Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Australia/Closed

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

The result of the debate was article sent to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 00:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Gary

NN Australian audio journalist, copyvio with no pages linking to the article. Josh Parris#: 03:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as copyvio, time period has passed. Capitalistroadster 03:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Fairly obvious this is just a cut and paste from the ABC website: Delete. --Roisterer 12:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bra boys

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

Non notable street gang jmd 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - Useful information as the (predominantly 'Anglo') Bra Boys group are reportedly in discussions with the (predominantly 'Lebanese') Comancheros bikie gang in order to bring an end to the recent racial violence seen in Sydney
• Merge - It sounds to me like they're involved in this latest scuffle in Sydney, Australia over Muslim race relations. I say merge this into a relevant article on the rioting. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 01:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep - they're notable enough. See this SMH article, where they are involved in negotiations with Muslim leaders. Borofkin 01:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and notable especially as some have blamed them for involvement in the rioting although they are denying it. 12,000 hits for Bra boys including the Sydney Morning Herald [1] 73 Google News hits for "Bra boys" see [2]

Even namechecked in "Surf's Up: The Girl's Guide to Surfing" see [3]. Capitalistroadster 02:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - notable.--Russell E 02:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• ?? - I can't tell you why, but it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I bet you could come up with 1,000+ Australian gang names if you tried hard enough. On the other hand, that their name is cited in various sources is irrefutable. Keep - after reading the latest edits to the article I've changed my mind - notable enough. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 10:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - the article is going to get a whole lot bigger in the next few days because of the riots. - G^t 05:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Lankiveil 06:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC).
• Keep sadly. I'd be glad never to hear of them again, but I'm not that optomistic. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Their significance is largely as an example of media hype. The article is unlikely to grow beyond a stub, based on the depth of media coverage despite the attention. --Zigger «º» 06:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the unsupported inflammatory allegation from the article. Had that allegation influenced any previous opinion here? --Zigger «º» 06:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Merge to the article on the riots. Won't be notable outside this context. Harro5 06:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Dont merge - The Bra Boys 'involvment' in the riots are questionable --bacco007 06:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The group/gang has been in the media a bit recently and I wanted to read about them but was disapointed that wikipedia didn't have an article. Australian Story ran a programme on Koby Abberton, the founder(?) of the group a few weeks ago. He is very famous in world surfing circles apparently but was charged with murder and manslaughter. He was recently acuitted of those charges but found guilty of conspiring to pervert the course of justice (or perverting the coure of justice or something - don't quote me). Then, just this week, we're hearing about them again in the context of these events in Sydney. I think they are notable enough to have a TV documentary made about them, and are notable because of Koby Abberton's involvement. (There should probably be an article created about Koby Abberton too). -- Adz 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Koby was not the founder, and was not charged with murder and manslaughter. --Zigger «º» 07:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

His older brother was charged with murder of a founding member of the Bra Boys Anthony Hines and was later acquitted. Koby Abberton is being charged with attempting to pervert the course of justice see [4].

• Keep, should not be confused with the riots issue--A Y Arktos 07:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I'd really like to see it expanded somewhat. It still offers only a limited explanation of who they are and why they are important. It doesn't mention what they do (other than surf).--cj | talk 07:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per other votes; important enough to deserve an article though expansion is certainly required. - Wezzo 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Can anyone add some significance to the article, or perhaps it should be merged into Maroubra, New South Wales? --Zigger «º» 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep nn as of one week ago, but not anymore. Things change.Gator (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This gang is well known, and is frequently mentioned in Sydney media. 203.9.33.2 07:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep* They're even pretty well known here in the USA.
• Keep I've been reading about the troubles back home and went Wikipedia to see who they are. reason enough to keep them. I have to agree that I was hoping to find out a lot more about them. I remember when I lived in sydney that the gangs in Maroubra had a fearsome rep. Steve
• Comment (again). I've expanded the article to list what they're famous for in Sydney, at least in the popular media. If others think this can be the basis of a bigger article, I'll butt out. Hopefully Australian beach and surfer articles can also be expanded. --Zigger «º»

• Keep Merge with Maroubra. Not only notable due to their "suspected" involvement in Cronulla, but have been part of Sydney culture for a long time. Most Sydneysiders would of heard of the Bra Boys at one point or another. In fact, easily the most famous gang in Sydney. Chanlord 14:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Please cite sources for any alleged involvement at Cronulla. For (unfortunately) more famous Sydney gangs, check out the "Milperra massacre". --Zigger «º» 15:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• "Hours earlier, about 200 men had assembled outside Lakemba Mosque - some armed with Glock pistols - and dozens more gathered at Campsie. They were preparing to travel to Maroubra Beach, where up to 300 locals, many armed with crowbars, waited for an arranged fight, according to "Bra Boys" at the beach."[5]

These events took place on Monday night and were heavily reported in the Sydney press. This was supposedly in retaliation for the events at Cronulla.

Sunny, Jai and Koby have made media appearances to contradict "supposed" involvement, as recently as yesterday's Daily Telegraph (14 Dec, pg 4). I doubt that the "Bra Boys" at the beach meant to suggest that a fight had been arranged by the group. This would be better discussed on the article's talk page, if anyone thinks it can be expanded beyond a stub. Should non-events be the basis of an article, despite excited media coverage? --Zigger «º» 23:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. Bra Boys involved in Cronulla was non-existant and purely media hype. Perhaps an alternative can be to Merge the article with Maroubra, until such a time when more information is gathered about the gang. Amending vote Chanlord 01:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. They're not just another non-notable street gang. I had heard of them well before the last week's events. Dmharvey 01:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Very significant players in the 2005 Cronulla riots. Cnwb 04:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable gang. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep They are widely known in Sydney. It has also been in the papers for the last week. Jmd, if you are living in Australia, you must be ignorant or have your eyes closed, hands over your ears and shouting "lalalala" at the top of your voice. If you are outside of Australia, don't try to delete stuff that is not pertinent to you.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] KJTaylor

While I'm sure Ms. Taylor is a fine author, her book is not yet published and when it is will only be available in Australia and New Zealand [6]. It only secures 6 google hits [7]. I think the article is best removed until the subject has more prominance. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 22:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A Google search for "Katie Taylor" author [8] comes with nothing verifiable nor did "K. J. Taylor" author [9]. Nothing on Google News either. As she, she hasn't had much impact. Should be moved to K. J. Taylor or Katie Taylor if kept. Capitalistroadster 23:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment She writes her name on her site as KJTaylor, think page should stay where it is, if it is kept. D-Rock 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. Maybe rewrite if/when her book is published by Ashton Scholastic. Cnwb 23:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleaned up the article a little. Book is being published. [10] D-Rock 23:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Come back if and when the book actually sells. --Calton | Talk 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per capitalistroadster. pfctdayelise 03:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete novacatz 03:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Calton. Ambi 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Roisterer 08:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 21:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change vote to Keep per D-Rock. -- JJay 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Davril2020 00:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Sarah Ewart 01:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I think that we need to actually have the book published first before we make an article about her. And be a best seller too. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 11:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mindmatrix 19:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wanneroo lacrosse club

43 unique Google hits. Non-notable sports club. Rampart 00:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn vanity Forbsey 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Capitalistroadster 04:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 04:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks non-notable. No real claims in the article and this online discussion suggests much the same. [11] Regards, Ben Aveling 07:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Gtabary 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - Exists. Bensaccount 17:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline - could have a decent (if very minor) article written with verifiable third-party references, but this is so not it - David Gerard 13:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 23:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Roisterer 08:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -- Chanlord 11:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 11:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sarah Ewart 01:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)'

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

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

The result of the debate was delete unanimously. Looks like a hoax. Friday (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Get Back to Rock

Someone nominated it inappropriately for speedy, stating it is a hoax File Éireann 20:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• That's what the talk page discussion seems to imply. Delete for lack of verifiability. Friday (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, yes. Google comes up with nothing for me on this one. The official AC/DC site has nothing about it. I tagged it with a request for sources yesterday, but I'm not surprised that none have come up. FreplySpang (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 31 Google hits for "Get Back to Rock" AC/Dc none of which verify this. [12]. Capitalistroadster 22:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above Tom Harrison ^(talk) 22:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Roisterer 08:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The sooner we've gotten rid of this truthless article, the better. -- SoothingR^(pour) 20:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Delete. Crystal-ballism. Cnwb 22:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Sarah Ewart 01:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect (nothing to merge). bainer (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Ryan (singer)

This is a failed contestant on Australian Idol. Failed contestants don’t seem particularly notable. No other notability for this person is asserted in the article. Is there a precedent for eliminated contestants on Australian/Canadian/American/Whatever Idol? ◎DanMS 04:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. First eliminated on Australian Idol in 2003. Unlike many on the first series of Australian Idol, had no subsequent recording career. All relevant information on Australian Idol article.Capitalistroadster 05:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 05:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• If this Peter Ryan (singer) gets deleted, then the disambig page Peter Ryan should be changed from a disambig page to a redirect to Peter Ryan (driver), as there now are only two Peter Ryans on that disambig page. ◎DanMS 05:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleting comment—no longer applies, per Malo below. ◎DanMS 16:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to the first Australian Idol season page, since Capitalist mentioned all the pertinent information regarding him is in there. Mo0[talk] 05:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this person isn't notable enough IMO. However I have just added another person named Peter Ryan to that page, thus, I see no reason to move Peter Ryan (driver) anywhere. -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 08:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Mo0. His info is listed at the Australian Idol page, so readers should be directed there if looking for him. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and/or redirect. Ambi 11:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as the existing disambiguation page for Peter Ryan works just fine. Change the link on that page to go to the Australian Idol page. Turnstep 15:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to discourage recreation - David Gerard 13:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Australian Idol. This may be notable, but it's not long enough. Stifle 23:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Rugby Chat Forum

Article on obscure chat forum JoaoRicardo 04:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

This chat forum gets thousands of hits per day and millions of hits per year. Many posters spend hours there every day. Two posters have dated after meeting on the forum, and one poster went to stay with another as an exchange student. It is much like a sitcom, but very real. Josecuervo

This article has to stay. The bored is an important part of people's lives and it deserves recognition for the sheer comedy value. The characters on it should go more recognition and Wikipedia can provide that.CalebRalph

• Delete - Another forum with no particular claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 05:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a good link for someone who doesn't think it has a claim to encyclopedicity: http://www.geocities.com/quentinpoulsenandfriends/home.html

Josecuervo

Travis has no sense of humour. TheRalph

• Delete. The article as it is lacks merit. If it were to be kept, it should be kept as Planet Rugby. In order to be kept, it would need to meet WP:WEB. The article is forum board trivia but it is interesting to see that a journalist called Waratah Fitzsimons is supposedly a contributor. That would be Peter FitzSimons who played rugby for NSW and Australia and would indicate that the forum is more notable than the article suggests. However, the socks are persuading me to delete. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The Brian Moore link is interesting and improves the verifiability but what I am after is evidence of its wider influence on rugby. Capitalistroadster 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist,

Former Lions and England hooker Brian Moore posts on the forum and it is suspected that journalist Stephen Jones posts there as well. It has also been quoted during rugby events such as the 2005 Lions tour as an example of what the fans though. Josecuervo

• If you can show verifiable evidence of this, I and others could be persuaded to change our votes. At the moment, we have a lot of new people casting votes with no evidence and attacking Wikipedians of good standing. I would also recommend a change to Planet Rugby and provide verifiable evidence of its significance by mentioning its significance in the rugby world. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Incidentally, providing evidence of its credentials assessed against WP:WEB would be of great value to your cause. Capitalistroadster 05:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• "
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 05:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Planet Rugby Chat Forum is the infamous messageboard of Planetrugby.com." Is that enough evidence to suggest it is legitimate. **** TheRalph

• What we are looking for is verifiability ie third party accounts from reputable sources of its influence on rugby. We are also looking for some sort of indication of notability under WP:WEB such as :

1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention:
2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

We are not interested in statements that x is a troll or y is an admin. What we are looking for is verifiable evidence that significant people in the rugby world contribute to the forum or that it has an impact on rugby as a sport. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Alexa ranking of 29,997 , just 7000 registered members and only 2700 have ever made a post. Actual article no real useful content. SimonLyall 07:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist do you have a life? seriously. Type Planet Rugby Forum into google and see how many hits that come up (over 2,000,000). New Zealand All Blacks Rugby coach Graham Henry has posted on the forum, legendary Australian coach Rod Macqueen, Brian Moore (BCM), Stephen Jones (Southern Softie), If those people aren't significant then I don't know who is. If you don't believe me then check it out for yourself. TheRalph

• • Those men are indeed significant. However, I would need verifiable evidence such as links to the forum posts made by significant rugby figures in order to change my mind that the forum does not meet our criteria. User Simon Lyall has presented evidence that they fail to meet two of the three criteria under WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 08:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN chatcruft, insignificant and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 08:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The article reads like vanity and POV, and as per Capitalistroadster, the article does NOT demonstrate that the forum has had any impact outside its own user community, NOR does it provide evidence of having been quoted in the media, NOR does it provide evidence of having been used by the famous rugby celebrities mentioned by Josecuervo. To quote this line from the article: "A poster named Hippo also needs to keep his trap clapped." Says everything really. Zunaid 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

People criticising the site aren't getting their facts straight. Planet Rugby chat forum has 5816 users and over 700,000 posts. I take it that none of you have actually visited. I am also very interested in the Rowan Quinn biz. I take it you all are colleagues of hers Quisling

Honestly, what harm is there in this for one. Secondly what is the point in deleting something that nobody really checks on. Finally, it has its place. Wikpedia has become a social encylopedia where people search for things that are not only obscure and bizzare, but with the current trends and a history on something you will not find in your Britannica's and Funk n Wagnalls. It should stay for the fact that somebody has spent time to write it, have a laugh and allow people to voice an opinion, point of view, whatever. If you start silencing things as inane and trival such as this; when will it stop??? (Note: this previously unsigned comment made by LachlanG on 13:54, 8 December 2005 and moved from top of page to here for readability by me.) Zunaid 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Should be saved, it's a large forum which has grown loved by the people that frequent it, I ask you: how can musicianforums have an entry and not this?

It should certainly be indexed on Wikipedia. There are some very useful threads that run here too - there are enlightening law discussions following major games, and more often than not it is possible to follow a game in realtime because some dedicated individuals post regular updates as they happen. This is very useful to rugby devotees who live in countries with little or no rugby traditions, such as Thailand, China, and Australia. Steenbras

• Comment: "Useful", "enlightening", "loved by the people that frequent it", "being able to follow games in almost-realtime" does not make it encyclopaedic. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but it is an encyclopedia, and as such subjects have to satisfy certain criteria to merit articles, which this doesn't. Zunaid 13:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok why not clean it up to make it further encyclopedic? It should be kept, it can be useful for people since this is indeed the biggest rugby forum on the internet that doesn't contain one-eyed bias.Girvan Dempsey

Members of the forum have led campaigns to get rid of current England coach Andy Robinson. Former Sprinbok media adivisor Mark Keohane quotes the website in his web blog keo.co.za. A poster on his site played a part in the decision of Clyde Rathbone to switch to Australia from South Africa. The forum is good for fans in Istanbul and Yemen Alicia the Mousa Tamer

Definition of Encyclopedia from Dictionary.com "Encyclopedia

n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty" There you go this site relates to human knowledge about the game of Rugby Union and spite. Alicia the Mousa Tamer

May i suggest, to those who wish to preserve this pagem that their best strategy is to enlist a leading member of the cabal to their cause: basically, if the Wiki-Cabal want your page dead, it is dead; if they approve of you, then no-one will ever actually get to delete what you write, so long as you stay Inside the Rules (qv).

--SockpuppetSamuelson 14:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn forum vanity, and a particularly awful example of it too. In addition, the whole PlaneyRugby site has an [Alexa rank of 179,966 and note that figure is for the entire site, not just the forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: There seem to be a lot of users who only started contributing today (Josecuervo, Alicia the Mousa Tamer, Quisling, Girvan The Swerve, LachlanG, Steenbras), some of whose only contributions are to this debate. A word of advice to the newcomers: meatpuppets are generally frowned upon, and on issues such as this their voices carry comparatively little weight compared to people who have been contributing for a long time. See this AfD debate for an excellent example of severe meat puppetry and how it fails to influence decisions if, and I stress, IF the supporters for the article being kept do not argue coherently and do not motivate for keeping the article by citing the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines or by demonstrating that the article does meet those policies or guidelines. Zunaid 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Zunaid - I appreciate the positive nature of your post. I would like to make the point that all of the new users that you list are genuine, unique posters on PR forum. I think that 'meatpuppets' refers to multiple personas from just one person? I would argue that the entry for the PR chat forum be retained as it is a very real entity and therefore its entry may be of some reference value to users of wikipedia. The arguments against retention appear to be more based in a general disdain for message boards in general. PR forum is quite obscure, I will certainly concede that much, but surely obscurity is the raison d'etre of an encyclopedia? Girvan The Swerve 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Planet Rugby itself doesn't have an article, or I might have suggested a paragraph be added to that article about the forum. and Comment for Girvan the Swerve: meatpuppets are a bit different from sockpuppets, at least in Wikipedia usage of the terms. Sockpuppets are alias accounts for the same person. Meatpuppets usually refers to real separate individuals who have been brought to Wikipedia solely to participate on one side of a discussion. CarbonCopy 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks for that Carbon Copy. I realise now that I am guilty of meatpuppetry, but with the sincerest possible motives. I think the general concensus is to delete the entry for planet rugby chat forum and add a new entry for planet rugby with a reference to the chat forum. Girvan The Swerve 14:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Multiple personas from one person are sock puppets. From the sock puppet article:

  A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues.

  You have to concede that the current situation is almost exactly the definition of a meat puppet; it looks as if new members are being recruited on some sort of "save this article" campaign. Obscure does not = non-encyclopedic, but unimportant/unreferenced/non-notable does. The article isn't up for deletion because the topic is obscure, it's up for deletion because the article itself fails to assert the notability of the subject. This does not neccessarily mean that the subject isn't notable, just that the article doesn't provide evidence that it is. If you really want to save this article then take heed of the suggestions being made here: include references to the media, provide evidence that famous rugby players post there, demonstrate that the site has influenced some aspect of the game or society, show that the forum has been cited in a newspaper or other published medium. If the forum really has done that then I'm quite sure it is notable, but the article doesn't provide any evidence of this, see what I'm saying? Maybe the article doesn't do the topic justice. Heaven knows it's in a god-awful state at the moment. So rewrite the article, and maybe, just maybe, you can save it from deletion. What could then happen is that people here would re-read the improved article and hopefully change their votes because of the improvement. Zunaid 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (That's enough rambling from me, I'm off home, will catch up on this tomorrow.)
• Delete no assertion that the site meets WP:WEB. If someone can prove that they do, then I'll happily change my vote. --Bachrach44 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Brian Moore, former England international rugby player, former Lions player and current BBC rugby commentator/pundit is a regular contributor to the board. Here is his profile, see for yourselves. http://forum.planet-rugby.com/index.php?t=usrinfo&id=2736&rid=&S=600a610ee64e5f9111412846095b3a3d . In addition, the planet rugby chat forum was recently mentioned in a letter to the Sunday Times (London) as a result of its campaign to remove rugby columnist Stephen Jones. Girvan The Swerve (This comment moved here by me from the top of this page. Posts read top to bottom with newer posts below. Your comment will probably be missed by most people who only look for the latest posts near the bottom of the page.) Zunaid

• I am no sockpuppet. You guys really like to throw the book at people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girvan Dempsey (talk • contribs) 09:47, December 8, 2005. (user's third edit)

Can I just ask again how Musicianforums or Mx Forums has a Wikipedia entry? I'd be very surprised if it is half as influential as the world's prime rugby forum.Peter Stringer

Peter - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Musicianforums. I cant find an articvle for MX forums. Agnte 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete article and transfer salvageable content into Planet Rugby. By itself does not meet WP:WEB. Agnte 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Just have to say this place is a beauraucratic nightmare.
  • No, it's an encyclopaedia. The concept is often an alien one to people used to discussion fora. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopaedia. On discussion fora, there is no requirement for providing the means for readers to check what one writes. Here, there is an absolute requirement. If you want to provide an argument to keep this article, you must cite sources to demonstrate that this forum has come to the attention of the rest of the world enough that the rest of the world has published things about it. Point to the independently sourced "in depth" magazine articles, third-party guides and FAQs, significant press coverage, or books that have been written about it. Uncle G 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that everyone should be given a fair go and this includes Planet Rugby Chat Forum. You wikipedians are behaving like a bunch of stuck up, obnoxious imbeciles. Clearly seem them as a threat. As you know I have no time for dickheads and their ramblings on. Get back to your shitty. jobs. It is a free country, you know. I'm Sam Kekovich.

• I always thought Sam Kekovich played AFL. :>)Capitalistroadster 00:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment: The Planet Rugby page is almost an exact duplicate of the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article. A subversive attempt to keep the content alive? It certainly seems so. To Sam Kekovich, Wikipedia is not about giving everyone a "fair go". It is an encyclopedia. Read the criticisms people have been posting, you'll see they are mostly constructive and show a clear way in which this article can be saved. Zunaid 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Zunaid no kidding it is an encyclopedia you have mentioned this several times like a broken record your keyboard is. Everyone is entilted to publish their articles on here so go jump you flippin imbecile. You are what is bad with this world. You seem to place your views above everyone elses. How about you take a hike, the world could do without your types. Time for a beer. I'm Sam Kekovich.

• Delete Sarah Ewart 09:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete The Planet Rugby page is almost an exact duplicate of the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article. Therefore Delete the chat forum article, and Improve the Planet Rugby page. JanesDaddy 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, very notable per Zunaid. Stifle 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 11:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. nn, poorly written, about insignificant web "bored" Ronabop 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per website's tactics. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 16:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free game forums

Spam. Unlikely to be notable. Zero Google hits on their URL. Difficult to Google on their name (which on their website is given as "Games Forum", not "Free Games Forum") because combinations of "Free", "Games", and "Forum" are everywhere; however they do come up as #1 on free games-forum. Website looks nothing special. Any Australians know about this? Herostratus 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Not being particularly involved in Games I don't know but I will place the appropriate messages. WP:WEB is the appropriate policy to use. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 02:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• It claims 33,000 registered users which would meet the general criteria in WP:WEB, but about a quarter of these are listed as 'never logged in' which sounds a bit suss. Looking at a one page sample (I chose "M") of members with more than one post is 40% which would still leave them with > 10,000 members. IanBailey ^(talk) 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless some claim to encyclopedicity can be found. As has been discussed, pages like this have an inherent failing: There's nothing to expand. What, encyclopedic, do you write about a forum? The number of users? The stupid user dramas? Who's a moderator and who isn't? Unless a forum has had an impact on the world outside its user community, it is not likely to be encyclopedic. If verifiable sources can be found that discuss the forum in question, my vote will be reconsidered. FCYTravis 05:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and agree 100% with FCYTravis above. To be brutally honest, very little of any encyclopedic value can be said about the vast majority of forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - self-promotional and the three contributors (Zena, Luffy 747 and Rex. look suspiciously like sock puppets. Tim Pierce 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promotion, vanity.--MONGO 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per FCYTravis Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Travis. Sarah Ewart 09:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ambi 11:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all articles. - Mailer Diablo 02:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Wall, Andrew Wall, and Aaron Apollos

Jennifer Wall was nominated for deletion on 2005-11-24. The result of the discussion was "delete". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Wall.

After the ridiculous hoax article at "Jennifer Wall" was deleted, its author recreated it, only this time instead of a famed serial killer, Ms Wall is now an international swimming superstar. Feel free to check his references; they're fake. He's also created Andrew Wall and Aaron Apollos, who AfDers with long memories will recall featured prominently in the original Jennifer Wall article as well. For those not following the A-League: these two fellows are not A-League players. The user has been warned, but I think he's had his fun now and won't be back. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Leisel Jones won the silver in the 200m breaststroke at Athens, so this is an obvious fake. Peyna 03:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Andrew Wall is not a member of the Central Coast Mariners. [13] Aaron Apollos is not a member of the Perth Glory see [14]. A Google search provides no evidence that Jennifer Wall is an English swimmer of any note see [15]. A Google News search for "Jennifer Wall" swimmer comes up empty as well [16]. I vote to Delete all three. Capitalistroadster 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. Sam Vimes 08:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IanBailey ^(talk) 09:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all hoaxes.  RasputinAXP  _{talk contribs} 22:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and padlock before a new hoax arises. B.Wind 04:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete away. --Roisterer 07:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, protect, sow salt in earth, ban author. MCB 08:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete vandalism. Stifle 15:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax. Sarah Ewart 09:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 00:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughtless

Thoughtless was nominated for deletion on 2005-09-06. The result of the discussion was "speedy delete". For the prior discussion see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughtless/2005-09-06.

This is the second nomination; the first, 2 months ago, was for homophobia etc. This page has none of that content; rather, it is not noteable per WP:MUSIC as the band has not yet released an album, etc. Colonel Tom 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Do not delete, I am making this for my band, I dont even know why it is being considered for deletion.
• Delete, per nom. Tom Lillis 03:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• It's being considered for deletion because your band is not yet well-known enough to get an encyclopedia article. Please read WP:MUSIC which explains which bands get an article. When you have two albums released by a major label or very well-known independent label, you get an article, for instance. Even then it's considered better to wait for other people to make the article about you, then fix any inaccuracies. I say delete. DanielCristofani 03:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:NMG. Melbourne band yet to release any records. By the way, the AfD notice is missing and I don't know how to install one for a second nomination. Capitalistroadster 04:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • template changed again to 2nd nomination. Colonel Tom 04:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -^demon 04:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable band. Cnwb 04:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 04:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• The band has not released any albums or singles, been signed by anyone, or even had any gigs apart from performing in school. Furthermore, not only does the article explicitly state that they play in the garage of one of the member's parents, the article even has photographs of all of the band members in said garage. This article therefore fails to satisfy any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. However, failing to satisfy the notability criteria isn't the only problem. The article is original research, comprising an obviously firsthand account of the band's history. The place for this is the band's own web site, not Wikipedia. (Ironically, the band has its own web site, but the images are broken and the text is in white on a white background.) Delete. Uncle G 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not satisfy WP:MUSIC--nixie 04:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete But good luck guys, maybe after a couple of years and a smash album or two we'll see you back. pfctdayelise 04:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Ambi 04:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Who's the one saying we haven't played anywhere except school? That's all it says in the history thing. But we have played at many gigs. 3 battle of the bands in 2004, 4 in 2005. We played at push up in the western suburbs. also that image is not in a garage. the ones of us playing are in a garage, but the image of all of us is in an abanodened place where we thought it would be cool to take photos in, and make them look official possibly giving us some credibility. the problem with our site is that all the links are linked to live.com.au but the host moved to music.net.au, they have reset all passwords and thus anyone owning a site with them is unable to access. thus i cannot fix the links until the host resets everyones pw back to normal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thoughtless Band (talk • contribs).
• What is this? Garage band self promotion week? I'm from the Western Suburbs of Melbourne and my sympathies lie with you, but sorry guys, as for this article - a definite deletion! ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 05:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Well I spent a lot of effort on this page, and now all of a sudden its going to be scrapped. I mean, a lot of other pages exist here and are really bad or pointless, why should mine be targetted 10 minutes after its completed, once I've done all the work?Thoughtless Band 06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The difference is that you've missed the point of what Wikipedia is. Wikipedia isn't a free wiki host, for anyone to come along and write articles about themselves, their bands, their schools, and so forth, from firsthand knowledge. It isn't a vanity press or a self-publishing service. It's an encyclopaedia. Everything here must have been published somewhere else first and have been already acknowledged by people and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge. If you want to publish a firsthand, previously unpublished, account of your band that incorporates stuff that nobody else knew before, your own web site is the place to do it. You were warned about this before you started the work that you did. You are encouraged to keep contributing to Wikipedia, but please heed the warnings about what is acceptable here before you do. Uncle G 06:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I acknowledge that you have done a lot of work on the article. Have you thought about alternatives such as MySpace, GeoCities or Google Base which allow for free hosting. Unfortunately, your band doesn't meet our music guidelines as yet although we all wish you well. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Userfy as creator might want content to move elsewhere as suggested by Capitalroadmaster. KillerChihuahua 14:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and do not userfy and let this hang around forever. If the creator can't be bothered to copy this somewhere else in the week it takes us to delete it, tough cookies. —Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• I unilaterally userfied it for them yesterday for the reason subsequently given by KillerChihuahua. I still think that may have been a good idea; "tough cookies" sounds a little like biting the newcomers. DanielCristofani 05:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete Nice job for this kind of page, but it really does belong elsewhere. CarbonCopy 21:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete IanBailey ^(talk) 09:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. To the guys who did the page - good luck with your band, and a nice job on the page, but this isn't what Wikipedia is for. We hope you guys want to contribute pages about other, well known bands - there are a list of them here. -- Chuq 09:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 07:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is it that I keep getting messages about deleting of articles? I havent been doing that, nor would I know how to.

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 00:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chocolate_crackles

Delete. Recipe. Not even enough of a recipe to transwiki, really. R Calvete 11:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Change to Keep, as per rewrite. R Calvete 23:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per first vote. BrianSmithson 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing vote to keep, now that the article has been rewritten. —BrianSmithson 20:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An institution at Australian kids' parties. I have rewritten it into a food stub. Capitalistroadster 18:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Capitalistroadster's rewrite. They seem to be well known by people from the US, too, though. JPD (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable Australian recipe of at least some decades standing--A Y Arktos 19:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - An Australian classic, and the article is currently written well enough to keep / improve (although I'm not sure what I'd add, other than pop culture references or a detailed recipe). Colonel Tom 22:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - don't delete the chocolate crackles! That's what all mums give to their kids in order to encourage them to eat cereal! It's made out of Rice Bubbles or if you're lazy coco pops. It's a cereal and its a lolly all rolled in to one! The cultural significance of them is akin to vegemite (almost), and probably even more important for kids. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep No sultanas though! pfctdayelise 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I wouldn't be the person I am today without chocolate crackles. Cnwb 04:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Big cultural significance. Ambi 04:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• 'Keep' gotta keep it - its an institution!

• Keep It should be kept, but I think someone should revise the recipie and make it more in depth.

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 02:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BCC Computers

This business isn't notable. I'm from Geelong. I doubt they're heard of outside of this city. -- Longhair 10:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Longhair 10:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.--nixie 10:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Sarah Ewart 11:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 12:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. BrianSmithson 18:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Computer store in Geelong with two or three branches. Only reference in a search of Australian newspaper was an advertising feature in the Geelong Advertiser. Capitalistroadster 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - at first glance I misread this as BBC Computers, which are incredibly notable as a popular home computer from the late 1970s early 1980s. But this one is just a store. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I know their stores, being from the area, and they're just a smallish local chain. They don't have many stores, they're not particularly large and they're not overly well-known. Ambi 04:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Two sentences do not an article make. B.Wind 05:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. – Robert 01:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan Peterson

Was put up as speedy, but claims to be respected Melbourne inhabitant who has won several tournaments in swordsmanship, so I'm not happy having it as a speedy. Said user mentioned it no hits Google), so I'd be happy to delete based on unverifiability, but I would like some outside opinion first. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Said user is here. I agree in that I'm (again) being a bit too eager in speedying doubtful new pages. –Mysid 12:54, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Seems to exist all right [17] but to lack notability. Dlyons493 14:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Notability, verifiabilty. Also, likely a hoax, since it was added to Cult figure. Wikibofh 14:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - not much said about it, but its verified here: [18]. Quiz question. Not a hoax. Enough for me. Would you have a quiz question about someone who was not heard of? I don't think so. My name has never been in a quiz question (other than by family members etc) and I bet most people's names are never used either. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Anyone can make a quiz there. I could make one about, oh, Invisible Pink Unicorns, but it doesn't mean it's verifiable.  :) Wikibofh 15:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: That quiz was written by someone who is possibly from the same school he attended (Kensington Community High School) and may even be him given their email address is his name at KCHS.vic.edu.au. Sarah Ewart 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete 81 Google hits for "Tristan Peterson" and nothing on the first page about this man. [19]. The one verifiable reference found so far is for a quiz on Melbourne's newest rock band so that doesn't assist us much. A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers came up with nothing about him either. Scarcely verifiable and falls well short of WP:BIO. The only form of modern-day notability for a swordsman would be appearing in the Olympics in a fencing event which he appears not to have done. Capitalistroadster 16:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 16:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the non-notable. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 17:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, speed delete! pure vanity, 99.9% for sure written by the person himself (not that is always a bad thing) and is nothing but self promotion of an apparently un-notable personality. Come on, read the text! Dead give away. What is the deal with the IQ of 172, ...yeah right! (laughing in the background). Well its like a key marker. There must be no more than 600-1000 people in the world with an IQ of 170 or above, and this is one of them? Speed delete! IQ 140-150 and one could have gotten away with it, but 172, no way and you better wrap it in xmas paper or something. I see no xmas paper, in fact I see nothing of notablity at all! Twthmoses 20:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. I'm from Melbourne and I can report that he is not one of the most respected men in this city, otherwise the general public (incl. myself) would have heard of his. Cnwb 21:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Jtmichcock 00:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 02:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Roisterer 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nn. Sarah Ewart 01:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per the nominator. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was that there were doctored keep votes...so delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Gavin Johnson

• Keep This guy is real, except he looks kinda different from his picture, cos the real deal is kinda more nourished looking. He came to my school at the start of this year for seminars and droned on about baked dinner for fifty minutes, then gave out booklets with random statistics and food pyramids and radio transcripts available to buy to listen on cassette. I don't have one myself, but I know some people kept them to make fun of him and prank his office number. I'll see whether I can get the seminar photos or a scan of his booklet or something or whether my teachers can write in about this guy.J.Hamile-Rakow

Ridiculous picture accompanied by a possible hoax. I can't seem to find anything on google for a "Doctor Gavin Johnson." Delete. JHMM13 08:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I put up the photo but didnt write the article but I think its all true (he's actually a family friend) except I thought he was younger... I'll try get scan the pamphlet where I got the picture from Putnik Tula
• Keep This guy was on SBS like a month ago, I know cause it's the only channel I get here in Kootamundra. And I dunno bout you, but if it aint baked dinna, I don't wanna know about it... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.164.70.119 (talk • contribs).
• Keep He came to my old high school last year as a speaker and was boring as all hell. He's real but not famous and as far as an author goes he did give out some booklets I think he wrote about food groups, etc. I'll get in touch with my school buds and ask if they have one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.191.21 (talk • contribs).

• Delete It doesn't really matter if he's real if he's not famous; that still makes him non-notable and doesn't need an article. :) Peachlette 12:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I saw this guy on SBS. The documentary said he used to work for the CSIRO but has recently begun his own studies on nutrition. Part of that was a survey on what foods people eat. I also have to point out that because he isnt on GOOGLE doesnt mean he doesnt exist. - Jean-Pierre Martinez—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.138.143.112 (talk • contribs).
• Comment User:Putnik has only made edits to his userpage and pages related to Doctor Gavin Johnson, User:58.164.70.119 has only made edits related to Doctor Gavin Johnson, as has User:211.30.191.21 and User:Polarburr, and User:144.138.143.112 had made one edit unrelated to Doctor Gavin Johnson - vandalism to Causes of the French Revolution. Andjam 00:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. Five Google hits for "Gavin Johnson" CSIRO none of which are from a reliable source see [20]. Our Sunday roast contains very dodgy data claiming that 64% of Australians eating baked dinners three times or more a week citing Johnson as the alleged source. That data is unverifiable and nonsense on stilts - as an Australian I should know. No Google book results [21] and no Google scholar results completes the trifecta [22].

Possible speedy as silly vandalism or non-notable bio. Capitalistroadster 08:32, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No hits on the CSIRO web site. Kevin 09:14, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Question. Is that the best picture he could find? Herostratus 19:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, probable hoax. Sarah Ewart 23:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the article but I'm sure the image could prove useful illustrating a fashion related article. --Roisterer 08:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- obvious hoax. - Longhair 21:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Cautious Keep the article is rubbish, but not beyond improvement. Izehar 15:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• How can you improve a hoax? Agnte 19:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - hoax. it seems evident from the picture and the sockpuppets. Agnte 19:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax or not he doesn't appear to hit notability. Plus a flood of unsigned/suspected sockpuppet votes. Stifle 22:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. -Splash^talk 03:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Turramurra High School

Vanity school article, promo. –Mysid 10:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• I retract that—looks like a really decent stub now. Keep. –Mysid 12:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Cut the guff and keep a stub. I thought high schools were inherently notable now? (I can't keep up). - Randwicked 12:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge into school district or town. This school is an important public institution and should be written about somewhere, even if it cannot sustain an article on their own. Presently people do create school articles containing neutral, verifiable information and it is impossible to delete them, even though many have a desire to do so. Rather than striving for an impossible consensus to delete any given school article, I feel it is always preferable and takes much less energy to merge the text of the article into an article about a suitable habitation or administrative unit: a city, county or state, or a school district of local education authority of other school system, while taking care not to delete the information contained in the article. The article itself should be replaced by a redirect. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:48, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Nice to see. May be the ball is still rolling on the a school talks? I have started adding schools to the school watch clean up. Hopefully that will be the start to circumventing pointless Afd's. Others should consider listing the microstub schools there instead of Afd untiol a consensus is reached on merging. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Fine as it is. Rhollenton 14:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Good school stub. Capitalistroadster 16:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Keep — valid high school. — RJH 17:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep more than a stub. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 18:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Carioca 19:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid High School.--Dakota ^{t e} 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and no merge. Good progress on article at this time. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and do not merge as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. Silensor 20:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Borderline merge into local town article per Hipocrite and WP:SCH.

  To any of the "keep" voters who voted "keep" automatically: please consider adopting the WP:SCH proposal instead, which I believe suggests that this article should be merged. By doing so you could hasten the adoption of a guideline which could help bring an end to these pointless and time-wasting AfD nominations. Please consider either changing your votes to "merge", or expanding the article: a couple more verifiable sentences, or a good photo of the school, would bring this undisputably over the threshold set by the WP:SCH proposal, making it a clear "keep". — Haeleth Talk 22:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia school proposal is a last desperate attempt to get school articles deleted against consensus. No one is going to do the mass merging anyway, so what's the point? You deletionists can't even be bothered to nominate many and merging will be more work. CalJW 10:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
    • What nonsense. It is an attempt to get a clear consensus on the criteria for merging to prevent edit wars in the future. Merging is not more time consuming than an AFD. Frankly your input has been cynical all along and is wearing a bit thin. David D. (Talk) 06:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I'm trying to be nice here, CalJW, but if you'd like me to be nominating school articles, why all you need to do is ask. How about taking a pleasant pill? Denni ☯ 01:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Valid school article. Cnwb 22:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect and merge to South Turramurra, New South Wales as per User: Haeleth --A Y Arktos 23:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is a important school and the article is nice Yuckfoo 01:51, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IanBailey ^(talk) 03:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; no reasonable basis for deletion has been offered. Another notable school that should be in Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge scrapes past verifiability --redstucco 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep First one for a few days. Hopefully the last. CalJW 10:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If you cannot get it through your head that a compromise on this issue is in everyone's best interest, I can guarantee you that you will be spending a lot more time in AfD rescuing your school articles. Your belligerent attitude does not serve to win you allies. Denni ☯ 00:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Please join us at WP:SCH to work out a school article policy that works for everyone. Denni ☯ 00:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Closing admin please delete the copyvio versions from the history (Prior to Grutness). Kappa 03:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Enochlau 23:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A War For Australlia

Self-professed episode idea for a popular television show. Delete as unencyclopaedic fancruft.-- PeruvianLlama^(spit) 22:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. My country is called Australia by the way. Episode suggestion for a non-existent television program. Capitalistroadster 22:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- has no place in Wikipedia. - Longhair 22:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-encyclopedic. Cnwb 23:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Sarah Ewart 23:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as a theoretical episode for the Nickelodeon cartoon series, Rocko's Modern Life, as well as the misspelling of Australia. Saberwyn 23:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. A War For Australlia may qualify for Speedy Deletion, as it was made by the same author as this article. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 00:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. IanBailey ^(talk) 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. And I second Peruvianllama's comment--I thought we'd dealt with this already. Tom Lillis 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete asap. My eyes hurt from reading the sheer non-importance of that entry. --Roisterer 08:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per PeruvianLlama. Episode ideas are unverifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per-nom. --StuffOfInterest 12:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 17:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just got through cleaning up after our little friend. Had to unblock the IP due to collateral damage, but I'll keep an eye out for more. This example should not be a speedy since I believe other users should know what to watch out for. - Lucky 6.9 22:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - how hard is it to spell Australia???? Zordrac 01:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I might've said otherwise if it hadn't been written by a known vandal who made up hoaxes. – Iggy Koopa 02:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Izehar 15:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 19:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australians Against Further Immigration

The page was created maliciously. When the offensive content was removed, the page was left devoid of content. aliceinlampyland 14:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC).

• Speedy delete as patent nonsense/attack, now empty per nom. Ifnord 15:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete now it appears empty. PJM 15:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known minor political party, despite not having seats. Stub created. JPD 16:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Was a speedy delete candidate originally, but now that it is here, it is on a very notable topic, and thus should be most definitely kept. Ambi 16:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep; a page getting vandalised is no reason for a speedy delete, plus the party is legit. Peyna 16:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legitimate political party. Agnte 16:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If the quote can be confirmed, then add a citation link. --StuffOfInterest 16:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Listed on the Australian Electoral Commission's Register of Australian political parties see [23] and shown as having endorsed candidates in the 2004 Federal election. Also important as predecessors of the One Nation Party. Capitalistroadster 17:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 17:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Google search seems to show this is fairly noteable. HackJandy 22:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 22:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As above pfctdayelise 22:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't know what the article looked like when it was listed, but it's perfectly viable now. Sadly, even racists form a part of human knowledge. — Haeleth Talk 00:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously, despite the puerile garbage that formed the first revision of the article. --Stormie 01:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If only we didn't need this kind of article... ～J.K. 10:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Writing an article on AAFI has been on my to-do list for a while. --Roisterer 08:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 21:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kean Hartling

• All of you are wrong I verified some of the information within the Wikipedia article on Kean Hartling and it was based off of an old Irish publication within the Freeman's Journal, dated 18 March 1923, an article titled Heroes of the Great War by Drake O'Reilly, a not-very-popular or well-known editor of the Journal. Get your facts straight before you threaten to delete anything. Don't Delete Bubby (unregistered) 21:42, 03 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't verify any of this. —Cryptic (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Nor can I. A Google search for "Kean Hartling" shows seven Google hits none of which confirms this [24]. There is a list of Australian recipients of the Victoria Cross here on this site related to Anzac Day. [25] Hartling's name is not listed there. There is a list of Victoria Cross recipients by name on Wikipedia. His name is not listed on List of Victoria Cross recipients by Name - H. Delete as unverifiable probable hoax. Capitalistroadster 04:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete as HOAX This entry is a deliberate hoax, and so a form of vandalism. A search of the comprehensive list of Victoria Cross winners now hosted on wikipedia (which lists every winner), there is no entry for anyone named Hartling. Another indicaiton - at the time Hartling is claimed to have left Ireland for England to apply for "English citizenship", Ireland was still part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland i.e. the same country.

The author has also recently planted false information elsewhere which was subject to a speedy delete as a deliberate hoax. Bwithh 04:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.

• Speedy delete - hoax/vandalism. Article contradicts itself in places. B.Wind 05:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Zordrac 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Do all countries get as many well-written biographical hoax articles as Australia does? It seems like a few come up every week. pfctdayelise 22:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax. Sarah Ewart 23:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless article can be confirmed. --Roisterer 08:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. Enochlau 00:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian People's Party

Verifiability issues. I can find nothing to confirm the claims of the article on Google, newsgroups or news searches... best I can find is that it's a spoof of the Labor Party in a movie by Ted Emery [26]. But even then... this isn't a current political party in any way, as far as I can tell. It also may have been an actual political party inthe 1920s [27] but that's not what this article is talking about. --W.marsh 21:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. --W.marsh 21:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Delete. Doesn't look notable to me. --Martyman-(talk) 21:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC) I change my vote to keep due to article being re-written about a real subject. --Martyman-(talk) 09:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as A1 very short article. The Australian Electoral Commission keeps a register of Australian political parties for various reasons as keeping records of significant donations, listing candidates on ballot papers and so forth. The Australian People's Party isn't registered on that list see [28]. Could possibly be rewritten about 1920's party. Might leave a message for Adam Carr. Capitalistroadster 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Adam Carr has now responded saying that a party of that name contested the West Australian elections in 1996 but are no longer active in that state. Capitalistroadster 02:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

But that is not what the article is refering to either. --Martyman-(talk) 02:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the sleuthing. I'm not opposed to keeping a rewritten article about either that or the 1920s party, but the party the article refers to right now seems to be unverifiable. As is its founder, "Oscar Schlamovitch" which sounds quite made up. --W.marsh 02:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ambi 04:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have now cleaned up, verified and expanded the article. In my view, there is enough verifiable information on the various party's to warrant a Keep vote. Capitalistroadster 08:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep after User:Capitalistroadster's excellent rewrite. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 08:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep great verifiable rewrite, nice job. Jessamyn 15:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Nominator here... Keep the great rewrite that solved the problem, thanks to User:Capitalistroadster. --W.marsh 15:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Following the fix up by Capitalistroadster, I say we Keep. --Roisterer 04:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 00:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Colin Black

Appears to be non-notable, but want to get others' opinions on this. Speedy delete if people agree that it is speedy deletable. --Nlu 00:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete, because I'm not sure what the current thinking is on being the headmaster of a school. None of the drama entries suggest notability within that field, so headmastering is the only thing that might set him apart from others. Joyous | Talk 02:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: It has a photo of him: Image:ColinBlack.jpg (oops, didn't mean to put a photo in the Vfd), has 7 named contributors, and google returns 14,500 google hits. Whilst I struggled to find the bits that refer to the right Colin Black (after all, the Colin Black from http://www.colinblack.com/ is not this one, yet seems to be more notable than this one), the suggestion that he directed Andrew Denton in and of itself asserts notoriety. What we need now is some references to back it up. I am sorry, but I am too tired to wade through 14,500 links to find which one refers to this guy. Does look to be notable though. Zordrac 02:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Googling for "Colin Black" "Andrew Denton" returns precisely 6 hits: the only one which actually appears to relate to this claim of notability is, guess what, the Wikipedia article! So I'm afraid it fails WP:V. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Doesn't qualify for speedy delete, Keep. per Zordac (Notorious4life 05:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 06:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Any claims to notability in this article are completely unverified. Ambi 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So why don't we ask them to verify it? If you can wade through the 14,500 google hits then you might be able to do it yourself. If it is true, then its notable. Zordrac 07:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Ask whom to verify it? And the AfD notice should be sufficient call for verification of notability. --Nlu 07:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The authors, of course. Zordrac 08:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As I noted, the AfD notice should be sufficient. --Nlu 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: He's just a person doing his job. There are tens of thousands of headmasters. They all are esteemed by their student bodies and boards of trustees, but being a headmaster by itself does not give one a platform or profile above the school's own community. Therefore, again and again, the person is not referred to in a context other than his own job and therefore does not need explication in an encyclopedia. (We're not judging the person. We're judging whether the information needs to be present to help explain the world.) Geogre 15:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No valid reason for deletion given. Verifiable. Trollderella 21:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Actually, while I began opposing this deletion because no valid reason for deletion was given, it is, in fact, a really valuable article. I would urge folks to taka another look at it. Trollderella 23:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, does not meet biography criteria.--nixie 23:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Which, after all, are guidelines, not part of deletion criteria. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Verifiability is also relvant--nixie 02:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I can't see why we need to include headmasters on wikipedia. --Roisterer 02:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I can't see why we need to include chemistry, but, somehow, I live with it. Trollderella 02:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep,He's more than just a headmaster!! He is a "prominent educator" that influenced the statewide policies on prevention of bullying and also notable for his dramatic nature!!
• Delete on the basis that someone called him a "prominent educator". (Petty, yes, but oddly reliable.) Deltabeignet 04:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CSD:A7 is policy. Denni ☯ 04:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

But this isn't speedy deletion... Trollderella 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say, if an article should be speedy deleted, then that is also good ground to garden-variety delete it. --Nlu 07:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Unless the lack of credible sources is remedied, this appears to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability--redstucco 11:01, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I read the article, and followed up the links (yes, Trollderella, I generally do unless the article itself makes a clear case either way). The subject is clearly as stated (no major problem with verifiability), but I can't for the life of me see which criteria he meets in WP:BIO. I have performed in three cathedrals, two concert halls and King's College Chapel, and worked with people like Humphrey Lyttleton, Richard Stilgoe, Yehudi Menuhin, Timothy West and Evelyn Glennie. I've been featured in the Times Educational Supplement and interviewed on BBC Radio 4 as well, but I would laugh out loud if anybody suggested I should have an article on WP. I know I set the bar higher than many others, but for me this chap falls below it. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 11:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the bar is actually set by policy, not individual whimsey. As far as I can see, you agree that there is no policy reason to delete this, but feel like it anyway. Trollderella 17:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

That is not true. I cannot see which parts of WP:BIO he meets. Which criteria do you think he meets? From my personal perspective I measure his claims to notoriety against my own (as a person I know particularly well, and feel falls well short of inclusion), but in the end I take WP:BIO as a guide. Why is that wrong? - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 19:16, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

As you know, WP:BIO is a guideline. It is not part of deletion policy. Claiming that something should be deleted because of it in the face of people who want to keep it is irresponsible. Trollderella 21:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Alternative view: voting to keep content which clearly does not meet the guidelines, which are backed by strong consensus, is iresponsible.

Alternative alternative view: we vote according to our interpretation of guidelines and policy, and sometimes differ. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 21:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable. Replace by an article on the guy from colinblack.com. Radiant_>|< 23:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I happen to know the Colin Black that this article refers to. In all honesty though, his "story" is not dissimilar to many other headmasters etc that exist and would probably be of little benefit to anyone.

Careful with this guy's comment, he is the guy continuously vandalizing the Colin Black and Camberwell Grammar School articles. See 138.217.27.205 (talk • contribs). I wouldn't really trust any of his comments at the moment... --DWZ 09:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nothing special.  Grue  16:38, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, precedent and consensus say that articles like this one that fail the WP:BIO guideline should be deleted. The one claim for notability is non-verifiable. — Haeleth Talk 13:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Aranda ⁵⁶) 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sandy Point, Victoria

Not written in encyclopedic form. Should be rewritten at the least, and given a cleanup if this town really exists. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Real place near Wilsons Promontory in Victoria. A Google search for "Sandy Point" Victoria gets 181,000 results see [29] Protected for its natural values and also used as a naval training area as HMAS Cerberus is nearby. Capitalistroadster 03:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If you haven't bothered to see if the place exists, you shouldn't be putting it on AfD. Additionally, cleanup does not belong on AfD. Peyna 04:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per Capitalistroadster abakharev 04:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "if this town really exists" - I'm not sure why you even doubt it. I agree with Peyna. Cnwb 04:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 04:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. Don't forget to add an {{unreferenced}} tag; this article has no cited sources. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Real place, apparently... no need for deletion, but a mass-clean up will need to be done. (Notorious4life 05:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC))
• Speedy Keep - we've established that it exists. Close Vfd. It should have tags to cleanup and perhaps verify, but that shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Zordrac 07:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. For reasons above, plus the article is really quite good now. --kingboyk 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Article cleaned up, expanded and referenced. No change of vote from keep. Capitalistroadster 09:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually much more encyclopedic than those uncountable articles on U.S. hamlets that are nothing but lists of demographic minutiae. - Randwicked 10:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Unresearched nomination. Afd is not cleanup. CalJW 10:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Emphatic keep - it didn't/doesn't deserve deletion, just a good cleanup (which it got, thanks to Capitalistroadster). Does this qualify as consensus? B.Wind 10:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well damn! I am sorry, I made a mistake, gee....εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 19:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BY THE WAY: I underlined where I said cleanup I really didn't research this to see if it existed or not, and for that I am really sorry...however, I did suggest a cleanup, which it needed at the time. Thanks Capitalist Roadster, for cleaning the article up. εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 20:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't think anyone meant any of their comments to be directed perosnally towards you, but just at the nomination in general. I apologize if my comment came off as any kind of personal attack, the tone was perhaps a little negative. Peyna 20:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Dude, I know you weren't attacking me. If anything, I feel bad for posting this. :) Smile! εγκυκλοπαίδεια*(talk) 22:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please maybe this can be closed now we all agree right Yuckfoo 01:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE by unambiguous and unanimous community decision. -- Psy guy ^Talk 00:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Melbtrip

Delete. Nothing but linkspam, with text straight from the website. I added the link to the Melbourne page. I don’t think a redirect is necessary. •DanMS 07:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Useful for planning a trip in Melbourne I'm sure but not encyclopedic. Capitalistroadster 08:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. Cnwb 09:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A textbook example of linkspam. --Roisterer 09:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominator. Sarah Ewart 12:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The site's only notability lies in the Australian railfan community, where it is notorious for plagiarising nearly all its content and spamming. Apart from that, it's utterly non-notable. Ambi 13:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete linkspam IanBailey ^(talk) 01:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's a copyvio too. Stifle 23:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant advertising. Zordrac 12:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 21:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Jaranda(^{watz sup}) 23:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-Australian sentiment

No substantiative evidence that such a sentiment actually exists Jackk 02:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment this article survived this previous deletion debate.--cj | talk 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 03:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Cleanup, verify and possibly NPOv. Definite sentiment with Osama Bin Laden having a long entrenched anti-Australian attitude as did Dr Mahathir Mohammed of Malaysia so verifiable. Capitalistroadster 04:03, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although Mahathir was more racist than specifically Anti-Australian.--cj | talk 04:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep IanBailey ^(talk) 09:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• I voted to keep this in its previous debate. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 10:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If Mahatir didn't speak anti-Australian sentiments, then I'll have to watch the aerial porcine formations. -LichYoshi 10:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Shouldn't have been renominated. CalJW 10:19, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the arguments I made last time. Nominator should pay more attention to foreign affairs. Ambi 13:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sarah Ewart 13:53, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I haven't checked to see if this article has changed much since nomination, but it looks like a great article. -- Chuq 08:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, on procedural grounds - I voted for deletion last time around, IIRC, but it survived that. No new reasons to delete and several of the old ones have been fixed, so this shouldn't have been renominated. --Calair 22:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Although it needs references - perhaps {{Unreferenced}}?. Agnte 16:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- plenty of evidence. - Longhair 22:56, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Here's what I get for "Anti-Australian" specifically excluding Wikipedia.[30]. It's certainly real in parts of the South Pacific and Indonesia. I'm not sure why sources aren't being used much.--T. Anthony 11:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - plenty of evidence, topical area. Zordrac 13:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Auscamp

Delete. No assertion of notability for this outdoors company. Google returns 355. A relevant website shows it to be one of 21 of its kind in Australia and thus it does not appear to meet WP:CORP. If an Australian wants to inform that this is the biggest and best of its kind, I have no problem reconsidering. Marskell 08:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. No indications that this camp company is notable enough to meet WP:CORP. 250 Google hits [31] and no Google News hits. [32]. Capitalistroadster 09:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 09:54, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- unless expanded to show notability. - Longhair 10:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 12:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment WP:CORP is absurdly harsh compared to the criteria for every other type of article and should be either updated or abandoned. I would estimate that well under 10% of the companies with articles meet it, but most of them would not get deleted if nominated. CalJW 18:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not much content, not notable. If more content was provided perhaps... --Computerjoe 19:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. --Roisterer 09:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - contact is auscamp@alphalink.com.au - an ISP, not even it's own domain. NN. Josh Parris 06:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 10:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Close to the City of Brisbane

An offshoot from Brisbane, unencyclopedic, delete.--nixie 01:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• rename to Environs of Brisbane or similar, and wikify. Could easily be made encyclopaedic. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We already have an article on South East Queensland so this is surplus to requirements. Capitalistroadster 01:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree with Capitalistroadster. Some of the content should probably be merged with South East Queensland. --Martyman-(talk) 01:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, for reasons mentioned above. PJM 03:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. All those places already have articles (probably more detailed ones. Listing them here is of no use. If you need to know what lies around Brisbane, just put a map in the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete redundant, not very helpful list. JPD 10:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 10:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into Brisbane or rename per Grutness. Stifle 11:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No merge necessary. Ambi 12:46, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Do we have an article on "close to" every other important city? PatGallacher 23:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per Grutness. Bensaccount 04:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 08:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 09:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per excellent reasons given above. --Roisterer 09:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Chuq 08:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jennifer Wall

This article looks to me to be a hoax. It's orphaned, poorly-written, and turns up an incident that neither I nor Google have ever heard of (nor alternate spellings). Googling "Jennifer Wall" on its own turns up too much noise to be sure, but trying to narrow it down by adding phrases like "serial killer" or "murderer" or even "Andrew Wall" show up nothing promising. Also, the "homestead" owner with the unlikely name of Aaron Apollos turns up bugger-all. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 09:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for want of verification. Gazpacho 09:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable attack page --Doc ^ask? 09:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. PJM 13:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Mark Gallagher. Unverifiable and probably a hoax. Capitalistroadster 22:53, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - hoax. Note correct spelling is "Kalbarri" -- Ian ≡ talk 09:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable MONGO 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless verification can be made. --Roisterer 09:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probable hoax, unverifiable, no Google hits. Sarah Ewart 12:08, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. (1896, multiple murders? That would've been 'hanging', not 'seven life sentences'. --Calair 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy Keep as nomination made in bad faith by an anonymous vandal. Capitalistroadster 05:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Camberwell Grammar School

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a domain for schools to freely advertise themselves to others. It is highyl inappropriate that this should occur where others should have access to information rather than marketing history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.217.24.204 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Obviously. Prominent Australian school. Nominations like this just waste everyone's time. Cnwb 04:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I actually considered a delete vote until I saw the nominator's vandalism of said page... Deltabeignet 04:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment. This nomination was made by 138.217.24.204, whose vandalism of Camberwell Grammar School can be seen here. And even more, committed after the nomination was made, here. Cnwb 04:27, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This AfD was obviously made in bad faith and should be thrown out. Let's not waste our time. pfctdayelise 04:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This nomination is a bad faith nomination by an anonymous editor. The article is in good shape when not being vandalised by the nominator.Capitalistroadster 04:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although I just had to revert out a large slab of the article because it was a copyvio from a school publication. See talk. --bainer (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please close down this nomination it is anonymous and in bad faith Yuckfoo 05:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Hall Monitor 20:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David Starke

The contents of this article, as far as I can tell, are non-verifiable. It is also worth noting that the reference provided, "Australian Kick Boxing Monthly" retrieves 0 hits on Google. This page has been speedy deleted 3 times in the past [33] and appears to be a frequent target of vandalism. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy delete and padlock - three speedy deletes in the space of 12 hours speak volumes. In addition, it appears to be a hoax, or a vanity article at worst. As it is, it's time for a very determined anonymous writer to have a time out (and I say that as I am overwriting vandalism by [34]). B.Wind 11:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I disagree. Just because australian kick boxing monthly does not exist on google does not mean it doesnt exist. It could be a little known publication - and those that know nothing about kick boxing would obviously not understand. He deserves to be included on the grounds that he has represented his country at the highest level and I would hate to think that sporting discrimination existed on WikiPedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.167.2.157 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC).
  • It "could be" a little known publication? You are implying that you don't know whether the source cited by this article actually exists at all. Uncle G 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per policy on AFD-deleted articles. Lock if allowed. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Little verifiable references to "David Starke" kickboxing see [35]. A search of the Australia/New Zealand newspaper database comes up with nothing so Delete as unverifiable. Almost a speedy candidate as an attack page. Capitalistroadster 11:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 11:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• I don't believe it should be deleted - those posting for its deletion clearly do not know much about kick boxing. If the article needs to be edited because some here do not like its tone, then so be it. however its deletion is completely unnecessary as he is a celebrity of the kick boxing world. How is kick boxing meant to become a popular sport if it cannot even be publicised on Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Obs0lete (talk • contribs) 11:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Wikipedia is not a publicity vehicle. It is an encyclopaedia. If you want kick boxing to become a popular sport (which it already is, by the way), then the way to do it is, in part, to ensure that publications like Australian Kick Boxing Monthly popularize it, and thereby obtain a large enough circulation that other people can tell that they even exist. That does not involve Wikipedia. Uncle G 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as notability not established, and speedy and lock since this is obviously recurrent. Note to creator: there is an undeletion policy and a process for appealing deletions, repeatedly re-creating does not form part of that process. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 13:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge with HSV-7. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 14:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Channel 7 Melbourne

Redundant article since Seven Network seems to cover the same information - Akamad 08:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: you know, that would make it a merge and redirect (to discourage recreation) candidate, and misusing AFD for editorial (content) purposes is why AFD is so unmanageably huge and needlessly angst-ridden. Please try not to do this - David Gerard 14:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Is this the same as HSV-7? Kappa 08:35, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Ahh yes, appears to be the same, perhaps a Redirect or merge- Akamad 08:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge HSV-7 into this and Keep as that was its original name. Notable television station broadcasting for nearly 50 years. There are and have been distinct programs apart from network programs including news and current affairs and sport especially the Victorian Football League matches in the seventies and eighties. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 09:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge one way or the other. Marginal preference for keeping HSV-7 but not a big deal either way. The page should probably be tagged for a cleanup - it's not very objective. Ben Aveling 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Well I think Seven Melbourne deserves a page because there's no info anywhere, it's all on Syndey's Seven. Melbourne has a Seven aswell. People should add more info to make it better. It's not the same as HSV-7 because it's not owned by the Herald Sun anymore. --Jamesbehave 10:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Its callsign is still HSV-7 though. - Randwicked 11:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • James, if the nationwide articles are Sydney-centric, that's a reason to correct the articles' bias, not to create a Melbourne-only fork. Oh, and imagine how Perth feels every time a Melbournite complains about self-centred Sydneysiders! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - merge (and redirect) the HSV-7 tho - David Gerard 14:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• User:Capitalistroadster gives a good argument for merging into HSV-7. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• For clarification, I believe that this article should be kept and HSV-7 merged into it. Over its first 30 years, this television station was owned by The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd while the Sydney station was owned by John Fairfax Holdings. As I stated earlier, it also had significantly different programming and has done so for much of its life. Capitalistroadster 23:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Hrm, yes. I should've read more closely. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with HSV-7. Individual station articles are valid as those on entire networks, otherwise we'd have to get rid of all those WKKK and KZZZ US articles. - Randwicked 03:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Perth has it's own channel seven website. I like Melbourne's channel Seven.. but meh, do what you want. I've been to the 2 Melbourne studios and it doesn't say HSV-7 anywhere. It says "7 Melbourne". And both studios have public Cafes and you get to see all the storage of tape and oh my god.. there are so many films and videos. And the digital broadcast center.. surely that needs to be explained. But you know how Channel Seven is networked to every state.. well "HSV-7" was only when it was broadcasted in Victoria right? Now it's broadcasted in every major city. So you know.. I just thought. And with the pics I added.. it seemed like a good idea at the time. Anyway, I'm hungry. --Jamesbehave 03:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• I agree with Capitalistroadster, HSV-7 should be merged into this article. Virtually noone in Australia uses TV station callsigns anymore like they do in the States. --bainer (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart 03:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and merge (with HSV-7) per Capitalistroadster. Ambi 04:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• the station's legal call letters remain HSV-7 whatever the station calls itself on-air. PMA 13:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:32, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alberto Karanfilov

Similar to Aaron vidler (also up for AfD). Both are by the same authors and are unverifiable bios of Australians. But listing seperately since they aren't directly related. I can find no verification of the claims in this article, and if you check the history, I'm not alone. --W.marsh 19:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as unverifiable. Durova 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable hoax - maybe speedy vandalism. No Google results outside Wikipedia [36]. As a person who studied Australian history at university I had never heard of this person who supposedly killed 67 people in the Victorian goldfields in the 19th century. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Delete per nom. Ze miguel 08:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, unverifiable probable hoax, no google hits for name. Sarah Ewart 03:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Hoax. -- Longhair 08:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Preaky 23:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Owen× ☎ 23:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron vidler

Unverifiable. Nothing can be found about this guy, or the alleged "National Vidler Museum" or the town called Vilder in Australia. Seems like a hoax or a joke. The original author has been warned for vandalism. May be a sockpuppet of User: 211.27.173.12, who wrote Alberto Karanfilov which is a similar unverifiable Australia article created last week as well. --W.marsh 19:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I think there's some sort of systematic Aaron Vidler-related vandalism campaign going on. IP addresses 60.228.209.112 and 202.94.67.44 added him to Shaquille O'Neal on November 16. --howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 22:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Durova 23:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. 9 unique Google hits for "Aaron Vidler" [37] None except Wikipedia refer to him as an Australian explorer - certainly, as an Australian Id never heard of him. Few Australian explorers or anyone else used muskets in the late 19th century either. Capitalistroadster 23:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 00:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Ze miguel 08:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Sarah Ewart 02:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- Longhair 08:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Roisterer 07:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 06:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian Indoor-Rules Quiddich

nn even if not made up (see first cited website). Also a copy vio. Just delete this entire mess. Gator (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.Gator (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copyvio, speedy delete if appropriate. 82 hits for Australian Indoor-Rules Quidditch and nothing indicating notability as a sport, fictional or not. [38]. Capitalistroadster 22:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 22:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • You do good work, CR, but I'd like to point out that "Australian Indoor-Rules Quiddich" has nothing to do with Australia. It's just that American uni students recognise our sheer awesomeness ;-) — fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's not even Pottercruft: it's a one-time gag from a single MacHall strip [39]. Oh, and it's a copyvio, of course... — Haeleth Talk 23:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Roisterer 00:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, can't even spell Quidditch; non-notable. Jtmichcock 02:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom.Sarah Ewart 02:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Hey, I like Mac Hall as much as the next red-blooded university-aged geek, but ... no. Unencyclopaedic, not even worth a merge. Maybe a redirect? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Cleared as filed. 05:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haileybury Computer Club

2 year old computer club at a college. No attempt to establish notability. Delete as vanity.--InShaneee 03:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Haileybury College, Melbourne with a brief addition to the Extra Curricular section. Capitalistroadster 04:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, possible vanity. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.
• Delete nn university club. Eusebeus 13:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: There is a great deal of precedent here for deletion. Several Linux clubs, for example, have had articles for deletion in the past, and all were deleted. The reasoning is that any given iteration of a club is going to be inherently minor. Unless that club does something spectacular (cracks 32-byte encryption or something), it's going to remain of local interest. Geogre 18:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really NN. Agnte 23:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. One of the least notable entries I've seen recently. Roisterer 00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep. I agree that I have been ineffective so far at justifying notability. The article is a "work in progress". If this article should be deleted, consider also Computer Club of Western Michigan University which is also listed under computer clubs. The claim for notability is based on its contribution to educational research. It is referenced in educational research papers at http://www.bris.ac.uk/education/research/networks/gern/gdc05.ppt and http://www.gamelearning.edu.au/conference_sep05.htm

www.becta.org.uk/page_documents/industry/ advice/content_developers_bulletin_mar05.pdf So please judge on its merits in education research rather than by comparison to other computer clubs. Thanks to the Wiki community for your peer review process, page author

• Delete as per nom, nn and probable vanity. Sarah Ewart 03:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 04:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. I'm putting an end to this nonsense. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 20:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NUGGET

neolagism Geni 05:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do not delete I believe that "nuggeting" should stay on this site as its information proves useful to my thesis which i have recently coompleted at university. I find that Nuggeting is much more interesting then the studies of Newton's Law and his good mate Kepler. DO NOT DELETE for the sake of science —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC).
  • This was 210.215.116.19's fifth vote on this page --BillC 22:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete i nuggeting is happening in every where i work for a builder and ive seen nuggeting going round on building sites this page should not be deleted —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.233.106.20 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
• Do not delete to the idiots who call it Un-encyclopedic. this very website defines an encyclopedia as: An encyclopedia (alternatively encyclopaedia/encyclopædia) is a written compendium of knowledge. A compendium of knowledge, basically, a compile of knowledge. Without this article, people will be left in the dark to the act of NUGGETING, just because it was done by a group of school students doesn't stop it from being educational, not matter how obscure the content. This must stay. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.129.11 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
• Do not delete This is an excellent article and should not be deleted because this is really happening in schools today. Just because it isnt effecting you doesnt mean it isnt an important issue to the youth of today. They also deserve the right to publish their definitions so please do not delete this excellent article! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.130.83.157 (talk • contribs) 07:03, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
• Do not delete Nuggets are an aspect of every day life for a school student. This needs to stay.
• Delete, nonsense. Zocky 05:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, agreed. --Intimidated^talk 05:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is real (it's happened to me, in fact), but it is not encyclopedic. NatusRoma 05:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. PJM 06:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-encyclopedic... --VileRage (Talk|Cont) 07:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Zocky. Blackcap (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete As i posted under discussion, this article is what wikipedia is all about. Nugget is a serious and common term in adolescent society. If users wanted and encyclopaedia which was restricted to terms and events found in britannica, they would go to britannica.com sparks_333 09:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete This is a legitimate article, nuggetting exists and i've encountered it. It is a truthful and good article, deleting this is unreasonable and wrong P.duffy 9:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete I totally disagree with the non-encyclopedic and nonsense comments, do not judge articles so harshly. Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it is a false article. It is factual in my opinion and informative. It deserves to stay lynchical 10:01, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 2 edits. - Randwicked 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE just because you people are unaware doesnt mean it shouldnt be there, if u dont like its unencyclopaedianess then dont read it
• Delete and hush the sockpuppets. If this article had any legitimacy it would come with links and citations. Durova 11:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Strong delete for persistent sockpuppetry. Durova 19:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nonsense --pgk^(talk) 11:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete This is an extremely common occurence in highschools throughout Australia (and quite possibly even the world). This site is all about informing individuals who are curious enough to find the definition of things they dont know. "nuggeting" is real, and hence deserves a proper defenition! User:Matt.Booth 10:45, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User has 1 edit. - Randwicked 12:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as non-encyclopaedic. Both this page and the article talk page are getting sock-puppeted and vandalised. --BillC 12:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as nonsense. - Randwicked 12:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete - Everything needs a definition even if it’s the strangest term more the reason for it to be defined, therefore it is encyclopaedic and seeing that its popularity is increasing people should be made more aware of what it is.
  • User 211.30.207.157 has 3 edits. - Randwicked 12:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • User 211.30.207.157 only edited this entry to alter the format for ease of viewing, User 211.30.207.157 did not compose entry. sparks_333 7:42 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete Im sorry but the only sock puppeting and vandalising occurring is coming from those of you who wish to delete the article simply becuase you do not understand/know of the concept. Please do not act like children, the article is not nonsense but an actual term.
  • User 211.30.207.157 has 3 edits. - Randwicked 12:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete Only the people who don't want this page to be deleted have any valid reason. The claim that it is nonsense might just as well be said about God, but there's an article on Him. Herodotus never referenced anything and he's called the Father of History. This is a work based on living memory and does not therefore require references. Those who want to delete this page are contributing to the destruction of the memory of a cultural phenomenon. It's the ugly side of globalistion. Comparable to the loss of a little-spoken African language. What richness it may hold for historians of the future! Do not delete this page, vikings!
• Do not Delete This is obviously a new slang term developing in 'adolescent society'. The secondary definition for nugget according to www.dictionary.com is: A small compact portion or unit. It is clear that an inverted case fits this description quite well. As the creator points out, wikipedia is not just your average conventional encyclopedia; Wikipedia is a site made by the people, for the people, which is perhaps the best system for an up-to-date reference. It is for these reasons that i feel the term should stand. I am also puzzled as to how the creator would go about collecting citations? picture evidence has been given, what other sources would be available?

User has 1 edit. - Randwicked 13:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-encyclopedic neologism, unsourced, idiosyncratic. Note also the sockpuppettry above. Image:Nugget.jpg should also be deleted at the same time. -- The Anome 12:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per The Anome. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 12:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - nonsense, inluding 'half a mars bar was eaten from someones bag during the process.' BJAODN? I am still chortling. Squiddy 13:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete "unsourced"? I should like to point out that there are now two sources on the term NUGGET
• Delete nn sophomoric high school pranking, with sockpuppetry to boot. Eusebeus 14:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. You can get anything into Urban Dictionary. If, sometime in the future, someone offers conclusive evidence showing that this term exists, I would support including a note about it in a list of the regional slang of the area, but that's all. Part of me does want to BJAODN this, though. Jacqui^★ 14:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Uncle G has let me know that we have proof that the term exists and that what the article discusses actually happens. However, my original feelings remain — there's not enough evidence that this idea needs its own page. There's not a significant amount of media coverage; right now there's only one article listed. I would support a merge to a list of pranks or somesuch, but we don't need this much material there. Jacqui^★ 15:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, and sockpuppets are never a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete becomes Strong delete with all the puppets. This one's like an episode of The Muppets. Ifnord 16:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per The Anome. Plus, no claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 17:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• As usual, delete without even looking at the article. Anything gathering this many sock puppets has to be deleted. — JIP | Talk 18:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Per User:Uncle G's relentless insistence, I have actually taken the trouble to read this article. All verifiable sources consist of one mention in one newspaper article. I don't take UrbanDictionary or word-of-mouth reports as verifiable sources. I change my vote to weak delete as I still feel this is a neologism, and the ever-increasing number of sock puppets isn't helping. — JIP | Talk 17:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Excellent. Thank you. Uncle G 11:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism Cynicism addict 19:30, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete Excellent article and extremely relevant to adolescent society. Deletion would shame Wikipedia. What on earth is this "Sock puppeting", people who express positive views?! - 8:58 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is absurd. Neologism supported by sockpuppetry who don't even bother reading how to vote. KillerChihuahua 22:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism popular amongst sockpuppets and students at one Sydney Catholic school St Patricks College Strathfield. Keep thanks to rewrite from Uncle G, no thanks to socks. Phrase more common than I thought in Sydney. If not kept as a seperate article, should be merged. Capitalistroadster 22:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• "
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism. Cnwb 23:25, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE. NUGGETING is real and this page informs other people of NUGGETING and also helps define adolescence culture 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC).
• "Neologism popular amongst sockpuppets and students at one Sydney Catholic school St Patricks College Strathfield. Capitalistroadster"... and Normanhurst Boys High School and Epping Boys High School and Marsden High School and Marist College (Eastwood). I've also seen or directly heard of isolated incidents at Hornsby Girls High School, Asquith Boys High School, Cheltenham Girls High School and several others. I hate to have to agree with the sockpuppets, but amongst the school-age teenagers of the Northern railway line, Sydney, Australia, (between Berowra and Meadowbank stations) I can safely say that a year ago, nuggeting was a menace, and has probaly increased in the year since I've left high school. It pains me to say this, but Weak Keep, move to a non-capitalised name, rewrite article to generalise the article's content, and remove 'Nuggeting Records' section. Saberwyn 23:54, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I wasn't even going to bother voting on this one as consensuh clearly has been formed, but all the sockpuppeteering going on has aroused my ire. Reyk 01:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete article certainly requires some alteration, however it is a well written and realistic article about a true fallice. Sock puppeting? The sock puppeting is coming from people like Randwicked. I dont understand the problem with the article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
  • Internet sock puppet. Please to be reading. - Randwicked 03:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll explain the problem because some genuine effort has gone into this article.
    • First, per WP:NOT dictionary definitions are not encyclopedic. This is especially true for slang.
    • Second, in the event that you could upgrade this article beyond a dictionary definition, you run into Wikipedia:No original research. Has anyone published your concept in a reputable venue such as an academic study of teen culture or a major newspaper?
    • Third, notability. Assuming you manage to meet the first two criteria, how can you prove that this is widespread and significant? Now I hope the "nugget" phenomenon never reaches this level, but I'd probably vote to keep if this became a political issue in Australia and New Zealand. If leading newspapers carried stories about a "nugget" epidemic, if concerned parents stormed town council meetings, if local laws were passed to ban "nuggets". Obviously it stops being fun long before that point. So move your content over to a Geocities. It's amusing. It just isn't encyclopedic. Durova 03:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE, Just because all the old people out there want this deleted because they have missed out on this fad that is sweeping the nation, and probably sweeping the globe soon enough. Get over it!!! DO NOT DELETE!!!!!!!!! P.s. Ching got nuggeted, HAHAHAHAHA Tommo 13:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC).

• Comment I graduated high school in 2003... am I really an old person now? But I'm only 20! --mdd4696 16:14, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. The rash of sock puppets defending this article only highlights its dubiousness. --Roisterer 04:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• BJAODN pfctdayelise 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE if Graffiti has a large article and is not deleted then why can't NUGGET's have a article on wikipedia [nitrodavid] 05:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.116.154 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
• DO NOT DELETE "Nuggeting" is a term which dates back to the late 18th century. The imperial powers who colonised this nation used the term "Nuggeting" when they referred to the action of inversing somebodys sack. Nuggeting is genuine, informative and factual. It is an important aspect of Australian venacular. Moreover it is a common practice in Australian society. These reasons alone make the term "Nuggeting" encyclopedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.107.19 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
• DO NOT DELETE its a freaking work of art —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.129.11 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
• DO NOT DELETE How many inside out objects must we show you people that it is a real term? Why delete it, the person who wrote this has put a lot of effort into it, although I agree is should have some things removed. --Bmw lurker 06:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • They don't want to see nuggeted bags, they want newspaper articles, preferably from the Hearld or Telegraph, saying something along the lines of "Nuggeting Menace - John Howard Declares War On Nuggeting". They want speeches by well-known shrinks about nuggeting. They want to be able to confidently say "Hey, someone other than students from St Pats, someone a lot more important than these students, they're talking about nuggeting". It's one of Wikipedia's core principles - Wikipedia:Verifiability. Saberwyn 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• DO NOT DELETE you guys are calling it sockpuppeting but infact you just can't face the fact that more people want this page not deleted then deleted [nitrodavid] 5:59 , 21 November 2005 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.116.154 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC).
  • The problem here is the suspicion that most of these people are just drummed up to ramraid this article into Wikipedia. It's a justifiable position to hold, considering people contributing here come from all over this rock. I could write up a load of complete shit, and then get ten mates together and tell them to furiously defend my shit when it comes up for deletion. These people are not interested in Wikipedia, they're just doing me a favour, for the wrong reasons. Because people try to pull stuff like this, it is a general guideline to discount the opinions of those with a minimum of edits to Wikipedia, especially when the come in screaming complete bullshit like some here are. Saberwyn 07:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Completely unencyclopedic. And a comment: would people please stop SHOUTING their votes, and however emotional you may feel, keep your arguments (for or against) coherent. Oh yes, I know its too late now, but the conventional term is "Keep", not "Do not delete". It would have made reading so much easier. Zunaid 09:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with all delete votes so far. I'm a schoolboy in Perth and I have never, ever come across the term. Ever. Ever. It is not sweeping the nation, let alone the world. Sockpuppets, silly arguments (age bias? ignorance = delete? What?) and so on don't help it. None of the 'do not delete' votes justify themselves through policy or even sense. Ultimately unverifiable and pointless; it amounts to either a definition or original research. If it is kept (God help us all) then it needs a huge rewrite, but I hope that won't happen. I assume those sock puppets will be discounted? Tolo 11:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • At least, when I close AfDs, I ignore every vote by a user who has only edited the AfD debate (or the AfD debate and the article it's about). — JIP | Talk 12:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• It is required by our verifiability policy that editors provide sources so that readers from outside of those areas can verify that what is asserted from firsthand experience is in fact the case and has been documented as being so. It is required by our no original research policy that editors provide sources so that it is demonstrable that the concept being described has already been through a process of fact checking and peer review and been accepted into the corpus of human knowledge by people other than its creator(s). Wikipedia isn't for documenting new things. It isn't a publisher of first instance for human knowledge that has never been recorded before. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

  If the editors who do not want this article deleted can cite sources demonstrating that multiple people who independent of the creator(s) of the concept have published works of their own about it, in the same manner as was done for the Walk of shame (AfD discussion), then that would be excellent.

  However, all that readers have right now is UrbanDictionary, which is in no way a reliable source (and, indeed, specifically espouses its purpose of being a repository for made up stuff), the unsupported word of a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor, and the words of a load of drive-by editors who appear not to understand our policies or what it is to be an encyclopaedist. That is simply not enough.

  I've started you off. Weak keep. Uncle G 14:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Appears to be vaugley verifiable, but does not appear to be noteworthy. Meat/SockPuppet supported. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 15:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Hordes of sockpuppets and meatpuppets don't make it better. --Pmetzger 15:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not Delete Now then... I must say, being a Year 11 student in the start of his HSC year, that I have been in school long enough to see hundreds of NUGGETS... Also, what is with the constant claiming that everyone that says "Do not Delete" is a 'sock puppet'? I know for a fact that they're all individual people who I know and interact with on a daily basis. I can recognise each of them with ease. (As people can do when they've known other people for six years...) Why all the hating on the NUGGET? I think it's because you're all a bunch of malicious conservative fools who feel as if anything you have never heard of must be destroyed... I must say, Wikipedia is a place of knowledge, and this article is to inform people of "NUGGETS" and that's exactly what it does.

M.A. Sato

• • "all individual people who you know and interact with" equals meatpuppets. Just because you've managed to convince lots of your friends in your high school to go and vote on Wikipedia doesn't mean the rest of us are going to regard all of them as independent votes.--Pmetzger 20:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The thing is, Wikipedia is a community that works on consensus. Consensus is made up from the opinions of the people who actually contribute to Wikipedia. If just any random guy pops in here and writes "Do not delete! Nuggeting is awesome d00dz!" as his only edit, and then leaves forever, it's not contributing to Wikipedia, and it's not from a member of our community. It's just a random, off-the-wall comment. On the other hand, if someone who has been here for a few days or weeks, preferably months, and has made valid edits to many articles, writes "Delete. This is a neologism that is not widespread enough." then it's a much more valued opinion. If we just counted all votes and didn't pay attention to who they are by, we'd be no better than some poor webpage's guestbook with 200 pages full of "HOT 18-YEAR-OLD TEENS LIVE!!!" written over and over again.
  • About the terminology: A sock puppet is an account used by a person who already has an account, to create the impression that he's two people. A meat puppet is an account used by a different person, but only because someone asked him to get an account and vote in a deletion debate. — JIP | Talk 21:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Its widespread in Sydney, but I personally have no way to prove it that doesn't blow WP:NOR to all hells. Thanks for your efforts Uncle G, but I'm actually starting to think that the best thing to do would be to perform a mercy delete and page protect, and recreate the article in the future when we have the documentation to prove this. All we have at the moment is the word of one ex-Normo boy and a whole bunch of St Pats kids with nothing better to do until term ends, and that just isn't enough. Saberwyn 20:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, non encyclopedic Agnte 23:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete its bullshit. Fahrenheit Royale 23:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It is not bullshit. What is bullshit is the childish behaviour and aggression coming from wikipedia users who maintain their autocratic sense of self superiority under the delusion of their own false intellect! Grow up! Your responses have been more hostile, aggrivated and issue causing than any of the supporting posts. Take a long hard look at yourselves and how you spend your time. -- Unsigned comment by 210.215.116.19 2005-11-22 03:34:55
• Delete as it is a neologism. This phenomena is not encyclopedic; it has not established any notability in high school culture. As other fads before it, it too shall pass. --mdd4696 05:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• I'll admit that I have never edited a single article here on Wikipedia... (Although I probably could fix up a few of the sub par ones which are in my areas of interest...) But I'm not just some "Random Person" who was "recruited to save NUGGETS". I love this site dearly and visit it often and there has been no recruiting what-so-ever. All of our comments are our own separate opinion. I believe that this article belongs here as it contains factual information on a current occurence. I know there are people who want this article deleted and that's ok... But you can't go claiming something "Bullshit" when there are actual occurences. "NUGGETING" is similar to "Kancho" in that it is an activity that occurs in the schoolyard... However NUGGETTING isn't quite as... gross... as Kancho. I'm not trying to cause any trouble here, I am simply telling the truth. If you people can't accept that, then I don't care... Flame me all you want, but it does not change your maturity (or lack thereof). Also, if what we were saying was indeed "Do not delete! Nuggeting is awesome d00dz!" I would see why you would want it delete it. As anyone who uses a "0" in place of an "o" or a "z" in place of a "s" is automatically able to be considered a complete and utter idiot. My vote of "Do not Delete" stands.

M.A. Sato

Comment Well, there's a difference between Kancho and Nuggeting. Kancho is a widely known aspect of young Japanese kids' culture. It has been well documented by a number of sources, a quick Google search can show you that. However, this Nuggeting phenomena has yet to be picked up by any larger publications (the reference cited is just one school district). Therefore, if for that reason alone, this article should be deleted. --mdd4696 16:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

• Do not delete As a student at a Sydney school, NUGGETING is part and parcel of daily life. Whether or not the Wikipedia literati deem this article 'non-encyclopaedic' is irrelevant. It is a reference to today's changing social scene, and is the essence of what Wikipedia stands for. If we want a free, web-based encyclopedia which deals with the real issues, then NUGGETING surely must be included. -- Unsigned vote by 138.130.60.157 2005-11-22 09:57:03
• Do not delete As to the reasons why John Howards would declare a war against NUGGETING, I'm yet to be convinced. The lack of a national study does not detract from the credence of the NUGGETING process. There is only one way to determine the staying power of this article, and indeed the concept of the NUGGET. Let the article enter the common lexicon through its inclusion into the Wikipedia collection. Deleting at such a premature stage sets a precedent which jeopardises the relevance of Wikipedia to today's youth culture. -- A second unsigned vote by 138.130.60.157 2005-11-22 09:57:03
  • This is almost funny. Things don't become notable because they are on wikipedia. They must first become noteworthy before they can be included here. So, Let the article enter the common lexicon through its inclusion into the Wikipedia is wayyyyy off. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 12:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. This can be summed up by: Things aren't notable because they're on Wikipedia. Things are on Wikipedia because they're notable. (Reminds me of something I read in a Finnish magazine: In the old days, people were on TV because they were members of the parliament. Now people are members of the parliament because they are on TV.) — JIP | Talk 13:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete with extreme prejudice, echoing the reasons cited by those above me who have also voted to delete, and also because if it were notable, it wouldn't need sockpuppets to defend it. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 15:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. Hilarious. - Marcika 15:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Insufficient evidence of notability as a widespread phenomenon. -Colin Kimbrell 19:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Do not delete Unfortunately due to the extrmely large amount of OLD FARTS who use wikipedia, it is neccessary to get other people who know the term to support it. I believe a post on here was even made by a school teacher who has had to deal with the issue. Just because the majority of admins and users are 47 year old virgins with nothing better to do doesnt mean we deserve to be slandered and titled as ridiculous "sock-puppets" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.215.116.19 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC).
  • This was 210.215.116.19's sixth vote on this page. --BillC 00:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S many references on the wikipedia article on internet sock puppeting come from blogs and internet slang definitions

• • You are wasting your time. As new editors that are not contributors to wikipedia, we simply can't give as much stock to these comments otherwise the AfD process would break down. You may not be sockpuppets, but you are at least Meatpuppets. Sorry. Oh, and please observe Wikipedia:Civility. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 01:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom (and the rubbish above didn't help the cause either). Sarah Ewart 03:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomininator, and thwack sockpuppeteers. Ambi 04:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unencyclopedic, unverifiable. Wow, biggest puppetfest in months! MCB 06:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete strong delete, as per MCB. The meatpuppets don't help either. Kimchi.sg | Talk 06:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete for the reasons mentioned above. - Akamad 07:00, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

DONT DELETEWhy are all of you ignorant people making such knee-jerk comments. The fact is that Nuggeting is a legitimate term which derives from ancient roots. It is a term which is very apt in our society. Your arguments are creating a host of paradox's. You all claim to be such highly intellectual Wikipedia nerds, yet all you do is display an array of contradictions and a low level of common sense. Nuggeting will remain and will grow in understanding with the fullness of time. And at the appropriate juncture you will all claim to have first cited the meaning of the word. Nuggeting is encyclopedic! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.107.19 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC). This users only edits have been to this discussion and it's talk page.

DONT DELETE as for us all being sockpuppets this website states "Suspicion of such sock puppets is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects." is it too hard to believe that there are more than one person who agree with the same argument, or should we accuse all the "delete" arguments as being sock puppetry as well???

also, of course the method section is all original research, the only websites you would accept as a source are just as conservative as yourself. maybe if you would accept this article then others would see it as acceptible too. please someone help me out here, tell me how that anecdote isn't written from NPOV

if you're going to delete this article for it being a neologism may i direct you to delete also the terms "wikipedia", "Wiktionary", "Wikibooks", and "Wikinews". These terms make even less sense, have no origin and no sources that could be deemed verifiable by your standards!

BTW you have suggested we look at "testosterone poisoning" as an example. here is a quote from that page: "The earliest printed reference appears to be the 1985 book A Feminist Dictionary. It is unclear whether this refers to existing slang or is the editors' humorous neologism." need i point out that the origin of this is also shady AND it is a neologism - you've said it yourself!

im sick and tired of people saying its unencyclopedic, at least our arguments have substance! we are saying why it should stay and we are giving damn good reasons too. "unencyclopedic" is not an argument without some sort of elaboration and sockpuppetry is an opinion NO FACT whatsoever.

you know what, you all seem to know so much that we know longer need "wikipedia - an encyclopedia by the people for the peple" i think "wikipedia - by conservative autocratic fools who know everything to tell everyone else what is and what isnt."

ill finish (for now) by saying this. you're all rather misinformed. the term you're looking for is not "sockpuppet" its "minority group" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.45.127.4 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC). This users only edits have been to this discussion.

DO NOT DELETE Delete, unverifiable was a comment left by one of the disgruntled users of wikipedia. If we were to define "contradiction" there would be this caption next to it, how about you VERIFY your opinion with evidence, you accuse them of using unverified information and then you dont even verify your arguements. Furthermore, if your going to leave a comment make sure it is a COMMENT and not "reasons given above". If thats all you have to contribute to this debate keep your uninformed opinions to yourself you unoriginal fool. At least write a valid reason as to why you should think it should be deleted instead of "dido".

I totally agree with the previous comment, sockpuppetry is an excuse thrown around to destroy this credible article and if that is the strongst arguement you have then your in trouble. Sockpuppetry is an arguement against a small number of the supporters not the article itself, it is irrelevant to the legitmacy of the article and therefore an arguement which mentions it should be disregarded.

Wikipeida - A website of close-minded, conservative, narrow-minded, rigid and discrimminatory users (hopefully just the minority i have been exposed to) who enjoy attacking articles in a subjective and personalised way and in doing so contradicting themselves in their criticisms of other supporters —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.168.18.208 (talk • contribs) 09:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC).

• Delete - Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 13:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-encyclopedic. Jasmol 17:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the page. Burn the socks. And if the socks don't stop, RfD their school as well. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What good would that do? Don't make it personal... -Colin Kimbrell 18:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was REDIRECT to Geelong Grammar School. The target already contains all the relevant information ("one of" is there because several were founded at the same time: but the source includes dates of foundation). -Splash^talk 00:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cuthbertson House (formerly known as Cuthbertson)

Non-notable student house, should be merged with Geelong Grammar School Cnwb 02:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. the "article" is basically unremarkable and frivolous. Menyoung Lee 02:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Geelong Grammar School. If it can't be made to fit there, then just Redirect. Don't delete it in either case as there is no reason to. --Apyule 11:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment moved to Cuthbertson House per naming conventions. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and get rid of "one of the oldest". Either it's the oldest or it's not. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 22:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no sources --redstucco 09:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AussieTorrents

Yet another NN web forum. howcheng [ t • c • w • e ] 23:25, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I am a season ticket holder at the ACT Brumbies rugby team and I have never heard of this Australian rugby forum. Given that it seems to have 9 unique Google hits, I am not the only one see [40]. I doubt that it would meet WP:WEB. Currently has 3,250 members according to its forum. Capitalistroadster 00:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 00:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Ben Aveling 00:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Roisterer 02:09, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Ambi 03:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. -- Longhair | [[User talk:Longhair|Talk]] 20:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Voice Covered

Apparently an album of John Farnham covers. Appears to be a hoax. Google search for "john farnham" + "voice covered" results in 3 hits (2 of which are from Wikipedia). This album apparently has some big names; such as Tina Arena, Stevie Wonder, Tom Jones, Stevie Nicks etc, so one would expect a few more Google hits. Cnwb 22:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Cnwb 22:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. The only other hit was from a site called the Covers Project see [41]. It shows that the Alan Parsons Project, Heart and The Fauves have all covered "You're the Voice". None of the artists listed in this article are mentioned. Totally fails WP:V as no independent sources are cited or apparently available. Capitalistroadster 22:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax, unless someone can come up with some proof this exists. --Martyman-(talk) 23:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. --Roisterer 01:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 01:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment See also Duets With The Voice. The anon editors have been busy inserting links to these two pages into other pages (see their edit history). pfctdayelise 02:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I have listed Duets With The Voice at AFD. --Martyman-(talk) 02:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, clearly a hoax. If Farnsey actually had an album with this name, he'd tell people. --bainer (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge to Australian Progressive Alliance Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 23:04, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ryan Deebank, Geoff Gibson, Chris Grigsby, Reese Malcolm, Tony Newman

Minor political candidates for a now-defunct minor party. Polled less than 1% of the vote, and attracted approximately zero media attention. Ambi 11:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note I have merged all related deletions to this one entry to avoid multiple voting about the same. User:Doktorbuk made the same vote on every entry and User:Merovingian only on Grigsby. Renata3 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• From Chris Grigsby deletion
  • Merge with whatever party he belongs to. He looks way too bright and cheery. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 11:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete seems to be one of a rash of articles for non-notable failing candidates. I have stood twice for election, and failed twice, but don't feel the need to have a Wikientry. doktorb 16:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with the party article. Renata3 18:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with particle (party article, ha ha? No? Okay, be that way, bastards). Private Butcher 18:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Australian Progressive Alliance. That party is notable despite its unimpressive showing because it was formed by Senator Meg Lees, a former leader of the Australian Democrats. Capitalistroadster 18:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all with Australian Progressive Alliance. - Dalbury (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Australian Progressive Alliance. I always have a think about my vote, then look through the other votes, and realise Capitalistroadster has said exactly what I wanted to say. Cnwb 22:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge Ejrrjs | What? 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge all n/n - Ian ≡ talk 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I really don't think we need to list candidates gaining less than 1% of the vote. --Roisterer 04:48, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Australian Progressive Alliance, as the individuals certainly don't need their own pages (since they're NN). - Liontamer 14:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect to Australian words. —Cleared as filed. 16:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Dinkum

almost a dictionary. Dinkum redirects there as well. See also, Australian words and Australian English. -- Zondor 08:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Australian words. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 09:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Clean up and Merge per Angr. Chick Bowen 17:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Fair dinkum doesn't mean fair go. It means something honest or reliable see [42]. Ironically, this article isn't Fair Dinkum. It certainly isn't worth merging in its current state or being transwiki'd to Wiktionary. Capitalistroadster 18:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak deleteRedirect. Fair dinkum can have the meanings in the article in the right context, but honest and reliable is the main meaning. "He's fair dinkum"=="He's telling the truth" or "He's serious about s/t" or "you can rely on him". "Fair dinkum, Joe!" could translate to english as "You can't be serious, Joe!" The term is not unnotable, but this article on it is not worth keeping. A improved or future article might be. Ben Aveling 20:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Change my vote to Redirect (no merge) to Australian words. I have added entries for "dinkum" and "fair dinkum," based on the OED, to that article, and so both should be redirected there. Chick Bowen 21:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge or Redirect Reyk 21:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Australian words as per Chick Bowen above. --Martyman-(talk) 22:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect to Australian words as per Chick Bowen above. We had a dog named 'Dinkum' (from 'fair dinkum') when I was kid. Can I add him to the meaning? - Dalbury (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Australian words, where there is already a definition for this phrase (which, as the ever reliable Capitalistroadster points out), is incorrectly defined in this article. Cnwb 23:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Australian words. Capitalistroadster 23:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Chick Bowen. ～J.K. 09:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we have consensus. Ben Aveling 10:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Geez mate are you fair dinkum getting rid of this? It's an important part of the slang culture in Australia, and warrants a keep. 203.122.218.47 16:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We're not getting rid of it; it's already been included in Australian words. It doesn't need its own article, though, so that page will be turned into a redirect to Australian words. Chick Bowen 21:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Australian words. -- Ian ≡ talk 04:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Todd McKinnon

Editor who created this also appears to be inserting links to it into other articles such as Melbourne, Ben Lee and WaveAid - however content of article, as well as quick googling, seems to show that it's all vanity. -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- Chuq 00:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless sources given -- Thejesterx 01:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Real problems under verifiability for this article. A Google search for "Todd McKinnon" Melbourne had two results, a Wikipedia page and a list of Melbourne carpenters see [43].

A search of Australian and New Zealand newspapers for "Todd McKinnon" achieved 1 result, a profile of a junior rugby player in the Waikato Times. No assertion that he meets any of the criteria in WP:NMG such as albums, hits or tours. Capitalistroadster 01:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .
• Delete. Ambi 02:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. Cnwb 03:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Can't verify this guy exists as claimed in the first place. --W.marsh 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete no schools named after him. Klonimus 23:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity/nn -- Ian ≡ talk 04:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete please. --Roisterer 04:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN. *drew 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 11:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Simon Gipson

Articles on school principals are inherently not notable, and this one is no exception. No real biographical info, just some quotes, and written by anons from his school who have continually vandalised the school's own page (see debate here). Serves no purpose, will lilely not improve, and should be either deleted or made into a redirect page. Harro5 06:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• NOTE I have updated much of this article, including adding biographical info as you requested Harro5. Although you may have seen it as unlikely, it has dramatically improved. Please take note of this when voting for/against deletion. Beyondcapricorn 01:33, 13 November 2005 (AEST)
  • Response: as jfg284 suggests below, this is all an attempt to make Gipson out as more important than he is. He is no more notable than any other independent school principal in Australia (eg. see debate before a redirect at J.T. Vallance and merge at Robert Knight) and these conference studies aren't very important in education. Mentioning that he writes for the school's ""The Michaelean" basically says he writes for the school newsletter and people in the school read it - not at all important. Also, claiming he has national media profile is ridiculous! A Current Affair is widely regarded as the most rubbishy news program in Australia (this can't be denied by any Australian), and the homework issue hardly received coverage beyond the program. The issue with the Salvation Cross doesn't need an article on the principal, but rather a mention in the St Michaels article, as the issue isn't about him but rather his school. Essentially, Beyondcapricorn is presenting anything and everything that could be seen as sort-of-notable by even just one person in an attempt to keep this puff piece alive. I see no reason to keep this article, and at the very most would say Gipson could have a short paragraph in the St Michaels article to talk about him, but still see this as making him out as more than he is. I strongly consider all voters to consider these arguments. Thanks. Harro5 22:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Response: Gipson IS in fact more notable than other independent school principals in Australia, as detailed by mass-media exposure, the numerous publishings of his studies in regards to education around the world, & as detailed by current positions he holds OUTSIDE of his position at his school, eg. Chairman of the Association of Coeducational Schools, and Board Member of the Association of Independent Schools Victoria. Also on a side note, the guidelines speak nothing of personal opinion in regards to which outlets one speaks on, and as such, your opinions on A Current Affair are not relevant. Please remember to stay on topic and within the guidelines. I strongly consider all voters to consider how valid Harro5's arugments actually are. Beyondcapricorn 12:44, 13 November 2005 (AEST)
• Delete though I confess that I laughed out loud at the picture caption. Jasmol 07:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as he doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 07:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:09, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 08:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Wish to point out that by Wikipedia's own biography guidelines, this page has an absolute right to be included. Quoted from guidelines which can be found here:
  • Widely recognized entertainment personalities and opinion makers. Simon Gipson is the most quoted Headmaster, across all media mediums in Victoria, and one of the most quoted in Australia. This is not only because of his school's reforms, but often that he is one of only a handful of headmasters willing to give an opinion or make a statement. You only have to see from the long list of articles below, on his school's website, or a simple google search of his name to realise that he is one of the most respected opinion makers on his area of expertise in Australia, Education.
  • Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more. Simon Gipson has authored numerous studies, essays, and thesis in regards to Education. His works have been published on their own, and in many widely read periodicals such as EdTech and Educare. A quick google search for his name will again confirm this. Also prior to his position at his school, he was CEO of The Endeavour Group in Australasia, a group that reforms schools. He has given many lectures and been the guest speaker at innumerous conferences around the world about education. Also wish to point out that Simon writes for the school's periodical 'The Michaelian News' which is available via the school's website, which has a circulation in excess of 5,000 old students & community members.
  • Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. Simon Gipson has become quite well known around Melbourne, Australia for many media storms regarding the school, including but not limited to the Salvation Army scandal that recently rocked the school, and the interview he gave to the nationally broadcasted 'A Current Affair' where he was mis-represented to sound like he had removed homework from the classroom at his school. This interview sparked a national debate, in newspapers and on national radio (See Triple J's 'THe Hack'), where Simon was contstantly referenced to.Beyondcapricorn 21:46, 12 November 2005 (AEST)

• Keep: As above! dankeschön Beyondcapricorn for collating this data Comradeash 11:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Maybe, if the case for keeping him is his works as an educational theorist (I made that title up, but you know what I mean), that is what should be stressed in the article instead of his position of the head of school of an Australian secondary school. For example, the intro lists him as "a teacher, administrator and consultant" first, followed by a paragraph elaborating on his position as a teacher, followed by a paragraph mentioning his published works, followed finally by a paragraph about him becoming well known. With the new addition of the Published Works section, the focus of the page is more on that. However, it seems a relatively last-dtich effort to provide the article some legitimacy now that it's listed on AfD (and I've a sneaking suspicion that's what it is). The introduction and Infobox still focus mainly on his position as a run-of-the-mill administrator rather than one known for his unique views on education. Change the intro a little, take out the info box and make it a simple picture, you may be in business. No delete vote here, but I'm kind of leaning that way until the page is cleaned up a bit.jfg284 14:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but I have to agree with jfg284 that the article could use some work; for example, the "quotes" section needs to be a bit more discriminating in its selection (many of the quotes there are useful as verification that the guy is cited in newspapers, but not interesting in their own right). — Haeleth Talk 14:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Clearly meets the standards of policy.--Nicodemus75 15:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: I agree with Haeleth--FRS 20:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Notable enough for me. Reyk 21:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this please he seems notable enough to me too Yuckfoo 23:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Agreed - meets the Wikipedia standards Macbandit 02:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: Simon Gipson is not only a courageous reformer in the vein of Tony Hill, Paul Keating and Harro5, but a highly visible media personality and the Head of St Michael's Grammar School. He is God. Egocentre1 07:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep User:Beyondcapricorn's righteous edits. By the way, that picture is priceless! Jacqui ^{★ 01:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep needs to be a bit more encyclopaedic and less like a marketing blurb, but it's a start -- Ian ≡ talk 04:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable not as a principal, but as a friend of Kermit activist. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 07:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Update: I see that this article may have some worth, and might even set a good precedent for what school principal articles need to attain. I'm working with the authors to cut down on the extracts from article and turn it into a short and sweet bio. Remember that this case will be cited by people who write future articles on principals, and may open the floodgates, but I see a purpose for it being here. Harro5 04:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This appears to be an exceptionally well researched article with plenty of external references. The authors are to be commended. --Tony Sidaway^t 08:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This delete tag is the work of one malicious user whos account is up for review right now. This article has a high quality standard and is more than long enough not to be arbitrarilly deleted. --Ewok Slayer 22:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  07:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rod Cook

Vanity and/or spam, see WP:AWNB. No vote. Alphax ^τεχ 12:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Hmmm, yes, agree with nom on both counts. Anville 12:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 12:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete A Google search for "Rod Cook" martial arts comes up with nothing of great note see (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=lang_en&safe=off&q=%22Rod+Cook%22+martial+arts&btnG=Search) He allegedly invented Jung Sin Yuk-Do in 2005 and it doesn't seem to have set the world on fire. If necessary, it could be a direct to that article. Capitalistroadster 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 16:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable enough. - Dalbury (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Preaky 03:26, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity --Rogerd 03:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/nn -- Ian ≡ talk 04:32, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Roisterer 04:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/nn IanBailey 08:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity. *drew 16:49, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brighton East / Brighton Central Cricket Club

Advert for non-notable cricket club. jni 08:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Ad for social cricket club in Melbourne. Not involved in Melbourne club championship which would make them notable. Capitalistroadster 10:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Capitalistroadster. Cnwb 10:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 10:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 10:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Possible copyvio of http://www.bebccc.org/clubinfo.html (mostly the same). I don't know how to mark a copyvio that's already AFD. I'd suggest merge to Brighton, Victoria, but after removing the irrelevent trivia, we are left with "Brighton has a cricket club". --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. pfctdayelise 01:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 02:41, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Gaius Cornelius 21:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable -- Ian ≡ talk 04:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, ads. *drew 03:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Parlas

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 04:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Armidale School

This is just kiddie drivel.--JBellis 09:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Since the nomination (which I've fixed up by adding the template) was so utterly awful, I suppose it behoves me to provide a better one. The article appears to be a poorly-written and poorly-formatted script written by young teenagers. It is not even an attempt at an encyclopaedia article, and can surely be safely deleted with no fuss or muss. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, the article nominated by Mr Bellis is not the article we see before us now. The "kiddie drivel" was in fact vandalism, which I've now reverted. All is well with the world, and I'm sure this AfD can be safely closed "keep" with neither fuss nor muss. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, Shouldn't be deleted. Just needs new content. School is a small member of the GPS_Schools most of which have developed reasonable content. 203.158.33.174 12:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, schoolcruft. Probable vanity. Proto t c 15:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • VANITY? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 15:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You really think 99% of school articles aren't just ugly little stubs started by a 12 year old that attends the school? Proto t c 16:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • WP:AGFHipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Um, dude - fuddlemark (the author) is not in high school. Ambi 23:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Besides which - there is nothing wrong with being a 12 year-old high school student. I was one myself once. --Cnwb 05:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep As with the last 275 or so verifiable high schools to be nominated. These nominations are just a waste of everyone's time. CalJW 16:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's a High School, it's been around for over a hundred years, and since I haven't seen the "kiddie drivel" or vandalism that earlier users noted, I suspect that this article could easily have encyclopedic value. --Martin Osterman 16:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. Notable Australian school with established tradition. Capitalistroadster 16:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 16:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all high schools per preceedent and consensus at WP:SCH. Gateman1997 19:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Gateman, you know perfectly well there is no consensus. There is precedent, but the two are not the same thing. Denni☯ 05:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Actually the consensus has been developing at WP:SCH for two days now. And preceedent is also VERY much in favor of keeping high schools (as distastful as I find it personally). Just as preceedent and consensus are for deleting all preschools.Gateman1997 20:29, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Australian school, over 100 years old. Cnwb 22:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Ambi 23:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, important component of Anglican education in the New England Tablelands of northern New South Wales. Kappa 02:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there's been a consensus per Gateman's comment above we should be consistent in applying this. Gateman, can you point to where specifically that consensus is shown? -- Ian ≡ talk 02:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Please help to bring reason to the war on school articles by participating in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Schools. Denni☯ 05:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it appears to be an award-winning Australian school with a history. Yamaguchi先生 09:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep please our consensus is to keep high schools now Yuckfoo 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep I guess this is a notable school --JAranda | watz sup 04:20, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Per consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep high school, per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep. --Vsion 09:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This institution is over a century old. --Centauri 00:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I originally flagged thus up for deletion when I saw the long, 100% vandalism version and failed to check the history - sorry. Personally I went to bog-standard comprehensive which is never going to warrant an entry, but this article is now harmless enough so it might as well stay.--JBellis 12:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments#Keep -- Ianblair23 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as part of the fight against deletionist vandalism. The mere fact of something's existence makes it worthy of an article. Kurt Weber 23:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I suggest you read WP:NOT. If what it says there is too much for you to agree with, then by all means feel free to start your own encyclopedia. Denni☯ 01:19, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gabrielle Reilly

a vanity site, imo, though hotly disputed on discussion page. I think page should be put out of its misery

• NOTE: I considerably reformatted and cleaned up this article (but did not delete much material). I don't know why I bothered to do this but I did. Anyway since people complained they couldn't figure out what the article was about, now they can. Herostratus 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nomFRS 23:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I've read the article, and can't figure out who or what she's supposed to be. She may or may not be notable, but there's no way to tell if -- or even for what -- she's notable. Vote subject to change, depending on clarification of basic issues. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Addendum: Okay, I started from first principles (reading the original stub) and working my way out from there, and it looks like badly written vanity, with a string of minor achievements that don't add up to much. Delete. --Calton | Talk 06:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Geeze this looks like a fun one. From what I can tell, she has been involved to various degrees in some poltiical campaigns that didn't really do much, and is was involved in publicity for Sprint at some conference... uh... not really seeing the notability here, certainly nothing to warrant such a lengthy article. Also, her site has an Alexa rank of 175,444. Delete --W.marsh 00:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete She gets 45,700 Google Hits see [44] but she doesn't quite cross the line of notability for mine yet despite the campaign to re-elect John Howard. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • BTW, who has nominated this deletion. I will change my vote to neutral given the lack of a nominator. Capitalistroadster 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • It was nominated by FRS who cast the first vote. --W.marsh 00:52, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

yes, 'twas me--FRS 01:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 00:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vanity; appears to be just some random staffer. Ambi 01:05, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This article's 1,387-word length is way out of proportion to subject's notability, which is quite small despite mini-achievements in politics, self-promotion, and bikini modeling. betsythedevine 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per betsythedevine. And nom too, but betsythedevine said it better. ;) Ifnord 06:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment There is no reason a less-significant subject can't be full featured-article length. Length of article should be proportional to the amount of information contained in it, not to the notability of the subject. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Yeah, length is a reason to cleanup, not delete, but I think people are just commenting because they're annoyed that they wasted their time reading 1,400 words of pure fluff before voting. --W.marsh 14:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• That said, I vote delete on this article unless someone can clean it up to the standard where we can at least understand why Gabrielle Rielly might be notable. This rambling article gives Wikipedia a bad name in its current form. If the article is improved to describe claim to notability in the first paragraph, please disregard this vote. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity. Agree with Betsythedevine - notability not established and this has vastly too much detail for a general encyclopaedia even if she were notable; for example, anyone who wants a list of the countries she has visited (i.e. virtually nobody) can visit her website. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete A7. "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead." Well, as others have noted, there's no assertion there to begin with! Seems like a perfect candidate. pfctdayelise 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment After reading her website and bit of googling, it appears to me that her 15 minutes of fame was to promote Howard in a bikini during the last election. (Does anyone remember seeing this (WMV file) on the tv? It's subtle, huh?) Unsurprisingly the NT Libs lapped her up and apparently one of them nom'ed her for Young Aus of the Year, and wanted to make her an American tourism ambassador or something similar. If this article is to be kept, then this event seems to be the only really significant event. All the info about her website and modelling is definitely extraneous. pfctdayelise 13:03, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity, non-notable. Wikipedia is not a soapbox -- Ian ≡ talk 02:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - that at least 4 of the editors to this article have edited it and basically nothing else - User:64.126.94.1, User:137.186.252.246, User:Bull Buster, User:Investigator -- Ian ≡ talk 02:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete rubbish!, vanity! non-notable! horrible, even! Agnte 16:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, vanity, psycho legal-type supported. --InShaneee 00:56, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn vanity page. Dottore So 11:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Only because I did so much work on cleaning it up. Also, I'd hit it. Herostratus 02:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UQ Union

delete page as WP not a collection of university union members. Brief reference to student union's existence can easily be covered in universtiy article page.—Gaff ^ταλκ 07:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete for unencyclopaedic content. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Keep much better now. Ingoolemo ^talk 22:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. *drew 07:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs to be improved but the topic matter is distict enough to require a seperate article. Whether or not a particular article is unencyclopaedic is often subjective. Robertbrockway 08:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. *sigh* The UQ Union has probably wasted part of my $132 yet again, this time by paying someone to put this (and other) non-encyclopædic garbage in Wikipedia. They have their own damned webpage, so they can keep it all there. -LichYoshi 11:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete wholly unencyclopedic, nn. Dottore So 12:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 13:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to University_of_Queensland#UQ_Union. There is more relevant detail in the section of the University of Queensland article than in this article. The executive is transient information. Capitalistroadster 22:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, these details aren't useful for an encyclopedia.--nixie 23:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Capitalistroadster, for now; this should not preclude the creation of an encyclopaedic article on the union itself later on should anyone actually get off their arses and write one. ～J.K. 23:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Ambi just did. ～J.K. 10:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Entirely encyclopedic topic. Ambi 01:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: I've just rewritten the article entirely from scratch. The previous content was so execrable it could probably have been speedied, but I hope that this will suffice now. Ambi 01:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly urge to keep. This post is entirely related, especially since its renovation. As a first time user, I prematurely published this article by accident, mistakenly thinking I was within the safe confines of sandbox. Wikimedia surpasses academic edited collections because it can bring the ‘niche’ as well as the ‘general’, this is just as relevant as comments about pages about state politicians in QLD, or young Labor factions. I am not associated with the Union and certainly not paid. I have no reason to believe that anything suggests that this is affiliated with the official website. That comment is completely unfounded, unsubstantiated statement. This page is relevant to the VSU debate. It can be redirected from Australian Student Unions or NUS or UQ. User: China doll gloss 19:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Maybe we can stop deletion of University Unions now.--Nicodemus75 12:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, following User:ambi's rewrite.fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 12:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - encyclopaedic, verifiable article (ext. link included) -- Ian ≡ talk 01:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, following Ambi's rewrite. -- Adz 04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was KEEP. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Clarke-Jones

Nn, vanity? Havent heard of him for sure. Delete, or speedy if it fits criteria (See below)NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 08:27, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, expand and clean up. Notable Australian big wave surfer. First non-Hawaiian to win the Quicksilver challenge see [45]. There seems to be other verifiable material about him with over 9,000 Google hits see [46] including an interview with surfing magazines such as this see [47]. Appears to meet WP:BIO. Capitalistroadster 08:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 09:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, professional big-wave surfer sposored by Quicksilver. Notable -- Ian ≡ talk 09:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Internationally notable surfer; vote to shoot nominator for not even doing the most cursory Google check before nominating for deletion. Ambi 09:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

  *dies* Sorry 'bout that. I should have checked Google yes, and I apologise for being extremely busy with exams and having to rush off in the middle of this afd ;). Keep (clean up and expand), btw. NSLE _(讨论) \^<extra> 10:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Quick Google reveals that he is a well-known surfer. --Cnwb 22:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Merge/Redirect Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Burnt Bridge, Victoria

• Burnt Bridge is not an actual suburb
• ... or so says User: Fleer. My atlas disagrees, pointing to Burnt Bridge (or Burnt-Bridge) being part of the larger suburb of Croydon, Victoria. The presence of 62,000 google hits for "Burnt Bridge"+Melbourne seems to support that. Keep, and fix up if necessary. Grutness...wha? 03:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. It isn't a suburb so our article is wrong.Melways Melbourne Street Directory doesn't have a listing for a suburb or locality. Geoscience Australia, say that there is an actual place called Burnt Bridge, Victoria. However, I was interested to see Grutness's reference. However, it is a road or trail in Victoria see [48]. A Google search for Victoria, "Burnt Bridge" - Vancouver (to exclude a place on the island of Victoria off Vancouver) gets 32,900 hits with indications that it is a popular area with mountain bikers see [49]. After all that, I would vote for a Merge with Croydon, Victoria which could do with some expansion. I reserve my position on the Gippsland trail.Capitalistroadster 03:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . I will also see if I can put something about this vote on the Australian Wikipedians page and Wikiproject Melbourne. Capitalistroadster 04:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but redirect and merge into Croydon, Victoria. It is a small shopping village within the suburb of Croydon, but not a suburb unto itself. From the Croydon Conservation Society website [50]: "Maroondah is an amalgamation of a wide variety of areas from the business- city type precinct, Ringwood, to a country town hub, Croydon. It also includes Heathmont, Burnt Bridge, McAdam Square, and a variety of smaller business areas". --Cnwb 04:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Further to this, the excellent Australian Places Gazetteer website, run by Monash University, states [51]: "Early settlement points in Ringwood East were the Burnt Bridge Hotel on the Maroondah Highway in the 1860s...". this indicates to me that the location was a pre-Ringwood settlement, complete with hotel (although in those days, anywhere with a population of at least 2 would have a hotel). -- Cnwb 05:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Appears not to be a suburb (so half of cuurent article is wrong. Capitalistroadster's references are to a different place (near Lakes Entrance, Victoria. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but redirect and merge into Croydon, Victoria. It's not its own suburb, but it is a well known & distinctive area located within the postcode of Croydon, Victoria. I don't have any references, but I grew up nearby. Agnte 10:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article: Merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article [Croydon, Victoria] and redirect (or keep) --SPUI (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or redirect. In either case, no deletion required. Trollderella 19:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect per Cnwb.--Isotope23 19:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Burnt Bridge whether it is technically a suburb or not, is considered by most residents in the area as a place. Keep it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Batesy02 (talk • contribs) 8 November 2005.
• Keep. Snottygobble | Talk 06:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I have added some history to the article, which I found in Muriel McGiven's A History of Croydon, Vol 1. I still think it should be merged. Cnwb 06:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 21:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Griffith University Student Law Association

Delete as society vanity. Pilatus 14:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, doesn't merit an article. *drew 14:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delte, would hate to see every student association listed on wikipedia dr.alf 23:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Griffith University which already has an article on student associations although we don't need information on the Committee which is essentially transient information. Capitalistroadster 00:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 00:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Capitalistroadster's good suggestion. This AfD subpage doesn't seem to have a nomination? fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, anything to remove as many lawyers as possible, even worse wanna-be lawyers. This page was originally referred to as "the most notable student association" at Griffith without any reference on the Griffith page to the actual statutory student bodies of which the SLA is just affiliated too. It is clearly a vanity webpage, these guys are just a law students club. Blargon 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete University associations, like this one, are not usually notable. Dottore So 10:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete without Prejudice - The Griffith SLA is the Australian equivalent of the Harvard Law School student association, since Griffith has been rated as Australia's Leading Law School (source:Good Universities Guide 2005). As an alumni i am aware that this organisation may be noteworthy in its activities, however the article submitted to wiki is an attempt at vanity as it does not list the achievements of the association, and presents as nothing more than a group of students wanting attention (vanity). I say that this article should be deleted, and should the Student Law Association in the future manage to submit a more appropriate article to wiki demonstrating its noteworthiness, then that should must be allowed. - Does anyone on the SLA remember the Road to Nowhere?

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 01:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Negro

KEEP Fred Negro is an Aussie legend, not only for his larrikin lyrics but for his sometimes disturbing, but always hilarious column in beat magazine. His own inimitable style is the embodiment of dirty StKilda pub rock in the 80’s and 90’s. Don’t drop Fred. CS

I could easily be wrong, this is one of those maybe, maybe not ones. I'd say not notable, but locals may have a better perspective. The article makes a poor case for inclusion. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 12:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Let me make a few quick comments, and hopefully others will concur. As the page has only just gone up it should be given some time to grow before a call is made on the case for continuance. However, though the page stresses FN's 'local' profile in St Kilda, Melbourne, Australia, it should be understood that that Melbourne is arguable the centre of Australia's live music scene, and further that St Kilda is the pinnacle of the Melbourne scene. Significant in St Kilda means significant nationally. Further, his influence is not restricted to music, but extends to an influential comic strip. This is not a suburben muso. thanx (unsigned - comment from 08:19, 6 November 2005 Showard)

I concur (as, God help me, an actual expert in Australian indie rock) - David Gerard 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Authors contributions are this article on Fred Negro, adding Fred Negro to article on cartoonists and to article on St. Kilda. All tie to promoting subject. Google hits (though few) on subject validate article, but don't validate notability. Local is local. Validation of his impact on the Australian music scene would be helpful/additional comments from Australians. ERcheck 15:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• That was exactly my view. No problem with keeping it if the guy genuinely is notable (as seems possible given other comments), but the article, and Google, do not make the case. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 11:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep It looks very borderline but he seems just about noteworthy enough and quite interesting. I agree with ERcheck and Just zis Guy, you know? that some perspectives from the locals about just how significant Fred Negro is would help. Strong Keep based on comments below. And this time i'll remember to sign my comment! *blush* GhostGirl 07:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He is mainly an indie music type of guy and has not made much impact on the mainstream charts. However, I have heard of I Spit on your Gravy and the Twits have played the Big Day Out although they have not been listed in the article. See this picture for confirmation see [52]. I will put this on the Australia-related deletions page and a message on David Gerard's talk page would probably be a good idea.Capitalistroadster 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 23:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm from the city, know the local music scene there reasonably well and generally have a very low bar for bands, but this falls well below it. I strongly suspect vanity. Ambi 02:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC) Keep. Ambi 07:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
  • His fame goes back to the '80s, when you were just a wee tacker - David Gerard 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll take your word for it. :) Ambi 07:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - he's thoroughly well-known in Melbourne and has been notorious on the Australian indie rock scene since the early 1980s with several bands and albums. I'll have to see what I can do to flesh this one out. (Doesn't help that any reference works I would have on the subject are in Australia, but oh well.) - David Gerard 08:31, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Published writer and cartoonist. Well known within the Melbourne music scene. Agnte 11:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep I think he's more famous for his cartoons than his music. Does a cartoon calendar-style ad for the Espy that appears in the Inpress music street press each month, doesn't he? I was actualyl flicking through a book called Plastered: The Poster Art of Australian Popular Music, and he has about 5 entries over 2 pages. pfctdayelise 13:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep! I have lived in Melbourne, Australia for 17 months on and off over the last 3 years and spent quite a lot of time checking out the music scene in Melbourne. And YES, Fred Negro is a significant feature! A living legend in the Melbourne music scene - especially among those who still remembers the 80ties. Most facinating of all he still delivers an impressive live act. I was facinated by the first gig I saw (at the Espy, St. Kilda) and speechless after the second one (somewhere on Queen Street, CBD) - which featured a piece of Fred's famous stage act of performing naked (!) and banging his dick against the mic stand to the beat of the bass drumm (se photo below - its Fred on the right with the blue shirt).

--Jkjeldskov (Denmark) 18:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - notable musician with credible, provable history. Anyone who frequented the infamous Espy Hotel could write volumes. -- Longhair | Talk 19:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - A WP entry would be valuable because Fred is one of those people whose work everyone (in Melbourne) has seen, but about whom most people know little. It would be good to see more biographical information in the entry; many Melbournians would be able to add some. The weekly "street press" magazines have a wide readership in Melbourne, and anyone who has read one in the last decade or more will have seen a comic or article by Fred. He has a distinctive style, very politically incorrect, impossible not to notice. The work is not to everyone's taste, but many would be curious about the author. David Nichols (who writes for Beat street press magazine amongst other things) said that when Beat polled their readers recently, they found that one of the main reasons people read the rival Inpress magazine was that Fred is in it. David thinks Fred was publishing underground comics as long ago as the 70s and appeared in a Penguin Down Underground book of comics around 1983. Greg_Wadley 22:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known musician and cartoonist in the Melbourne music scene, particularly in St Kilda. --Cnwb 23:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 07:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davido, Victoria

A hoax. As per recent discussions at the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard. It is not on Geoscience Australia which does have localities no longer extant such as Homebush, Victoria or Dondangadale, and thus is extremely unlikely that Davido was ever a recognised Australian place name. The original editor cited a book reference. An Australian wikipedian reviewed that book and others and found:

The book cited by the editor, The Colonial Experience: the Port Phillip District 1834-1850 seems to be a school textbook, consisting mainly of diary entries of Victorian pioneers, covering the timespan 1834-1850 (obviously). The Davido article states that the town's active period was between 1867-1871 (beyond the timeframe of the textbook). There is no index in the book, and so I scanned the pages for mention of Davido - but there seemed to be nothing.

I checked the indexes of numerous books on nineteenth century Victoria, particularly those covering the Hamilton area, and found no mention of the town. I also checked the index volumes of the Victorian Historical Journal, which dates back to 1911, and this also revealed no mention of Davido.

Finally, in the genealogy room, I found Angus B. Watson's excellent and addictive book Lost & Almost Forgotten Towns of Colonial Victoria: A Comprehensive Analysis of Census Results for Victoria 1841-1901. This book includes all towns and villages as defined by the Government Statist for collection of Victorian censuses from 1841 to 1901. This includes settlements of as few as 13 people, yet there was no mention of Davido, which the article claims had a population of 1,500.

My conclusion is that the article is most definitely a hoax. If anyone wants to put this up for AfD, feel free to use the information I've just supplied. -- Cnwb 06:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete A Y Arktos (Talk) 07:51, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Xtra 08:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:V. Cnwb has gone to great lengths to verify this and failed. I can add that there were no hits on Macquarie.net, an online resource sponsored by Macquarie University. A Google search revealed nothing useful see [53] and a search of Websterworld an Australian online research database proved fruitless. Capitalistroadster 08:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Impresive effort Cnwb. Ben Aveling 11:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- A Y Arktos (Talk) 08:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Thanks Cnwb for the quick response to finding the book, and the extra efforts you made. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fantastic effort Cnwb (it can't be said too many times!) -- Chuq 11:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ditto what everybody else said. -- Adz 13:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Cnwb and Capitalistroadster. encephalon 14:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Brilliant bit of sleuthing by Cnwb to show this is a hoax. --Roisterer 03:58, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Maybe move the page to Wikipedia:Bad_Jokes_and_Other_Deleted_Nonsense as a sort of tribute?

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ben, lets move this page to the jokes and nonsense page. bad luck to the suckers who made this up, try find something better to do with your time like Cnwb who has spent hours oh his life trying to prove this wrong! excellent work guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.162.131 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The suckers? You mean yourself? I think vandalism that is obviously false or a joke should go to BJAODN, but creating articles that look real, and even making up fake references when asked.. I think BJAODN would give the vandal the "immortality" he wants. -- Chuq 11:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Chuq. This guy sets up a page and wastes our time, then posts a message on user talk:ScottDavis telling him that he just had to test the system and see how reliable wikipedia is, while on the Davido, Victoria talk page, asks us whether we have nothing better to do with our lives than investigate fraudulent articles, refers to himself on this page as 'the sucker who started the article' and wants it put up on BJAODN. If it were the case that he was a well meaning wikipedian who wanted to test the system and intended to make valuable contributiotions, I'd perhaps be inclined to let him while keeping a close eye on him, but under the circumstances, I can't see why we shouldn't block him for a long time. What are the policies about that? Do we have to warn him before we block him? (I refer to him as 'him' instead of 'him or her' because the person who started this article originally called himself David Foley - the same guy who wrote about a boy named David Foley living in Hamilton, Victoria. See the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard for more info about David Foley's pranks. -- Adz 00:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

We didn't have to prove it incorrect. We could have said, "prove it, or else we delete it". Boring and Effective.

I think Cnwb did the look up because it was fun, and educational, and I don't see it as a waste. IMHO, it was a stylish victory in a complicated game. OK, the world isn't a better place for it, but hey, no dumb animals harmed in the making and all that.

If we admire the play, we can BJAODN with full credit to Cnwb and no credit to the vandal.

Regards, Ben Aveling 02:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is good that people are taking this project and its verifiability as seriously as Cnwb. This is naturally an unreliable source and it is to Cnwb's full credit for looking this up in verifiable sources. If only everyone had the time to check everything on Wikipedia. Xtra 05:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm the d**k who did this. Umm I would just like to verify that I am not David Foley and he had very little to do with this. I just wanted to point that out because he is very angry at me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.162.131 (talk • contribs).

Very little isn't nothing. What was David's contribution? Regards, Ben Aveling 09:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

David asked me how they monitor pages and I said I would find out for him and whilst at his house I created the page called Davido, Victoria. I will apologise once more, but if you don't accpet my apology I understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.51.162.131 (talk • contribs).

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Physchim62 (talk) 12:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saw III

WP:NOT a crystal ball. This movie is not scheduled for release until 2007, and absolutely nothing is actually known about it. NatusRoma 06:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that this article should be deleted first and foremost. I have seen alot of people with questions unanswered about hopes of a third film. People who, unlike me, are too lazy to go out and search for the information themselves. I see this stub as a means of answering peoples' thoughts about a third film. This stub can possibly minimize one less "OMG SAW?!?!" and/or "Saw 3: S3W" type forum posts. It will also help debunk false information, such as the rumor of Saw 3 being titled "S3W".

A sidenote: all information posted about Saw 3 has some sort of proof/evidence linked to it. ie. Gregg Hoffman's statement of Saw 3 not being titled "S3W", Shawnee Smith's interview of not being actually confirmed for Saw 3, etc. (Unsigned, page-blanking comment by User:71.116.97.44 now inserted under nomination NatusRoma 06:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC))

• Delete unless a decent amount of concrete and verifiable evidence concerning the production of this movie is provided before the end of AfD. If deleted, recreate at a later date when such information becomes available. Saberwyn 07:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While this gets a reasonable amount of hits, there is no verifiable information about this film as yet. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• I think at least the fact that the movie is not called S3W deserves a mention somewhere. If anything, perhaps Redirect this to Saw II, and leave a mention that Saw 3 isn't called S3W in there? Mo0[talk] 07:48, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 08:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Speculation; no entry on IMDb at the moment. *drew 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Saw 2 and leave the verifiable bit of information in a section there until the production company or director start releasing information. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Private Butcher 23:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Too much speculation in this article, nothing is confirmed yet. - Gadgetfusion 10:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

This comment was signed by User:68.170.210.45 [54] [55]. Are you User:Gadgetfusion, or an imposter? NatusRoma 18:42, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge per User:MacGyverMagic. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Saw II, primarily to help prevent premature recreation. Xoloz 06:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Saw II per WP:NOT. Ingoolemo ^talk 08:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Why? For one, the existence was confirmed by the producer himself, on a message board. While there's no confirmed director/cast yet, it's somewhat pointless to delete an article that we all know will be warranted within months, if not weeks. It's confirmed, it's verified, so we should clean up the article to a better standard and expand as necessary. --badlydrawnjeff 15:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem with this article is that at the moment, it is nothing more than "Saw III is not..." and "Saw III may be...". That is the only kind of information we have regarding the movie at this point in time. Now if the article had a few "Saw III is..." statements in it, I would not hesitate to keep it, but until we get the 'positive' information we need, we should either delete this and recreate when that information becomes available, or tuck it out of the way somewhere until, again, that information is available. Saberwyn 07:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
    • So we can't stub it and allow it to grow as we do with hundreds of other articles? The number one problem that we're seeing is verifibility, and it's verified. It's real. --badlydrawnjeff 12:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, more verifiable than Farenheit 9/11 1/2.  Grue  15:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and put all speculative movie articles up for deletion. —Cleared as filed. 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is just fine as is. Saw 3 is going to be a movie, and there is speculation on wiki about minor events that are supposed to happen over 100 years from now. JONJONAUG 07:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

• Such as? Most "future" events on Wikipedia are fictional in nature. NatusRoma 02:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  02:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Say Nothing

Just another band looking to Wikipedia to gain an audience. Doesn't seem to meet WP:MUSIC--no album and no tours except local to date. Only outlets for their music seems to be online 'anyone can publish' websites (EG myspace.com ) and CD's pressed in their garage (or basement, or whereever), which anyone can do. 24.17.48.241 02:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --->Newyorktimescrossword 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete has released its debut EP, but no chart mentions found, so does not qualify for WP:MUSIC. jnothman ^talk 03:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as band vanity. About 10 google hits for their self-pub'd album. Keryst 03:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. If nationwide tour is successful, they will likely release another album, become successful superstars and article can be written then, with mention that they were once so unknown that WP deleted them.—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unsigned and insignificant. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:Music guidline. HGB 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- pfctdayelise 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. pfctdayelise 03:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 04:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 02:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Diary of Anne Frank 2: The Hidden Chapter

Fairly obvious hoax that claims that Anne Frank did not die in 1945. Delete as per WP:V. --Allen3 ^talk 17:18, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm excited! Nichole Kidman's playing Anne! jnothman ^talk 17:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unfortunately, the well-known actress is Nicole Kidman. A Google search gets a grand total of 0 results see [56] so fails to meet WP:V. Capitalistroadster 17:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 17:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I called Tom Cruise up and asked him if any of this was true, and he informed me that Nicole had passed on the part. So did Katie. Seriously, this is about an absurd a hoax as my last few sentences. BD2412 T 20:03, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as utter bullshit. For what it's worth, IMDB confirms no such film exists or in the works. - Sensor 20:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -Locke Cole 21:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this hoax. Carioca 22:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - she married Elvis in 1993, and they're currently living in Peoria. Delete. Grutness...wha? 23:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert for blatant hoax film. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

DELTETE--there is nothing to confirm this. DELETE- not currently in production

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

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

The result of the debate was The result of this debate was Keep (8/3). May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 15:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alex Rafalowicz

The page is a vanity page. I will declares my bias and say I know the guy in question however it is still a vanity page for a non-notable individual AdelaideRandel 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete As per nomination.WP:AUTO AdelaideRandel 05:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. In movie databases (IMDb, NYT, etc.)

oops - forgot to sign (original vote was --> 05:22, 4 November 2005 ERcheck) ERcheck 12:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete although Shine (film) performance significant, does not pass WP:BIO... and the rest is vanity jnothman ^talk 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup. He played David Helfgott as a child in Shine a very notable Australian film. Geoffrey Rush won an Oscar as best actor for his portrayal of the adult David Helfgott. This role in itself makes him notable enough for mine. Article needa a bit of a clean up Capitalistroadster 16:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 17:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As I said on the talk page it is fairly evident from Google search that this guy is notable however the page is as if it was written by the subject themselves. Even so, that's a cleanup issue not a deletion issue. -- Francs2000 18:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Does not (yet) meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO. pfctdayelise 02:17, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster and Francs2000 (shouldn't that be Euros300 now?) Tonywalton  | Talk 12:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• comment. No Matter if it receives hits in Google, the individual has a single relatively minor role in one movie. And it does not meet the guidelines in WP:BIO. AdelaideRandel 15:16, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Has appeared in at least two Australian feature films, one of which won Academy Awards. --Cnwb 07:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Cnwb. -- Ian ≡ talk 02:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, although only just. Disclaimer: I do know the subject of the article, but not personally.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:11, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Snottygobble | Talk 06:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was redirect (which has already been done). - ulayiti (talk) 10:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Budgie Smuggler

Slang definition, possibly neologism, contributed by Logarithmicpotato (talk • contribs). (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Algebraic potato).

• Delete. Gazpacho 08:27, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Speedo. Fairly common slang term for that type of swimming costume in Australia although normally spelt as Budgy Smuggler. Capitalistroadster 10:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 10:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Speedo, though I've never seen it spelled "Budgy smuggler"? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Speedo (suit style) (spelled budgie, not budgy). --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect
  • Totally irrelevant comment I suspect there's actually something interesting linguistically going on here and the correct word budgie is being assimilated to bulgy, resulting in budgy. Dlyons493 Talk 13:49, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but no. "budgie" is Australian slang for budgerigar, and the name "budgie smuggler" is a humourous reference to the appearance that someone is trying to conceal a small bird in their underpants. Slac speak up! 04:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect as per the Australians above. JPD (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki? Does Wiktionary take slang definitions? BTW I believe it is "Budgie Smuggler", which has roughly twice as many Ghits as "Budgy Smuggler" (and most of those are from a brand that has taken that name, I believe). And does Banana hammock really deserve a page, then? pfctdayelise 02:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Redirect Why are we even discussing this? We should just 'merge' and create a redirect, the only links to the page are discussion links. In fact, I just did it. :-) Ben Aveling 06:02, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The reason for discussing it is to discover the community concensus. In this case concensus appears to be merge/redirect rather than the original proposal to delete. What made you decide to merge to Speedo (the company/brandname) rather than Speedo (suit style) the generic description for the style? --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What struck me was the fact that every person here seems to have put more time and thought into thier contribution to this page (a) than went into the budgie smuggler page in the first place and (b) than it would have taken to just fix what is obviously a joke and a poorly excuted one. For a page with a lot of effort, even misguided effort (such as some of Joe Dolcie's pages) it's worth spending time to do the right thing, but not for a one line 10 second joke like this page. IMHO, It shouldn't have been raised for discussion, it should just have been fixed. Courage and all that. Nothing is irreversible.

I decided to merge to Speedo (brand) rather than Speedo (suit style) because Speedo (brand) is more focused on that style, while speedo suit style covers pretty much the full range of mens' bathers, short of neck-to-knee. Also, speedo (brand) has a photo, which does clarify the expression, if I may put it thus.

Regards, Ben Aveling 11:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete.  Denelson83  20:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Church of Shaddapology

Not notable, probably vanity, Delete. See also Shaddapology abakharev 06:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 06:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete probably a hoax (zero Google hits). - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 08:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As above, there are problems with verifiability with zero Google hits. However, the person connected with Joe Dolce is notable according to WP:NMG having a number #1 hit with Shaddup You Face in Australia, the UK and elsewhere in 1980-81. I was proposing verifying it and adding it to his article which is in a disgraceful shape or writing an article about Shaddup You Face. Capitalistroadster 09:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 09:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --JJay 16:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as with related articles. --Roisterer 03:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and delete related vanity pages as well, as per comments at Shaddapology. Or just maybe merge -> User:DolceJ. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I think Joe Dolce owes us all a Shaddapology for posting this rubbish. Snottygobble | Talk 06:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we have consensus. Someone care to do the honors? Ben Aveling 07:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Ral315 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shaddapology

Unable to verify, Google returns zero hits [57]. Given page author's name, likely vanity. --Alan Au 06:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a serious parody of Scientology from Melbourne Australia.. Registration as a religion is currently pending. For Reference, See Church of Shaddapology Newsletter Website: http://members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/nlNov405.html

Google will begin to register this up in a few weeks. JD Nov 4, 2005.

• See also Church of Shaddapology. Vanity. Delete abakharev 06:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - check the revision history of this project page. The above note originally admitted "This is a serious parody of Scientology from Melbourne Australia created by [Joe Dolce]." Vanity. --Bookandcoffee 06:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Defense: I have maintained an extremely effective social protest weekly newsletter for THREE YEARS with a subscriber base of over 100,000 people internationally. I am well-known for taking creative and serious positions on controversial social issues. This is in no way a VANITY article, by your definition - as thousands of subscribers will attest, (if perhaps you would like me to have them email you directly in my next newsletter with support.) I suggest you give serious consideration to what is intended by my entry - looking at the implications - and the ways that it can be expanded as the Church of Shaddapology is granted status as a registered religion in the upcoming months. ~~Joe Dolce, Nov 4, 2005.

• Delete. —Brim 08:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:V with zero Google hits see [58]. However, the article on Joe Dolce is a mess. In case, you are wondering he meets WP:NMG through having a number 1 hit in countries such as Australia and the UK with Shaddup You Face in 1980-81. That song is worthy of an article both because it is one of Australia's biggest selling songs and its importance see [59]. If there is such a newsletter, it can be mentioned as part of either a rewritten article on Joe Dolce or on the song. Capitalistroadster 09:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Note: Please see precedent for this type of entry in: Church of the SubGenius. JD Nov 5, 2005

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 09:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Maybe at wikicities, but not here I think. It's either vanity or a spoof, take your pick, and definitely does not compare with SubGenius for notability. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 15:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems similar to other parody religions. If we have entries for Church of the Subgenius, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and Invisible Pink Unicorn I can't really see any reason to delete this one. It should be put into a more wikified format, however.
• Delete. Anyone can make a parody religion. To make one well-known enough for an encyclopedia article takes a lot more. --Carnildo 00:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, and likely to remain so. -- WormRunner | Talk 02:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete While it is great that apparently the man who wrote and recorded one of the highest selling songs in Australian history is writing for Wikipedia, he would be better served beefing up the Joe Dolce article (and perhaps adding a relevant image). --Roisterer 03:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete No Google hits, NN. Cynicism addict 04:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete..googled no hits. non notable.--Dakota ? e 04:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Not significant. Not funny. Only one significant author, with no non-vanity edits to his name. (cf Joe Dolce which probably deserves to live but needs a big trim; Shaddap You Face dito; Difficult Women thinly disguised vanity for a friend; Lin Van Hek pure vanity on behalf of the same friend) Joe, I liked your song, but your pages, they aren't of the same high intellectual quality. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETION. - The FINAL Deletion. The MOTHER of All Deletions. " - Ok Folks, I bow to the consenus regarding deletion of Shaddapopogy and The Church of Shaddapology as unsuitable for Wikipedia. Delete away and I trust you get a warm feeling from it. (Although I do recall that Walt Disney had a 'cabinet' of ten advisors and would only go ahead on one of his ideas if NINE of them thought it was bad. I don't think Walt wouldn't have done too well on Wikipedia either. I noticed Shaddapology got one KEEP and even though it was unsigned, thank you O anonymous one! - if it was good enough for Mickey Mouse, it's good enough for me.) Some comments: ' Carnildo - 'anyone can make a parody religion?? Really?? Let those amongst you who have made a parody religion cast the first stone. Biting the newcomer. Go to the back of the Wikipedia class. The deepest comment of course was Ben Aveling's 'agrodolce' (sweet and sour) encouragement, ' I liked your song - but your pages aren't of the same high INTELLECTUAL quality. ' Think about that one. I will admit that 'Shaddap You Face' had more footnotes. Point taken. Say, if anyone is interested on the true meaning of BITING, look at how 'Shaddap You Face' has been trashed (and praised) by every type of critic on this planet over the past 25 years, read the Review Section of my website - I have put them all there to remind me (and all of us) to be humble.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~dwomen/files/JDPress.html.

Finally, I think this whole 'vanity' issue on Wikipedia is defective, disempowering and destructive thinking, folks, sorry. In Australia, it is known as 'pulling your head in,' and 'the tall poppy syndrome' - one is not supposed to dress loudly or stand out too much. To Think too loudly. To think outside the box. Otherwise they get the chop. God forbid, you don't get a Google Hit. So one is not supposed to blow one's own trumpet? Would someone please tell that to Muhammed Ali (I am the GREATEST!), Jesus Christ ( I am the SON OF GOD). Salvadore Dali (' Before Dali, nothing!) PT Barnum (The Greatest Show on Earth) and pretty much every pioneering inventor and artist who has ever lived. . . The REVERSE is actually true about trumpet blowing. As Louis Armstrong once quipped, 'Who else is supposed to blow it?' I believe that the best one to write about one's own work - is always oneself. Joe Dolce, Nov 5, 2005 Melbourne.

Joe,

You're blowing your trumpet in a library.

My suggestion, and I'll help with this if anyone else thinks it's a good idea, is for the page Joe Dolce (the page about Joe Dolce that we all own) to be trimmed down and kept, and most of the lists of achievements and the stuff on the shadapology pages and so on to be moved to user:dolcej (the page about Joe Dolce that (I gather) Joe Dolce owns).

Regards, Ben Aveling 23:24, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable parody religion. No evidence of its supposed 100,000 adherents. --Cnwb 07:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Can we BJAODN a purportedly real-life pisstake? ～J.K. 23:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable vanity. And Ben, yes I like your suggestion above. -- Ian ≡ talk 01:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Well, as this all will be deleted soon anyway, I thought it wouldn't hurt to reveal the secret Cosmology of Shaddapogy which is now available, for a limited time only, on the Shaddapology page, for those who wish to continue your ascent on the Elevator of the Sacred Putana. Normally, you have to reach the 13th level before this is revealed but we're having a SPECIAL this week . . . . 'to be continued . . . ' L. Joe Dolce

• Delete, unverifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 06:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we have consensus. And I think Joe has enough time to grab anything we wants to keep. Who wants the honours? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nucleics

Advertising - doesn't meet WP:CORP

• Delete as per my nom. Dlyons493 Talk 01:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I had a look at the WP:CORP guidelines and it says that it is not against it if a company holds more than a 20% share of its market. Nucleics falls into this category.

• • Comment I'll be happy to be proved wrong on this and will withdraw nom on foot of verification of above. Dlyons493 Talk 12:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. *drew 04:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete clear ad per nom jnothman ^talk 06:14, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• I wanted to vote Keep. However, I cannot find many third party sources to verify their importance as per WP:CORP. The only one that I could find was on the University of Technology, Sydney website see [60]. No reports could be found in the Australian media for example If it could be proved that they had at least a 20% market share, I would vote Keep but I am abstaining for now. Capitalistroadster 08:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -- NSLE _{(Communicate!)} ^<Contribs> 09:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 08:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Holderca1 15:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, their primary activity is offering a DNA sequencing facility - I would guess that most universities in Australia have an equivalent facility.--nixie 02:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep per nom and Peta -- Ian ≡ talk 02:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Ill Dilettante 05:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC) The 20% figure is difficult to prove for private companies like Nucleics working in niche areas. Nucleics primary activity is not offering a DNA sequencing service, but software and reagents for improving DNA sequencing (as per the article). Nucleics has also been listed in Science as a supplier of DNA sequencing software Advances In : Genomics – Fresh Steps in Sequencing.

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

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

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

[edit] Joshua Kentwell

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. --Titoxd^(?!?) 00:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Manos

Smells like a hoax - article created by anon who created Henry Almond hoax on same day and inserted links to Manos and Almond on their respective birthdate pages. Careful googling indicates existence of an Australian named John Manos who has in fact won a medal for his athletic feats - in pistol shooting, not football/rugby/whatever. Your thoughts, brethren and cistern? DS 13:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete unless strongly supported by credible references. We can't take chances on hoax articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: If this is deleted, then please delete the redirect John manos too. — JIP | Talk 16:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hoax - doesn't appear at [61]. JPD (talk) 18:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Private Butcher 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - never heard of him. -- Longhair | Talk 20:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- pfctdayelise 23:02, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per JPD. pfctdayelise 23:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete according to WP:V. Supposedly a player with the Essendon Football Club, a very popular club in the Australian Football League. However, a Google search for "John Manos" Essendon came up empty see [62] and JPD couldn't find any record of him on the club web page. Capitalistroadster 23:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete apparent hoax. -- DS1953 ^talk 00:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete hoax, no references -- Ian ≡ talk 12:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Snottygobble | Talk 22:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, certainly a hoax. --Roisterer 01:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 07:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ian Cresswell

• Delete Composer does not appear to be notable enough. very few (5 or less) hits on google Bwithh 05:44, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I have looked up the Australia New Zealand database which came up with some articles in The Mercury about pieces he has written. While he is still studying at the conservatorium, in my view he is notable enough. Capitalistroadster 06:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 06:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If CR says this guy is noteworthy, that's good enough for me. The original entry wasn't more than a single-sentence nanostub which the author politely asked to have "unblocked." It could still use some cleanup, but it's a good start. - Lucky 6.9 06:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about educating and sharing of knowledge. There is a deep lack of accurate information available regarding Australian composers and performers. Please consider the possibility that a lack of google hits does not equate to the importance or noteriety of an individual.

Brian Orchy—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian Orchy (talk • contribs) UTC 05:49, 31 October 2005.

• Keep. I'll take Roadster's word for it, and agree with Brian Orchy that Google's not the best tool for finding information about some topics; composers who don't work with pop or rock music are unfortunately all too often one of them. (And Brian, please sign your votes -- you can do that by typing four tildes, like so: ~~~~ . That'll add your name and the time to your comment.) -- Captain Disdain 08:03, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Try looking on Australian google and you still only get 600 hits. And they include furniture makers named Ian Cresswell, Assistant Fisheries secretary called Ian Cresswell, Angling coaches called Ian Cresswell and not very many for the PhD student in Music Compostion called Ian Cresswell. He may well become notable but he is not yet. Not even in Oz. Marcus22 10:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Ian ≡ talk 13:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep based on my trust in CR. I do also agree that the Google test doesn't get everything right. Jacqui ^{★ 15:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Delete. Ignoring the Google test, as a musician and music student myself I regret to say that I simply am not aware of this gentleman having done anything worthy of note. I have neither seen him mentioned in any journals, nor come across any of his compositions; indeed, I had not heard of him before I read the article, and I regret to say that we cannot possibly have an article on every single music graduate that ever existed. If I had even heard of one or two of his compositions, or heard that he had obtained a resident composer or musical directorship position with a (reasonably) notable orchestra outside of Wikipedia, I would not advocate deletion. As talented as this fellow be, I fear he does not meet the Wikipedia levels of notability that are usually expected of musicians. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 15:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - verifiable. Trollderella 16:59, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as per Capitalistroadster--A Y Arktos (Talk) 19:04, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per NicholasTurnbull. -- Kjkolb 19:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per Nicholas Turnbull. The argument to keep seems to be that he's turned up in the paper and he's won a few awards. Well, so have my art professors, but they're not in Wikipedia (and I don't think they should be). Just doesn't pass the notability test for me. Will be happy to revote in a few years. :) —BrianSmithson 21:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It would still appear that detractors of Mr Cresswell are still relying on internet based sources. My intention is to ADD an internet based source so people can find out about Mr Cresswell. For those in need of academic support, there is discussion of Ian Cresswell's piano concerto in Larry Sitsky's book (details as follows):

Australian piano music of the twentieth century / Larry Sitsky. BOOK Westport, CT : Praeger, 2005. xviii, 335 p. : ill., music ; 24 cm. 0-313-32286-4 Bibliography: p. 283-292. Includes index. AMC Library number: REF 786.20994/1

Brian Orchy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.149.168 (talk • contribs).

• Comment Brian, there are no "detractors" of Mr Cresswell. No-one here has any feelings one way or the other. There are just arguments for deleting or keeping this article. As to the Internet: we all rely on the internet for sources unless we happen to the subject of an article personally. Marcus22 08:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based largely on trusting User:Capitalistroadster's judgement. Perhaps a review after the article has a chance to expand is in order. Jkelly 00:46, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Avoid systemic bias. He's notable. "A few awards" is enough to get to that point. - Sensor 02:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not yet notable. One of the awards is from ANU -- his undergrad institution -- awarded to the "leading composition student" each year. The other, I was not able to identify. pfctdayelise 12:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Neutrality^talk 19:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australian monarchist alliance

after removing copyvio material nothing notable remains that is not PoV FRS 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

DELETE, per nom --FRS 00:30, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• So fix it Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This would appear to be a political party-- fix it would also be my vote --eleuthero 00:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. It is a collection of monarchists in Australia. Whether it is a notable group is another matter. Australians for Constitutional Monarchy is a notable group of Australian monarchists. I am yet to be convinced whether this group of monarchists with a Yahoo Group is. They are certainly not prominent in Australian politics. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 01:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm with Capitalistroadster on this one. I'm Australian, and I've never heard of them. Just because they're real doesn't mean they're notable worthy of an article on Wikipedia. Saberwyn 01:24, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable; POV. ERcheck 02:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No results in Australian and New Zealand media check. Small group with geocities page and Yahoo Group with 24 posts over the past week. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A small group without much activity, let alone publicity. JPD (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Ambi 12:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Poorly written article which appears to be non-notable. The author (anon IP) needs to add quite a bit more detail and refs to justify keeping. He's written one other article (Dean Kalimniou) -- Ian ≡ talk 13:01, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV isn't a reason to delete, but non-notable is. Tedernst 18:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • No, it isn't. There is no consensus that "notability" should be a criterion for inclusion. See Jimbo Wales' view on notability, as expressed in the poll where notability failed to become an accepted reason for deletion. If it is a badly-written article, and no-one cares enough to edit it, then get rid of it as not being worthy as an encyclopedia article. But until "non-notability" has been accepted by the community as a valid reason for deletion, it isn't one. Ground Zero | t 14:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete GuardDog 01:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (4m, 4k) - Mailer Diablo 17:25, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Max 4: Fury Road

Reluctantly, I have to list this here as there seems to be nothing but crystal balling going on here, with some vague and unsourced comment, a link to the IMDb page (which means nothing) and language that suggests this film may never actually be made. Too much speculation. I'm willing to withdraw this nomination if someone can revise this with proof that the film is actually going to be made. In response to the vote by David Gerard, I also support merging with Mad Max should the vote go that way. 23skidoo 07:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Merge (though there's not much information) and redirect to Mad Max - it's useful there, but WP:NOT a crystal ball as you say. I say the redirect to discourage its recreation - David Gerard 13:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Mad Max as per David Gerard as in put a couple of sentences and create a redirect. By the looks of things, it certainly won't have Mel Gibson in it. Capitalistroadster 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as per David Gerard above. - Cnwb 23:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 19:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I cannot see the harm in keeping this, even if it is a stub. The other three films have their own articles. If it takes off then the start of an article is here. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep That speculation can all be sourced. A quick googling for the movie reveals interviews with mel gibson, george miller (the writer/director?) and other people working on it. The production of has been delayed several times, but it's still being worked on. They have released information on some of the actors who would be in it: " Australian actress Georgie Shew is indeed in talks for a role in the forthcoming Mel Gibson headed blockbuster." [63] " Also included is a brief Q&A with George Miller on the TV series, his movies, and Mad Max 4." [64] "The last thing I wanted to do is another Mad Max, but this came along..." [65]. Nathan J. Yoder 06:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • If all the above come from recent sources then it needs to be added to the article because the article gives the impression it's about a dead project -- or one that might be revived at some unknown time in the future (i.e. Star Trek 11). If it is indeed a going concern then this must be indicated by verifiable sources. 23skidoo 01:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The above interview with George Miller appears to be copied from a July 2005 edition of Australia's Empire magazine. Nathan J. Yoder 13:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Snottygobble | Talk 01:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. There's no reason to delete it. So what if it doesn't cite sources? Many articles don't. Google it to see for yourself if it is legit.

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

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

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS

[edit] Samantha Aber

Subject of a soon-to-be-forgotten spat at UNE that is of no interest to anyone outside the university and of little interest to a university member. Pilatus 14:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. NN, vanity. Devotchka 16:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• As she is President of the Students Association at the University of New England, she is of reasonable interest there. However, she is not currently sufficiently notable outside that campus to warrant an article. However, given the fact that many Liberals involved in student politics have graduated to electoral politics in later years she may well become notable in the future. For now, Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable student politician. -- Cnwb 23:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 17:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: the original author just tried to blank the article. I guess we can count that as another Delete vote... Owen× ☎ 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable -- Ian ≡ talk 00:14, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; only "notability" is a minor tempest at a university. MCB 01:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Aber is notable as the only Liberal student president in office anywhere in Australia and for the frequent controversies, which have made the national news several times. Ambi 06:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I was looking for her being mentioned in the national news, hoping she would be more controversial than the everyday, garden-variety student politician, after all the Liberal club is associated with the Australian Liberal party, and the accusation of corruption and financial mismanagement sounds pretty severe. Now Google comes up with about 100 hits, of which 36 are unique when looking for her name on English pages ("aber" happens to mean "but" in German). Most of these hits are university minutes. Pilatus 13:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Factiva shows that she's made the news nine times over the last year (and I know for a fact there has been more), which isn't bad for someone of her position in my book. Moreover, she is the direct focus of four critical articles in The Australian. I'm at another university several hundred kilometres away; her notability extends well beyond UNE. Ambi 00:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Factiva requires a subscription, as does the archive of The Australian. What do those sources say about her, does she pass the five-year test, or are the goings-on at UNE just another case of extra-shambolic administration at a student government? When I was at uni we were treated to a very similar spectacle - the previous incumbents had been in power for 20 years or so and were thoroughly corrupt, the challengers threatened to sweep out the muck with the proverbial iron broom and then turned out to be just as corrupt and incompetent. In short, it was an exercise in striking poses, nothing more. Pilatus 14:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
        • What five-year test? Aber is notable because of events in this one year alone; her reign has become nationally notorious. Ambi 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep going by what Ambi said -- Chuq 07:36, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Ambi. Who knew the stakes of student politics included getting your Wikipedia article AfD'd? ～J.K. 08:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep if it can be expanded and freed from any WP:NOR vios. Why are her views a minority? Show me on the article. Add some links about why she's notable. Right now it can be salvaged, but it has to evolve to survive at this point, its current incarnation is not acceptable. Karmafist 16:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There are no NOR issues here. Everything in that article can be sourced to stories in the national (not local) media. Ambi 23:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do.

• Delete as per User:Capitalistroadster. Bjelleklang - talk 16:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Remove POV and Keep. Snottygobble | Talk 01:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Neutral. I've made it pretty NPOV but it still needs links to external references. If no-one can be bothered adding some, then I would be Delete. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kirill Lokshin 05:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mother Earthism

A recent (October 2005) neologism designed purely to disparage those concerned with global warming does not warrant a Wikipedia article. Two minor Oct 2005 asides and a reprint of [66] in the "Geelong Advertiser" completes LexisNexis hits. The originator is not notable enough to have his own page (yet), otherwise this could be redirected there. Rd232 ^talk 09:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Some Google hits including an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by Bob Carter see [67] While I agree with what he is saying, he hasn't yet become common usage so that we can have an article about it. Regretfully, I vote Delete. Capitalistroadster 10:27, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know why that month-old SMH article doesn't appear in Lexis; normally articles from major papers appear in a day or two at most. Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 10:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a verifiable alternative view to the prominent views put forward by Tim Flannery; it is not merely diparaging those concerned with global warming. --A Y Arktos (Talk) 10:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
  • What does Tim Flannery have to do with this? And how is it an "alternate view" when it is merely a disparaging term for existing views, as the article itself admits ("'Mother earthism' is not used as a self-descriptor, but rather as a rhetorical device to discredit certain arguments as superstitious and incorrect.")? Rd232 ^talk 11:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
    • For relevance to Tim Flannery and his recent book The Weather Makers, see the external link referenced in the article from On Line Opinion an Australian not-for-profit e-journal focussed on social and political debate. The article in the link takes on the views of Flannery, James Hansen and Australian CSIRO scientist Ian Lowe. If the article is not kept, I recommend merge to List of scientists opposing global warming consensus#The Earth is warming but mostly due to natural processes. The article is not the debate, rather the article references a position in the debate and because it references a position in the debate it should be, to my mind, kept.--A Y Arktos (Talk) 20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it doesn't have wide spread usage, original research. -- Kjkolb 11:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Idiotic term, but it seems to be pretty widespread, at least for now. Google comes up with 765 hits on the term...is that enough to warrant inclusion? The problem is that I'm not sure it's widespread enough to be here. Devotchka 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Neologism, does not appear to be notable or in widespread use. Weak delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Jkelly 20:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as virtually unused neologism. Only 40 unique google hits, almost all quoting one guy, who coined it. My guess is that he uses it a lot on his blog or somesuch, which would account for the bloated figure when duplicates are included. --Aquillion 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, not yet notable. Most of the Google hits are coming from copies of articles "Mother-earthism infects climate change debate" or "All the signs of full-blown Mother Earthism". pfctdayelise 00:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• Weak delete per Aquillion and pfctdayelise. -- Ian ≡ talk 00:28, 31 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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --Celestianpower ^háblame 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Real Big Prawn

Speedy Delete per nomination. Creator removed db-nonsense tag I placed on page. It appears to be nothing but "unfinished" nonsense - if the non-verifiability with Google is not enough to go by, then surely the title of the page is. LichYoshi 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect to Dendrobranchiata. Bjelleklang - talk 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete nonsense jnothman ^talk 14:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

SPEEDY DELETE Stu 15:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete for all reasons above. PJM 15:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, per nom. -Andrew 16:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Dendrobranchiata, per User:Bjelleklang. Maybe a neologism, maybe a hoax, but certainly not nonsense. Not speedyable. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Dendrobranchiata is a serious look at the species. Really big prawns is nonsense however you look at it. Not even a redirect. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 17:39, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete under category A1 - an article with little or no context. A Google search shows that it is not a term in regular use see [68]. Capitalistroadster 17:58, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, just because author removed speedy tag is no reason to AfD it instead... it's still speedy for nonsense IMO.--Isotope23 22:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete.--Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Buttmonkeys

A garage band from Australia. Pilatus 13:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:V and WP:NMG. No evidence that they meet our musical notability guides and a Google search shows a UK band of that name but not an Australian one see [69].

A search for Buttmonkeys Melbourne failed to come up with anything relevant see [70] Capitalistroadster 18:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 18:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per roadster. Punkmorten 19:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - Cnwb 23:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Capitalistroadster. - pfctdayelise 23:54, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as mentioned above. PJM 00:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable -- Ian ≡ talk 00:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete not notable -- Longhair | Talk 10:08, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Snottygobble | Talk 01:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete certainly not notable. --Roisterer 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was unanimous delete. - Mailer Diablo 15:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brady lowe

• Delete This person is not a prominant Queenslander/Australian and is not known at all. The national title won is for a little known / not widely sailed boat. Timber 12 22:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Public school boy vanity (TSSSC=The Southport School Sailing Club). Delete. Natgoo 23:15, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as not sufficiently notable. Youth yachtsman from Queensland who has won an Australian youth championship. If he won an open championship or represented Australia in sailing at the Olympics, I might reconsider. Capitalistroadster 00:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. .Capitalistroadster 00:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/vanity -- Ian ≡ talk 00:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable/vanity (2nded)
• Delete non-notable/vanity (3rded)
• Delete, vanity. Snottygobble | Talk 01:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is now 5 days old - please move to correct area.

• Delete -- Longhair | Talk 23:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 05:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 5T(Asian)

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and clean up in a huge way. There appears to be a lot of news coverage from Australia when one looks for "'5T' 'Asian gang'" on Google. I'm not sure how lasting an impact they're going to have, but they're somewhat notable. Devotchka 05:31, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Alphax ^τεχ 06:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Alphax ^τεχ 06:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep According to this Sydney Morning Herald article for 2002, they were active around Cabramatta and led to a Parliamentary Inquiry see [71]. They were thought to have split into several gangs. Capitalistroadster 06:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable outside of the context of Vietnamese street gangs in Sydney. That broader issue would be a neat article tho. Dxco 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and Mention under Macquarie Fields Keep rewritten well Prashanthns 14:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Kappa 15:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, terrible article at present and needs renaming anyway, but the topic is certainly notable. --Stormie 23:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• I have cleaned up and expanded the article. Should be moved to 5T if kept. No change of vote from Keep. Capitalistroadster 05:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, and its existence helps address systemic bias. Jacqui ^{★ 05:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)}
• Keep. Notable organised crime gang from major city. -- Cnwb 23:55, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, with more editing and a rename should be an interesting article. pfctdayelise 23:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable and referenced -- Ian ≡ talk 00:31, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, NPOV, verifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 01:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 19:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] University Engineers' Club

A social club for engineering students at UWA. Delete as Society vanity. Pilatus 00:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Either delete as a totally unnecessary article or merge into The University of Western Australia.—Gaff ^ταλκ 03:13, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, though a smerge wouldn't be too bad. -R. fiend 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable given concensus about clubs or merge as a sentence in a Clubs and Societies on the University of Western Australia article. Capitalistroadster 06:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge, does not deserve own page, but depending on its prominence at the university, may be noted there. Janet13 14:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete NN. I considered AfDing this myself. - Just zis Guy, you know? 14:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. Capitalistroadster 06:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carina22 19:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and let editors of the university article decide if it stays there Tedernst 20:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. pfctdayelise 00:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge into UWA article -- Ian ≡ talk 00:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merging is a bad idea, as there's bound to be other clubs at other universities by this name. Ambi 00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. NPOV, verifiable. Snottygobble | Talk 01:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)