Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 October 10

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 179424673 (number)

Not notable. linas 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable number. — JIP | Talk 06:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not exceptional significance, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers for criteria. Rememeber to fix wikilinks first [1]. -- Egil 07:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not exceptionally interesting. Xoloz 15:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — I merged the trivial factoid about the prime into 100000000 (number). — RJH 15:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per nom for 427 (number); if not, delete. PacknCanes 22:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Real number, notability is not a criterion for deletion. Notable as beeing 1,000,000th prime. Klonimus 02:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above. Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Umm, relevance? Rhetoricalwater 22:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete to set a precedent before we move on to 1.1, 1.01, 1.001 ... --redstucco 08:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Masterhatch 10:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Half of the article talks about this or that that the article is not. Perhaps it could be mentioned in an article on prime numbers. Cool3 04:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 29a

Also See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benny/29a -- (☺drini♫|☎) 18:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - vanity/advert for their group and weblogs (see the three weblog links and long list of members) -Tεxτurε 19:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable group.--Isotope23 20:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn scriptkiddiecruft. MCB 04:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity - nn adv. Vsmith 16:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benny/29a Vsmith 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn group; no links from articles in main namespace; deadend; WP:NPOV; WP:V; WP:VAIN --Kgf0 18:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. Even as "re-written" to just be the conversion to decimal. Wikibofh 14:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Vanity to say the least Masterhatch 10:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anon votes

• DON'T DELETE - the world should know about the group and it is a notable group. What are you guys scared of? If you want to take down the links to the weblogs then fine take down the links. The member list should stay because there is a member list availble on the internet already! What's the point in deleting it!?!?!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.64.5.97 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-11 09:17:00 UTC.
• Don't Delete Your making a big deal out of nothing. The links are off and it is a notable group. The article shall continue to be written and be up as long as there are no links to any weblogs (since your gonna make a big deal about it.) If you want your proof to the list of members then why don't you just go to this link [vx.netlux.org/lib/static/vdat/groups1.htm here]. Your denying the right for the public to view this information. This group has been in the news many times before. At the VERY least then leave the paragraph up about them and take the member list down. As I have said before this article shall remain up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.64.5.97 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-12 10:43:00 UTC.

Note: above edit was intended to replace all delete votes, reverted by Kgf0 18:02, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 363 (number)

Not notable linas 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Qaz ^(talk) 05:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 06:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 300 (number) in accordance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers policy -- Egil 07:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Numbers actually says no such thing, as explained in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/427 (number). Uncle G 12:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • A redirect to 300 is clumsy and dishonest. If, for some reason I can not imagine, I wanted to go to an article about 363 or see if we had one and instead I was just dropped off at 300 with no explanation, I would be utterly confused. Qaz ^(talk) 14:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

      Why? Did you check the 300 page? It does indeed mention 363. Go to the WikiProject Numbers talk page to discuss. -- Egil 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

      • I did go to the 300 page and I did not see it. If I just missed it I apologize. Qaz ^(talk) 08:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)*

        It is located between three hundred and sixty two and three hundred and sixty four. Hope that helps. -- Egil 09:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

    • If I type Paul Erdos and I get redirected, that tells me I misspelled his name. But if I went through the trouble of typing "363 (number)" I would expect to either see a page about 363 or a page saying "No article about this topic." PrimeFan 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment — I believe that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers policy does actually recommend grouping in 100s after about 200. At any rate, there are a pair of pages that have ranges of integers up to 1000: Table of prime factors and Table of divisors. Would it make sense to go through all the unresolved links and make them redirects to the appropriate 100s pages? — RJH 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • WHat unbreslved links? Rich Farmbrough 02:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • THe policy is to start with range pages and allow number to "grow"- if they are big enough they can be split off. Rich Farmbrough 02:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete sigh Another Random Number --JAranda | yeah 00:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Presently, there is only one interesting things to say about the number, WikiProject Numbers requires at least three interesting or one tremendously remarkable (i.e., odd perfect number). PrimeFan 18:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC) This number being on the Rhind papyrus sounds interesting, I would like to see that elaborated. But the facts that depend on either the metric system or the Imperial system probably don't need to be listed in this article. For the time being, I'm voting neutral. PrimeFan 21:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. If 427 (above) can be speedied, what makes this different? If not, then delete. PacknCanes 22:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

  427 should not have been speedied. Rich Farmbrough 01:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Real number Klonimus 02:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing interesting. I doubt a redirect is useful. Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain for the moment until I have time to assess Rich's work. It does have lots of information added, so I'd urge everyone to take a new look at the article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Weak keep. Some of the items listed on the article are far-fetched, but alltogether, keeping in mind that it may expand further, perhaps enough can be said about this number to make a small article. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete article essentially reiterates its title. Chick Bowen 23:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I have improved the article somewhat. Rich Farmbrough 09:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

*Keep--Gaff ^talk 00:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC) On second thought, delete unless expert opinion from the number project folks says otherwise. To my read the standard that has been established is:Integers: Continuous from -1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 1010, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property. --Gaff ^talk 00:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)Changing my mind (again). Keep it. Its a nice looking article with some interesting information. (sorry for my waffling).--Gaff ^talk 00:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 427 (number)

Nonsense. Do I really have to give a reason for deletion? Doesn't this article speak for itself? linas 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy patent nonsense —Wahoofive (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - article fails to note important facts, e.g. 427 comes after 426, and yet before 428 (and even farther before 429).  BD2412 ^talk 05:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and have a Centralized discussions on Numbers way to many is being nominated recently --JAranda | yeah 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Qaz ^(talk) 05:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, nonsense. — JIP | Talk 06:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to 400 (number). In accordance to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers policy there should be articles for every 100 in this range. -- Egil 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • And those articles are 300 (number), 400 (number), 500 (number), 600 (number), 700 (number), 800 (number), and 900 (number). WikiProject Numbers only talks about those numbers and does not state that numbers in between them, such as this one, should have articles. According to what WikiProject Numbers actually says, this is a delete, plain and simple. Whether the project should say something about redirects for the numbers in between the multiples of 100 is something that should be taken up on the project's talk page. Uncle G 12:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Fair enough: having a redirect is IMHO a good way to ensure the articles will not be recreated. -- Egil 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Egil. — RJH 15:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A (musical note)

Delete this before somebody creates B (musical note), C sharp (musical note) and so on. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I can't find an article on scales that actually identifies the notes. If there is one, this should be redirected there. Gazpacho 00:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • How about Note? —Wahoofive (talk) 15:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, like Tenor C. Kappa 02:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please as we keep the tenor article too. Yuckfoo 03:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• I can find a bunch of articles with scales in them, Gazpacho, but A as a note has a place in quite a few of them. A redirect to any one of those scales doesn't make much sense. (You're right that most of the pictures do not identify the notes, though.) I vote keep for now, and if we do get too many single-note articles, we can consider merging them then, but that's nother vote-around. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep as well as don't worry about precedent. --Badlydrawnjeff 13:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep proliferation of musical note articles is not an ad infinitum problem, and the harmonics of each note are individually interesting and encyclopedic as a music and a science topic. Xoloz 15:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, its worthy of an article and its only good if an article is created about every musical note - because it could become a series of music articles, like there is a series of food articles. — Wackymacs 17:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Each food is different, but notes aren't, except in relation to one another. This is like having a separate article on each face of a die: 1 (die face), 2 (die face), etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Scale (music). There's potential here, though, so I'd lean towards keep barring a merge. PacknCanes 23:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Philosophical Approach to Language and Knowledge

Original Research cohesion | talk 06:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research, and Wikipedia is not a repository of academic publications. --MarkSweep✍ 07:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:NOR and WP:VAIN --Kgf0 08:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:NOR. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOR. This article can go to wikisource, but the author does not seem interested. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abkey

Advert for a non-notable non-QWERTY computer keyboard. Quale 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As it stands, nothing but advertising. --inks^T 04:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 06:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above -cohesion | talk 08:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 11:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Access Now

Non-notable campus organization. The website is currently nonoperational though viewable by Google cache [2], and the name doesn't seem to appear outside of a few Hamline University lists. Possible vanity page by creator of Annika Johnson (on list above). Delete. Dvyost 05:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Anetode 05:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Student organizations which exist at only one school are generally not notable. --Metropolitan90 06:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam boyd

Non-notable bio. "Principal technological inventor" of a railroad freight billing information system. The article actually reads like an oblique attack, since supposedly his system was delivered about 6 months late and then a year later it was decided to rewrite it anyway. Quale 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN -- Egil 07:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete there's nothing at all unusual about a computer system that's delivered late. Nor about their architects. Dlyons493 Talk 15:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.--Bkwillwm 18:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable.--Gaff ^talk 00:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Valen Levinson

Unverifiable bio, likely hoax. Page has been marked as possible vandalism since July. Adam's parents are listed as Gerald Levinson and Nanine Valen. Their son is apparently 16 years old, which doesn't agree with the 1789 birthdate given in Adam's article. For some inexplicable reason Levinson's children had been linked in his article, which was certainly an invitation for mischief. Quale 06:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The existence of a blogger of the same name [3] makes me suspect hoax as well. Delete unless verified. --Dvyost 06:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a hoax. The article quotes "Levinson" as referring to "the Liberians" in 1807, although Liberia was not known as such at that time; settlement of freed slaves from the United States didn't begin until 1817. Also, the area was not being colonized by the French or other Europeans in 1807. --Metropolitan90 06:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. no wonder "He has slipped into the almost inescapable realm of insignificance." --Kewp (t) 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as soon as possible as a hoax. Hall Monitor 21:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Capitalistroadster 00:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Appeal. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Affirm

Transwikify Massysett 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki - already covered in Appeal. --Idont Havaname 04:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or transwiki, this is too broad a term for an encyclopedic entry - cohesion | talk 08:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Airline disatisfaction

Original research -- at the very least needs to be cleaned up and made less POV. --Quasipalm 14:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete --Quasipalm 14:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing here that isn't already covered in Airline and related articles, and title is misspelled so no reason to redirect. —Wahoofive (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic POV essay. MCB 03:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Personal opinion page, not encylopedic. Vegaswikian 05:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted under A7. Friday (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Mills

Non-notable bio, college vanity. Claim to notability is being an officer in two college political organizations. Quale 18:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as A7. So tagged. If that doesn't work, delete slowly and laboriously. Friday (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Ali. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ali ibn Abu Talib (Radiallahuanhu)

There is a full article at Ali ibn Abu Talib. Also, adding the phrase Radiallahuanhu is a Sunni Point of View Adamcaliph 13:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I've reverted page blanking by IP address 62.255.68.84. Ali ibn Abu Talib is certainly a much fuller article, but I can't comment on whether the addition of (Radiallahuanhu) makes this NPOV generally or whether it would only be condidered so by Shi'ites. Would turning this page into a redirect with a discussion on Ali ibn Abu Talib of the specific doctrinal differences work? Dlyons493 Talk 16:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect with doctrinal discussion at Ali ibn Abu Talib. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] All About Skyscrapers

Non-notable organization/website. Google search for the phrase "all about skyscrapers" produces about 300 hits (not all of which are related to this organization/website), and with regard to the website linked from the article, http://allaboutskyscrapers.com has an Alexa ranking of about 2,601,000. Delete. Joel7687 16:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence of notability.--Isotope23 17:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Article has potential, so keep and add Clean-up tag. - Bwfc 12:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] alt.suicide.holiday

24.166.6.153 (talk • contribs) performed two out of the three steps for nominating an article for deletion. Since xe gave xyr rationale, I've completed the process. Uncle G 16:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

not notable, and possibly dangerous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.6.153 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-04 04:09:47 UTC.

• I don't see how it's not notable. I think it's informative and it's important that it stays here. As for "dangerous," if one thinks that it's dangerous, one has to remove the group itself along with their archives, methods, etc. Deleting this article is like deleting an article on Hitler, because people may decide to follow him and become neo-nazis. Or we might as well delete all the articles on controlled and dangerous substances, lest people should find out about them and use them. BittenCaliban 20:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it or, add it to another article about websites which encourage suicide. This is one of the issues brought up by the internet and it's important that people know what is out there.user:XYaAsehShalomX
• Speedy keep -- unsigned nomination by someone who probably doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policy -- WP:NOT censored. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable.--Isotope23 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I tend to guage the notability of usenet groups similarly to forums. This one doesn't seem to be paticularly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Not famous, but infamous. 25k Google hits (web search, not groups) puts it in the realm of possibly notable, and being the "publisher" of the Methods File pushes them into the realm of net.lore. Consider it a historical article -- that such a thing was even available on the Internet was a big deal back in the day when the Internet was strange and new to many. Subject of a Dutch documentary and a series of articles in Wired as recently as 2003 — mendel ☎ 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know about the usenet group, but their Methods File is pretty well-known. --Carnildo 23:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is important and verifiable so why should we erase it Yuckfoo 00:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very notable Usenet newsgroup with storied history, controversy, and wide participation, plus cultural significance for the pro- vs. anti-suicide issue. MCB 03:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. PacknCanes 23:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename. Alt.suicide.holiday is not the best name for this article, maybe try Internet Suicide Websites!? - Bwfc 16:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a website, it's a Usenet newsgroup named alt.suicide.holiday. I'm not sure I understand why you don't like that name. — mendel ☎ 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important part of net history. fuzzie 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, and potentially "dangerous" is no evidently reason for deletion. Alex Watson 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely unthinkable that such a noted institution would be undocumented. Well known even outside the realm of the internet - alt.suicideholiday.net is a brilliant and provocative short film about internet forums on suicide, obviously based on and named after ash. Also, the user/IP who started the deletion procedure has contributed mainly POV vandalisms. Not sure if this is at all serious. Bz2 21:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:40, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ANGEL Learning

Advert for educational software, complete with "MindClick ™ Process Technology". I am excited to learn that its features include "data integration", "application integration", "security", "accessibility", and "scalability". Quale 01:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can show that this is not ad/corpvanity AND it is cleaned up to not read like an advert AND someone can find an aspect of WP:CORP that they meet. --CastAStone 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad spam. Pureblade 01:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - This is an ad. Preaky 03:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Ads are one of the best ways to get a delete vote from Qaz ^(talk) 06:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - more advertising!? Kill it! Kill it with fire! Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ad. utcursch | talk 11:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Annika Johnson

Non-notable bio. College student or recent graduate who is one of seven founders of Access Now, a college organization. The founders are already listed in the Access Now article and that mention is sufficient. Google suggests that Annika Johnson won a student leadership award at Hamline University, but I don't think that's sufficient for WP:BIO. Quale 05:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom, and should Access Now be listed here also? Seems to be a nn campus org. --Dvyost 05:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment. I have, in fact, listed Access Now below. --Dvyost 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Anetode 05:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. {edit} 06:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. — JIP | Talk 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Hall Monitor 17:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous sex

This is nonnotable. While there is a high number of results on yahoo, 22 million I believe, the vast majority are dating services or pornographic sites. Not very encylopediac in my opinion. If this page had any information relevant to the social phenomenon, or statistics, maybe this would be worth keeping...but it doesn't. freestylefrappe 18:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. While I don't agree that anonymous sex is an unencyclopedic topic for Wikipedia (we have an article on facesitting...), I will certainly say that right now the article is nothing more than a dicdef. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it seems there's enough interest in keeping it that I think it will actually get improved upon. (I have started to not vote keep for anything that I think will just sit there, no matter how significant the topic is. Sad state of affairs, no?) Keep. --Jacquelyn Marie 12:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep and expand. Significant social phenomenon. Isn't there a human sexuality Wikiproject that covers this topic? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Content-free dicdef. --Carnildo 23:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. Jkelly 00:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable phenomenon. Kappa 02:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Legitimate topic. While it is currently just a dicdef, deleting it will create red-links in Statutory rape and Casual sex. --Vsion 09:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.  BD2412 ^talk 20:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - surely there's plenty of information out there on this social phenomenon. Bobstay

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arts and Science Students' Union

Vanity article. NN. Delete -- Spinboy 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• If student government at the University of Toronto works anything like it did at the University of Ottawa when I was an underachieving undergrad, then the import of this organization amounts to a handful of seats on the school-wide student government's board of directors. This definitely doesn't merit its own article, but I'm torn as to whether it's more of a delete or a merge into Students' Administrative Council. SAC could definitely use the expansion of how it's structured, but it probably just needs a short paragraph or two explaining the general organizational structure. It probably doesn't need to have this whole article merged into it, and I definitely can't justify any vote that would require keeping this title as a permanent redirect. But I may vote one way or the other once I've had time to think about it. Can I vote for expand the SAC article without using this specific article as a merge and redirect? Bearcat 01:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Tag it for expansion and/or leave a note on its talk page? -- Spinboy 02:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, that works. I'll vote delete on this article now. Bearcat 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zhatt 21:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --redstucco 08:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ben Fisher

Maybe this is a hoax, or maybe not. My instincts say it is, so I'm bringing it here for discussion in case I am wrong. [edit] 03:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no evidence of a Zeitgeist magazine associated with this person, and has the look of vanity/original research. Gazpacho 03:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as there is no sign of this person on the internet, and there would be if the things stated here were true. Maybe replace the content with an article on the real Ben Fisher? ;) Karol 06:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Karol Langner, no evidence is given that this person exists. Hall Monitor 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Save Fisher exists and is currently residing in St. Louis. His research is certainly original. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.252.101.229 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Save Fisher is indeed a real person - I have studied under him extensively. His work for Zeitgeist was both informative and groundbreaking. (User:128.252.173.20)
• Delete searching for "Ben Fisher" at www.wustl.edu comes up empty: [4]. Chick Bowen 23:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Benjamin Bryant

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

• Lori Bryant-Woolridge Special:Whatlinkshere/Lori Bryant-Woolridge
• Benjamin Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Benjamin Bryant
• Paco Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Paco Bryant
• Renee Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Renee Bryant

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep, seems notable. Any wikilinks to NN persons can be unwikified. Delete (as Isotope23) -- Egil 11:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Somewhat notable. Logophile 13:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - OK let's break it down. Searching for Benjamin Bryant + Majic 95.5: [5]. 3 hits that actaully are on topic... 2 of which are from his website. Searching for Benjamin Bryant + K-Juice: [6] yields one hit... from his website. So basically, he qualifies as a non-notable disc jockey. The behind the scenes stuff (i.e. Program Director) isn't merit enough for inclusion either. He won a Paul R. Ellis Award, which has it's own wiki entry compelete with mention of Mr. Bryant; not so surprising when you notice that the author of that article is the same as the author of the Benjamin Bryant article. I would surmise the Paul R. Ellis Award article was added to support Mr. Bryant's article...
  • This delete nomination seems kind of personal, probably one of the reasons I felt compelled to research it a little more in-depth. As for the award, the author may be same, but a quick web search for the award supports that it is an award of some repute from a nationally recognized organization. When the entry is worthy of inclusion on its own, do we get to disqualify it because we question the motives for inclusion? http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=3027862 [7]

Moving on, Mr. Bryant hosted and emceed some local events, nothing more exciting than what many local "celebrities" do. Mr. Bryant then moved on to column writing. [8] produces one valid hit, which puts him on the level of every other column writer that doesn't have a bio on wikipedia. The claim that The early 2000s saw Bryant’s writings published on all of the industrialized continents, and translated into several languages... appear to be non-verifiable.

• • This is verifiable, I found a list (with some links to original material) on Benjamin Bryant's website (the same one you cite): A number of these publications appear to meet the circulation requirements of the Wikipedia biography policy and they, in what I, at least, found interesting, cover a wide variety of topics. You seem very insistent that this point is unverifiable. One look at this page (and the links to actual scans and/or reprints of the original publications) kind of debunks that...Benjamin Bryant is clearly a widely published author, if not an author of the "sexy" material variety (No Brad and Angelina articles, though there is a piece on a beauty queen). http://www.benjaminbryant.net/stringbook/ [9] el_amante 21:41, October 12, 2005 (UTC)
    • There is nothing personal about it el_amante and you seem to be inferring bad faith on my part just because I'm actually trying to support my argument for a deletion. I agree that the Paul R. Ellis Award is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia on its own... I just don't agree that getting this award confers notability to the recipient. I view in the same way I view the Medal of Honor: If someone has done something notable, and happens to be a medal of honor recipient as well (regardless of whether or not the notable action is tied to receiving said honor) the MoH certainly merits mention in the person's article. However, just receiving the MoH is not, in my opinion, sufficient merit for inclusion in wikipedia. My argument against using the Paul R. Ellis Award as a benchmark for notability is solely based on that reasoning and my mention of the genesis of the Paul R. Ellis Award was simply a comment, though perhaps inappropriate in the context of an AfD.

Per your second statement, I don't know how you are inferring that I am very insistent that the point about his published work is unverifiable from the statement appear to be non-verifiable... denoting the fact that I could not verify the claim. I missed that link you posted when I originally looked at Mr. Bryant's website. Having reviewed it, I still don't see anything that meets my criteria for notable published works. It is a collection of local newspaper articles. The Soap Weekly article I mentioned in my original vote, and some technical writings and press releases. I'm not judging this on the "sexy" nature of the material, but rather on precedent. Looking around wikipedia, I don't see many articles on local newspaper writers (baring those who write for nationally distributed "local" papers like the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) or for technical/ad copy writers.

There is nothing personal about my delete vote. My long explanation for deletion in my original vote was simply because that, based on the article, a simple "delete - nn-bio" was inappropriate based on the numerous contentions of notability. I was at least trying to do some due diligence and look at the claims the author made. If this article stays, it needs a cleanup to removed POV wording (like "cinderella-like"), but ultimately I simply disagree with retaining an article on someone of such low notability.--Isotope23 15:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The rest of the article concerns his lineage (which does not confer notability unless you are Paris Hilton), some minor awards, and his career. An unpublished novel and an unfinished play cap it all off. Taking it all together, I don't see anything that confers notability her. It is a well written article with tons information. It would make a great resume, but there as of right now, I don't see anything that distinguishes Mr. Bryant as notable. If his book ever comes out I may change my mind on this...--Isotope23 17:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Isotope23's excellent analysis. The page, although well written, is absurdly bloated for an unkown DJ. Quale 18:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep – the page is well-written, and all the information is relevant. Having won a number of awards, and being related to an Emmy-winner, he is clearly a noteworthy individual. He also holds the record of 'youngest director of a mid/major market commercial station in all of Texas', which is undoubtedly of interest to somebody. Simply not being well-known does not mean that the subject is not noteable. It may be possible to merge all of the Bryant articles into a single article, but deleting is too crude and wasteful.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronald Collinson (talk • contribs) 21:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC).
  • If "[s]imply not being well-known does not mean that the subject is not noteable", then what is the definition of notability? MCB 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • So if I am related to someone who does something notable, like win an award or become CEO of a company, I'm therefore notable enough for a wiki article? I better start writing up my copy...--Isotope23 13:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • C'mon, let's keep this discussion fair and reasonable. Obviously, being related to a notable is not simply enough, but when the person is a published writer related to another published writer of significant note, and obviously part of a family of significant achievement (and we can debate whether a given person is or is not) I think they can qualify for an entry, at least on principle, to be evaluated individually.--el_amante 19:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I was on the fence of "keep" vs. "strong keep" but I ultimately chose strong keep for the following reasons: While this person is not well known, the accomplishments are legitimate. Though some of the Google searches link to his site http://www.benjaminbryant.net (click through to the "professional" site), an actual review of the site provides plenty of supporting information--including several newspaper articles, and a complete list of works written for major publications and public relations campaigns managed in various countries. The most notable are the Black History Maker of Tomorrow award, which I know from watching a TV special years ago is (was?) a legitimate national award given by McDonalds, and being the youngest Program Director of a commercial station in Texas. Other supporting information includes being named "Most Memorable of 1996" and working on a major Defense program that is always in the news. ALONE, the circular reference to the other family members (some of which are also clearly notable, others not so much) or the fact that the Ellis Award entry was entered by the same author, might challenge the article's legitimacy, but there are clearly enough supporting factors to keep this one. I do not think we should be too dependent upon how many Google hits a person turns up--many people accomplished things before the Internet was in widespread use, particulary for archiving. I also think that one of the brilliant things about Wikipedia is that we can include "B-list" notables that might otherwise be left out of traditional encyclopedias due to space constraints. Wikipedia can be less elitist and I think that's a good thing. Sorry for the length of this, but I wanted to rebut the detailed entry above, as I strongly disagree with using primarily quantitative data (hits, etc.) as justification for keeping OR deleting--and I'm not sure that while Ben Bryant's page was cited, that the author actually followed many of the links on that page, which support Mr. Bryant's notability el_amante 19:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC).
  • A note: I noticed that the bio on the site(and even the tone of the bio) is not the same as this Wikipedia article, which I often find is the case when a person has done their own their own vanity page. el_amante 21:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I *would* be interested in User25be answering some of these points, so I invite him/her to do so before the 5-day deadline if he/she comes across this discussion. el_amante 19:45 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (as Isotope23) Josh Parris # 00:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Boney M. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bonny M

Most likely as misspelling of Boney M (page history supports this), which already has its own article. Delete - Pc13 17:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Boney M. KeithD (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Ra-Ra-Redirect. Jkelly 00:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Rdirect if there is such a thing, under WP:CSD A1. --Kgf0 18:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BooZZe etc.

This nomination concerns BooZZe and BroQ (others might follow). These articles describe online gamers. Most of them consist of a single sentence, and it's not clear to me whether any of this information is verifiable, or how notable these people are. --MarkSweep✍ 07:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete all of them. Nonsense -- Egil 11:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I speedied Broq under A7, as the article described a video game player. The BooZZe article describes a clan and is technically not an A7 case (though it might be considered A1). Delete it anyway, speedy or not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Seems like A7 ought to mean not just asserting notability but providing some kind of context to show what that notability is, but I've had speedies thrown back at me. Chick Bowen 23:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. 131.128.129.158 18:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brett Wheeler

Neither Brett Wheeler nor the band Nana's A Fugitive make an appearance on allmusic.com, both articles seem to be band-vanity. {edit} 04:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per vote in Nana's a Fugitive. Interestingly, while this article claims they played with Grinspoon and System of a Down, the band article states that they played two gigs one at a Caroline Chisholm High School open night. I come from Canberra and have never heard of him or the band. Only Google hits for band are from Wikipedia mirrors. [10]. Capitalistroadster 05:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 17:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I know Brett Wheeler from Canberra and the person described in this Article is a fabrication and should be deleted as his friends and himself probably put this artical on here as a joke.

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 23:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brian senior

• Delete. nn-bio. Unfortunately it does make an "assertion" of notability ("should be worshiped like a god"), so not speedy on those grounds. --Trovatore 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per WP:CSD A7; no reasonable assertion of notability. Hall Monitor 23:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as Hall Monitor said. Saying you're "the best" and "should be worshipped" is no credible assertion of notability. Tagged with nn-bio. Friday (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brief history of Cuban espionage and related extraterritorial activity

Delete Text essentially duplicates that of both Castro-directed overt and covert operations (which currently subject to an AfD and History of Cuban espionage (which is not). All three were started by the same author. At most, we need one such article and since I can't imagine anyone will likely type in the name of this article, I'm bringing this one to AfD instead being bold and making it a redirect to History of Cuban espionage. Caerwine 22:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. As per above. --cjllw | TALK 06:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dito. --Ezeu 00:13, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Carol Sitter

Nobody named "Carol Sitter" has been awarded a Medal of Honor. There was a "Carl Sitter" who was awarded a MoH for actions in the Korean War, but I can't verify that any of the information on this page would apply to him. --Carnildo 20:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Probably a misprint of Carl Sitter, but non-verifiable anyway. Besides, MoH is a great achievement, but not exaclty encyclopedic level of notability.--Isotope23 20:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've seen several articles on Medal of Honor recipients where notability is based solely on actions related to the award. I'm just pointing it out, not suggesting that they should or shouldn't have articles. -- Kjkolb 07:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • IMHO, circumstances surrounding the achievement definitely can be notable... I'm just saying I don't believe the MoH itself provides encyclopedic notability for everyone who has ever received it. Perhaps I should have clarified that.--Isotope23 13:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I understand. -- Kjkolb 13:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. CambridgeBayWeather 20:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator for reasons of non-verifiability. Hall Monitor 21:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:58, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Castrol XV

Advert/corpvanity. Delete. Dvyost 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete what Dvyost said --Quasipalm 14:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... and poorly written adcopy I might add.--Isotope23 18:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Celadon-Saffron Metropolitan Area

All the information in this article can be found in the articles Saffron City and Celadon City--with much more information too. Additionally, a Google search for Celadon-Saffron Metropolitan Area returns only 115 results, many from mirrors of or links to this Wikipedia article. WindFish 07:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as dupe fancruft with no merge target. I've been ambivalent about AFDing or merging this for a while. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• merge or keep. Trollderella 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge where? There's no info here that isn't in the Saffron City or Celadon City articles, and the term isn't ever used in the anime or games. (It might be used in the manga, but 115 Google hits including WP mirrors tends to imply that it isn't.) - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Then redirect. Trollderella 00:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

To where? Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as brain-fryingly annoying fancruft. Not satisfied with the two city articles, the author needs to synthesize another one. MCB 01:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Celadon City was created by NessSnorlax (talk • contribs) in April 2004. [11]. Saffron City was created by Raidentherv (talk • contribs) 0n April 9^th 2005. [12]. Celadon-Saffron Metropolitan Area was created by 200.93.214.203 (talk • contribs) on April 25^th 2005. [13]. Please check the facts before making such claims. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Pretty pointless, really. I can see the logic, but this is not even a termrecognised by the fandom. Besides which, in all representations of the Pokémon world that I know of, there is some rural area between Saffron City and Celadon City. Sonic Mew | talk to me 19:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. This is part of a pattern of nominations from an AOL user that has already included Three's Company (AfD discussion), Jack Tripper (AfD discussion), and Chrissy Snow (AfD discussion), at approximately this time a week ago. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. Uncle G 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie's Angels

It does not belong into an encyclopedia. Not an E/I (educational/instructional) article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a guide of TV shows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.5 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-10 02:43:57 UTC.

• Speedy keep C'mon. CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-10-10 T 02:48:56 Z
• Speedy keep Wikipedia is different from a paper encyclopedia and sitcoms are part of culture. Jessamyn 03:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] China History Forum

I understand that this page was put on and survived a previous AfD, however the previous vote was inconclusive with 1/1/1, with myself neutral. After reviewing various guidelines I have concluded that this article meets none of the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. In particular, this article is

1. non-notable. Alexa ranking 1,034,594. I've seen 300,000 ones get speedied. Google test comes up with 13,400 hits, but bear in mind that this is an EXTREMELY generic name, just like "Rover" is anyone's dog.
2. original research. Written by the forum owner himself.
3. vanity. As above, written by forum owner himself.
4. advertising. Blatantly promotes this forum. Tone and diction like one giant advertisement campaign.

I hope this AfD can stay open until a sufficient number of inputs can be gathered.
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, for reasons outlined above.
  -- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 05:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom.--Dvyost 05:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It was close but I decided it was too much like badvertising. Qaz ^(talk) 05:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete What's the Mandarin word for Cruft? Karmafist 16:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as 香 (Mandarin for "cruft"). paul klenk ^talk 22:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think that's the word for it... :D
-- Миборовский ^U|T|C|E 00:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, nn. Alex.tan 04:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Concrete sheep

Article describes a band that, by its own profession, does not yet exist. There exists no emoticon that can properly describe the extent to which this does not meet WP:MUSIC. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Can't we jsut Delete anything that refers to a MySpace page???? The Land 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I agree this page needs to be deleted. - Unsigned by 195.93.21.101
• Delete and here is my prediction that they never exist outside of MySpace.--Isotope23 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom & WP:VAIN --Kgf0 18:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] D02

Some forum participant's homebrew RPG system. Belongs on those forums, not here. — mendel ☎ 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete of course. — mendel ☎ 16:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Private Butcher 23:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:18, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Ko/

Unverifiable. A possible nn-bio. 202.156.6.54 23:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete, unverifiable, possible short, no context. Kappa 02:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really think this is a possible speedy candidate. Being a "scientist" is not an assertion of notability, and I don't think "famous scientist" is one either. Substub, nothing about which science Ko works on, Kappa and the nominator has pointed to lack of verfiability, etc. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I've lived around Cleveland (but not "at" it) for most of my life, except when at college, and I've certainly never heard of the guy. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete — unable to confirm notability. — RJH 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD A1 and A7. If it fits two CSDs, why not speedy? PacknCanes 23:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • We seem to have consensus so I've tagged it for speedy, hopefully no more discussion will be needed. It says "Daniel Ko is a famous scientist who lives at Cleveland" if anyone is wondering. Kappa 23:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately it has sufficient context and asserts notability, so neither of those criteria apply. Best to let it sit for five days and delete slowly. JYolkowski // talk 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per everyone else. Hall Monitor 00:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Possibly non-notable. *drew 15:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Jennings

Nonnotable bio, probable vanity. See also Yeti Photography, above. Delete. Dvyost 06:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Speedy per non-notable bio provision of WP:CSD? --MarkSweep✍ 06:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment In the Yeti Photography AfD J7 is making a claim for notability for the business (and by inference the owner); the way I understand the WP:CSD, any claim, even a seemingly hopeless one, has to be discussed here. There's no hurry. =) --Dvyost 06:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn __earth 10:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete vanity. Alex.tan 04:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN--Bkwillwm 19:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davidstrack.com

17-year old musician who does not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines.

• Delete. Gazpacho 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Having a personal website does not make one encyclopedic. Friday (talk) 05:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. utcursch | talk 11:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. Alex.tan 04:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dick Dashton

This is a hoax. Googling "Dick Dashton" provides only links to actor Cameron Daddo who appeared as a character named "Dick Dashton" in a movie called Drive-tim Murders Zeromacnoo 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Zeromacnoo 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as hoax; subject is non-existent. Hall Monitor 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per above. PacknCanes 22:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dikta

The entry does not assert any notability of this alleged band. 202.156.6.54 00:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

It does now, as I updated it quite a bit using Kappa's link and the official site. --Jacquelyn Marie 13:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep "Dikta’s first album, Andartak (2002), has received both public and critical acclaim. One critic even called it “the most interesting album from an Icelandic band in a long while”. Andartak’s singles got a lot of airtime on Iceland’s biggest rock radio station, X-ið 977, with one of them reaching the top of the charts!" [14] Kappa 02:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Kappa. Good research! --Jacquelyn Marie 13:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Do I Harass Us?

not notable and/or WP:BJAODN Kgf0 20:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - album release in "Febtober" and lack of entry in AllMusic = apparent hoax. --Kgf0 20:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. CambridgeBayWeather 20:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pureblade | ☎ 22:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• This is a perfectly cromulent article. Didn't this album go platinum in Smarch of that year? Delete as nonsensical hoaxery. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 22:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dovedale Infants

A rehabilitation institute for children with drug problems. No context or references. Delete - hoax in its present form. (If anybody thinks that an infants school having John Lennon as a former pupil is notable, then re-write appropriately.) -- RHaworth 10:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, hoax/attack, no context or useable content. Recommend anyone thinking about making an article on this topic to wait until this AFD closes. Kappa 19:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax --redstucco 08:27, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-steki

del. nonnotable. mikka (t) 16:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Since this is a non-notable website [15], and I'm generally in favor of "cursing, irony and mean people..." I'm going to have to say Delete.--Isotope23 17:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Sheesh. NN. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economic fascism

Conspiracy theory craziness, POV.TomTheHand 19:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - TomTheHand 19:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; not a soapbox etc. The fact that I may have points of agreement with the author is irrelevant, or perhaps gives me extra responsibility to speak up here. --Trovatore 19:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Indoctrination telling me... must... vote... Delete. WP:NOT a soapbox. Also, much of the text is lifted from the link mentioned in the article [16]... making this a Copyvio as well. I'll change my vote though if someone wants to write a NPOV article on what Economic fascism is. Current one is unreadable and doesn't even enlighten the reader as to what they are arguing against... pretty poor piece of soapboxing.--Isotope23 20:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I didn't think my opinion of DiLorenzo could get lower, but that "internet = facist" foolishness did it. Gazpacho 21:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Trovatore. MCB 04:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] EMSSA

This does not seem like material worthy of inclusion. A search for "electronic Martial Spirit of Southern Africa" on Google produces about 500 results. I do not think this is a large enough number for an online community. Alexa rankings don't come into the picture, since their websites are located at Angelfire and Yahoo! (which further suggests that this group is not worthy of inclusion). Delete. Joel7687 06:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Extreme urban hiking

As per WP:NOT - this reads more like a blog entry than an objective article. A quick Google search also reveals no reference to the article's subject matter. Peruvianllama 22:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, per nomination. Peruvianllama 22:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This is not an article. Friday (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity and blog. Zhatt 20:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Spinboy 21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy redirect to Prank flash.  BD2412 ^talk 00:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flash prank

Prank flash covers it all, whereas Flash prank is badly written and adds nothing, rather than merge it just needs deleting imo. --PopUpPirate 22:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect to Prank flash will do fine (no attack or copyvio, so no reason to bother deleting).  BD2412 ^talk 23:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily redirected per above. Friday (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French_ensigns

the basic concept is based on flawed research, namely, that there exist a certain number of plain flag with the french flag in canton used to design colonial flag. some french posession do have a tricolore in canton but these are either pre-existing flag to which a tricolore was added or flags that were created in toto. --Marc pasquin 01:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - the article is more about British Ensigns than French. Several French ensigns are illustrated and there is a claim that they are used by French Overseas Territories but no actual example is given (ie which territories). Given that AVD has a history of misusing sources (Ground Zero has looked up AVD's sources in the past only to find that they don't say what he claims they say) we should probably delete this. Homey 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Okay, there are problems with factual accuracy on the page. But that just means the article needs to be revised. It's not grounds for deletion. Justin Bacon 03:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - all these flags are referenced (in the 10 references listed on the article page), and I shall cite each one on the discussion page. As per Homeontheranges statement that I misuse references, I would suggest that Homeontherange use his words carefully. If I have to obey the No Personal Attack Rule then so does Homeontherange. Please visit the French ensigns discussion page, were ALL the Flags will be referenced. ArmchairVexillologistDon 04:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Saying you've been found to have misused sources in the past is not a "personal attack", it's criticism. You'd do well to learn the difference. Homey 07:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Misusing references? Please cite specific cases of me doing that.

Homeontherange, you would also do well to attempt to keep a civil tone.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge - Being told that using sources that are not correct is not a personal attack. That means that either you need to find the correct sources or just remove the non-factual information. Remember, me and Marc, David and Grutness are vexillologists, if you need information (or perhaps drawings) of flags, just let us know. But since, from reading this, I still personally believe that this article is nothing but original research. I strong suggest merging to Flag of France and perhaps have a gallery of various French ensign (which I could draw easily). Zach (Sound Off) 15:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Next up, Zach, I have studied Flags as well, and I quite capable of arguing that permise that the French ensigns is a valid article, and deserving of its own page.

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article does provide sourcing although there is some discussion on the article's talk page about the accuracy of the contents. That is the proper place to discuss any problems with the current contents of the article not in AfD. Capitalistroadster 05:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

*Merge/Redirect with Flag of France. Given that these are variations of the French Flag and that the objection seems to be over whether these are truly "ensigns", it may make sense to move whatever pertinent info exists in the article to the Flag of France article. Homey 07:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Homeontherange, I see you have changed your vote from Delete to Merge. It is nice to see that you conceed that the French ensigns article I created has some value on Wikipedia. However, as for Merging the article with another Flag of France article, I would strongly disagree with that suggestion. The French ensigns article touches on a subject that is not generally known in Vexillology, and it provides a compact, specialised article to highlight these French Flags, which are commonly overlooked, and un-emphasised. I submit to you that the French ensigns article is quite appropriate, and educational in its present location (i.e., with its own separate article). ArmchairVexillologistDon 20:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/Redirect with Flag of France for correct material and Delete for fictional material. Original research based on a flawed premise and a fundamental misunderstanding of vexillology. David Newton 12:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A fundamental misunderstanding of Vexillology? What precisely are you refering to?

ArmchairVexillologistDon 15:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Sorry Marc, but you're incorrect. There are a number of flags that have used the tricolor canton. Togo has, Wallis & Futuna has and Morocco has, to name just three off the top of my head. A quick glance at some of the pages on the Flags of the World website (many of which I had a hand in writing, I venture to add) will show that what Don is saying is basically correct, though some of the things said on the page do need their accuracy checked. The use of the word "ensign" is also a little wayward, to say the least - these are colonial flags, not ensigns (ensigns are flown from ships, not used on land). (BTW Don, are you on the fotw mailing list?) Grutness...wha? 12:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay - Marc's explained to me a bit more clearly what his beef is with the page, and I understand now. That there are flags like this in general is accepted, but their direct relation to British ones is questionable, especially given their usage. Also, some of the 'templates for flags" shown on the page in question never existed as flags in themselves. Many countries have used or do use flag designs similar to those probably first used by the British navy, either deliberately or coincidentally - and that is worthy of a Wikipedia article. The current article, though, is not that article. This needs a thorough rewrite, a split and a move to titles like Similarities in European colonial flag designs and Similarities in European naval ensign designs (or possibly something a bit more catchy). Grutness...wha? 12:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• There is no parallel -- none -- in the use of British and French ensigns. The British have a system: red for merchant vessels, blue for government, white for naval (I have somewhat oversimplified) that France never had. Please act along the lines of Marc Pasquin's and James Dignan's ("Grutness") arguments. The parent article is just plain wrong; I don't know where the author got his information. ASKirsch
  • Is everyone from FOTW on Wikipedia? Where's Antonio, Andre and Ron? :) Grutness...wha? 10:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup, in the sense that the French Ensign is worthy of an article. Much of the page belongs elsewhere, if at all, but that is an issue for talk pages, not AfD. JPD 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I want to comment on two issues, espeically since my name came up with regard to one of them. In a previous debate on AVD's contention that the Canadian flag was based on what he calls the "republican tricolour", AVD provided a list of references to support his argument. (This was on an article he wrote entitled "French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag", which was deleted.) Most of them were for books published decades before the maple leaf flag was introduced in 1965. I looked into a recent book to which he referred, and could find nothing to support AVD's claim. Part of the problem was that instead of providing the page number to support his claim, which is what would normally be done, he provided the number of the page from which he took the publisher's information, which is not useful in any way to someone trying to verify the references. And he never provided the pagge number to support his claim at any time later. The other issue is his statement, "If I have to obey the 'No Personal Attack Rule' then so does Homeontherange." When has AVD ever obeyed the NPA rule? Several editors have pointed out his violations, and he has never withdrawn the attacks (as far as I know). There is currently an RfC about his personal attacks, and he made a personal attack against me on the RfC page, which he has not withdrawn or apologized for. Because of his behaviour, it is hard to known whether this article has been written in good faith based on the references cited, or if it is original research. His past behaviour suggests the latter. Ground Zero | t 15:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ground Zero, you are misrepresenting our conversion. The conversion is also recorded on my talkpage.

ArmchairVexillologistDon talkpage

Back to the Flag (section on my talkpage)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArmchairVexillologistDon

Well, I can spend alot of time and effort to clarify and refute your "characterization" of my use o references, and the ideas and points that I was trying to convey to you. However, at the moment I am too angry at you to do so. So I shall "step away from the computer".

Additional note: I mentioned to an Administrated that the article I started French ensigns, was challenged within one hour of me being indefinitely banned. He stated that he was not aware of this, and he had nothing to do with it. Next I asked him permission to defend the French ensigns article, and the Administrator granted me permission to so, with the warning that I was absolutely not to engage in personaly attacks. So far I have kept my end of the agreement.

I will say this, the string of co-incedences that occurs around this French ensigns article is astounding, to say the least. I have one bright spot in this regard so far, a fellow Vexillologist Mysha (from the Dutch Wikipedia) he helped me immeasurabley in improving the French ensigns article. Thanks again Mysha, and it was very nice to make your acquaintance indeed (I learned "light a candle" from you Mysha. Thanks). ArmchairVexillologistDon 18:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I stand corrected with reference to the Archibald book. You did provide page references after I requested them, so I will withdraw the remark that I made above. The rest of our discussion shows, however, that the book does not support your claim that the Canadian flag is based on the republican tricolour. You have drawn, on your own, the conclusion that the remote similiarity of the Canadian flags to the flags of other countries, some of which are republics, is basis enough to draw your conclusion that the design of the maple leaf flag was chosen to promote republicanism by undermining royal and British connections and symbolism. In this case, the reference that you provided did not support your claim, but rather showed that what you were writing was original research.

As far as the "coincidences", it is not uncommon for editors to watch the contributions of editors who in the past have violated Wikipedia policies. As you know, the "French Republican Tricolour form of Canadian Maple Leaf Flag" was deleted for being a POV fork of what you were trying to include in the Flag of Canada article, which is not permitted. So you should not be surprised if your contributions are being monitored. This is one of the ways that Wikipedia policies can be maintained. Of course, if you are not violating Wikipedia policies, then you should not be concerned that others are watching your work. Ground Zero | t 19:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• • Comment. Also note that along with the RfC, the RfA has been requested to be reopended. Zhatt 17:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article as it stands at this moment is acceptable. Homey 14:42, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I hesitate to enter the conversation here, seeing all the intensity in the conversation above. This is my first encounter of this article and it appears lucid and well written. If factual accuracy is a concern, perhaps expert opinions or fact checking by peer reviewers would be reasonable.--Gaff ^talk 17:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Update

As it stand now (and as long as it stays that way), I have no problem with the page French Ensigns and unless there are objections, I will withdraw its candidacy for deletion.

However, while that page is now more correct, most of the problems I originaly had with the page have been transfered to a new one. (see its talk page Talk:French_colonial_flags),

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game teens

• A website with no evidence of significance. Friday (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Being a teenager with a website about videogames isn't significant enough for you??? Me either. Delete.--Isotope23 18:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete website promotion. no useful content.-71.28.243.246 18:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not speediable, though.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 19:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• deleteBEST Sight EVER this wuz my vote sum otha faggit changed it first look at the history u will see tha mystery(preceding unsigned comment by 71.35.135.15 (talk • contribs) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib))
  • My mistake, I was confused by the fact User:69.193.44.60 edited your vote later on. But please observe WP:CIVIL. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nn --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep!!!the website doesn't only have to deal with video games it is much deeper then that. You may go on our forums and ask the game teens community yourself! There is a bunch of websites on wikipedia. The Game Teens community does not want to be excluded because it may be fairly new and what not! Please, give me a good reason why a website just because it has more people involved with it should stay on here rather then a smaller site?.-- 23:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by 69.193.44.60 (talk • contribs) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib))
• Delete as non-notable vanity. Note that the anon who posted above as ezz2talk2 just made a very bad faith afd nomination at Final Fantasy, presumably to prove a WP:POINT... --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • NOTE: The anon above also deleted my vote without comment. Any anonymous editors of this page should be made aware that it is considered VERY bad form to delete other editors' votes. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I love the site and think that the article deserves to stay. (preceding unsigned comment by 69.193.44.60 (talk • contribs) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib))
  • Your opinion might hold more weight if you hadn't deleted a vote from this AfD and submitted a bad-faith AfD nomination yourself. Oh, and you have voted three times. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Site made in self-promotion. Articles about websites in Wikipedia are, for the most part, either influential, and/or have/had some kind of significance to a large community. I have just looked at the site myself, and it is obviously not an already well-established website to have met any such criterias yet to be deemed notable for an 'encyclopedic' article. Shadowolf 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: User:69.193.44.60 now also edited my comments in an attempt to make his three votes look like they are from seperate IPs. I have reverted. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - Promotion, with no real content. Author has been adding competing site pages to the AfD list as well. Trisk 22:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable site. Don't even have their own domain, but use a free host instead. bjelleklang 02:09, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Whether this was a bad faith nomination or not, consensus is clear. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gil Shaham

Non-notable violinist. Jake013 14:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Pretty obvious bad faith nomination by same editor who nominated Jascha Heifetz a couple of days ago (if someone wants to do something about that). -- Egil 14:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - the Heifetz nomination could have been a mistake (assume good faith) in isolation but one has to suspect bad faith when followed by this one. Dlyons493 Talk 15:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per above. --Last Malthusian 16:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grungry

Non-notable dicdef. Should be moved to Wiktionary and deleted from Wikipedia. Solarusdude 23:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete dictdef, no move - it's not even the most common usage according to Google. --Kgf0 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. non-verified word. It seems that the article was speedied three times already. --Vsion 09:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect. Surprise surprise. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gurlukovich Mercenaries

An unxpandable stub about the cannon fodder from the first chapter of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty. Any expansion of this article would necessarily be a duplication of the extremely detailed plot summary at Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, and these mercenaries aren't particularly notable even in the context of that game's story. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 17:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Usually, you can redirect these and spare the discussion on Vfd. Meelar (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Usually I would, but I've been involved in several controversial merges and redirects, and since the nascent content of this article isn't worth using in any other article, I figured it deserved its time on AFD. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 18:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty.--Isotope23 18:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect. -- Kjkolb 07:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per nom --Kgf0 18:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Page is rather useless, much like the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes page before it was a redirect to Cartman Joins NAMBLA. --FDIS 00:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hagglecake

Neo-foodism - a pastry invented in 2005 - not (yet) notable. -- RHaworth 10:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Good explanation! :) Xoloz 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 03:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hedley on the Hill

Vanity and friend of gay Swamp Ig 13:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Swamp Ig 13:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonsense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Logophile (talk • contribs).
• Keep and rewrite - according to Google it does appear to be a real place. This is a link that confirms that. I'd do the rewrite, but I don't know much of anything about that area of the world. I'll go ahead and remove the attack material. --Idont Havaname 14:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep even little villages are supposed to get their own article. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the rewrite done by Idont Havaname.--Isotope23 18:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, might be worth rewriting the current sentence and zapping the earliest version of the page. Kappa 19:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep in current form, assuming that Hedley on the Hill is an incorporated community or census division under UK law. Haikupoet 23:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as real place with real communities of interest see [17]. Capitalistroadster 01:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep! Of course! Trollderella 01:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Horwich Prize Medal Morris Men

I think this is a vanity page. No real claim to notability. Dunc|☺ 16:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless notability is established by author.--Isotope23 18:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Hydroplaning. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:14, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hydroplanation

nn neologism. This is just a fun term to use with people. Dlyons493 Talk 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. I'm thinking of a number between one and ten. That number coincides with the number of google hits this term gets. Any guessers?  BD2412 ^talk 20:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • A redirect per below, would be harmless, and also an appropriate solution.  BD2412 ^talk 00:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Hydroplaning in case anyone thinks that's what it's called. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Angr. -Greg Asche (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:07, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] IntelliTXT

Page only contains an ad. Pgengler 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. - Pgengler 20:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete category A3. Article contains only external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedied under A3, nothing but an external link (ok, two of them, but both to the same site). A real article could probably be written about this though... it gets loads of Google hits. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iovation Inc.

Article about a rather non-notable company (about 600 Google hits) by JonMartinKarl (talk • contribs), who also created an article on himself (at Jon karl, which I speedied). - ulayiti (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable company and probable vanity.--Isotope23 20:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Dlyons493 Talk 21:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ipso facto

Strong keep.

Transwikify Massysett 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki per nominator. --Idont Havaname 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if some of the notable uses of this phrase are added between now and the end of this Afd term. I can imagine this could be expanded into a nice article but as it now stands it should be transwikified. Qaz ^(talk) 06:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand if possible as per Qaz. If not possible, do a soft redirect to Wiktionary. -- Kjkolb 10:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. notable phrase, definitely could be expanded. I don't support a time limit on this expansion though, as Qaz suggests.--Kewp (t) 14:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable legal and lay with much room for expansion. Xoloz 14:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep for above reasons. Smerdis of Tlön 16:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable legal term. Capitalistroadster 17:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please this is a legal term used all the time erasing it makes no sense Yuckfoo 00:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep this is a very notable term. It is far longer than a dictionary definition, and has potential for expansion. [[Sam Korn]] 21:43, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] It's Appropriate

Band vanity. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Joyous (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Vanity. Formed this summer. Not yet notable.--CastAStone 01:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No signs of compliance with WP:music. Band formed a few months ago. Capitalistroadster 01:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per CastAStone. Pureblade 01:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete.Vanity. Not notable71.28.243.246 02:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:VANITY super #1 chief. CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Preaky 03:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. utcursch | talk 11:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity.--Gaff ^talk 23:57, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Ingram

I don't feel there's enough info to warrant a proper article, nor is there an introduction to give the reader a good idea of what the article is about.--D-Day 17:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep--he's a country music singer with at least one charting single and several major-label albums. I've expanded the article somewhat, based on his allmusic profile. Meelar (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - meets the WP:MUSIC criteria with several albums on WB and Sony. I would however kill the reference to his single (#60 on the U.S. Country charts isn't really much of an accomplishment) and replace that section with a chronolgical discography as well as a general cleanup and wikification.--Isotope23 18:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I'll change my vote to a keep then. I just wanted the article to be expanded some. If we get a few more votes that meet consensus, I'll remove the tag, ane everything will be fine. --D-Day 18:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, has a charting single. Kappa 19:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Meelar, notable enough for inclusion. Hall Monitor 21:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand including full discography and charting performances as that helps establish notability as per WP:music. Capitalistroadster 01:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per all above.  BD2412 ^talk 05:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 00:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jenny Nunis

Vanity page; no hits on Google, no verfiability. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (to keep things clear). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD A7, fails WP:MUSIC (AllMusic] has Fluffer listed, but it's the wrong band), WP:VAIN. --Kgf0 23:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy keep. This is part of a pattern of nominations from an AOL user that has already included Three's Company (AfD discussion), Jack Tripper (AfD discussion), and Chrissy Snow (AfD discussion), at approximately this time a week ago. This is clearly a bad faith nomination. Uncle G 03:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joni Loves Chachi

This article is about a sitcom. This makes it ineligible for an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are no place for sitcoms.152.163.100.13 02:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Wikipedia is not paper. Sitcoms are part of culture, and this one is a spin-off from a very notable one, Happy Days. GTBacchus 02:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep Wikipedia is different from a paper encyclopedia and sitcoms are part of culture. Jessamyn 03:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johannesburg Massage

Advertisement Carbonite | Talk 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Advert. Carbonite | Talk 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: per above. Solarusdude 23:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jorge platin

Non notable author, 242 hits at Google [18]. The whole article now looks like an offtopic thread in a forum. -- ReyBrujo 04:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. What a load of mixed chatter. Down the flushatory with it. Anthony Appleyard 05:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing salvageable in article -- comprised mostly of personal opinion and random rambling Qaz ^(talk) 06:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the halibut. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 19:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily deleted. Friday (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Solis

Obvious vanity. The use of the first-person voice is a dead giveaway. Delete or speedy delete. (Note the redirect JOSEPH SOLIS too.) — JIP | Talk 06:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN -- Egil 07:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Joshua P. Warren

Originally deleted as copyvio, but the contributor stated that he is the original author. This makes it autobiography/vanity, however. The author has made several other contributions promoting his own work, which should be reviewed. Fredrik | talk 11:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, vanity. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Google results establish some notability. No vote. utcursch | talk 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Mr Frosty Smacks of self-promotion. Busy schedule? Moved into a new house?
• Comment. A notable subject with a bad vanity article. I'd suggest rewriting it including a skeptical view (this didn't take long to turn up on Google and is even included in the Publishers Weekly reviews on Amazon) and taking out the chatty vanity tone, but if nobody has the time, Delete. --Dvyost 13:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Article has been updated.
• Keep. Notable. The edits have improved it. It still needs to be improved and wikified. Logophile 14:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand Google suggests he's real, and the claims made indicate notability. Agree that a critical section is a necessity. Xoloz 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Xoloz. The general notability of this figure is borderline, but he appears to be significant enough within his field and has appeared on a number of nationally broadcast television stations (History Channel, Discovery Channel, Travel Channel, TLC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, et cetera). There is no harm in keeping this article. Hall Monitor 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Hall Monitor. The subject is indeed borderline, but appearances on national broadcast media (TV and radio) are sufficient for an encyclopedic bio. The article doesn't need to be expanded to be longer, but wikification and clean up would be in order. Quale 19:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Vivian Darkbloom 21:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep agree with hall monitor there is no need to erase this Yuckfoo 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Hall Monitor. Appearing on national TV and magazines reaches notability. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup to provide a balanced, NPOV article. MCB 03:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kamandag

Non-notable band. Article is full of irrelevant claptrap needing a rewrite. jni 05:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC criteria. --Dvyost 05:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedied by DragonflySixtyseven ({{nn-bio}}). Lupo 07:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kingfreeze

self congratualtory pomp, username and article name coincide without coincidence, Only Kingfreeze I found on Google is a German Rockabilly artist. delete btw author removed first delete tag ! --Isolani 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. First version of this page was "speedy userfied" by me, but apparently he didn't get it. Lupo 15:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC.--Isotope23 16:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kirbyverse Cover Gallery

Wikipedia isn't an image gallery. dbenbenn | talk 13:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:NOT, and any fair-use claim for the use of those images on that page is doubtful. --Carnildo 23:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Good work, people. DS 12:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Last Poems

Title refers to a book by Alfred Edward Housman but content is just a bad copy/paste of a single poem from it. Since I don't know the subject well, I don't know whether this particular book is good or not. Article was rewritten since nomination. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 15:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment the book deserves an entry (but not under this title). It's notable at least for the much-quoted Epitaph on an army of mercenaries

These, in the day when heaven was falling,

The hour when Earth's foundations fled,

Followed their mercenary calling

And took their wages and are dead. Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone replaces the current text with an actual article. Current text could go to wikisource if someone wanted to take the time to format it and do a transwiki.Keep the rewrite.--Isotope23 18:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • In the Housman article Last Poems is dated at 1922, in which case under U.S. law it is still in copyright until 2017 (publication + 95 years for works before 1978-01-01). MCB 03:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • That is incorrect. See US Copyright law. All works before 1923 are in the public domain. Xoloz 08:11, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Unless the copyright was renewed in time, which Last Poems was, in 1950 (note the copyright page via Amazon). --Kgf0 19:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, that sentence in US Copyright Law is shockingly incorrect. Admittedly 17 USC 304 is hard to read, but that's just not right at all, considering the renewal provision. MCB 22:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
        • The sentence in the article is correct, I think, and all charts listing copyright expirations affirm. The Sonny Bono Act did not restore lapsed rights. A work published in 1922, renewed in 1950, had its copyright lapse on Dec. 31, 1998, before the effective date of the Sonny Bono act (July 1, 1999). All works published in the US prior to 1923 are in the public domain. Housman, published 1922, is no exception. Xoloz 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I've rewritten it now. Not sure if I should retitle it to something like Last Poems (A. E. Housman) - any thoughts? Dlyons493 Talk 22:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. MCB 03:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as rewritten. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 10:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep since the rewrite.--Alhutch 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Schuker

vanity article ChanceDM 00:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Please add that Lauren Schuker is also a member of the Signet Society, Harvard's society of arts and letters. Also, she is an English major, not in the History and Literature program. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.31.44.55 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC).
• Delete, being the head of a student organization is not a sufficient claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 14:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, student vanity. --Idont Havaname 14:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as the former president of Harvard's Parliamentary Debate team, I laugh at whoever thinks this makes Ms. Shuker notable. Xoloz 15:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as student vanity. Hall Monitor 17:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and/or self-promotion. jni 06:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pretty ridiculous.
• Delete. What about my mom?
• Delete, vanity. And please sign your votes! PacknCanes 22:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Vanity beyond belief.
• Delete. Ridiculous.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leitch

No sign of notability of this character The Land 09:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The Land 09:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Defense: There are remains on; http://www.extremedylan.cjb.net

The old website was http://www.thelside.com but is no longer registered. The image used in the entry is of the character.

As the article explains, "Leitch" was known on a local level. Signs of notability are evident through internet search (google extreme dylan etc).

• • I removed the dividing line in this nomination. It makes it harder to read. -- Kjkolb 11:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article itself does not provide sufficient information to verify that this character even existed, much less that the character is notable. Googling ("extreme dylan" leitch) as the anonymous commenter suggests yields no hits at all [19] so the connection between Leitch and Extreme Dylan is not apparent. --Metropolitan90 14:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no compelling evidence has been given of the notability of a now defunct web character.--Isotope23 16:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn and no longer existent. MCB 03:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

www.geocities.com/robzcout

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lenong

Colloquial dictionary definition with no links to it. Scott Davis ^Talk 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 21:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lex fori

Transwikify Massysett 03:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, expand - no mere dicdef, this is actually an ancient and well-developed legal theory, which counters the theory that the law of the place of the wrong should govern, irrespective of the forum where the lawsuit was brought. These ideas have battled back and forth in various fora for centuries, and entire law school courses are taught on the triumph of one or the other over time.  BD2412 ^talk 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This is obviously an important article. Carioca 05:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as important legal concept see Procedure (conflict). Capitalistroadster 05:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable legal latin with much room for expansion. Xoloz 14:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep. Once again, a valid stub on an encyclopedic topic gets bitten for starting at the beginning. Smerdis of Tlön 16:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I am disappointed that this stub has been nominated for deletion. I have begun to expand it into a fuller entry and will complete the process as soon as I am able. David91 15:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Hermione1980 21:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lex loci rei sitae

Transwikify Massysett 03:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, expand for essentially the same reasons as Lex fori, above. Notable legal concept, much more than a dicdef.  BD2412 ^talk 05:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. This is obviously an important article. Carioca 05:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand as notable legal term. The US Supreme Court lists it in their glossary of legal terms which judges may alternatively use in their rulings or come across in reading see [20]. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Notable legal latin with much room for expansion. Xoloz 15:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong and speedy keep, although this could likely be merged into a general lex loci article along with lex loci contractus and lex loci actus if they exist. Smerdis of Tlön 16:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --Celestianpower ^hablamé 11:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mexican sabre fencers

I'm nominating this article despite the cleanup tag. I do not think any of the fencers listed has a solid claim of notability yet. It also shows a clear bias for those fencers coached by this 'James Randall' guy. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 16:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete WP:ISNOT a propaganda machine, free host, and/or an indiscriminate collection of information. The individual fencers, upon achieving notability (I suppose it's arguable whether the existing claims constitute notability) could have their own articles, and the list should then be Category:Mexican sabre fencers perhaps as a subcat of Category:Mexican athletes. (Personally, I think every "List of" page worth keeping should be a category, but that's me.) --Kgf0 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] List of revenues

Direct quote from a primary historical source (Herodotus). Not suitable as an encyclopedic article as is, and I don't think the subject itself warrants an article, either. Delete -- Egil 06:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This is Darius I of Persia. The list itself is of considerable historical interest, and a subsection about it at Darius's article would be useful. But I can't vote for merge because I don't think the list should be incorporated, just the lessons to be drawn from it. Sorry to be wishy-washy. Chick Bowen 23:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Though unedited material in tabular format must rank high on the "NPOV" scale, Chick Bowen is right. An introductory paragraph is essential, but the application of this in information is broader than just Darius the King. It should appear in the entry Achaemenid dynasty, following the subsection "System of governing". --Wetman 12:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:33, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lori Bryant-Woolridge

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

• Lori Bryant-Woolridge Special:Whatlinkshere/Lori Bryant-Woolridge
• Benjamin Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Benjamin Bryant
• Paco Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Paco Bryant
• Renee Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Renee Bryant

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep assuming copyright situation is handled. Remember to unwikify any links to NN persons. -- Egil 11:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject seems notable enough to me. The copywright issue must be taken care of. Logophile 13:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as the only one in the bunch that is notable... as long as someone rewrites it so that it is not Copyvio. Even if permission is obtained for this copy, it needs to be rewritten to strike some of the non-notable wiki's and references. Could also use some POV adjustment.--Isotope23 18:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as long as the copyvio issue is rectified. Hall Monitor 18:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: A GFDL version of this article is now available at Lori Bryant-Woolridge/Temp if this will help expedite the removal of the copyvio. Hall Monitor 21:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please it has been rewritten so it is fine now Yuckfoo 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Obviously notable based on precedents for authors (circulation, etc.) Both books are from major publishing houses and are sold on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Books-A-Million. There are also several user reviews on Amazon from a wide variety of locations. I suspect the copywrite issue is moot, as this appears to be the standard bio circulated by publishers to the press, etc. exactly for this purpose. el_amante 19:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lucid crossroads

I would have speedied this as OR, but it's got enough Google hits to indicate that it's more than that. But it definitely feels unverifiable. DS 12:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the definition title should be something that encompasses all locations specifically created for visiting in states of consciousness other than waking, I just don't know what they would all be called? (other mind conjured locations are the Lucid Metro, Astral Pulse Island, the Astral Societies Astral Temple and P4 experiement)

• Weak Keep even the improbable "lucid dojo" gives lots of Googles. See also wikibooks Dlyons493 Talk 15:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, it's verifiable, but I'm not convinced it is in any way notable. Looks like a bunch of pseudo-psychological fluff to me. I'm going to do a bit more scrounging before I vote though.--Isotope23 16:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Great phrase pseudo-psychological fluff. I agree, but has it become a social phenomenon? Look forward to further investigation. Dlyons493 Talk 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The organization, or whatever, may exist, but the assertions in the article are pure OR. MCB 03:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 00:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mark G. Turnbull

Vanity. This guy takes 3 paragraphs to say "I like politics, but I haven't run for any office." Best he's done is president of the Young Democrat club at his college and some campaigning for various politicians. R. fiend 19:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Alhutch 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete borderline CSD:A7 speedy.--Isotope23 20:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. I think it's surely an A7 speedy, but it might not work as such due to its length. Friday (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You know, if it had been a bit shorter, unwikified, and hadn't been here for over two months, I probably would have speedied it. Even though those things have no bearing on the CSD criteria, I decided to bring it here. I guess it's just psychological. If another admin wants to speedy it, I will certainly not stand in their way. -R. fiend 22:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, what the heck, in that case, I'll put an nn-bio tag on it and see what happens. Friday (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, nn. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Administrator note: Although I would normally rule a no consensus on this type of thing, the only keep vote is from an anonymous IP which removed Kgf0's vote. Delete.

[edit] Martialarm

Delete this advertising please. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam --Kgf0 22:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: User:202.183.110.81 blanked votes adding the following comment 'Its a definition. definitions per "definition" is - a sentence or more giving the meaning of a word - and it is exactly that. no deletion.' which is terribly bad form and a violation of the AfD process. Aside from which, WP:ISNOT a dictionary either, so add dictdef to my reasons for deletion. --Kgf0 16:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Im sorry I did not know to keep all the information in the edit box, I thought it would re-dupliate. Basically it is expressed as informative information about martial arts development and modern progress and includes a definition of a martial arts training machine which is data relevent to this topic. Basic information on any topic is its definition so the definition is included on the page. You wouldn't delete every entry on shoes simply because shoes are a commercial product and here the information and push for further development in the martialarts is key issue.

Note: I took the liberty of reformatting your reply and turning it into a Keep vote, since it's obvious that you're new and that you want it kept. To address your point, certainly an article on shoes would not be deleted, unless all it did was define shoe. Definitions go on Wictionary. Similarly, an article that amounted to an add for a specific shoe would likewise be up for deletion. What would be better is to write an article on something like Martial arts training dummy and include Martialarm as an example of one, among others. See, for similarly themed examples, bokken and List of martial arts-related topics#Training techniques and equipment. --Kgf0 19:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Pennington

looks like a vanity article--Austrian 20:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as per WP:CSD A7. Hall Monitor 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Matt Pennington was added to the LARP article on September 27, 2005, so there may be some context for having a short biography of who he is. I don't know whether he is a "notable" personality within the LARP scene, but he may very well be. The current tone/content would need to be reworked for a future article, of course. Peruvianllama 22:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, but unfortunately not speedy. Makes a claim to notability, of a sort. No evidence of notability, and if he is, this article is not a good starting point. android79 00:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meditative art

I would like to see more people discuss this page, it has been linked on needs attention for over a year, and I have a suspicion this is not a widely accepted term, but I am not an expert. cohesion | talk 08:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

A laudable aim, but this isn't the place for that discussion - unless you are proposing that it be deleted. As to the use of the term, it is used, but not widely, and it certainly isn't the "standard" nomenclature. Usually, you will find the term abstract minimalist used (or simply abstract expressionist). People like Josef Albers and Mark Rothko in particular are absent from this article, as is Barnett Newman - so it could do with considerable expansion. But what's there is good. What are you proposing - merging it into something? Because there's too much there to really consider deletion. Grutness...wha? 12:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Deletion was one of the possibilities in mind, if it turned out this was a completely fabricated term for example, since it's not, merging information or some other action probably would be best. - cohesion | talk 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I've only come across it a couple of times in three years of part time work as an arts reviewer - and in that business it's difficult to say what's a neologism and what's real. A move to Monochromatic art (with links to things like Grisaille and expansion to cover more than just 20th century art) might be the best solution, since that term is widely used. It's probably too big to merge into abstract expressionism. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Michael G. Turnbull

non notable architect. only google hits are wikipedia pages. this page was written by the same IP adresses as the Mark G. Turnbull page, which is also up for deletion Alhutch 19:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn-bio. Nothing here meets my criteria for notability.--Isotope23 20:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significance. Depite the length and name-dropping, there's no real claim to fame. It's better written and less obvious than most vanity we get, though. Friday (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - He is current Assistant Architect of the Capitol. While this may not be the most glorious position in the Federal Government, attaining this position still sets him apart from the thousands of other architects in the United States. Epolk 16:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment as I pointed out in the nomination, searching "michael g. turnbull" on google turns up only wikipedia pages. searching "michael g. turnbull capitol" gets a few more hits (5 or 6). If he's so important, then why doesn't anyone know who he is?--Alhutch 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Response I reviewed the Criteria for inclusion of biographies and it is a close call as to whether he deserves an article. Two possible areas he fits under are Political figures holding international, national or statewide/provincewide office and Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is recognized as exceptional and likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field. If this was just an architect who worked for Joe Blow & Associates Architecture firm, or if he was an orphan article (he is linked from Architect of the Capitol), I would be all for deleting him. The fact is, he is employed as the number two person of a U.S Federal Government ageny. His architecture work involves some of the most well known structures in the United States (and possible the world). The number of people that know of him is not the only factor in deciding whether he gets an article. I think there is room for him on Wikipedia. That being said, as always on Wikipedia, majority rules.  :) Epolk 17:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I have come to see that Epolk's reasoning makes sense. Since it's not an orphan article, and since this person has some significance, I think that we have to keep this article. Having changed my mind, i struck through the non notable part of my nomination.--Alhutch 20:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE AND REDIRECT to Faroe Islands

[edit] Military of the Faroe Islands

There is nothing useful to say. As this stub says, there is no military of the Faroe Islands. Susvolans ⇔ 11:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unencyclopedic becauase there is no information. Logophile 14:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - we also have articles on some small countries' political parties that say that said countries have no political parties (see Elections and parties in Saint Helena. --Idont Havaname 14:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Torn Really, I don't know what to do with these articles. We went through this on Military of Hong Kong and ended up re-directing to the local barracks of the Chinese army. It drives home the point that HK doesn't have it's own military. Before re-directing we did all agree that the article stating that HK had no military of it's own did say something to the reader. This article could be re-directed to an appropriate article about Denmarks role in providing protection to the Faroe Islands, or it could be left as is. SchmuckyTheCat 15:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge i.e. don't delete - it does have something to say. Dlyons493 Talk 15:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The fact that a small country has no military (and the circumstances surrounding its choice -- or need -- to be defenseless) is encyclopedic and downright interesting. Xoloz 15:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, informative, unless somehow you already knew the Faroe islands had no military, in which case you didn't need to look it up. Kappa 19:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments. And ideally, all military articles would be "empty" ;) Punkmorten 19:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Faroe Islands. No potential to ever be more than a stub. TomTheHand 19:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --MacRusgail 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to Faroe Islands, it'll be notable (sort of) as a fact that way. Makenji-san 22:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to either Faroe Islands or Military of Denmark. It is an autonomous region, not a nation state, and therefore unsurprisingly has no independent military. Having an article is therefore pointless, though the defence of the isles is a worthy section for either of the afore mentioned articles. (this is not a vote for keep as is). Sabine's Sunbird 01:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to Military of Denmark. The Danish military has a Faroe Islands Command but Wikipedia doesn't have an article about that (compare Greenland Command (Denmark)). --Metropolitan90 03:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no information here; the fact that Denmark is responsible for the Faroes defense is already in the Faroe Islands article. MCB 03:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, rename (as Faroe Islands Command (Denmark)) and expand according to Greenland Command (Denmark). Unlike military of Greenland, which contains information on the non-Danish units, a separate military of Faroe Islands article does not seem to be necessary. — Instantnood 08:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 07:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC))
• Delete redundant page. Bwithh 23:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mongo (hehu)

Subject is non-notable, a one-liner, and has no references (except for link to a swedish bbs.) bjelleklang 12:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable.--Isotope23 16:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No references to prove notability. Solarusdude 23:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. X Quotes

Useless collection of unidentified and nonsensical quotes. Anon editors have continually deleted tags added to the article calling for significant improvements, but really have no case on which to claim this page is needed. Harro5 10:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete : The page claims "This page helps understand how the mind behaves in stressful situations", the very personification of the nonsensical. Manik Raina 10:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable. — JIP | Talk 10:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speedily if possible, for having no context (though it's not "very short"), being borderline patent nonsense, and serving only to disparage its subject. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Press your BJAODN button with confidence. Non-notable, but I laughed. --Last Malthusian 11:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, unencyclopedic, not even a joke.Logophile 14:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as utterly pointless drivel.--Isotope23 16:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pointless --pgk^(talk) 18:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense, although not patent nonsense. MCB 03:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all Delete votes above. --Metropolitan90 03:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Why delete a page that makes you laugh its funny and shows the mind of a maths teacher who has put up with strange weird loud pupils for however long he has been teaching, go on just let this one go. (anon reader) 09:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.183.150 (talk • contribs).
• Do not delete! This is a truly great experiment and should be brought to everyones attention. (anon) 9:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.183.150 (talk • contribs).

Do not delete this page. the authers are my friends. they put their sweat and blood into this, and it provides insight. KEEP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.50.183.150 (talk • contribs).

"THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE QUOTES

The quotes allow a general viewer to receive a better insight into the mind of not just one man, but humans in general. The quotes give a clear indication of how the mind works in certain stressful situations, and the thought processes that appear in many people's mind that link thoughts and ideas into a single sentence. The quotes also, therefore introduce the power of the spoken word, showing how a single message can be used to convey a thought or idea much better than a single action. The quotes also allow people to view the expressions that build in a human's vocabulary as (s)he increases in age, and the frequency (s)he uses said sayings to those that have never heard them before, and in turn passes these sayings to those people which they have relayed the comment to. These people, in turn, may adopt one or more of these sayings and use them in another situation in which the comment makes sense, and so the circle continues.

This article is clearly one that gives an insight into the human mind, and I think it is of clear importance to the community. It contains mannerisms of a personality, and can be used how the user wishes to. If a user has no imagination, then the quotes seem little more than a watse of time where no information is contained. Others, however, will feel that this does have some significance to their lves and the information that they receive in them. They need to be able to understand that while the quotes give no information in a sense, in another sense the quotes are very useful, and informative, because they give us all a look at the mind of a human and their speech patterns. As well as this, the quotes give an indication of wisdom, and enlightenment, and in this sense they give information. They are significant, as without them many would not be able to view key human speech pattern information and it's relevance in today's stressful society."

This is what is said in the article. I put it there just in case people do not bother to read the pages they vote to delete, as I know is often the case. I have used Wikipedia for years. I am a memeber, as you can see, but not for any length of time. These quotes are what they say they are, however, if you feel that the information that they provide is not apparant to the average Wikipedia surfer, then obviously that is fine. I would say that I would vote to keep the quotes, as I do believe they are worthy of Wikipedia. May I point out that the quotes have been on Wikipedia three weeks. Has anyone been hurt in that time, by those quotes? Maybe they have.

KEEP --Chardonnay 22:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nana's A Fugitive

Neither Brett Wheeler nor the band Nana's A Fugitive make an appearance on allmusic.com, both articles seem to be band-vanity. {edit} 04:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Two gigs? Ummm, delete. Friday (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As they are an Australian band, they wouldn't necessarily be on Allmusic.com. The most comprehensive Australian music site is Music Australia site which has no record of them either see [21] Given that they formed in April, played two gigs including one at a Caroline Chisholm High School open night, and have no records to their credit, this is not surprising. Capitalistroadster 05:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete NAF! NAF! NAF!

Although I hate to defy my friends wishes, I must say that this page should be deleted because the band is from a school

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied. android79 00:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Shail

This article makes little sense to me! MacRusgail 22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Less sense to me. paul klenk ^talk 22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete CSD A1 --Trovatore 22:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD G1 A1 (now tagged as such); also orphan. --Kgf0 23:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nochaa

Vanity page for a band whose notability has not yet been shown. Alex.tan 01:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Btw, they do not meet WP:MUSIC guidelines for notability. Alex.tan 05:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for failing wp:music Qaz ^(talk) 06:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - notable chiefly for not being signed and not having a bassist. Chick Bowen 22:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oath Rod

This does not appear to be an encyclopedic topic, but maybe there is a precedent for retaining this sort of information that I'm not aware of. If this article is to be kept, it definitely needs to provide better context. {edit} 04:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to Wheel of Time or create Objects in the Wheel of Time series and merge there (there are several other short pages that could be so merged) or delete if no one wants to do the merge. DES ^(talk) 06:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My first instinct was merging also, but this info is already in the Aes Sedai article, and it's not a major enough object in the books to get a listing in the Wheel of Time main article. --Dvyost 06:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• merge and keep, seems to be factual. Trollderella 00:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Most of the info is in the Aes Sedai article. I'd suggest putting the rest of the text in Talk:Aes Sedai, and letting the editors there sort out how to insert it. (For starters, I believe the comment about the "Rods of Dominion" is incorrect.) Bluap 17:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Canada photo gallery

Wikipedia isn't a photo gallery. I'm concerned that many of these photos are "fair use", so using them in a photo gallery isn't really kosher. Any free ones should be put at the Commons, and a gallery page created there. dbenbenn | talk 15:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Quale 19:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:NOT. --Carnildo 23:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and since all of the photos are fair use, we cannot move any to the Commons. Zach (Sound Off) 01:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I created this page. I figure it would be a good way to keep track of any Order of Canada related photos already uploaded for future use on related articles but if that does go well with wikipedia guidelines then get ride of it. Sorry bout all this Dowew 02:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zhatt 20:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Spinboy 21:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OTB(gang)

Non-notable, non verifiable article about a New Zealand "gang." Paul 11:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. Note the ominous Site still under construction - wiki is not a free hosting service even for such important social phenomena. Dlyons493 Talk 15:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, non-verifiable "gang". Looks to be a chump version of Glock 3... only even less notable.--Isotope23 16:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope 23. But, who knew that the Crips/Bloods thing has made it to New Zealand!?! MCB 03:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paco Bryant

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

• Lori Bryant-Woolridge Special:Whatlinkshere/Lori Bryant-Woolridge
• Benjamin Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Benjamin Bryant
• Paco Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Paco Bryant
• Renee Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Renee Bryant

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 07:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete NN. Including any redirects -- Egil 11:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Logophile 13:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the whole lot, unfortunately. It is my hope that User25be (talk • contribs) will continue their work here and continue to contribute to other existing articles as he or she holds the potential to become another great asset to Wikipedia. Hall Monitor 17:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • To clarify, please delete the lot of Bryant articles noted above, the Lori Bryant-Woolridge article can be handled through the normal copyvio process. Hall Monitor 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as admirable for his service, but ultimately non-notable. Hall Monitor, Look at Lori Bryant-Woolridge before you call delete on the whole lot... she appears to be somewhat notable, even if the rest are not.--Isotope23 18:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • You are correct, please accept my humble apologies. I have started Lori Bryant-Woolridge/Temp to replace the copyvio. Hall Monitor 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep vaguely noteable for his service and relation to clearly noteable Lori Bryant-Woolridge, but not enough to merit his own article. This should be incorporatd into either a Lori article, or one of the linked miliatary articles Ronald Collinson 22:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as he is clearly the least notable of the Bryant entries. He has won a Bronze Star, which is admirable, but is not uncommon among veterans. The only reason I don't recommend "delete" is that he is differentiated from other veterans as he was (is?) a member of the very famous 82nd Airborne, was featured in a book that is widely available by a very well-respected and widely-known author (just do a Google search for the book and/or the author), and is clearly part of a military family who could be considered notable for the fact that it is has "dynasty" qualities: both grandfathers are decorated Generals, as is the father, and he is a decorated veteran of a high-profile war featured in a major book. Clearly, when taken in total, the family is certainly notable for their consistent multi-generational military achievements (many people are from "military" families, but very, very few, I suspect, consistently reach the general officer level). If this entry is deleted, I would suggest keeping reference to same in the Albert Bryant Jr. and Renee Bryant entries. el_amante 19:56, 12 October 2005
  • May I also say that just because several notable family members are entered at one time and by one person does not mean that they are automatically vanity pages. On very rare occasions (and I think this is one of them) the individuals entered are actually notable for their own reasons. I'm not sure that user25be isn't a relation, but while there are some traditional red-flags, close review shows that these people are largely notable. el_amante 19:56, 12 October 2005
• Delete NN Josh Parris # 00:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paradise Friendly Home

This cached Google hit verfies some elements of the arrticle[22]), but there's no claim to notability here; it's an orphanage that no longer exists. Delete. Dvyost 04:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per Dyvost freestylefrappe 05:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notability claimed. It's successor doen't have an article so there's really nowhere to merge even. Dlyons493 Talk 15:54, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --JAranda | yeah 00:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --Gaff ^talk 00:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Paul-collinsing

Appears to be a hoax article (perhaps doubling as an attack article). Google returns one instance of the use of this term, in a completely different context [23] (referring to a preist who wrote books critical of the Vatican and resigned preishood in 2001). Appears unverifiable. Only article created by this user. The talk page of the article has "confirmation" follow-up from another brand new user. In the unlikely event it turns out to be true but exremely obscure, Wikipedia is still WP:NOT a slang dictionary. --Tabor 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can cite some evidence.--Isotope23 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - the page had no links to anywhere last night (What links here had zero hits), so how the second user (from Galway) found it is a complete mystery. Further, the writing style of the second user was identical (same signature mistake, didn't use tildes) to the first one, so looks like the first user's sock puppet. --DannyWilde 00:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Paul Collins is a former Australian Priest and current commentator on Catholicism. He appears frequently in the Australian media in relation to church issues see [24] and [25]. He resigned from his priesthood after Cardinal Ratzinger attempted to discipline him for his book on Papal Power in 1998. He probably is notable enough for an article. This on the other hand is an unverifiable neologism and possible attack on a Paul Collins of the author's acquaintance and should be deleted. Capitalistroadster 01:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unsourced/unverified speculation, probable hoax/attack. MCB 03:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hey there. Just to clear up one or two things. It is a complete coincidence that there is a priest called Paul Collins in Australia. Simple as that. No doubt there are other Paul Collins' out there. As to how I found the article, I got an email from a friend in Galway about it. Maybe he had something to do with putting it up, he is a bit of a history nut. My mistakes in my post are due to my inexperience with Wikipedia... I'm a noobie, please forgive. Oh one more thing, DannyWilde, I'm not from Galway. I'm from Glasson, Westmeath. I went to college in Galway. -- BarrysT 11:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:47, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peep Jousting

non-notable game appearing in non-notable webcomic GTBacchus 02:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, comiccruft. Friday (talk) 04:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as totally non-notable webcomic.--Isotope23 15:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no assertion of notability, see User:SCZenz/Webcomics -- SCZenz 16:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phi Sigma Pi, Beta Pi

Fraternal organizations are notable, individual chapters not. Also, WP:NOT a free host. Delete.  RasputinAXP  talk * contribs 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable chapter of a fraternity.--Isotope23 19:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; nn -James Howard (talk/web) 15:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Phiiliip

I cleaned up this page that was full of POV ("BEST DJ 4EVA YO!!!!" and the like) but I did a little searching and I'm convinced he isn't notable enough for an article (in all fairness -- he may be someday). Also, he might be confused with a signed artist called "Phiiliip" [26].

• Delete --Quasipalm 16:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... I don't see anything that meets WP:MUSIC--Isotope23 17:22, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Friday (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Physics and Astronomy Students' Union

Vanity. NN. Delete -- Spinboy 23:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• If student government at the University of Toronto works anything like it did at the University of Ottawa when I was an underachieving undergrad, then the import of this organization amounts to a handful of seats on the school-wide student government's board of directors. This definitely doesn't merit its own article, but I'm torn as to whether it's more of a delete or a merge into Students' Administrative Council. SAC could definitely use the expansion, but it probably just needs a short paragraph or two explaining the general organizational structure. It probably doesn't need to have this whole article merged into it, and I definitely can't justify any vote that would require keeping this title as a permanent redirect. But I may vote one way or the other once I've had time to think about it. Can I vote for expand the SAC article without using this specific article as a merge and redirect? Bearcat 01:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Tag it for expansion and/or leave a note on its talk page? -- Spinboy 02:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Yep, that works. I'll vote delete on this article now. Bearcat 02:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zhatt 21:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --redstucco 08:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pittance

delete dicdef --Trovatore 22:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. MCB 04:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place friendship

Original results, no major google hits, self-promotion. jengod 19:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• delete personal essay --Trovatore 22:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn and dangerously close to CSD:G1, patent nonsense. PacknCanes 23:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Do not delete: first-effort entry: reference to Chatterjee's research deserves attention: open entry to edits --Mary Godwin 01:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Angel

NN band vanity. Or a possible attack page (hinted at such statement like "5 gay students") -202.156.6.62 12:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 12:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. the wub "?!" 13:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable and nonsense. Logophile 14:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedied Wikibofh 15:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POTENTIA

Cruft. Fan created character, no notability, and sadly no WP:CSD exists for this situation, except perhaps borderline 1.3.1 (db-empty). CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Fan created cruft.--Isotope23 18:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Not even that. Just cover for linkspam. Speedy deleting. -- Karada 18:53, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 11:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Punky Brewster

No educational value. It does not fit into an encyclopedia. (unsigned by User:152.163.101.10.)

• Completeing mal=formed nomination. looks like a probable speedy-keep to me. DES ^(talk) 06:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Sorry DESiegel, but I feel that it is wrong for us to carry out an anonymous troll's dirty work like this. If it is a matter of formality to do this, then let's Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and shut this nomination down. {edit} 06:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagee. A speedy keep (which this is obviouly headed for) doesn't take long, and preserved a record for future reference. I don't approve of citign WP:IAR to avoid normal procedure -- indeed I am convinced that anyoen citing it for such a purpose thereby demonstrates a weak case. Besides, this may not have been trolling, but a person who honestly doesn't belive that such articles belong here. A reasonable defense of such a postion could IMO be made, although it would change the nature of wikipedia soemwhat, and i wouldn't support it. But a relatively new user may not fully understand the nature of wikipedia. in such a case, seeing the response is more likely to bbe educational than having the nom simply vanish, IMO. DES ^(talk) 07:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Then we agree to disagree. This is not a probable speedy keep, it's a definite and no-questions-asked speedy keep which picks up over 220,000 hits on Google still today. In light of the recent rash of Three's Company related noms, this is almost certainly a bad faith listing. {edit} 08:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This guy's been nominating TV shows for a while now and every single one has been speedy keeped. Being a new user is one thing, but this guy should have learnt by now. --Last Malthusian 11:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and ban these users for making idiotic AfD nominations. — JIP | Talk 06:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and find out why nominator keeps submitting bad faith nominations. --Metropolitan90 07:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep of course this is keep. - cohesion | talk 08:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as per above reasons. —Phil | Talk 09:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep of course. per above. Dismas|^(talk) 09:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep for hit show and bad-faith nomination. It's time to end anonymous nominations. --rob 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and block user. -- Kjkolb 10:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Celestianpower ^hablamé 13:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel preciouses

NN. Jwissick^(t)(c) 04:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, no indication of meeting WP:MUSIC criteria. Friday (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Friday. --Dvyost 05:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Another band article may be crushed under the mallet of WP:Music. It breaks my heart sometimes (really). Qaz ^(talk) 06:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete It definately doesn't meet WP:MUSIC, and it's not even clear it's a fully organized band, since apparently the official web site is asking people to e-mail in what instruments they play --rob 08:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Google brings up one hit for "Rachel and the Preciouses". Zhatt 20:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Does not meet WP:MUSIC. "Power Chord" is not a genre of music. And on, and so forth. Just delete. Bearcat 17:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ready at Dawn Studios

Ready at Dawn are a "small videogames development company" who have yet to publish their first project. Looks like the games industry version of garage bands. Pilatus 00:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It was created from 2 major PC gaming studios, has a major-platform licensed game coming, has been noted in IGN, Gamespy and Gamespot, and took E3 awards from the latter two this year. See[27]. --CastAStone 00:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. The upcoming game IMHO makes it notable enough, because it's been previewed (and so does actually exist and isn't vapourware). Weak, because, well, it's just one game.--inks^T 00:56, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the game they will release, Daxter, it's notable enough. Carioca 02:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above keepers. Kappa 02:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Mildly notable. Banes 09:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment This one is really borderline... Blizzard connection confers slight notability, but until the game comes out, I don't really see much of a case here for inclusion.--Isotope23 15:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is important and verifiable we do not have any reason to erase this Yuckfoo 00:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per CastAStone. the wub "?!" 23:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Renee Bryant

This page is one of a circular set of self-refential non-notable (low google hit count) bios, all of which have a family relationship and have been created in the last couple of weeks

• Lori Bryant-Woolridge Special:Whatlinkshere/Lori Bryant-Woolridge
• Benjamin Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Benjamin Bryant
• Paco Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Paco Bryant
• Renee Bryant Special:Whatlinkshere/Renee Bryant

There's also a set of redirects for various forms of each of the names. Josh Parris # 06:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete; nicely wikified, but NN -- Egil 11:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Logophile 13:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Hopefully the author isn't too discouraged by this because all of these articles are well presented and wiki'd, even if the subjects are not very notable.--Isotope23 18:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Clearly notable for receiving presitigious awards and for relation to a Brigadier General. Possibly, she does not merit her own article, but the Bryants as a whole should certainly deserve some mention. I advocate combining all of the above into one article. ^{(unsigned by Ronald Collinson)}
  • What is so notable about the Outstanding Civilian Service Award or the Commander's Award for Public Service? Both of these were added to wikipedia by the author of this article, presumably to bolster the case for Renee Bryant's notability. Can you point out other existing articles on wikipedia where these awards are used as a case for notability (not by the author of the Bryant articles)? I'm not advocating removing the articles for these awards because I think this is good, useful, encyclopedic information (and the articles are well written); however they don't make a case for notability. Your other point about her being notable for relation to a Brigadier General also isn't supported by wikipedia precedent. Norman Schwarzkopf has a wife and three children... none of them have wikipedia articles. Colin Powell has a wife and three children as well. Only Michael Powell has a wikipedia article because he has clearly achieved notability on his own (ignoring any arguements of nepotism) by becoming the chairman of the FCC. The Bryant's clearly have had distinguished and interesting lives, but not one of them, other than Lori Bryant-Woolridge has done anything to acheive an encyclopedic level of notability.--Isotope23 13:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The two awards are clearly notable, as they are (verifiably) the third and fourth highest honors the Department of the Army can award to a civilian. Supported by www.cpol.army.mil/library/mer/awards/public.html, they are clearly not throwaway or vanity honors that are handed out to every Tom, Dick, or Harriet. By definition it stands to reason that there have not been that many of these awards given out (this is admittedly conjecture, but based on similar stats for similar high-level government awards). Interestingly, Albert Bryant Jr's awards are given out to far more people than the ones Renee Bryant has received. Thus in an odd way, Renee Bryant may be more notable than her husband.--el_amante
• Keep. Based on the legitimate significance of the awards and the clear link to an established multi-generational, award-winning, military family. Just because there are low Google hits does not mean she is not notable. It doesn't strike me that there would be much coverage of this type of individual, however notable, except, perhaps local coverage and or DoD press advisories at the time. Do we know, too, whether some of these awards weren't awarded pre-dating the archiving of articles, etc. commonly on the Internet? (Agree, as well, that the article is well written.) (el_amante) 19:22, 12 October 2005

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resonanssi

NN college club. 202.156.6.54 23:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. as per nom. --Vsion 09:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Alhutch 19:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 15:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rhilla

distdef of non-english word. Delete. DES ^(talk) 07:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - article itself is written in a manner which indicates it may not be correct. Attempts to be a dictionary definition of, as the nominator rightly said, a word not used in English. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so this has to go. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - confirmed with Arrente colleague of fellow wikipedian as not used as a self-reference. --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is not to be used as a dictionary, then yes, the 'article' should be deleted. However, my original attempt was to correct a mistake in the article on the Arrente, where it refered to them using the term 'anangu'. This is a name used by another Aboriginal group all together (the Pitjantjatjara ). Arrente do not call themselves 'anangu' and would be happy to be referred to by this word.

I have spent all day trying to find an internet reference for the word 'rhilla' but have not been able to do so. So by all means, remove the 'rhilla article', but I would suggest rewriting the original Arrente entry as well. Sorry if I've caused any inconvience. petersmith

• Removing my delete vote as Peter seems genuine, and I tried to find an internet reference for Anangu applied to Arrente, and failed, too. All the pages I found are either derived from Wikipedia, or use the words to refer to neighbouring groups. Maybe someone will be able to reference some offline printed source? --Scott Davis ^Talk 10:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. DS 12:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Wood (physicist)

Non-notable. Delete. utcursch | talk 12:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. Logophile 14:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Unverifiable, probable hoax. Dlyons493 Talk 15:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn, vanity and/or hoax, probable in-joke. Xoloz 15:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete swiftly as a non-verifiable probable hoax. Hall Monitor 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate wasdelete. Woohookitty 12:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sales Charts & Achievements

Inappropriate redirect SGBailey 01:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination -- SGBailey 01:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pureblade 01:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --CastAStone 01:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - inappropriate redirect. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - this ought to have gone through Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion, for future reference. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:15, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Perhaps RfD is correct. However Wikipedia is far too administratively heavy and I didn't know RfD existed. The difference betwen speedy and AfD is bad enough. I'm afraid that RfD doesn't get it - too hard - sorry. -- SGBailey 08:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's an Rfd actually. utcursch | talk 11:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 19:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saxotone

non-notable; the technique described is feasible but the article itself seems to have been introduced as a prank (link). Gyrofrog (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I would have instead proposed merging this with Hybrid instrument if such an article (or list) existed. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 05:07, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Dvyost 05:41, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not sure about feasibility. You need to lower the resonance of the reed--by making it bigger--in order to sound the built-in resonance in a longer-bored instrument. Right? Chick Bowen 23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agreed with all of the above.Rhetoricalwater 22:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sean.com

This should have been speedy deleted, but since the anons keep removing the speedy tag I'm posting it here. If I've overlooked something and this really is encyclopedic, please let me know. [edit] 02:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I see no reason this website is significant. Friday (talk) 02:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This website was a minor meme which swept the underground circles in early 2000. rabryan
  • It should be noted that this user has just 4 edits, two to this RfA and one each to his user and user talk page. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It should also be noted that this user has attempted to forge vote changes. [28][edit] 03:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. I'm a n00b who'll do anything to get this Marvelous page recognized on Wikipedia. Rabryan 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your methods are not helping. Your attempted modification of the votes is likely to mean your credibility in this matter is reduced in the eyes of whoever closes it. If you are interested in making the encyclopedia better, please read up on what Wikipedia is, what it isn't, and our three golden rules for success. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no notability at all. -Greg Asche (talk) 02:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alexa rank is 5,176,882. Flowerparty■ 03:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Alex.tan 05:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. utcursch | talk 11:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. One of the most influential websites on the Internet. 130.207.10.26 17:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that this was the user's first and only edit. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable. KeithD (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ditto. Moriori 23:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. MCB 01:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not-notable and Advertising/Vanity ConCuu 19:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• Unbelievable. Wikipedia keeps the following articles: Bong, Taco, and booger but wants to delete Sean.com. Rabryan 15:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shari Evelyn Kendall

Unless all professors get a page at WP, this one has done nothing of note, except for working with "the famous Deborah Tannen". Perhaps Tannen should have an article; I see nothing here meriting this one. paul klenk ^talk 04:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional comment by paul klenk ^talk: A publication of Kendall's has been added to the article. All professors publish papers and whatnot; this does nothing to establish her notability.

• Comment. This is a pretty new page, so I'd be inclined to wait little while for better info to be added. That said, I did a publications search and only came up with one article (info added to wiki page), unless someone can verify that it is a particularly important paper I'm inclined to agree with the nominator. Crypticfirefly 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If we see some more examples of the "many articles and books" I might reconsider, but at the moment certainly NN.--inks^T 05:57, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not pass the average professor test. Gamaliel 05:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Deborah Tannen does have an article, but she wrote a best-selling book. Shari Kendall has two books in preparation, none published yet (see her CV (.doc)). In the unlikely event this article is kept, move to Shari Kendall, since she doesn't use her middle name professionally. [29] --Metropolitan90 06:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hasn't published anything notable I'm aware, though I would happily change my vote, if something was shown to the contrary. Side note: imo, bio article names with full (with middle) name are best unless they're very famous, to avoid future mistaken links from people who wikify every name in a list, without checking if it matches. --rob 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. It might be a little premature for an article, but once two titles on Oxford University Press are released, that reaches notability. The article is sloppy, no question, and needs cleanup. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 16:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, two forthcoming titles on Oxford University Press indicate contribution to the sum of human knowledge. Kappa 22:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Page needs some improvment but it won't get it if it is deleted. Also, I agree especially with Kappa. Bryce 00:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn proffesor --JAranda | yeah 00:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep an actual professor, with published work. Trollderella 00:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Social scientist publish monographs, that's part of their job. No indication that hers will be well-received. Pilatus 14:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, college prof with one published book and 2 forthcoming books is not notable in my estimation. Until those books are released and at least one of them is a notable work, I don't see justification for a wiki article.--Isotope23 13:36, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Pilatus--mere book contract alone is largely meaningless. Some OUP books have print runs well under 1000. Chick Bowen 23:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Isotope23 --redstucco 08:38, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All professors are published somewhere. -R. fiend 16:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was UNSURE; NO ACTION TAKEN. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC) Administrator's note: The page in question is horrid, and I don't see how it can be merged anywhere. I'm going to slap a tag on there, and if it isn't dealt with, I would move to delete it.

[edit] Sharp Voices Still Lives - Birmingham Photography in the 1980's

Nonencyclopedic topic: Article is about a minor regional photography exhibit. It appears to reproduce a review of the exhibit and may be copyright violation (not found elsewhere online, though). Dystopos 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to appropriate articles on individual artists and/or venues and Delete. Dystopos 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and Delete -cohesion | talk 08:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. Not sure if 'merge and delete' is legal under the gfdl. Trollderella 00:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 18:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shocco

All of 30 google hits for a search of "Shocco Springs".. The article seems to discuss a facility that is not particularly notable. --Mysidia (talk) 02:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete nn. Karol 06:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Odd - I'm getting 1130 for the more restricted [30] so I think it's not clearly nn. Can anyone elaborate? Dlyons493 Talk 15:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Why does that make the facility notable? Karol 07:07, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete' for linkspamming--all links are external. Chick Bowen 22:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• DeleteI don't know anything about "linkspamming" as criteria for deletion. If this was truly a notable place, fixing the links would be easy. Regarding the number of google hits mentioned by dylan, many of those are for Shocco Springs, Alabama (the town, not the baptist conference center). As for notability, this looks to be the most notable event that I could find on my brief stroll through the links. Good photgraph of the pastor falling off the water slide.[31]--Gaff ^talk 00:32, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singapore gay terminology

WP:NOR WP:Verifiability WP:WINAD#Wikipedia is not a slang or idiom guide Kgf0 08:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Any content to be retained should be folded into the other articles in Category:Singaporean gay and transgender culture, defining the terms in-situ as they are used in context and as necessary. The rest could perhaps move to the appropriate sections of Wiktionary. --Kgf0 08:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per. nom. mikka (t) 19:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. And thanks for including your criteria for deletion. Denni☯ 01:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. *drew 01:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake

A response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake. I think it would be sufficient to just have 2005_Kashmir_earthquake#International_response instead a separate page for Singapore's response. __earth 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. __earth 08:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a practice established during Hurricane Katrina. There are at least 25 articles spin-off from the main article Hurricane Katrina. At least 7 articles on "Country X response to Hurricane Katrina". Nobody complained about that. This is a far worse disaster, I see no reason for a lesser treatment, and please help to counter the systemic bias. There is no way to transfer the current content in Singaporean response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake to the main article 2005 Kashmir earthquake without unbalancing the main article. I'm surprise at this nomination made without first discussing, and I appreciate if the nominator can state clearly his reason for deletion, "I think it would be sufficient ..." is just too vague. Is the nominator calling for a "merge" of content or simply a "delete"? --Vsion 09:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• I vote for deletion if you missed the first time I stated it. __earth 09:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Please state the reason for the nomination (vanity, nn, hoax, etc.), as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy --Vsion 09:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article. For Katrina, it might be justifiable because the article is too long. 2005 Kashmir earthquake is quite short compared to Hurricane Katrina. Kashmir is just 18k while katrina is almost 60k. And yes, there's a way to incorporate the article's subject without unbalancing the main article. We could removed the condolence speech and simply state what kind of aid is being offered, just like other entry for other countries that are offering aid. __earth 10:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Please help to countering the systemic bias in Wikipedia, and also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia. The main article need to focus on the main event and main relief operation. This article, on the other hand, focuses specifically on Singapore's reaction to the disaster and contributions to the relief operation which now involve several fronts. --Vsion 10:36, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete due to fact that whatever is in the main article should sufficiently cover it, or redirect to said article. -- NSLE | Talk 09:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Changing vote to keep after second thoughts and comments made by Huaiwei. -- NSLE | Talk 04:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per __earth Manik Raina 10:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per Vision. I see nothing that this article has contravened in terms of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If the only issue is that this content could fit into the main article, and this can only be done so by removing content, then I would certainly think this is setting a dangerous precedent.--Huaiwei 17:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vision. Davewild 19:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete68.196.170.32 19:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If it is a "strong" delete, then I suppose you must have strong reasons to think it so. Do share with us what they are, please?--Huaiwei 20:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, it'd be better if you could sign your name. Jesushaces
• Strong Keep. There is no concrete reason why this is listed for deletion. There is clearly enough information on the Singaporean response for it to have its own article. -Nameneko 23:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep frivolous nomination. Trollderella 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Vsion and Huaiwei. Really, _earth, does it bug you that much? Jesushaces 01:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IMHO, we should start out with a separate "International response to Kashmir earthquake" article, and only when that gets too big to contain all the information, should separate articles be created for individual countries. Also, what is so special about Singapore's response among all other countries, that it warrants a separate article? --Berkut 01:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. 2005 Kashmir earthquake is in a {{flux}} edit mode with rapid changes, so spliting out specific, well-defined sub-topics is a common practice to help contributors keep the main article focused on the overall rescue and relief operation. The relief effort is a significant event in Singapore, because of the large Pakistani, South Asian and Muslim community in the country. As we strive for a broader, global perspective in wikipedia, prejudging and suppressing X-Country's perspective at this stage is counter-productive. --Vsion 03:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, makes an excellent sub-article to the "international response" section of the main article. No reason for deletion has been given. Kappa 03:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, though I suggest making this a subarticle off the article International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake as was done for International response to Hurricane Katrina. Alex.tan 04:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - this is simply damaging the reputation of a legitimate issue, and I suspect earth simply has a strong systemic bias. -- Natalinasmpf 04:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt its systemic bias. If there were, wouldn't larger countries like the US which offers $50 mil + several military equipment and China which offers $6.2 mil + dogs have pages of their own? The point is, the main article is sufficient. If there were a bias, this nominee is because it's the only page of its kind concerning Kashmir earthquake. __earth 06:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

If you think the idea of having separate articles for certain countries is pointless, look at Hurricane Katrina, which has a subarticle on international relief efforts as well as individual articles for Canadian, French, Mexican, Dutch, Russian, Singaporean, and Swedish responses to the disaster. Besides, if you'd like to start other nation-specific relief effort articles, you're free to do so.

-Nameneko 07:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but merging with "international response" is a valid measure as well. Kahlen 13:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: The article can be kept as of now, but it will make no sense till either - 1. it is a part of International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake like Alex.tan says, or 2. someone takes the initiative to write simialar articles for other countries. If this remains the only article of its type, then there won't be much point. In this regard, the corresponding articles for Hurricane Katrina are not "brilliant prose" themselves, IMHO. Saksham 03:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional keep. Saksham is right on the money for this one. If someone else writes other articles about the international response to the earthquake, just leave it as is. Otherwise, move to a section of International response to 2005 Kashmir earthquake. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: I respectfully disagree with the comments that this article can only exist on condition that other "Country-X reponse" articles are created. There is no wikipedia policy and guideline that impose such a condition. While I can easily satisfy it by creating another article, I disagree with such a condition that is based on editorial preferences, which are not grounds for AfD. Let me state clearly the reasons for keeping this article:

• The content is NPOV, factual, verifiable and notable.
• The presented facts received wide coverage not just in local news media, but also reported by AFP, Reuters, Xinhua, as well. [32]
• Keep in mind that there isn't just one perspective looking at this event. There are X-country's perspectives as well. And I don't deny that this article is about Singapore's perspective. That's nothing wrong with it as we strive for a comprehensive, global perspective in wikipedia.
• This article is related not just to the 2005 Kashmir earthquake event, it is also part of the comprehensive coverage to provide the knowledge and understanding on the demographics (which has large number of foreign residents), the importance of foreign relations, and the preoccupation with internal security and civil defence in the small country. The relief effort are therefore significant in Singapore. I cannot say for other countries, but they may or may not relate as much to the event in South Asia. Therefore, whether there exists other articles is irrelevant.
• If you only want to read summarized description of the main event, then of course this article is of little interest to you. But for others who wish for a detailed understanding of the disaster or to study the politics of South East Asia, they would find this full article more useful than just a one-paragraph abstract.
• This is not a loop-sided contribution by a user, I have contributed much more to the main article 2005 Kashmir earthquake than this one; and many entries in 2005_Kashmir_earthquake#International_response were added by me. We may wish there are other countries' articles as well, but deleting this article is really a step backward, not forward. There are alot more work to be done as we aim for a comprehensive coverage; but as long as this content is encyclopedic, there is no reason to remove it.
• In its currents state, there is no way to merge this article into another without deleting most of the content.
• Finally, the stated reason for this nomination is really not valid for AfD, according to Wikipedia:Deletion policy. --Vsion 17:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, as per reasons above. - Mailer Diablo 12:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Vsion. --Andylkl ^(talk) 11:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, just like Hurricane Katrina articles, this one should not only be kept, but more should be made. Just look at all the articles on Katrina. -Tcwd (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist thinking and the Empire of Japan

This article, I believe, qualifies as original research and is therefore not wanted on Wikipedia. Thoughts, anyone? Rob Church ^{Talk | FAD} 09:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. There must be many possible sources for this page (I was reading one this morning), i.e. the evolution of left-wing thought in Japan. Clean up as per tag. Charles Matthews 14:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if cleaned-up. Youngamerican 15:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and possible find a more suitable name. --MacRusgail 22:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment how about "Socialism in Imperial Japan"? --MacRusgail 01:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Depends. If the article is to focus on actual, existing socialism in action in Imperial Japan, then that would be an excellent title. If the article is to focus on socialist theory of the time and place, rather than any implemented policy, the title should be 'Socialist Thought in Imperial Japan' or something like that. Youngamerican 12:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, something like the latter. Charles Matthews
  • How about this, I propose that the article be kept, moved to Socialist thought in Imperial Japan, and a clean-up tag be slapped on. Youngamerican 01:56, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but find a better title and clean up.--Bkwillwm 19:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with creating Socialist thought in Imperial Japan Schwael 04:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment - having reviewed the current article content again, I agree that perhaps the article could be kept, if moved to another title, and cleaned up. I might even be interested in doing some of the cleaning up to make it sound a bit less unsure of itself. I would go for the names Socialism in Imperial Japan or Socialist theory in Imperial Japan, depending upon which is the more appropriate for the content. Rob Church ^{Talk | FAHD} 13:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment agree with some of the suggestiosn for renaming, but am split between "Socialist thought" and "Socialist theory" --MacRusgail 11:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment I lean towards 'thought' over 'theory' beacuae it seems to be more about the sepecific thought of those with an attatchment to the modernist ideas of socialism as opposed to a construction of a theoretical, predicitive worldview. Youngamerican 22:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pacifica_House

• This article is a hoax. The history of the organization, that is, created from two debating societies, does not square with the university's protrayal of the demise of those societies. According to the University: "The Franklin Society was organized in 1824, a year when such a large class entered that the two existing literary debating societies, the Philermenian Society and the United Brothers Society could not accommodate enough of the entering students. The membership was also augmented by the acceptance of honorary membership by Henry Clay, Thomas Jefferson, John Quincy Adams, and other notable personages. Ten years after its establishment, in 1834, the Franklin Society was dissolved, its library of several hundred volumes was turned over to the College Library, and in 1847 its members were elected in equal proportions into the two older societies." Furthermore, the organization is largely unmentioned today. One reference was made in the Brown Daily Herald, but the College Hill Independant article, mentioned in this article, cannot be located. If a more precise reference could be provided, that would be helpful. While a search of the University records finds the society mentioned ONCE among university documents, that reference is questionable, and I am currently awaiting replies from those authors. Finally, a whois search reveals that the "official" website is registered to "Joe Pacifica" with a fake phone number. Micahross 04:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• If this article does not represent reality, delete it. Anthony Appleyard 05:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Even if the article does represent reality, delete it anyway. See this report from the College Curriculum Council which discusses a report issued by Pacifica House on grade inflation. Nevertheless, a student organization which exists at only a single school is generally non-notable, and this one appears to have problems with verifiability of information about it, too. --Metropolitan90 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• I managed to find that very article. Rereading my post I find it was somewhat ambiguous. There is ONE mention in a paper and ONE in among university documents. I am trying to track down the origin of the hoax now, but few people are being helpful. I was directed to a member of the organization, but have yet to hear from him. I think someone created an organization to write a position paper for the university. Micahross 08:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• It's mentioned in the Skull and Bones article. Not sure if it's real. I don't think it should be deleted if it is.
• Pacifica House is definitely real. It has multiple mentions in the Brown Daily Herald, has its website, and is mentioned here in several other entries here. Seriously, it is a secret society...probably shouldn't have tons of references, considering it's...well...secret. Definitely shouldn't be deleted
• Comment: If there's no consensus on whether this is a hoax, maybe the discussion should go to the article's talk page and it should stick around until there's a good answer. Friday (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have been able to get a copy of the publication cited by the Brown link. However, there are difficulties verifying both "Pacifica House Trust" and "Brunensis, Ltd." The "official" site is registered to the former, but the latter holds the copyright. Neither is registered as a charitable trust with the IRS. However, this would not be necessary if the trust had no tax ramifications. If the trust accepts charitable donations, this is a tax ramification. There have been a total of TWO mentions of Pacifica House by The Brown Daily Herald. Moreover the university archivist has never heard of the organization, but they could provide me with the papers of the Franklin Society. If Pacifica House had evolved from that organization, I would suspect that they would have kept their minutes and acceptances of honorary membership -- one of these was an 1824 letter by Thomas Jefferson and another was a letter by Horace Greenleaf Whittier. (Sadly, the signatures have been removed.) Those are valuable. On the other hand, I have found one alumnus who claims to be a member of Pacifica House. Finally a careful reading of their website has revealed an oddity: on the history page, a picture of the "charter" appears. (http://www.pacificahouse.org/images/Charter.JPG) This is not a charter -- the text reads: "Providence, May 16: Sir -- Pardon a stranger for occupying a moment of that time which I know to be inestimably precious. I must beg to offer you my sincere thanks for your last proclamation as the chief magistrate of the nation. You call upon all your fellow citizens to render unto God thanksgiving for his recent mercies and to offer to him (sic) as individuals and societies ... prayer ... He will ... our ... efforts with security, which he alone can ..." This a letter, not a charter. Frankly, the matter is out of my hands. I can only provide a finite amount of evidence that this is a hoax. I am also a little reluctant to take unsigned avowals of the legitimacy of Pacifica House seriously. Micah Ross 09:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting. It may well be that we can't determine for sure the status of this without doing our own "original research". This is a problem with verifying people or organizations by their own websites. Friday (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of verifiability and significance. If we can't tell whether it's real, it's probably not encyclopedic anyway. Friday (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for all your work on this one, BTW. I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. Friday (talk) 17:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

• I can't verify how legitimate the information on this site is, but I can verify that the Pacifica House group exists. I don't know details about the organization, but I do know that it's members regularly meet and it is an invite-only society.

• Delete--inherently unverifiable even on the extreme offchance that it's true, as Micahross's efforts (thanks for that) demonstrate.

• (First post from 66.31.44.201) Pacifica House does exist, whether all the information on the Wiki page is true is unverifiable. The question now is: should a Wiki page containing information, much of it unverifiable, on a given entity be deleted on the basis of lack of confirmation? Highly unlikely this group is the creation of just one person--if so then it's an expensive way to be vain--registering the website, etc., and making sure the campus newspaper mentioned the group--but it seems plausible a lot of the "historical" information is just lost in time. Histories have a way of sounding better with every telling. "Deletion" as the ultimate price of unverifiability would implicate a lot of Wiki's pages. but why don't we just edit the actual Wiki page and tell everyone that all this stuff is highly unreliable and not to drink the kool-aid?
• (Second post from 66.31.44.201) Theoretically ALL secret societies on Wiki are unverifiable. duh. they're secret. but seriously, there are a couple options here. the first is to delete the hell out of this page. if Wiki does this, then so too shoudl be considered every other collegiate secret society. or else we should start conducting research to _verify_ their claims, and if they cannot be verified, delete them, or at least information we don't know for sure: skull and bones claims a long list of alumni, can we verify this? the other option is to let it alone. maybe. the third option is to put a disclaimer like the skulls have now--the article has info that can't be verified. there are a lot of suspicious bits of info on this wiki page that can't be confirmed and that is a FACT. but let's be objective and apply the same principles here to other college society pages. there's far too much vanity.

• Okay, it seems people have taken an interest in what I have written. Fine. Let's cover a few bases. I can understand the removal of a personal name, but the removal of my research and evidence is fraudulent. (Be forewarned -- this history function of the talk page is a powerful tool.) Also, if you choose to remove a personal name, why not just replace it with a string of Xs? Also, I asked earlier for the sake of clarity that people sign their contributions. Two separate contributions from the same IP does not a consensus make. On 12 October, 2005 I had written "Well, I followed up the information returned from the whois search. It was registered with eNom, Inc. and is hosted at ixwebhosting.com. It is worth noting that www.pacificahouse.info was registered by XXXX X. XXX for the organization "Pacifica House." This is the ONLY person I have met who claims to be a member of the organization. pacificahouse.info is hosted by ixwebhosting.com. Frankly, I'm saying "mystery solved" on this one. The thing never existed beyond XXX X. XXX, who probably authored the article. I suspect he also stopped by here to defend it. Micahross 12:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)" I really hate an intent to defraud. Deleting the fruit of my research has made this personal. Moreover, there are some things about Skull and Bones that can be verified: they have a building, people can -- and have -- watched who goes in and out. For many years they had a page in the yearbook at Yale. Their trust is registered, The Russell Trust, was registered with the IRS (although I think they may have changed the name by now.) In several unsigned posts, it has been stated that Pacifica House indeed exists. In some ways, this is true. The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion also exists. I have a copy of it. By the same token, the "member(s)" of Pacifica House are probably limited to those here who defend this hoax. --Micahross 14:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

• This is basically a debate between TWO people--"Micahross" and some anonymous poster! Why anyone in the world should care about "Pacifica House" and whether 100% of its information is verifiable escapes this user. Why anybody has accumulated this much information about such collegiate organizations that have no relevance outside their institutions is also puzzling. In any case: to the WIKI board: if you delete this website, please do not delete it because of one rather long-winded individual who claims that he cannot make unsecret a secretive organization. But if you let it alone, do not leave it be because the benefit of the doubt. It seems we need some rigor in verifying claims here, but this includes claims of people who have come into a website with an agenda, as well as claims of organizations that seem extraordinarily hard to make concrete. Can somebody else besides "Micahross" and "unknown poster" step forward with information? We are hesistant in believing one person on either side.

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spiritual density

Original research. I appreciate that this has been written in good faith as an attempt to describe and integrate the recurrent belief in levels of spiritual existence/attainment. However, it's not a comparative objective summary like similar pages (e.g. Subtle body, Septenary (Theosophy) and Plane (cosmology)) but an essay expounding a personal take on the topic. Tearlach 18:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know enough about Theosophy to know if this could just be moved to something like Spiritual levels in Theosophy if it reflects the views of the Theosophy movement, or if instead it is just OR and a personal PV essay. MCB 04:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. When I first marked the article as POV-laden and needing cleanup, I wasn't aware of the articles we already had covering the topic in a more encyclopedic fashion. Anville 09:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - view as proposer. Tearlach 09:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Here are the Wikipedia:Peer_review#Spiritual_density comments. My personal preference would be to clean this up with authoritative references, but I’m not at all sure what they would be. I did some Googling and found myself coming back to this article or another unreferenced page. Apparently, the primary contributor is unaware, unable, and/or unwilling to make the requested citations. — RDF ^talk 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No authoritative citations. These concerns apply whether this is a free-standing article or as a section in another article. — RDF ^talk 21:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] St. Colman's College

The text contained within this article previous version is untrue. Contained in the article is picture of the College which does not have its consent given by the owners. St. Colman's College would like to have no association with this article due to its underminding content and wish for it to be removed as soon as possible —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.19.76.69 (talk • contribs) 15:36.

• Keep. Verifiable school with 100+ year history. This nomination is bizarre, an institution's wish to be included in WP or not should have no bearing whatsoever on an article. The image may need to be removed for copyvio.--Nicodemus75 20:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this school appears to be of sufficent status to be included.Gateman1997 21:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, all established schools are of sufficient status to be included. I'm sorry if the article has been vandalized, I'll try to keep an eye on it. If the vandalism gets bad enough, you can ask for it to be protected. (kappa) 21:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Your opinion on sufficency of status is noted and disagreed with.Gateman1997 21:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Your opinion on sufficency of status is noted and disagreed with.--Nicodemus75 22:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep the old schools, which tend to have the greatest potential for making an interesting read --rob 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Nicodemus75 and expand. (note: I have moved the unsourced closure rumor which may have prompted the AfD to Talk:St. Colman's College, requesting a source.) --Kgf0 21:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep this please the school is over 100 years old even Yuckfoo 22:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this historical school as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 07:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Great college current data not correct and history pages are a disgrace.88.109.55.163 23:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

DeleteThis college is excellent,well managed and very successful. Please delete this page as it is not correct in detail and all the pages in the history file as they have been vandalized and contain very SERIOUS text.88.109.40.181 08:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

DeleteAdministrators please note this college is excellent and is important to all the pupils and everyone associated with it. Please respect this college's reputation by removing this page and all the pages in the history file back to Sept.7th 2005. Please protect the article from vandalism in the future.88.110.194.47 12:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC).

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

DeleteJust discovered this article and I ask you to delete it as soon as possible and I agree with previous request thast all should be deleted to Sept 7th.2005 article as some of the text is disgusting and very derogatory. Please protect the article in future from such wilful vandalism. thank you.88.110.32.149 14:29, 14 October 2005 (UTC).

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

DeleteAdministrators please delete this article as soon as possible at least back to the Sept.7th 2005 entry. The articles from that date contain inaccurate, sad, evil, potentially libellous text.These enteries are just an attempt to use this source to discredit a pupil-focused, well managed college 88.110.193.191 09:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC).

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

DeleteThe content of this article is sad and a terrible mis -representation of the truth. Please delete and ensure that such rubbish is never allowed to be put into print on your pages in future as it just discredits your publication. thank you in anticipation of you removing all articles at least back to Sept.7th.2005.88.110.19.228 18:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Vote discounted by closing admin. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 18:48, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 11:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] STILL REFUSES TO SAY SORRY

non encyclopaedic Xtra 03:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV rant against John Howard. Zach (Sound Off) 03:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as attack page? Ashibaka (tock) 03:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Not encyclopedic at all, as well as biased and POV. NickBush24 03:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Edit: Forgot to mention this, but the very fact that the article name is in all caps doesn't exactly indicate scholarliness, if you ask me. NickBush24 09:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy as an attack page. [edit] 03:33, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• This is not a speedy candidate, because it's not "short". Compare with the example given ""OMFG! Joe Random is a l0ser n00bface lolol!!!11")." A page like this could easily contain material worth merging or keep. 03:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Our Stolen Generation discusses this issue at length and with sources. Our National Sorry Day while a stub covers the same ground. There is nothing in this article worth merging and a redirect is pointless because noone is going to search for an article with that title especially in All Caps. Capitalistroadster 03:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Qaz ^(talk) 06:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, personal attack. — JIP | Talk 06:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I'm not a fan of my nation's leader, this article attacking John Howard is pointless, unencyclopedic, and a waste of space. Saberwyn 08:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• As per Capitalistroadster, Delete. Uncle G 12:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster.--Isotope23 15:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Speedied as an attack page. android79 00:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Kappa correctly pointed out that the attack-page criterion applies to short articles, which this was not. I've undeleted and reopened the AfD. Oh, and Delete, POV rant. android79 01:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So if I write an article in which I call a person every euphamism for "penis" imaginable (and there are thousands) it doesn't get speedied because it's not short??? Come on. Kappa should find a better use for his time. I'm gonna go get high. Don't be surprised if I speedy this when I get back. -R. fiend 01:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• If it had no potentially useful content, it wouldn't meet the criteria, but I wouldn't nag people about it... Kappa 02:14, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Don't be surprised if I don't complain if you do. Enjoy your plant-based recreation. android79 02:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• IMO the speedy was appropriate. This is an attack page, and as pointed out above, useful content already exists elsewhere. Speedy delete, or do it slowly if we must. Friday (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is a POV rant, but it doesn't really qualify as an attack page. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV rant. Perhaps mention event briefly in Stolen generation if any of it can be verified (I doubt if the nosepicking detail is true, for example), and then delete this. -- The Anome 09:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, POV rant, detracting from this resource as a reputable encyclopedia. Perhaps something can be salvaged to merge into Stolen Generation. MulgaBill 11:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, otherwise move to elsewhere such as Talk:Stolen Generation -- Zondor 15:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Hey guys, i wrote this page. would it be ok if it was merged to part of stolen generation pages. I believe that the issue of the howard government's refusal to say sorry has not been sufficiently cataloged by this encyclopedia. It is quite important to this aboriginal history of australia, just as important truganini and namatjira. that's why i placed it here. (posted by user:130.194.13.102 talk)

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

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

The result of the debate was TRANSWIKI to Wikibooks. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tactical chess problems

Just collection of chess tactical problems doesn't belong to encyclopedia. Wikibooks is a right place for such stuff. Andreas Kaufmann 21:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 14:20 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks.- Mgm|^(talk) 11:13, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Dcarrano 18:37, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikibooks.--Gaff ^talk 00:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tanganyika Laughter Epidemic

Reasons I feel this is very probably a hoax:

• Fairly ludicrous event
• Links at the bottom fail to verify the validity of the article
• The article is written in an overly-dramatic manner
• Can't find compelling evidence elsewhere that this event has actually occurred

--Verbalcontract 19:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

• But the article says at the beginning that you should take the story with a grain of salt. Perhaps this is a legend in Tanganyika that people tell in which case it is still a valid piece of information. It's information about a legend. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.23.105.7 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 12 September 2005 (UTC).
• I would keep this page. The incident has been documented in other notable sources, and mentioned briefly in an article in American Scientist. [33] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.149.140.99 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC).
• Don't delete this article. Aspects of it are most probably exaggerated to some degree, but it is more a reference to a famous myth surrounding an actual event, so it should be kept in for that reason. I think the article makes it clear that there's no rock solid evidence, but it is an interesting study case for psychiatrists and undoubtedly something did happen out there in 1962.

  I believe legends like this have a place on Wikipedia so long as the author makes it clear that the evidence is shakey. --86.137.13.28 08:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

• I won't vote, but as the author of this page I thought I may as well comment. Thanks for the criticism, and I can only agree with some of the opinions mentioned above. I found the topic to be interesting (though I can't remember where I heard of it first, much like some of the voters below) and sought out a Wikipedia article with further information; I found none, so I made one to the best of my ability. I'll keep the criticism of my writing style in mind if I make future contributions. I'd appreciate it if critics could scale down those sections of the article they find overblown. Oystertoadfish 04:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, strange though it sounds. Verifiable.American Scientist reference online The Land 09:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I've actually heard of this before (I know, I know, it's what the sock puppets always say), so it's at least notable as a legend. That American Scientist article is proof of that, though the author there provides no documentation for the incident either, so perhaps he's merely repeating an urban legend as well. --Dvyost 13:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep documented sufficiently. Xoloz 15:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • If it makes you feel any better Carnildo, I'll that I'd also kinda heard of this before, in that urban legend sort of way. I don't know what is true about it, but I am sure there is something of a story here. Xoloz 17:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verified. None of the references looks adequate to me: two of the external links are dead, the third doesn't say anything about the event, just about MPI in general, and the "American Scientist" reference mentions that "it happened", but gives no links to primary sources. --Carnildo

• Keep. Looks factual to me. Trollderella 00:36, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• I would maybe make it clear that this is an Urban Myth; because the article lacks evidence and is a little muddled. It seems a pretty ludicrous story to me, to be true.

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with Hergé. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The adventures of Hergé

Appears to be merely an advert, providing a link to the book. Perhaps better served by linking to Adventures Of Hergé from the Hergé page instead? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sgkay (talk • contribs) 08:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC).

• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. Delete spam. —Cryptic (talk) 09:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge what little there is into Hergé Dlyons493 Talk 16:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was MERGE with My_Kind_of_Christmas. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:30, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Christmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire) (Christina Aguilera song)

See discussion on The Star Spangled Banner (Whitney Houston song) above. FuriousFreddy 02:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Aguilera's version is notable. OmegaWikipedia 03:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Everyking 08:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 08:55, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to the album's page. There's already an article on the original and her version isn't notable enough for a new article (in my opinion, a song has to be very famous to warrant a separate article, like the original is). -- Kjkolb 12:29, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to the general article on this song - it was popular before Aguilera recorded it, and will remain popular when her star has long since seen its peak.  BD2412 ^talk 13:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to the general article on this song. per BD2412. Important interpretation of the song, but not enough for a stand-alone article. Youngamerican 15:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per BD2412 (and put an {{expand}} notice on the target article, which is almost content-free) —Wahoofive (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge re BD2412. The song is a notable one and the fact that Aguilera recorded a version of it should be noted on the article for the song as a whole. For those of you who are interested in this topic, please see the current discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. Contributions welcome. Capitalistroadster 17:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per everyone above. Jkelly 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep separately for Aguilera fans. Kappa 03:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - please keep everything. I'm tired of voting! --Anittas 21:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 23:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)