the AFD tag, but just finishing out the process. Anyways, should be speedy delete due to nonsense. Fallsend 18:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and speedy as either personal attack or nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Andrew 18:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy D Tintin 23:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. *drew 01:36, 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 speedy delete. -R. fiend 00:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kevin Trimmer

delete part of ongoing vandalism by Special:Contributions&target=206.15.236.254. Arniep 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete could pass db-bio or nonsense criteria. Jasmol 22:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• As the content of this page is "Kevin is a punching bag. He gets beaten up by Evan Ream and Benjamin Klein" I have taken the liberty of adding a speedy delete tag under WP:CSD A7. Sliggy 23:55, 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} 00:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kirk Kirkleson

Appears to be hoax. No relevent google hits for Douglas P. Barnam Zombie or Kirk Kirkleson. Nothing on amazon.com --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability can be established per the usual guidelines (I didn't have any better luck than JiFish in proving that) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is not a hoax, I believe it should be deleted. It raises the larger question of the scope of Wikipedia. Should every fictional character in every story ever published be an entry in an encyclopedia, even the vast Wikipedia? I think not.

• Delete unverifiable. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 19:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax or NN, take your pick --Rogerd 02:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. *drew 01:15, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Largest urban areas of the European Union

This list is absolute nonsense and should be deleted.. The list is absolutely not credible or reliable... the definition that the writer tries to explain is vague and totally subjective. There is already an article ranking EU cities by official "city" populations that has credible sources unlike this. Instead of this being one list from one definitive official government source listing the largest cities in Europe according to a uniform standard, this is just some one person's únofficial collection of information from various "sources". This is simply not an official list from a credible source. The author of the article also labels the article an "attempt" to rank EU cities by size - his attempt. I don't think the Wiki is the place for such attempts let official government offices do that. The defintion used here to define an urban area is an invention of who ever wrote this article and is not applied uniformly throughout the article. The ranking is mostly confusing misinformation - there are some things here that simply make no sense- why does the Paris urban area encompass basically all of the Ile de France region, a huge region including urban, surburban, and even rural areas, while London here only includes the areas inside the so-called Green Belt when the city's surbuban sprawl is far larger. And those are just two examples of the many anamolies here. I don't get it - the method used for this list is nonsense and is not in line with any EU statistics or in many cases the official sources from the individual cities. It is articles like this that makes so many people distrust the information on wikipedia. 84.153.37.123 12:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• It is not necessary to delete the article in order to rewrite it in the way that you describe. One doesn't even need an account in order to do so. This is Articles for deletion. Don't come here unless you want an administrator to delete an article. Wikipedia:Requests for comment is across the quad. Uncle G 13:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I said the article should be deleted and not rewritten, I only suggested rewriting as one possible alternative in case nobody saw a reason for deletion. The article is flawed - the title says list largest urban areas in the EU, there is already an article listing the largest cities in the EU according to official population. The ranking is not credible or official as i said and that makes the article unneccesary in my opinion. Maybe I was not totally clear but i do think the article should be deleted. --Jimini 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can point out who would want to know this stuff (and could not find it easily elsewhere) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • comment- the people at Global city would cetainly be interested. Davidrowe 08:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral The article talk points out serious methodology and citation problems. I'm not sure this should go straight to deletion. Has mediation been tried? Durova 16:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• I can not see how this article can be fundamentally improved- the whole problem is the author's notion of an urban area- it is pretty much a one-man invetion and the ranking is not trustworthy at all... I don't see what mediation will change for this and after all there is already a Wiki article that lists the EU cities ranked by official city population.. --Jimini 21:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Trollderella 17:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• How would you improve it unless you delete the ranking, which is the reasoning behing the article - I do not see any way to improve it..without a real list (ranking) by some official source, which I guess the EU has not made so as not to offend anyone probably.--Jimini 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep ok list.  Grue  18:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The angry user who proposed the list for deletion doesn't seem to know much about statistics. It's not even worth arguing. Everybody just check the World Urbanization Prospects report pulished by the United Nations in 2003 ([24]), look at Table A.12, and you'll see that the UN figures are strikingly similar to those in the table proposed for deletion. So if the list is "absolute nonsense" and "absolutely not credible", then call the United Nations statisticians to let them know that their data are absolute nonsense and that you know better. Hardouin 03:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Well it is your list so of course you are going to say keep it..and actually you make a good point if the UN stats are so similar, why not just use those official stats instead of your little collection. And I am not angry I just think your list is not credible.
• Keep. The list's methodology makes a lot more sense than Largest European metropolitan areas. Martg76 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Davidrowe 09:21, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lee Goddard

Delete Unverified, no context, probable hoax, almost no google hits for anything [25]. I'm not sure it can't be speedied as nonsense. Sam Vimes 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Looks like someone's inside joke. Durova 17:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G1 or G3. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Since Google turns up no references to “ball tap” as the “fusion of ballet and tap”, there is no legitimate claim to notability, if in fact there is such a person as Lee Goddard. ♠DanMS 21:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 02:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per above. *drew 01:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of artists influenced by Pink Floyd

Delete - unencyclopedic, original research, admited as incomplete; and never could be). Andy Mabbett 15:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 13:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Great 3am diner talk, but not worthy of an article. PJM 13:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV listcruft Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Pink Floyd but only if the artist has publicly admitted the influence. 23skidoo 16:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article but merge anything verifiable into Pink Floyd —Wahoofive (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone wants to take the job of doing the verification and the merge, that's fine. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (FWIW: Pink Floyd was my favorite band for several years in High School). Regarding merge with Pink Floyd, according to this page on Insound.com [[26]], it could be a lengthy list. Actually, I think there are a number of music sites that track influences like this; probably doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. In fact, I think it opens the door to self-promotion. Jasmol 18:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopedia material at all. If someone was influenced by them, that can be mentioned in their article. But this list is just not important in my opinion. How will you define influence? How much influence is important? Non-encyclopedic material. --DanielCD 20:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Move major artists who have verifiably claimed to be influenced to Pink Floyd article, add how if possible. Delete this article as OR ("by the sound of their music" criteria) and listcruft. Saberwyn 21:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unencyclopedic. *drew 00:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Latin phrases

KEEP IT. This is what the wiki is all about. These phrases are not dead - at least not all of them. How often do you get a letter that uses a phrase and you cant remember what it means. How often do we search to the right phrase for our context?

• Keep it!!! - Why would anyone want to delete this? It's a great article. You should keep it! Dposse
• Keep It - For someone who enjoys being overly verbose, this article serves very well.
• Keep It - This is a great page. Only useful Latin to English page I have found. Please keep.
• Keep - It's something I often refer to and the only page like it that I've been able to find. It's also the only wikipedia entry that I've bookmarked. Don't let it go! 60.177.40.58 18:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep!! I just found this useful reference - I'm always looking for this kind of information as a middle school teacher - my students hadn't heard of e.g. or i.e. before, and this is the only page I found with "versus" on it! VERY useful. Thank you! 69.107.252.169 17:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not complete and exhaustive, but sure it's informative and VERY useful. First in google if you type list of latin expression. Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 09:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So it's not complete and exhaustive, that will come in time, but it's incredibly informative and instantly useful. [14:55, 13 November 2005 (GMT)]
• Keep it!@
• Permanently incomplete, indiscriminate list of loosely associated topics. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. -- Perfecto  15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Delete per nom. -- Perfecto  15:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strongest possible (and speedy) keep. This article has more than 250 links and an edit history that is quite extensive. If the article were deleted it would be inevitably recreated. If the point of this nomination is to underline the absurdity of "Wikipedia is not a dictionary", I might agree with the sentiment, but still, don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point. Smerdis of Tlön 16:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep one of the very few lists I think is worth keeping. A list of common latin phrases is encyclopaedic, IMO. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the influence of Latin on English is very encyclopedic, and this list is part of the evidence for that. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although the list occasionally does need cleaning up (like now, probably). Adam Bishop 17:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I use this a lot. Trollderella 17:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - WLD 17:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Permanently incomplete could be said about any history article. If its gotten messy, clean it or add a cleanup tag. Besides, it has Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. which is my personal favorite latin phrase (this would be the humor part of my post) KillerChihuahua 17:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this list is not a dicdef so you can't transwiki it to Wiktionary, and considering the large number of notable Latin phrases in both everyday and "specialist" use it's a worthwhile and usefull list to keep. I also don't see it's premanently incomplete status as a problem, and I can't recall ever seeing that used as a reason to delete other lists either. --Sherool 18:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Smerdis's argument, quod vide. Andrew Levine 19:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The information is useful and encyclopedic. Perhaps the format can be worked on some, the the list could be more tightly defined (such as Law phrases, every day speech phrases, reference phrases, philosophy phrases, etc.). I just think it's good to have because latin phrases can be linked to it. --DanielCD 20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I disagree that this is a bad-faith nomination, but have no objection to the article. However, it should be limited to Latin phrases that are still in use and its name should be changed to something like "Common Latin phrases" or "List of common Latin phrases". -- Kjkolb 20:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I don't think this is necessarily a bad faith nomination... but this is possibly the first useful list I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's notable in the respect that many of these phrases are used today, particularly as legal jargon. I despise listcruft, but this is good, useful, encyclopedic material.--Isotope23 21:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it! I'm forwarding the link to friends and family. I found a perfect Latin phrase for what I wanted to say here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.96.242.127 (talk • contribs).
• Keep Agreeing with above, this isn't really a definition, more encyclopedic. Beside which, it is well written, so it it were to be removed from here it should be put into the dictionary, but it won't fit well there (as it's a list).
• Keep "Permanently incomplete" is actually a nice definition of true knowledge (or else one might consider deleting Wikipedia ;-)). But I do agree with the point that the article could do with some restructuring, plus a few general explanatory remarks on the history of Latin phrases in English, with links to the appropriate articles. T.a.k. 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's useful information. I just looked up per se because I know someone who uses the term with annoying frequency. Permanent incompleteness doesn't seem, prima facie, to be a good reason to delete the article. Do you know what prima facie means? Guess where you can find out? (vote by 203.43.52.195 )
• Keep: I was searching all over the place for a good list of Latin phrases, and this is the best in my opinion! Please keep it! vote by: Lil_Rebbitzen
• Keep - Please, please keep this page. I rely on this list. 22:13, 9 November 2005

Please keep this page, it's very informative and helpful, and a lot of information is available in one source.

• KEEP Well worth its weight in gold. Which, admittedly isn't much, but still worth keeping. >>robertss>>November 9, 2005
• Keep. A very useful list which I personally have used several times. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, useful list. Punkmorten 16:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep At times I've had trouble understanding articals W/O use of a dictionary, and I don't have a latin dictionary.
• Keep I use this page extensively; it is difficult to find this information. While it may be outside the scope of a typical Wikipedia encyclopedia page, it is hard to find a place where it does fit. This would not be replaced by a dictionary, but a collection of phrases, but the central location is very helpful. It is noteworthy that this page could be divided into categories (law, medicine, historical, etc.). However, deleting it would be folly; I am certain it would simply be recreated.
• Keep, This is an excellent page; its usefullness is indisputable.
• Keep Though I understand long lists might make Wikipedians nervous, this is an extremely useful one, and I think it is encyclopedic enough. --Leapfrog314 04:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP Useful list. November 10 2005.
• Keep, though it needs some formatting clean-up that I once proposed but never actually got around to implementing. —HorsePunchKid→龜 05:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, An useful list, and should exist to support other pages, but not to be a page for itself. ipridian 15:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Why delete something usefull!, 15:33 11 November 2005 (EST)

please keep!

• Keep There's ways you can change it to make it better fit Wikipedia, yes. Make it common phrases, or section the phrases. But it has so many references back to it that removing it is nutters, quod vide Smerdis' argument. Tavish 03:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful quick reference. 15:00 12 November 2005
• Keep I'm shocked that this page is even being considered for deletion. It may be incomplete, but without anything to add to how will it be expanded. It is a list, but exceptions should be made - Wikipedia would be incomplete without it. --Shastrix 20:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, It's too useful a reference to be deleted.
• Keep: the initial premise "Permanently incomplete" is no argument; no such list can be complete, but how many Wikipedia articles are perfect? RachelBrown 22:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is a very notworthy article. --Mb1000 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I have relied upon this page so frequently that it is the reason I have begun to contribute to Wikipedia. Peter Johnson (04:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC))
• Keep: Res ipsa loquitor. Laszlo Panaflex 09:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, This is a very useful page. It shouldn't be deleted.
• Keep. Good & useful list whether it's complete or not. - splot 13:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - De facto. --Kilo-Lima 22:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Ab imo pectore, please keep this! Succeeds in ways that traditional encycopedias fail; res ipsa loquitur. Res ipsa loquitur, sed quid in infernos dicit?!
• Keep I just edited it to fix a minor typo, so now it's new and improved, better than ever! Chris the speller 00:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of websites using Ajax

Delete article which is simply a collection of external links. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Mindmatrix 02:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Even encyclopedias have appendixes and/or references to exterior sources. This is a very pertinent page. If people wants to remove it please add the content to the more generic ajax page.
• Keep it has more potential than the List of Guantanamo detainees, which survived AfD. Eventually, the external links could become articles. Joaquin Murietta 08:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, consists solely of external links, sites will be added for advertising. -- Kjkolb 08:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Kjkolb. —Cleared as filed. 09:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as said the page adds no value, suggest moving the most important links into Ajax (programming) and deleting list page. -- StephenHildrey 09:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia articles are NOT lists of external links. The major ones can be included in the article on Ajax article as suggested above. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as MGM --Carlos Prats 11:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Mgm has (as usual) hit the nail firmly on the head. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ESkog | ^Talk 15:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. KillerChihuahua 18:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreeing with Kjkolb and MGM. Note that "AJAX" (an acronym, not "Ajax") is not a software package whose use can be verified, but a set of techniques whose use is not really notable in distinguishing these sites (not a complete nor completable list) from others. Barno 20:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, all of the good reasons have been listed. Also, as a direct counterpoint to the only keep, most of those sites already have articles, but the list isn't merit-worthy enough. If we're going to do this, why not create List of websites using HTML. ^demon 02:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 04:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• NN, D. ComCat 05:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't make much sense - we have one kind of vaguely defined technology that can, and will, be used everywhere if the hype is to be believed. So this list is going to become unmaintainable, huge, and pointless, hard to tell apart wheat and chaff. --Wwwwolf 13:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For a rapidly advancing technology, such as Ajax, lists such as these provide valuable references. Occasional "pruning" eventually may be needed of really "old" entries. Dynamic lists, such as this one, are of value. frankatca 20:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the best articles on wikipedia, even if it is just a collection of links. AJAX is in its infancy, and only some websites implement it as yet. I would not have known about many AJAXed websites, were it not for this article. I view this article as a growing list, and a prime example of the benefits of collaborative writing. This article would need to be deleted/modified when the list of AJAX websites is huge, but now is not the time. (unsigned comment by User:65.93.219.169 - first edit on WP)
• Keep For anyone interested in learning more about AJAX this list of early adopters allows one to research the breadth and types of web applications which can be built, and the maturity of those applications. (unsigned comment by User:162.33.148.242 - first edit in 5 months; four edits total, two on this page)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a web directory. Ditto. Nuf said. --Abu Badali 17:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above arguments. *drew 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I fell on this page from google looking for groupware components. It has been very useful to me. --Michel Parisien 4:45 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unless we're going to add a 'list of pages which use tables' page...(unsigned comment by User:193.62.25.51) - third edit on WP
• Keep Until (if) the technology becomes truly ubiquitous, it is useful to give instances of the technology's use. Paring the list to only a few and including those into the article would take away from this purpose as someone wanting to educate themselves on a technology not yet in broad use would probably want to see it used in a variety of circumstances to observe what uses are closest to his/her specific interest   I found the list useful for that reason. The advertising danger seems relatively small given that a site would have to specifically fit in a relatively small population of sites that use AJAX. Since the use of the technology isn't ubiquitous, this isn't "turning the Wikipedia into a web directory." Adam Faanes 10:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete' Wikipedia is not a web directory. It doesn't matter if people find a web directory usefull. If tthey do, they should go to one, make one, or whatever. We're not it. Shanes 20:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Crop/Merge with Ajax (programming)#External links (which I'm realizing could use a little cropping as is...) -Haon 02:42, 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. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 00:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Louise-Eugénie Bonaparte

Individual seems notable only as a consequence of being distantly related to the more famous Napoleon Bonaparte of France. While I'm certain that the individual in question merits a mention on someone else's page (her father's page, for example, who seems marginally noteworthy in his own right), this entry reads simply like a geneology entry, and provides no reason why Louise-Eugénie Bonaparte is, herself, worthy of a full, seperate Wikipedia entry. Extreme Unction 15:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a speedy, unless being the daughter of a notable person is a claim to notability. JPD (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is the daughter of the son of the brother of Napoleon Bonaparte. Merge can be acceptable. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 16:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No notable accomplishments in her own right. Durova 16:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a footnote to a footnote in history. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• There's an inconsistency in this article. The Bonaparte article lists her as the daughter of Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte II, rather than the daughter of Napoléon Joseph Charles Paul Bonaparte. I vote to redirect to Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte II, since that seems to be the correct parent. — RJH 17:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

She's still pretty non-noteable regardless of who her actual father is. Just sayin'. — Extreme Unction 17:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• • • Comment I indeed noticed an inconsistency at some point, but was too busy voting delete on all these people to check. The fact that there is a mistake somewhere should push us to delete as soon as possible, as the presence of obvious mistakes like this one really hurt the project. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• merge into a list of descendents of Napoleon or something. Trollderella 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. *drew 01:12, 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} 01:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Love Cinema Vol. 6

non-notable band vanity Jdcooper 14:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete as per nom. Jdcooper 14:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable and virtually content-free Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 03:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 01:02, 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Magic" Scott Henderson

Not notable. Vanity page. -- Krash 13:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, or rather "make it disappear", per nom --Wordmonkey 13:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom - alla-kazaam *poof*. PJM 13:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete too many jokes Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete non-notable vanity page Jasmol 18:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest keeping. I've bought instructional videos from this guy's website. Do we need a separate list of magicians who aren't exactly uber-famous, but who are performing magicians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.30.85.16 (talk • contribs).

• Delete per nom. *drew 00:55, 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 dealt with as copyvio. - Mailer Diablo 01:17, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark 16:15-18 and Matthew 28:18-20

Individual chapters from the bible or other religious tracts are bad ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 20:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• No, that's the Necronomicon you're thinking of. Chapters from the Bible are presumed Good. However, they're still not encyclopedic. Delete. Barno 20:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove as a copyright violation. Text is from NIV [27] and [28], which is copyrighted [29].--Jwinters | Talk 20:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Are you saying it's a copyvio to publish NIV text? Then G-d has a lot of preachers to sue! I sure hope the Gideons don't use the New International Version, or there'll be fifty thousand hotels getting smushed by the Thumb of God. Barno 20:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment NIV themselves claim: Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved. That suggests that the christian's bible is indeed ©. It seems unlikely (and certainly seems to go against what the christians' god has to say on the matter) but there we go. Perhaps this is to do with money rather than real ©? Whilst this is hardly the place to discuss it, I seem to recall something about the christians' messiah being a bit of a lefty when it came to capitalists in the temple. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The original Greek and Hebrew texts are public domain; the KJV is public domain; other individual translations are copyrighted, with the following use permission: "The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio), up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses without express written permission of the publisher, providing the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible nor do the verses quoted account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted." -- Jwinters | Talk 18:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Also, works such as Iliad and Odyssey and such, which are written in one language and then translated are also PD in their original form. The translations of them, however are copyrighted. In the same way, the Bible is not copyrighted, but the translations of them are. Seriously people, this is starting to turn into a religious debate and not a question of Wikipedia policy.
• Delete Wikipedia is not a depository for texts. --DanielCD 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete even if not a copyright violation. These passages are not notable. -- Kjkolb 21:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• They are notable enough, just not encyclopaedic. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete good spot re copyvio; even if not, it would be for Wikisource. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 21:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and two comments:
  1. the Holy Bible is obviously not copyrighted material; however, a specific translation of it can be copyrighted; translations done before a given date which I currently do not remember (around 1927, I think) are not copyrighted for sure; Obviously, there are translations around that are not copyrighted.
  2. passages from the Bible are not encyclopedic; I vote delete because the article is the chapter, while it should be about the chapter (and should not be original ideas: WP:NOR). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 21:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment bible verse and passage articles can be encyclopedic: John 3:16. --W.marsh 21:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses for more. --W.marsh 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Good point, W.marsh: I've marked your quoted article as NPOV and asked questions about the phrasing on the talk page. Thanks for noting it. I've not questioned its place in the 'pedia but that question may well be answered as suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses was a pretty long ones and involved a lot of editors over two weeks. Can we just assume that the decision taken there holds also here and agree over a merge in the way it has been done there? I also remark that John 3:16 is a real encyclopedia article, not just the chapter (but also see WP:NOR in case anyone is thinking of adding something here). Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 00:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses is about verses with commentary, such as Matthew 5:32, verses with only the source text, such as these, are a pointless duplicate of Wikisource. That said my vote would change if someone added text explaining and analyzing these verses. - SimonP 05:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per SimonP. Tupsharru 07:24, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE per DanielCD 132.205.45.148 17:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Needs impartial commentary to be encyclopedic. Otherwise it belongs in wikibooks. — RJH 17:53, 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} 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Beech

Per WP:BIO. He's done way more than me, but doesn't claim to be more than good at his job. Delete unless more evidence presented. brenneman^(t)(c) 13:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete apparently non-notable Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 16:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete He's an archaeologist who completed his Ph.D. four years ago and has contributed to the field in routine ways. I wish him a successful career. So far this is non-notable. Durova 16:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn-bio. --WAvegetarian 23:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:00, 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 speedied as nonsense. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Media Whorenet

NN nonsnense about NN band. We really should be able to speedy this stuff. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 18:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a great band, the deserve their publicity. They are real! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by That Man (talk • contribs) 19:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC).

• Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. If they want publicity, go to MySpace. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 19:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is my band and I will update it to make it look like an actual article ASAP. Although what you think is nonsense, is actually the stagenames of the bands members.

• Delete and I added a Speedy G1 because it actually reads as errent nonsense. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:55, 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meditation 17

Transwiki to Wikisource and delete. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and transwiki per nom Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. A quotation from a notable author isn't encyclopedic all by itself. Durova 15:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete after moving to Wikisource. Foofy 18:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki per nom. -Haon 23:46, 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 strong consensus Keep for rewritten version. Xoloz 15:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mehri language

As stated in the Talk Page, the whole content is false. The article is a joke. GhePeU 08:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This article in the Yemen Times contains a reference to the Mahari language see [30]. The page of this professor of Semitic studies at Heidelberg University refers to it on this page see [31]. This academic from Haifa university refers to research he has done into the language see [32]. It seems to be a language that is at risk of dying out. The article needs to be wikified but seems to be fine. Capitalistroadster 09:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep with comment If an Armenian Empire controlled Yemen (let alone Ethiopia and the Nile!), I'd be curious to know when. It appears the language exists from the first two links but the content of this article is indeed a joke. I'm going to clip this to one sentence. Unfortunately, the third link is censored for me :( Marskell 10:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per [33] and others. This appears to be a genuine language or dialect. It could benefit form the attention of an expert, though. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 10:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Real language. Perodicticus 11:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. For above reasons.--Alicejenny 12:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's in Ethnologue - article could do with some expansion. [34] Dlyons493 Talk 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, current version is a decent stub. (vote by Isotope23) -- Kjkolb 20:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have added a little information, some links, and a language table. It would be good for somebody who knows more than I do to expand it. Logophile 15:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It is a real language. See the Ethnologue [35]. ♠DanMS 16:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per others. Briangotts (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please it is not a joke why do you think that Yuckfoo 01:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Poorly researched and poorly supported AfD nomination.--Nicodemus75 07:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep rewritten version. But considering the state the article was in at the time of AfD nomination, I don't blame Ghepeu for nominating it. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:35, 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} 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Migger

NN slang, as far as I can tell. No help via Google. Delete. PJM 19:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Even Urban Dictionary disagrees with the article! Melchoir 19:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Couldn't even define the non-notable slang word correctly it seems. --W.marsh 19:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, dicdef, non-notable, poitnless and probably several other things too Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 20:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above --Rogerd 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Model Citizen

An article which eloquently makes the case for extending the speedy criteria for NN-Bio to cover groups as well. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: MAKES YOU WONDER WHY THEY WERE ROCKERS AND NOT WRITERS OR POETS OR PHILOSOPHERS AND JUST SOME GUYS INSTEAD AND THATS WHAT YOU WONDER. (Delete as, essentially, not encyclopedic. The lemma belongs to another concept, and the band, if it were discussed in the article, is below WP:MUSIC standards. The guy the article is actually about is beneath WP:BIO standards, and one assumes that his girlfriend is, too.) Geogre 12:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Durova 16:11, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE PER GEOGRE.--Isotope23 21:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Rogerd 03:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN Band. *drew 00:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Man, we need Speedy to extend to this.  RasputinAXP  T C 19:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was 'speedy deleted as an attack page. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mohammad Najafi

• Delete. I think it's a good candidate for speedy deletion, actually. Jasmol 01:33, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• This is the first thing I've ever nominated for deletion, and I'm not sure I did it right - I had forgotten to log on for one thing. Did it work?Saint Midge 01:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as vanity. Also non-notable. 70.27.59.200 03:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, vanity bio FRS 03:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete; nn-bio, nonsense and attack all apply. PJM 03:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per PJM above. ♠DanMS 05:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - nonsensical bio - vanity. TDS ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:12, 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} 00:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Morisita Kyouko

Non-notable Japanese actress. The current picostub appears to say all there is to say: she appeared in a porn video. I read WP:BIO as setting the bar a little higher than that... — Haeleth Talk 21:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete no imdb entry Niz 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no context, no claim of importance. Fredrik | talk 22:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete under WP:CSD Category A1. We have a four word stub about a lady with no IMDb entry and no claim to notability under WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 22:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete , I agree to delete on basis of nn/vanity; the picostub says she starred in "Office Lady" and has some japanese text thereafter. I don't know that "Office Lady" was a porn video FRS 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Text is not Japanese. I guess it's Chinese. Fg2 01:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, verifiable. Kappa 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you verified it, and, if so, how? "Morisita Kyouko" gives me no Google hits, and imdb knows nothing about "Office Lady." That certainly doesn't prove the article is inaccurate, but I'd like to know how you would go about showing that it's accurate. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline speedy as A1 and A7. Dpbsmith (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:38, 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. Kirill Lokshin 03:56, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Moss School Gymnasium

I can accept that there's some kind of consensus to keep high schools on Wikipedia. But I hope everyone can agree that articles on individual buildings at high schools are taking things a step too far - particularly when the building in question apparently doesn't even exist any more! — Haeleth Talk 21:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Niz 21:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above unless the "history it represents" claimed by article is somehow notable. --W.marsh 22:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rephrase and move to Moss High School. Fredrik | talk 22:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rephrase and move as above. "No longer existing" is no reason to delete, wikipedia is not a news service. Kappa 00:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — Well I'm all for keeping high school pages, but solitary insignificant building left over from a none too significant high school that no longer exists does not appear at all encyclopedic. The suggestion to rename the page to the high school doesn't render it any more encyclopedic; it just creates a stub. Sorry. — RJH 17:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per...everyone, I guess. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN --Rogerd 02:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverified/able --redstucco 09:18, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Muaeio

No way to verify information. Fails google test See comments on Talk:Muaeio. --Viriditas | Talk 05:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and comments on article talk page.--Alhutch 05:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, if the place was known for its local bird life, it would get Google hits or at the very least be known to a local. Also, I expect real islands to be verifiable by some sort of online map. This doesn't appear to exist. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Island does not appear on USGS maps and is not visible from the shoreline of either Maui or Lanai (although the strait is less than 10 miles across; the "island" would have to be ~20% of that distance) - Marshman 18:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unverified, possible hoax. *drew 23:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:34, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MuggleCast aka Mugglecast

• Keep Yes it speaks for itself, MuggleCast has about 70,000 listeners, has recieved media coverage, and has even been highlighted as a leading podcast by an itunes newsletter, oh and #1 on most podcast directories doesn't hurt.Sejo

Speaks for itself; yet another non-notable site that verges on being speedy deletion. Deltabeignet 01:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete Merge and redirect to MuggleNet.--Kross | Talk 01:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete That NN article isn't worth the paper it isn't written on. Cynicism addict 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and Comment There are two of these. MuggleCast and Mugglecast Cynicism addict 02:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Having read Mgm's comments and reconsidering my vote, I change my vote to Keep Cynicism addict 23:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete You barely beat me to the edit. Keep After viewing the latest news, I'm for a keep. Krzypntbllr 02:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. No content. Now redirected to page with information, however I'm unsure of notability; changing vote to weak delete. 70.27.59.200 03:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, db-empty. Keep.PJM 03:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Didn't nominate as I was welcoming one of it's major contributors. Some of the above entries veer further from WP:CIVIL than is helpful. There is no reason we can't delete this nicely. Oh, uh, and, Delete - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • MuggleCast now redirects to Mugglecast, afd on MuggleCast removed, afd on Mugglecast directs here. Could have done it reverse, I suppose, but content was at Mugglecast. - brenneman^(t)(c) 04:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge into MuggleNet.com or MuggleNet (whichever exists) or at the very least redirect. This is podcast of one of the biggest Harry Potter news- and fansites. Its founder was personally invited to interview J.K. Rowling for the release of book 6. A merge sounds like a reasonable thing to me. Certainly not a speedy. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, also MuggleNet states: "After two days online, MuggleCast became the number six most downloaded podcast on the United States iTunes list of most popular podcasts and downloads and, on August 14, it reached the number one position." which in my eyes, makes it not just another podcast, but a relevant one that deserves coverage. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Not disputing that, but do we have a citation other than the always reliable Wikipedia? ^_^
    brenneman^(t)(c) 10:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I moved it back to MuggleCast which is the official and correct spelling and informed previous voters of my new comments. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:34, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well done. You beat me to the punch by about two minutes. - brenneman^(t)(c) 10:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• More information at User talk:Mamatha Challa following a request by brenneman including a #1 spot on iTunes with it's initial release and 70,000 subscribers, mention by the CEO of iTunes in their newsletter this week. MuggleNet itself has an Alexa ranking of 2,520. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Why do you guys want to delete this? I don't get it. Kneazlegirl 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep pending verification of notablility per itunes Rich Farmbrough 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep appears notable.--Nicodemus75 13:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good article. Save AfD for the crap. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 13:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete podcruft. Sounds like a biggish fish in a very small pond. Maybe merge with some other potter fancruft? Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 13:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Please don't merge this into Mugglenet. There is enough information about this subject there already, and we don't want the article to get too long. Cmouse 16:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep any verifiable content in this page. Trollderella 17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge as two-sentence item in Mugglenet. Not yet notable. --William Pietri 18:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge. From subsequent discussion it sounds like this isn't just a vanity article, but when trimmed to the independently verifiable material, it seems better as part of MuggleNet. --William Pietri 17:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to MuggleNet. Andrew Levine 19:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Contributor Response: I just realized I could edit this, and I thought I would just inform you guys, if you didn't know, that I posted a good amount of notability proof on the Discussion board of this article. If you want, I'll repost it here. Thank you! :) Mamatha Challa 03:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm a little slow, but I looked for Mamatha Challa's comments on the MuggleCast and MuggleNet entries. Then I found them on this very talk page. --William Pietri 06:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity CDC (talk) 22:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep and a strong suggestion to cut the article in half and remove the vanity. Just a suggestion - if that happens, I'll change my vote. Much of this material is already covered in the MuggleNet article. Cmouse 04:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Although I think it ought to be shortened a little. Spiritual 17:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. Notable program on podcasts. Jtmichcock 12:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment If this is voted as Keep I volunteer to rewrite; it does need fixing. I'm not sure if this will influence any votes, but it's worth a shot. Jtmichcock 13:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Update: MuggleCast has received a highly visible place in the iTunes podcast directory (see here). - Mgm|^(talk) 12:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I was just about to post that! Not to mention that even iTunes finds it QUITE notable. Mamatha Challa 17:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Here's a rather lengthy New York Post article on Mugglenet from yesterday's paper. Jtmichcock 01:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 03:59, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MysqlBind

One of a set of non-notable mysql plugins that cross-reference each other and aren't referenced by any other articles:

• MysqlISP links
• MysqlSendmail links
• MysqlRadius links
• MysqlBind links Josh Parris # 04:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• For accuracy, note that the original author added a cross-reference to this article to Domain Name System. Uncle G 11:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all per votes on other articles Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable [36], possible ad. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean OSS/GPL software in use should not be eliminated but possible ad text be expunged.
• Delete. There are thousands of open-source software programs in use, under GPL and many other licenses, and most are not significant enough (in society, rather than useful-to-somebody) to merit a WP article. I've seen no indication that any of this set of MySQL plugins has had such impact. Barno 20:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into List of MySQL plugins, no need for deletion. Bryan 04:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)